"What images come to mind when we think of global warming? Melting polar ice caps? Human technology spewing toxins into the atmosphere? The very term itself invokes a sense of urgency, responsibility, and even guilt from within the deepest part of the human consciousness. While I am not opposed to combating any negative influences we may be incurring on our planet, the truth is that climate change has yet to be proven a direct result of human activity. In fact, some contest the very existence of global warming.
Nonetheless, the purpose of this article is not to dispute that humans may at least be partially responsible for changes in the world’s weather, but let us imagine for a moment—just a moment—that climate change were wholly the result of a natural cycle of earth changes (humor me, I am going somewhere with this). Let us also say that despite nature’s role in this, somehow (through the mainstream media) everyone became convinced of the opposite—that humans were indeed responsible for global warming. Now let’s imagine that we managed to implement all the new laws and technologies deemed necessary, whatever those may be, for our societies to combat greenhouse gas emissions. Further, let us envisage that after several years still no change in weather patterns resulted. The earth continued its trend toward a bubbling cauldron of catastrophe. At that point in time, it might be reasonable to assume that there would be a push back toward the use of fossil fuels, as they would, through lack of demand, become vastly cheaper than they are today, and under this scenario also have been proven to be not the culprit responsible for climate change."
For more on this subject matter, please refer to my article entitled "The Global Warming Diversion" posted at http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/gwdiversion.php
[Proofreader's note: this article was edited for spelling and typos on April 10, 2007]
Note: http://www.whatreallyha...
The Global Warming Diversion
Posted on Monday, April 09 at 12:03 by B-verLu-verContributed By
Topic
Article Rating
(0 votes)
Options
Stumble It!Comments
view comments in forum
Meanwhile, the world's environment will be no better off, and most likely far worse off than before.
Well, in this particular case, the reason we are gonna have to pay is because there was no front end loading. And there was no front end loading because the people (such as the Rockefellers and theri ilk) wanted to move product. That's how they make their billions. It's called skimming.
It's exactly like Ed Deak maintains. But where would we be today, if the costs we will be facing were tacked on in the beginning? There would have been a plethora of "alternative" fuels, and there would have been an immediate jump to higher efficiency energy production. But oil and it's derivatives were offered up initially as a loss leader, and presented as a kind of WalMart "always low prices".
---
"When you change the way you look at things, the things you look at change."
-Max Planck
- Albert Einstein
CO2 makes up slightly under 0.04 percent of Earth's atmosphere, and we're being led to believe that it alone is responsible for driving "global warming"?
Talk about a "flat earth" hypothesis.
And before anyone brings up Venus as a "greenhouse planet", I'll put the brakes on that right now: Venus atmosphere is 96 percent CO2, and Venus is roughly 25 percent CLOSER to the sun than Earth. Venus also has a surface atmospheric pressure of 92.7 kg/cm^2 to Earth's 1.03 kg/cm^2, roughly 90 times the pressure.
To put it in old imperial: Earth's 14.7 lbs per square inch at sea level, Venus is 1323 lbs per square inch.
Earth is a system, and a system approach is needed to fully understand what's going on.
The panic stricken words of politician A, alarms raised by the MSM (which profits from panic and fear almost exclusively), the endorsements of celebrities as to the "righteousness of the cause", and biased "facts" do not make any position true.
Does CO2 play a role? Quite likely, but at best a small one. It alone cannot be wholly responsible, and other factors must also be examined. But interestingly it is the only one where any money can be made. That fact alone makes the CO2 hypothesis extremely suspect.
Also, unpopular science doesn't get as much funding as science that supports current popular scientific dogma.
You want to get to the root of global warming, then examine EVERYTHING in detail. Just because an idea is in vogue doesn't by default make it right.
It is, as it turns out, playing out exactly like the Theory of Eugenics did in the last century.
And to discount that piece of history is to be doomed to repeat it.
Am I sceptical of the carbon only hypothesis?
Yes, extremely so.
---
The two most common things in the universe are apparently Hydrogen and stupidity.
Okay, ever hear of something called "a waste of time and resources"?
Why do you expect that someone, who doesn't buy into your arguments concerning a measurable phenomenon, would take the actions you want to take?
As for what big oil does, you can't be that naive.
EVERYTHING they do has to do with money, even name changes.
Science has little to do with public perception.
They changed names to make themselves appear greener than they are.
"Acting on climate change is good for people and good for the planet."
Nice buzzwords. Completely unprovable, but they make a good advertising tag line.
Tell me, what would you do concerning "climate change"?
---
The two most common things in the universe are apparently Hydrogen and stupidity.
"climate change has yet to be proven a direct result of human activity."
False. Unless you believe the theory that the Earth is spherical has yet to be proven and the moon landings were hoaxed.
Some of the most extensive and rigorous testing in human scientific history has been applied to this, more so than most other theories we assume are true in our everyday life.
"In fact, some contest the very existence of global warming."
I'll give you that. You mean, like Republican senators with their life savings invested in Exxon shares? Yeeees, you mean like the current president ex oil baron of Texas? Yessss. Any scientists, not on government or oil company payrolls? No.
Look, I understand your distrust of MSM, they are fear monger cheerleaders, for sure.
But this has no forseeable bad outcome! Why NOT embrace it??? Other than, IT'S TRUE, IT'S REAL, ect, which I am comfortable with.
It's like complaining that the MSM is now harping too much about obesity and eating right and getting exercise! Sure, go ahead, pig yourself to death at Mikkey D's if you like, but if you want to live, exercise and eat right.
If you want to live, reduce your carbon emissions and start thinking about the environment in everything you do.
I personally believe it is too late to stop the heating, but I am still going to do everything I can to try to help out.
If your going to peddle conspiracy theories on the faking of global warming, please provide your evidence, and the reasons MSM and gov would WANT this. Everything I have seen indicates that big business and government are really ANNOYED by this, would prefer it go away! Is that your agenda?
---
“The war is not meant to be won, it is meant to be continuous, the essential act of warfare is the destruction of the produce of human labour”
I'm more than happy to have a discussion on the subject once you have all of the facts, but the links were provided so that I wouldn't have to continue to repeat the facts over and over in forum after forum.
---
"The world will not evolve past its current state of crisis by using the same thinking that created the situation."
- Albert Einstein
<br />
Example:<br />
<br />
"Second, they need to come up with an explanation for why a 35% increase in the second most important greenhouse gas does not affect the global temperature. Theory predicts temperature will rise given an enhanced greenhouse effect, so how or why is it not happening?"<br />
<br />
Sounds scary enough, except that when you do the math, you're working with the number 0.04 x .35 = 0.014.<br />
<br />
That's 4 hundredths of one percent of earth's atmosphere times point three five.<br />
<br />
Now if you were talking about chlorofluorocarbons at those levels, then I'd be worried. Why? Because their greenhouse ability is 9000 times of carbon dioxide.<br />
<br />
Then again, they don't directly state WHAT is the second greenhouse gas. If including water vapour (which the list doesn't seem to; see link), then according to the IPCC it is CO2. If not, then it's methane. Some clarity please.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_list_of_greenhouse_gases">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_list_of_greenhouse_gases</a><br />
<br />
Sorry, but something's smelling fishy.<br />
<br />
Also, I am not denying that the temperature is increasing. I'm just extremely sceptical about what's being bantered about as the cause.<br />
<br />
As for your critique of my not having an open mind, just because I submit that carbon based gases alone are not the sole culprits does not mean I have a closed mind.<br />
<br />
It just means that when someone yells "the sky is falling", I ask questions and don't follow the herd.<br />
<br />
If you want an easy rollover, talk to someone else.<br />
<br />
I do my own thinking, and if somehow bothers you I can live with it.<br />
<br />
If you want a frank discussion with someone who's not going to kiss your ass, then let me know.<br />
<br />
Now, I'm still curious as to what you'd do about global warming. Right now I see a whole lot of feathers but not much chicken.<p>---<br>The two most common things in the universe are apparently Hydrogen and stupidity.
I'm not denying global warming, I'm just not buying the package as is.
If something strikes me as being suspicious I will keep looking into it until my suspicions are either proven unfounded, or they are confirmed.
Right now I don't buy into the carbon only myth.
In my opinion it's the scientific equivalent of the lone gunman theory.
Yes, climate change appears to be happening.
Is it solely the result of human activity?
That is what I am attempting to find out.
---
The two most common things in the universe are apparently Hydrogen and stupidity.
- Albert Einstein
which was an increase of the amount of carbon dioxide by a whopping 0.014 percent of earth's atmosphere.
I failed to state that, the fault there is mine.
That you failed to see it, however, is yours.
Nice attack though, proves nothing other than my failure to state that as an increase.
I have to go for a few hours, but when I get back I'll read your link.
---
The two most common things in the universe are apparently Hydrogen and stupidity.
The links said it all, and your reply has not proved that climate change is not human caused. Your time would be better spent discussing this with an expert, and my time would be better spent working for positive change.
Thank you for the discussion.
---
"The world will not evolve past its current state of crisis by using the same thinking that created the situation."
- Albert Einstein
- Albert Einstein
- Albert Einstein