The Man-made Global Warming Hoax


My, my, another infestation by the ignorant and stupid. Just because every Scientific Society, every Academy of Science, and every major University in the world states that global warming is happening, the primary cause is the burning of fossil fuels, and that there is a clear and present danger, is nothing to worry about, right? Dang, you fools get denser every day!

Please get off the partisan soapbox.

Tens of thousands of scientists claim that global warming is man made while tens of thousand of scientists claim that man has no bearing on the global climate change.

Would you like a link to a list of 30,000 scientists, with images of the petitions they signed, who do not believe that it is man made?

Global Warming Petition Project

Its very arrogant for any of us to claim to know what the difinitive truth is. If you are a climatologist then I will give you credit for your position, if your not then you shouldn't be claiming to know whats what. I dont claim to know if its real or not, i just say we should reduce pollution because it sucks and reduce using oil because we buy it from foreign nations exporting our wealth.

Geez, are you really this ignorant? Here is the source of that worthless peice of shit;
Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine - SourceWatch


In addition to the bulk mailing, OISM's website enables people to add their names to the petition over the Internet, and by June 2000 it claimed to have recruited more than 19,000 scientists. The institute is so lax about screening names, however, that virtually anyone can sign, including for example Al Caruba, a pesticide-industry PR man and conservative ideologue who runs his own website called the "National Anxiety Center." Caruba has no scientific credentials whatsoever, but in addition to signing the Oregon Petition he has editorialized on his own website against the science of global warming, calling it the "biggest hoax of the decade," a "genocidal" campaign by environmentalists who believe that "humanity must be destroyed to 'Save the Earth.' . . . There is no global warming, but there is a global political agenda, comparable to the failed Soviet Union experiment with Communism, being orchestrated by the United Nations, supported by its many Green NGOs, to impose international treaties of every description that would turn the institution into a global government, superceding the sovereignty of every nation in the world."

When questioned in 1998, OISM's Arthur Robinson admitted that only 2,100 signers of the Oregon Petition had identified themselves as physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, or meteorologists, "and of those the greatest number are physicists." This grouping of fields concealed the fact that only a few dozen, at most, of the signatories were drawn from the core disciplines of climate science - such as meteorology, oceanography, and glaciology - and almost none were climate specialists. The names of the signers are available on the OISM's website, but without listing any institutional affiliations or even city of residence, making it very difficult to determine their credentials or even whether they exist at all. When the Oregon Petition first circulated, in fact, environmental activists successfully added the names of several fictional characters and celebrities to the list, including John Grisham, Michael J. Fox, Drs. Frank Burns, B. J. Honeycutt, and Benjamin Pierce (from the TV show M*A*S*H), an individual by the name of "Dr. Red Wine," and Geraldine Halliwell, formerly known as pop singer Ginger Spice of the Spice Girls. Halliwell's field of scientific specialization was listed as "biology." Even in 2003, the list was loaded with misspellings, duplications, name and title fragments, and names of non-persons, such as company names. The current web page of the petition itself states "31,478 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,029 with PhDs."[15]

OISM has refused to release info on the number of mailings it made. From comments in Nature:

"Virtually every scientist in every field got it," says Robert Park, a professor of physics at the University of Maryland at College Park and spokesman for the American Physical Society. "That's a big mailing." According to the National Science Foundation, there are more than half a million science or engineering PhDs in the United States, and ten million individuals with first degrees in science or engineering.
Arthur Robinson, president of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, the small, privately funded institute that circulated the petition, declines to say how many copies were sent out. "We're not willing to have our opponents attack us with that number, and say that the rest of the recipients are against us," he says, adding that the response was "outstanding" for a direct mail shot. [16]
 
for Old Rocks, worthless piece of shit= anyone who won't suck on Al Gore.
 
Scientists using FUNDAMENTAL science, data, observation, logic, etc., come to a startlingly OBVIOUS and actually non-debatable conclusion.

Carbon dioxide in the air has historically had no observable correlation with global warming.

The basic premise of the AGW alarmists is revealed rapidly, starkly and irrefutably to be nothing more than dishonest propaganda. The very foundational premise of their quasi-religion is absolutely false.

:clap2:

I have a serious question for you. WHO??? benefits from what you bring to this forum?

Everyone here is selling some point of view. What are you selling? ..to who?..for what purpose?


Everyone benefits from hearing the truth whether they care for the truth or not.

What does ANYBODY get by reading your posts or anybody else's posts here on a message board?

You ask a silly question if you stop and think about it.

Do you ever stop and think?

You might like it.

Give it a whirl.

OK, where are your links supporting your point of view? Here, you can link to just a few of mine here;

Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Scientific Consensus on Global Warming | Union of Concerned Scientists

2. The Scientific Consensus « The Global Warming Debate
 
anyone else notice the irony of one of our biggest conspiracy theorists -- someone who thinks we were attacked by our own government -- rejecting REAL science and thinking that climate change is the conspiracy??

aw...come on...it's funny.

You can't be serious about that "irony" ... can you?

yes...i can. but then again, you don't like anything where you're told not to overconsume... same as you think corporations shouldn't have controls.

it's kind of a weird pattern with you.

First, I don't care about consumption rate, that's where you make a poor ASSumption. It should be a personal choice, period. Another ASSumption you are making, corporations should have to obey the laws, but over regulation is bad, period, even real liberals know this. Lastly, at least I am consistent and apply all my contentions equally.
 
Scientists using FUNDAMENTAL science, data, observation, logic, etc., come to a startlingly OBVIOUS and actually non-debatable conclusion.

Carbon dioxide in the air has historically had no observable correlation with global warming.

The basic premise of the AGW alarmists is revealed rapidly, starkly and irrefutably to be nothing more than dishonest propaganda. The very foundational premise of their quasi-religion is absolutely false.

:clap2:

Real, real stupid. Since that is exactly opposite to what scientists state. You are either a liar or damned stupid.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

No, he's thinking instead of parroting, you should try it. .04% of the atmosphere is not enough to cause any actual changes no matter how you spin it.

OK, silly ass, since something that minute cannot do harm, try taking that amount of Potassium Cynide in relation to your body weight. Cannot possibly harm you, right?
 
First, I don't care about consumption rate, that's where you make a poor ASSumption. It should be a personal choice, period. Another ASSumption you are making, corporations should have to obey the laws, but over regulation is bad, period, even real liberals know this. Lastly, at least I am consistent and apply all my contentions equally.

No...destroying the environment through disrespect ISN'T a choice.... you have no right to do that.

You think you're consistent? OK...consistently opposed to any type of oversight and in favor of corporate abuse.


Personally, I wouldn't be proud of that if I were you.

And hint:... putting things in caps like willowijit is really just kind of dumb looking.
 
First, I don't care about consumption rate, that's where you make a poor ASSumption. It should be a personal choice, period. Another ASSumption you are making, corporations should have to obey the laws, but over regulation is bad, period, even real liberals know this. Lastly, at least I am consistent and apply all my contentions equally.

No...destroying the environment through disrespect ISN'T a choice.... you have no right to do that.

You think you're consistent? OK...consistently opposed to any type of oversight and in favor of corporate abuse.


Personally, I wouldn't be proud of that if I were you.

And hint:... putting things in caps like willowijit is really just kind of dumb looking.

More ASSumptions, the environment changes, we know this from historical evidence, so there is little actual proof that we are able to effect no matter what we do, we also have an equal responsibility to protect humanity from the natural changes in the environment. As a matter of fact, the perfect example to what happens when we listen to environuts is in California, the wildfires. Wildfires are a natural way to clear out dead matter and make room for new life, as well as a push in the evolutionary process. But California keeps putting them all out, and each time they do they get more difficult to stop ... but they never make the connection because they are listening to the whining environuts.

I already pointed out the monochromatic ASSumption flaw in your "corporate abuse" idea ... try again, or at least be honest about it.

As for Willow, she's a partisan hack, but not an idiot, so thanks for playing.
 
UGH global warming threads

Ok we have thousands of scientists who say that the rise in average temperature is because of man made carbon output.

We have thousands of scientists who say the rise in temperature is a naturally occuring cycle.

There is no scientific consensus so for random people online to be debating its validity is totally pointless.


That being said i seriously doubt anyone in here thinks that creating toxic pollutants and introducing them into the environment we all live in isn't a smart thing to do. We also should all be able to agree that buying our energy from foreign nations is doing nothing but transferring wealth out of our country and making us poorer as a nation overall.

With that being said we should be doing all we can to reduce the amount of pollution we create through research and technology. We should also be doing all we can to reduce our consumption of foreign energy sources by researching renewable technologys and tapping our natural resources available in places such as Alaska.


To turn this into a Democrat/Republican thing is to be completely moronic. It should concern us all IMO

OK, link me to those thousands of scientists that state the rise in temperature is a natural phenomonan? You cannot because there is not. Not even one single scientific society.

Do you have any idea of the amount of the known oil reserves that is in US territory? About 3%. And we use about 25% of the worlds oil. Doesn't take a genius to do the math there.
 
Wiki doesn't count and "consensus" isn't science, it's politics.

Nobody need a "consensus" to scientifically prove that pressure gradients cause the wind to blow.

Aaah .... but the "consensus" is all scientists ... it can't possibly be be political. :eusa_eh:
 
Wiki doesn't count and "consensus" isn't science, it's politics.

Nobody need a "consensus" to scientifically prove that pressure gradients cause the wind to blow.

Dude, being a naturally stupid person, I forgive you for not realizing that it is not what
WIKI says that counts, but the web sites of such organizatons as the American Meteorlogical Society, American Geophycisists Union, and the American Geological Society, among others, that Wiki links you to that counts.

Of course, you could actually read what the real scientists that study this subject state, but that would be work, wouldn't it?
 
Wiki doesn't count and "consensus" isn't science, it's politics.

Nobody need a "consensus" to scientifically prove that pressure gradients cause the wind to blow.

Dude, being a naturally stupid person, I forgive you for not realizing that it is not what
WIKI says that counts, but the web sites of such organizatons as the American Meteorlogical Society, American Geophycisists Union, and the American Geological Society, among others, that Wiki links you to that counts.

Of course, you could actually read what the real scientists that study this subject state, but that would be work, wouldn't it?

There are real scientists that disagree with you, fuckhead. Oh, I forgot, they aren't funded by the Left. They don't count, right jackass?
 
OK, link me to those thousands of scientists that state the rise in temperature is a natural phenomonan? You cannot because there is not. Not even one single scientific society.
Global warming, Scientists, Al Gore climate change

More than 400 Scientists Dispute Gore's 'Scientific Consensus' Claim on Climate Change

Center for Science and Public Policy - Prominent Scientists Debunk Global Warming

Do you have any idea of the amount of the known oil reserves that is in US territory? About 3%. And we use about 25% of the worlds oil. Doesn't take a genius to do the math there.
Doesn't take a master instructor in debate to recognize non sequitur when they see it, either.
 
The Man-made Global Warming Hoax

Ooops:

A top Republican senator has ordered an investigation into the Environmental Protection Agency's alleged suppression of a report that questioned the science behind global warming.

The 98-page report, co-authored by EPA analyst Alan Carlin, pushed back on the prospect of regulating gases like carbon dioxide as a way to reduce global warming. Carlin's report argued that the information the EPA was using was out of date, and that even as atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have increased, global temperatures have declined.

"He came out with the truth. They don't want the truth at the EPA," Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., a global warming skeptic, told FOX News, saying he's ordered an investigation. "We're going to expose it."

Sen. Inhofe Calls for Inquiry Into 'Suppressed' Climate Change Report - Topix

"Steve Fielding recently asked the Obama administration to reassure him on the science of man-made global warming. When the administration proved unhelpful, Mr. Fielding decided to vote against climate-change legislation.

If you haven't heard of this politician, it's because he's a member of the Australian Senate. As the U.S. House of Representatives prepares to pass a climate-change bill, the Australian Parliament is preparing to kill its own country's carbon-emissions scheme. Why? A growing number of Australian politicians, scientists and citizens once again doubt the science of human-caused global warming.


Among the many reasons President Barack Obama and the Democratic majority are so intent on quickly jamming a cap-and-trade system through Congress is because the global warming tide is again shifting. It turns out Al Gore and the United Nations (with an assist from the media), did a little too vociferous a job smearing anyone who disagreed with them as "deniers." The backlash has brought the scientific debate roaring back to life in Australia, Europe, Japan and even, if less reported, the U.S."

The Climate Change Climate Change - WSJ.com
 
Wiki doesn't count and "consensus" isn't science, it's politics.

Nobody need a "consensus" to scientifically prove that pressure gradients cause the wind to blow.

Dude, being a naturally stupid person, I forgive you for not realizing that it is not what
WIKI says that counts, but the web sites of such organizatons as the American Meteorlogical Society, American Geophycisists Union, and the American Geological Society, among others, that Wiki links you to that counts.

Of course, you could actually read what the real scientists that study this subject state, but that would be work, wouldn't it?

Really ... a source that claims all Anime and Manga are child porn ... yeah ... giant fighting robots = child porn ... sure.

Lastly, all "consensus" does is set a political agenda, nothing scientific about it, nothing logical. It's all who pays them the most to say what. Now if they all disagreed in the "peer pressured" groups, then they may have some valid points. Science never agrees when two different minds follow the methods correctly, that is why it works, if all the scientists agree then science stops working.
 

Forum List

Back
Top