The Man-made Global Warming Hoax

[Lookout]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpWa7VW-OME]YouTube - The Man-made Global Warming Hoax (Part 1)[/ame]

 

[washingtonshirt]

The man has a lot of books behind him, so he must know what he's talking about!

 

[Midnight Marauder]

The man has a lot of books behind him, so he must know what he's talking about!

You didn't watch the video, only looked at the snapshot, or you would know there were eight scientists in it, not just the one with the books behind him. Including a couple from the IPCC! Also, the co-founder of Greenpeace is in the video, trying to explain to the followers of the church, that it's a false church!

Dishonesty is what drives this religion of AGW.

 

[Liability]

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.

 

[HUGGY]

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.

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?

PS....

Don't ask what someones motivation is...that sack of liquid shit M -n- M will neg rep ya.

Way to affirm the first amendment ...In the words of Richard Prior..."Pure Pussy!"

 

[Liability]

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.

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.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

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

 

[Midnight Marauder]

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.

When you look at the truly toxic pollutants created by alternative energy that has to be subsidized because it's not very efficient, you definitely have an argument. Two examples right off hand would be solar panels and ethanol.

Solar panels: The production of solar panels involves nitrogen trifluoride (NF3) emissions be released. NF3 is about 17,000 times more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. The concentration of it in the atmosphere has increased 20 fold during the last two decades by its use in manufacturing processes. The level is increasing 11 percent per year.

Ethanol: Produces the definite pollutant and definite poison to all living things -- CO (Carbon Monoxide) 100 times more than gasoline! Also, it takes 1,200 gallons of water to make a gallon of this crap! And, you have to burn MORE of it per mile, because it's not a very efficient fuel.

I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you're not thinking CO2 is a "toxic pollutant."

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

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.

When you look at the truly toxic pollutants created by alternative energy that has to be subsidized because it's not very efficient, you definitely have an argument. Two examples right off hand would be solar panels and ethanol.

Solar panels: The production of solar panels involves nitrogen trifluoride (NF3) emissions be released. NF3 is about 17,000 times more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. The concentration of it in the atmosphere has increased 20 fold during the last two decades by its use in manufacturing processes. The level is increasing 11 percent per year.

Ethanol: Produces the definite pollutant and definite poison to all living things -- CO (Carbon Monoxide) 100 times more than gasoline! Also, it takes 1,200 gallons of water to make a gallon of this crap! And, you have to burn MORE of it per mile, because it's not a very efficient fuel.

I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you're not thinking CO2 is a "toxic pollutant."

CO2 is natural but in high percentages is toxic to humans.

You did see where I said to tap our own resources like drilling in alaska (anwar) right?

I think ethonol is stupid, it totally ruins the carb in my 2 stroke dirt bike if i let it sit in there for more than a few weeks. Plus, like you said, to make it uses more resources than it saves.

Your post seems to make me think you read stuff into my post i didn't put there, i feel as if you may think I'm one of these "The earth is going to explode into a ball of fire if we dont listen to al gore" types. PLEASE tell me i'm wrong .


What do you think of nuclear power? I live next to a nuke plant and think we need more, in fact the plant shares my screen name PILGRIM nuclear plant

 

[Midnight Marauder]

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.

When you look at the truly toxic pollutants created by alternative energy that has to be subsidized because it's not very efficient, you definitely have an argument. Two examples right off hand would be solar panels and ethanol.

Solar panels: The production of solar panels involves nitrogen trifluoride (NF3) emissions be released. NF3 is about 17,000 times more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. The concentration of it in the atmosphere has increased 20 fold during the last two decades by its use in manufacturing processes. The level is increasing 11 percent per year.

Ethanol: Produces the definite pollutant and definite poison to all living things -- CO (Carbon Monoxide) 100 times more than gasoline! Also, it takes 1,200 gallons of water to make a gallon of this crap! And, you have to burn MORE of it per mile, because it's not a very efficient fuel.

I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you're not thinking CO2 is a "toxic pollutant."

CO2 is natural but in high percentages is toxic to humans.

Percentages that cannot be seen in nature, only purposely done in a closed environment. Water is toxic to humans in high percentages as well. Everything is.

You did see where I said to tap our own resources like drilling in alaska (anwar) right?

Yes, I did. And if you look what we have done in particularly the last 15 years or so with gasoline efficiency with the domination of computer controlled fuel injection, it's easy to see why today's vehicles are 90% more fuel efficient than their 1970s counterparts. CO2 results from incomplete combustion, and we're far better off improving the ICE instead of replacing it or its fuel. We can do more in that area, cheaper, than we can anything else.

I think ethonol is stupid, it totally ruins the carb in my 2 stroke dirt bike if i let it sit in there for more than a few weeks. Plus, like you said, to make it uses more resources than it saves.

Your post seems to make me think you read stuff into my post i didn't put there, i feel as if you may think I'm one of these "The earth is going to explode into a ball of fire if we dont listen to al gore" types. PLEASE tell me i'm wrong .

No, I never thought or assumed that, but you gave me a good opportunity for the benefit of other readers, who when they blather "ahhhhh, toxic pollutants" are shocked to find out how really really bad for the environment the alternatives are.

What do you think of nuclear power? I live next to a nuke plant and think we need more, in fact the plant shares my screen name PILGRIM nuclear plant

Current nuclear technology is so far ahead of anything we have currently in production it's not even funny. Toshiba's "Nuclear Battery" is one such example. The size of a school bus, buried deep underground, powers 2000 homes. When the fuel runs out every ten years you extract it and send it back to Toshiba. Perfect for retrofitting existing coal-fired and natural gas fired plants, they always have plenty of land to bury a thousand of these or so. Infrastructure for power handling is already there, see.

Yes, Nuclear is the true bridge we need to the eventual permanent energy solution, Deuterium. Fusion. We are getting close, last week there was a successful fusion experiment, very small scale. In the flash of a moment, produced enough power to light up Vegas!

It's interesting to see the far-left leadership here, wanting to emulate "European models" that don't work, and are failures, but don't want to emulate the only "European model" that actually does work, nuclear power!

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

I wish we would build the nuclear power plants. Its the most economical and, in my opion, the best option

 

[Old Rocks]

YouTube - The Man-made Global Warming Hoax (Part 1)

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!

 

[elvis]

YouTube - The Man-made Global Warming Hoax (Part 1)

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!

Every scientific society in the US in the 1890's believed the anglo-saxon race to superior to all others. Nice to see you think these agencies are never wrong.

 

[Old Rocks]

The man has a lot of books behind him, so he must know what he's talking about!

You didn't watch the video, only looked at the snapshot, or you would know there were eight scientists in it, not just the one with the books behind him. Including a couple from the IPCC! Also, the co-founder of Greenpeace is in the video, trying to explain to the followers of the church, that it's a false church!

Dishonesty is what drives this religion of AGW.

Good god. All the Scientific Societies in the world are dishonest? You, sir, are a fool. The physics of CO2 was established over 100 years ago;
The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

This is an American Institute of Physics article. And MIT does not support Lindzen's statemenst at all. In fact, its official stance on Global Warming is 180 degrees from that of Professor Lindzen.
Climate change odds much worse than thought - MIT News Office

 

[jillian]

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.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

YouTube - The Man-made Global Warming Hoax (Part 1)

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.

 

[Old Rocks]

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.

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

 

[KittenKoder]

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?

 

[KittenKoder]

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.

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.

 

[jillian]

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.