Global warming: Hoax?

[GoSlash27]

I moved this discussion to a new thread so we wouldn't disrupt the old one with a side discussion.

Steeldawg:

global warming has been declared to be happening by the top scientific agencies all over the globe.

Yep, which doesn't mean that it is. That's an "appeal to popularity" fallacy. They declared it to be happening on the basis of a lot of questionable data that has since been (at the very least) called into question as suspect.
And it isn't any wonder that they would. Most countries stand to make a good deal of money off of this.


37% is a large number of voters which could effect policy on global warming, if people are elected who treat this as a hoax and dont deal with it the results could be catastrophic.

Let's accept for the sake of argument that it is happening, and at the rate they claim (which their own models have shown to be false). Let's further accept for the sake of argument that it is also attributable to human behavior (which is *highly* debatable).

Now... you claim above that "not dealing with it the results could be catastrophic." In all my years of following this debate, I have never heard a single person on your side of the argument explain how *dealing with it* averts the same catastrophe. Perhaps you could be the first.
So have at it. Global warming is happening. It's man made. How do we stop it?

Personally, I do believe that global warming is happening. Slower than they claim,maybe, but happening. I also strongly suspect that it's a natural self- correcting cycle and that human intervention has very little, if anything, to do with it. And I'm thoroughly convinced that there's not a single thing we can do to alter it's course, no matter how much money is thrown at it.
So in that sense, I don't think it's a hoax, exactly, but I do believe that it's a scam; on par with the "rain makers" who used to troll the midwest scamming farmers.

I think people have a completely legitimate basis for doubting this, and I don't think that calling them "crazy" for not believing an argument that hasn't been properly supported is valid.

[GBMelBlount]

Owned.

[X-Terminator]

I believe global warming is happening. What I do not and will not believe is that it is entirely a man-made phenomenon, and that we should basically go back to living in the stone age as a result. For all the records that these people tout as evidence of man "poisoning" the planet, there are just as many, if not more, that show that shit does, in fact, happen. Quite often, actually. And yes, there are a LOT of people - "respected" scientists included - who stand to make millions, if not billions, as a result of this hysteria. If you ever want to get to the bottom of anything, you should follow the money.

And before steeldawg bothers to comment, no, this does not mean that I am some "nut" who doesn't care about the environment, or that I'm against cleaner energy sources and energy conservation. FAR FROM IT. We should be doing that because it's the 21st fucking century, not because scientists and their sycophants are telling us that global warming is going to kill us all.

[43Hitman]

I moved this discussion to a new thread so we wouldn't disrupt the old one with a side discussion.

Steeldawg:


Yep, which doesn't mean that it is. That's an "appeal to popularity" fallacy. They declared it to be happening on the basis of a lot of questionable data that has since been (at the very least) called into question as suspect.
And it isn't any wonder that they would. Most countries stand to make a good deal of money off of this.



Let's accept for the sake of argument that it is happening, and at the rate they claim (which their own models have shown to be false). Let's further accept for the sake of argument that it is also attributable to human behavior (which is *highly* debatable).

Now... you claim above that "not dealing with it the results could be catastrophic." In all my years of following this debate, I have never heard a single person on your side of the argument explain how *dealing with it* averts the same catastrophe. Perhaps you could be the first.
So have at it. Global warming is happening. It's man made. How do we stop it?

Personally, I do believe that global warming is happening. Slower than they claim,maybe, but happening. I also strongly suspect that it's a natural self- correcting cycle and that human intervention has very little, if anything, to do with it. And I'm thoroughly convinced that there's not a single thing we can do to alter it's course, no matter how much money is thrown at it.
So in that sense, I don't think it's a hoax, exactly, but I do believe that it's a scam; on par with the "rain makers" who used to troll the midwest scamming farmers.

I think people have a completely legitimate basis for doubting this, and I don't think that calling them "crazy" for not believing an argument that hasn't been properly supported is valid.

I don't think I could have said it any better myself. Cool downs and warm ups have been happening on our planet since the beginning of time.

[steeldawg]

I moved this discussion to a new thread so we wouldn't disrupt the old one with a side discussion.

Steeldawg:


Yep, which doesn't mean that it is. That's an "appeal to popularity" fallacy. They declared it to be happening on the basis of a lot of questionable data that has since been (at the very least) called into question as suspect.
And it isn't any wonder that they would. Most countries stand to make a good deal of money off of this.



Let's accept for the sake of argument that it is happening, and at the rate they claim (which their own models have shown to be false). Let's further accept for the sake of argument that it is also attributable to human behavior (which is *highly* debatable).

Now... you claim above that "not dealing with it the results could be catastrophic." In all my years of following this debate, I have never heard a single person on your side of the argument explain how *dealing with it* averts the same catastrophe. Perhaps you could be the first.
So have at it. Global warming is happening. It's man made. How do we stop it?

Personally, I do believe that global warming is happening. Slower than they claim,maybe, but happening. I also strongly suspect that it's a natural self- correcting cycle and that human intervention has very little, if anything, to do with it. And I'm thoroughly convinced that there's not a single thing we can do to alter it's course, no matter how much money is thrown at it.
So in that sense, I don't think it's a hoax, exactly, but I do believe that it's a scam; on par with the "rain makers" who used to troll the midwest scamming farmers.

I think people have a completely legitimate basis for doubting this, and I don't think that calling them "crazy" for not believing an argument that hasn't been properly supported is valid.

Well I can only speak to the data, and the overwhelming consensus by scientists that global warming is happening and humans are contributing to it. If you had one or to large agencies making the claim then i could see the arguement that it could be financially motivated conclusions, but we are talking about scientists and agencies from all over the world. Global warming is properly supported by data, it seems the counter arguement is that well its a money grab, or it might be happening but its not that bad. There is really no evidence to counter the evidence for global warming, hoaxers simply argue that there is not enough evidence. I think its foolish not to listen to the people whos life is studying and understanding theses things.

- - - Updated - - -


I believe global warming is happening. What I do not and will not believe is that it is entirely a man-made phenomenon, and that we should basically go back to living in the stone age as a result. For all the records that these people tout as evidence of man "poisoning" the planet, there are just as many, if not more, that show that shit does, in fact, happen. Quite often, actually. And yes, there are a LOT of people - "respected" scientists included - who stand to make millions, if not billions, as a result of this hysteria. If you ever want to get to the bottom of anything, you should follow the money.

And before steeldawg bothers to comment, no, this does not mean that I am some "nut" who doesn't care about the environment, or that I'm against cleaner energy sources and energy conservation. FAR FROM IT. We should be doing that because it's the 21st fucking century, not because scientists and their sycophants are telling us that global warming is going to kill us all.

Not even scientists believe its entirely man made, but they do believe that we are speeding up the process.

[GoSlash27]

Well I can only speak to the data, and the overwhelming consensus by scientists that global warming is happening and humans are contributing to it. If you had one or to large agencies making the claim then i could see the arguement that it could be financially motivated conclusions, but we are talking about scientists and agencies from all over the world. Global warming is properly supported by data, it seems the counter arguement is that well its a money grab, or it might be happening but its not that bad. There is really no evidence to counter the evidence for global warming, hoaxers simply argue that there is not enough evidence. I think its foolish not to listen to the people whos life is studying and understanding theses things.

Which brings us back to where we started. The only basis for believing that global warming exists in any form at all is "the scientists say so". It's not even good enough to qualify as a theory, let alone a law. It's a shit argument based on a dubious premise, and (most importantly) it contains no solutions.
It's not "crazy" to be skeptical about that, it's prudent.

[GBMelBlount]

I think its foolish not to listen to the people whos life is studying and understanding theses things.

It is amazing how all of the good and ethical people somehow found their way into politics, government and studying global warming....

and all of those who are self serving somehow only ended up in the private sector.

LOL.

[GoSlash27]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmQ4vVVa75M
"I think its foolish not to listen to the people whos life is studying and understanding theses things."

Back when the rain makers were duping farmers, there was absolutely no doubt that a drought was going on... and they at least *claimed* to be able to end it.

[43Hitman]

Honestly I think a lot of these scientists have fallen prey to group think.

[fansince'76]

Which brings us back to where we started. The only basis for believing that global warming exists in any form at all is "the scientists say so". It's not even good enough to qualify as a theory, let alone a law. It's a shit argument based on a dubious premise, and (most importantly) it contains no solutions.
It's not "crazy" to be skeptical about that, it's prudent.

Especially when "they" were saying the exact opposite just a generation ago...


http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/25/the-cia-documents-the-global-cooling-research-of-the-1970s/


http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/02/14/global-cooling-1970-we-will-all-be-living-in-igloos/

[GoSlash27]

Not even scientists believe its entirely man made, but they do believe that we are speeding up the process.
This would be a fine time for you to address my central point.

The only possible way to "avert the disaster" (as you put it) is to arrest or reverse the process. How many of them believe that even completely eliminating man- made greenhouse gases (which is impossible) will accomplish that?

Zero. None. Nada. So what's with all this hooey about green energy and carbon credits? What is it supposed to achieve?

[Mach1]

Which brings us back to where we started. The only basis for believing that global warming exists in any form at all is "the scientists say so". It's not even good enough to qualify as a theory, let alone a law. It's a shit argument based on a dubious premise, and (most importantly) it contains no solutions.
It's not "crazy" to be skeptical about that, it's prudent.

King Obama said it was real so therefor it is. :rolleyes:



I think theres a lot of garbage in garbage out science out there too. Lots of people trying to get that big government grant.

[Count Steeler]

Classic wealth distribution from the poor and middle class to the rich. (yes, from the poor TO the rich)

Classic fight against capitalism from the socialist/communist community.

Classic fear mongering for the procurement of your funds.

- - - Updated - - -


This would be a fine time for you to address my central point.

The only possible way to "avert the disaster" (as you put it) is to arrest or reverse the process. How many of them believe that even completely eliminating man- made greenhouse gases (which is impossible) will accomplish that?

Zero. None. Nada. So what's with all this hooey about green energy and carbon credits? What is it supposed to achieve?

You almost hit it Slash. To control it, you must eliminate man.

Classic population control argument.

- - - Updated - - -

I seem to remember from the 70s, the fear monger crowd espousing the bull shit that this planet would not be able to sustain a population of over 5 billion. Well, here we are at 7 billion and ???? I guess the number they really meant was 8 billion.

[GoSlash27]

You almost hit it Slash. To control it, you must eliminate man.
I haven't even heard them try to make *that* argument.
Would completely eliminating humans end global warming? I've never heard anybody claim that it would.

The consensus from the scientific community (correct me if I'm wrong) is that human activity accounts for about 5 1/2% of greenhouse gases *IF* we ignore water vapor (the single largest contributor). Including that really screws their argument since that reduces the human contribution to just 1/4 of 1%.
So let's go with the 5 1/2% argument just for S&G. Let's further assume that breathing *doesn't* contribute to our carbon footprint, since the only cure for that is to kill humans.

How much can we reduce that figure? Half? 1/10th? completely eliminate it?
Say we eliminate it. That still leaves 95% of the current CO2 emissions. How is this supposed to alter the situation *at all*??

[smokin3000gt]

I haven't even heard them try to make *that* argument.
Would completely eliminating humans end global warming? I've never heard anybody claim that it would.

No, there would still be cow farts to account for. Those things are f'n methane monsters! :chuckle:

[Count Steeler]

I haven't even heard them try to make *that* argument.
Would completely eliminating humans end global warming? I've never heard anybody claim that it would.

It is the logical conclusion to their train of thought. Global warming (or the new phrase, climate change) is bad. Man causes the bad. Man must be controlled.

At the very least, control in the form of activities. At the very best, reduce and control the population.

[stillers4me]

http://thepeoplescube.com/images/Complete_Idiots_GlobalWarmi.gif (http://www.steelersuniverse.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=al+gore+global+warming+funny&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=Nxcb4RML-lnEpM&tbnid=LZkPU-TXB4jAlM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fthepeoplescube.com%2Fcurrent-truth%2Fal-gore-s-oscar-nobel-acceptance-speech-draft-t1096.html&ei=VlFgUYHkJ_PH0gGSoIHICA&bvm=bv.44770516,d.dmQ&psig=AFQjCNGOro_CrZZwionYZaoHbLyM6fOXeQ&ust=1365352874639139)

[GoSlash27]

No, there would still be cow farts to account for. Those things are f'n methane monsters! :chuckle:

This one really screws with 'em: Plants naturally scrub CO2 out of the atmosphere, while animals put it in. If you want to reduce your carbon footprint, kill and eat a vegetarian!

[GoSlash27]

And we haven't even addressed whether altering the course (even if it was possible, which it isn't) is even a good idea. Is global cooling preferable to global warming?
http://i4.ytimg.com/vi/_l-0LOb2JMo/mqdefault.jpg
"we'll just jack it up, put it in reverse, and wind the miles back off of it"

And *we're* the crazy ones for not buying into the hype. :ranger:

[steeldawg]

This would be a fine time for you to address my central point.

The only possible way to "avert the disaster" (as you put it) is to arrest or reverse the process. How many of them believe that even completely eliminating man- made greenhouse gases (which is impossible) will accomplish that?

Zero. None. Nada. So what's with all this hooey about green energy and carbon credits? What is it supposed to achieve?

I think clean energy is the solution but im not a scientist and scientist alone cant help deal with the problem if proper legislation is not in place. The fact is there is no evidence against global warming. Nobody is out there disproving the data that the science community is gathering, The arguement against global warming is so incredibly weak that the folks who deny it do not even do their own research. Its simply thinktanks and a small group of psuedo scientists funded by exxon oil trying to punch holes in the data and spreading misinformation. Global warming is not an opinion, there is not a global conspiracy by scientist to convince us of global warming, its based on peer reviewed data by the top scientific agencies in the world and you just shrug that off and tell me what you think is happening its ridiculous.

[Mach1]

I think clean energy is the solution but im not a scientist and scientist alone cant help deal with the problem if proper legislation is not in place. The fact is there is no evidence against global warming. Nobody is out there disproving the data that the science community is gathering, The arguement against global warming is so incredibly weak that the folks who deny it do not even do their own research. Its simply thinktanks and a small group of psuedo scientists funded by exxon oil trying to punch holes in the data and spreading misinformation. Global warming is not an opinion, there is not a global conspiracy by scientist to convince us of global warming, its based on peer reviewed data by the top scientific agencies in the world and you just shrug that off and tell me what you think is happening its ridiculous.

Fakegate: The Obnoxious Fabrication of Global Warming
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/03/01/fakegate-the-obnoxious-fabrication-of-global-warming/

BREAKING NEWS: scientist admits IPCC used fake data to pressure policy makers
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/23/breaking-news-scientist-admits-ipcc-used-fake-data-to-pressure-policy-makers/

IPCC Scientists Caught Producing False Data To Push Global Warming
http://www.prisonplanet.com/ipcc-scientists-caught-producing-false-data-to-push-global-warming.html

Greenpeace Leader Admits Organization Put Out Fake Global Warming Data
http://www.infowars.com/greenpeace-leader-admits-organization-put-out-fake-global-warming-data/

HUGE potential story developing... important global warming data faked


It's now official. Much of the hype about global warming is nothing but a complete scam.

Thanks to hackers (or an insider) who broke into The University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and downloaded 156 megabytes of data including extremely damaging emails, we now know that data supporting the global warming thesis was completely fabricated.
http://www.thedailycrux.com/Post/33141/huge-potential-story-developing-important-global-warming-data-faked

NASA Exposed Global Warming Hoax
http://www.calwatchdog.com/2011/07/28/nasa-exposed-global-warming-hoax/

yep... its based on peer reviewed data by the top scientific agencies in the world and you just shrug that off and tell me what you think is happening its ridiculous.

[Craic]

Fakegate: The Obnoxious Fabrication of Global Warming
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/03/01/fakegate-the-obnoxious-fabrication-of-global-warming/

BREAKING NEWS: scientist admits IPCC used fake data to pressure policy makers
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/23/breaking-news-scientist-admits-ipcc-used-fake-data-to-pressure-policy-makers/

IPCC Scientists Caught Producing False Data To Push Global Warming
http://www.prisonplanet.com/ipcc-scientists-caught-producing-false-data-to-push-global-warming.html

Greenpeace Leader Admits Organization Put Out Fake Global Warming Data
http://www.infowars.com/greenpeace-leader-admits-organization-put-out-fake-global-warming-data/

HUGE potential story developing... important global warming data faked


NASA Exposed Global Warming Hoax
http://www.calwatchdog.com/2011/07/28/nasa-exposed-global-warming-hoax/

yep... its based on peer reviewed data by the top scientific agencies in the world and you just shrug that off and tell me what you think is happening its ridiculous.

Mach, I like and respect you a lot, but when source links are from "infowars" and "Prisonplanet," it really doesn't give your argument any credibility at all. Forbes is the most credible of those (and a good publication). Personally, I don't think it's a "hoax." I think instead, it's a whole lot of making the data say what some people wanted it to say because of preconceived ideas about the dangers of humans. So in that sense, I'd agree with you that I do think there's a lot of misinformation at there, nevermind things that are flat-out wrong, but I wouldn't go so far as to call it a hoax. There's people at the top levels that actually believe it.

[Craic]

I think clean energy is the solution but im not a scientist and scientist alone cant help deal with the problem if proper legislation is not in place. The fact is there is no evidence against global warming. Nobody is out there disproving the data that the science community is gathering, The arguement against global warming is so incredibly weak that the folks who deny it do not even do their own research. Its simply thinktanks and a small group of psuedo scientists funded by exxon oil trying to punch holes in the data and spreading misinformation. Global warming is not an opinion, there is not a global conspiracy by scientist to convince us of global warming, its based on peer reviewed data by the top scientific agencies in the world and you just shrug that off and tell me what you think is happening its ridiculous.

And yet, this is quite the specious argument.

First - there's no accounting concerning how the earth's pollutants are causing global warming on Mars (http://www.chron.com/news/nation-world/article/Mars-getting-warmer-may-have-quakes-1922194.php).

Second - there is no accounting in the global warming community for any increased warming coming from a sun that is getting hotter (http://www.nytimes.com/1997/09/30/science/sun-is-getting-hotter-satellite-data-indicate.html). In the article I linked, noticed how it is already assumed that global warming is not being caused by the son, but rather, is just being aggravated by it. That's called putting the cart before the the horse. Others, (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/jul/18/20040718-115714-6334r/?page=all)who are more balanced, seem to take a better "let's check this out" view.

Third, there is little said except to simply blow off significant issues of global cooling. For instance, in the last year alone, all four government tracking agencies on global temps provide evidence that the TOTAL warming of the earth's atmosphere has been wiped out in ONE YEAR. Here's the link to that (http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=5ceaedb7-802a-23ad-4bfe-9e32747616f9), and read on down, since it also has quite a few other stories/links that I wanted to give you, so I'll list them, but reference them here.

Fourth, it was reported all the way back in 2008 that arctic sea ice had SIGNIFICANT increases after a long, cold snap. Enough to wipe out a good portion of what it lost.

Fifth, Climate Dynamics (Peer reviewed journal) has a study published that shows arctic COOLING over the last 1500 years.

I won't even go into the "Hockey stick" climate analogy that came about due to suppressed data, as exploded in the media a year or two ago, not to mention the politics involved whereby the Kyoto treaty would have harshly hindered the US and some other countries, but given the biggest offenders, China and India, a pass. Sorry, but either it is bad enough that we all must do something, or it is not.

[GoSlash27]

I think clean energy is the solution but im not a scientist and scientist alone cant help deal with the problem if proper legislation is not in place. The fact is there is no evidence against global warming. Nobody is out there disproving the data that the science community is gathering, The arguement against global warming is so incredibly weak that the folks who deny it do not even do their own research. Its simply thinktanks and a small group of psuedo scientists funded by exxon oil trying to punch holes in the data and spreading misinformation. Global warming is not an opinion, there is not a global conspiracy by scientist to convince us of global warming, its based on peer reviewed data by the top scientific agencies in the world and you just shrug that off and tell me what you think is happening its ridiculous.

There's a lot of words in your answer, but not even a single one of them addresses any point that I've raised. In fact, none of them even addresses any point you *haven't* made.

[Mach1]

Mach, I like and respect you a lot, but when source links are from "infowars" and "Prisonplanet," it really doesn't give your argument any credibility at all. Forbes is the most credible of those (and a good publication). Personally, I don't think it's a "hoax." I think instead, it's a whole lot of making the data say what some people wanted it to say because of preconceived ideas about the dangers of humans. So in that sense, I'd agree with you that I do think there's a lot of misinformation at there, nevermind things that are flat-out wrong, but I wouldn't go so far as to call it a hoax. There's people at the top levels that actually believe it.

:hatsoff:

About as creditable as an insurance company link asking for your zip code. :noidea:

But at the same time it is a proven fact that the data was skewed to push a political agenda, cap and trade, green energy and grant moneys. But to say that a person solely relies on "proven scientific fact" is a fallacy on this subject matter. But as I also said further above the earth has been going through climate changes for eons, so no it's not a hoax, just the garbage in garbage out data.

[steeldawg]

:hatsoff:

About as creditable as an insurance company link asking for your zip code. :noidea:

But at the same time it is a proven fact that the data was skewed to push a political agenda, cap and trade, green energy and grant moneys. But to say that a person solely relies on "proven scientific fact" is a fallacy on this subject matter. But as I also said further above the earth has been going through climate changes for eons, so no it's not a hoax, just the garbage in garbage out data.

Its not a proven fact that the data was skewed the data they use now is exactly the same. Yes people rely soley on the proven scientific facts on global warming i dont know what else you are supposed to rely on or how in the world thats a fallacy. The top scientific agencies in the world are telling us what is happening but thats not a credible source, but infowars is something you stand by. Your telling me that data collected all over the world by different scientist was all skewed to point in one direction?

[GoSlash27]

Steeldawg,
I thought you wanted to discuss this. Are you going to address anything I've asked you, or do you plan on repeating your appeal to authority fallacy forever?
http://youtomb.mit.edu/thumbnail/YouTube/E/u/EuAVgWJ28Hw/c3a4a8dfe179c18346373c0cd52f8130.jpg
you duckin' me, man??

[Hindes204]

http://youtu.be/ozO4YB98mCY


http://youtu.be/BB0aFPXr4n4





So I know these are not scientific in nature, but still two of my favorite videos on global warming

[steeldawg]

Steeldawg,
I thought you wanted to discuss this. Are you going to address anything I've asked you, or do you plan on repeating your appeal to authority fallacy forever?
http://youtomb.mit.edu/thumbnail/YouTube/E/u/EuAVgWJ28Hw/c3a4a8dfe179c18346373c0cd52f8130.jpg
you duckin' me, man??

Discuss what? you are asking me how we fix global warming, I have no idea ,why would i know that im not a scientist. Im addressing global warming being a hoax, thats what i thought we were discussing.

[fansince'76]

Steeldawg,
I thought you wanted to discuss this. Are you going to address anything I've asked you, or do you plan on repeating your appeal to authority fallacy forever?


Isn't it kinda obvious by now?

[Mach1]

Its not a proven fact that the data was skewed the data they use now is exactly the same. Yes people rely soley on the proven scientific facts on global warming i dont know what else you are supposed to rely on or how in the world thats a fallacy. The top scientific agencies in the world are telling us what is happening but thats not a credible source, but infowars is something you stand by. Your telling me that data collected all over the world by different scientist was all skewed to point in one direction?

I guess the scientist's actually admitting they provided false data isn't enough for you.

[SteelerEmpire]

Global warming is really a non issue. You can make the argument "for" solar, windpower, hydrogen, natural gas, electric, etc... without even mentioning gloabal warming.
This country will wing itself off of middle-easten oil first, and then slowly wing itself off of oil period. In that order.
The long term cost saving benefits from "alternative energy" also speaks for itself.

[43Hitman]

Global warming is really a non issue. You can make the argument "for" solar, windpower, hydrogen, natural gas, electric, etc... without even mentioning gloabal warming.
This country will wing itself off of middle-easten oil first, and then slowly wing itself off of oil period. In that order.
The long term cost saving benefits from "alternative energy" also speaks for itself.

I think you mean "ween" not "wing", right?

[SteelerEmpire]

I think you mean "ween" not "wing", right?

Thanks. English is my 2nd launguage, have patience with me... lol.

[43Hitman]

Thanks. English is my 2nd launguage, have patience with me... lol.

no problem man.

[GBMelBlount]

Global warming is really a non issue.

You can make the argument "for" solar, windpower, hydrogen, natural gas, electric, etc... without even mentioning gloabal warming.

This country will wing itself off of middle-easten oil first, and then slowly wing itself off of oil period. In that order.

The long term cost saving benefits from "alternative energy" also speaks for itself.

Can you show us some examples that "speaks for itself?"

[SteelerEmpire]

Can you show us some examples that "speaks for itself?"

I sure can. On top of my just selling a business that deals in Energy, let me give you a senario.

You can equip a home with solar, wind, and a Water to Hydrogen converter. You can totally eliminate your electric, and gas bills, and even perhaps your fuel bill for your automobiles if you convert it to a dual hydro-gas vehicle. I had "many" customers praise the above particular system because:

1- your electric and natural gas bills can be totally eliminated

2- in some areas, you can sell your excess electricity back to the main, local utility provider and receive a check in the mail for the difference.

3- in times when the sun doesn't shine or the wind doesn't blow, you can run your home off of hydrogen. If, for whatever reason, your entire system goes down, you just flip a switch and you can use the local utilities service.

4- you can also use the hydrogen you produce fuel your vehicles, thus eliminating your car's fuel bill (depending on how much you drive). If you get short on fuel and are away from home, just stop at your local gas station and pump unleaded into your regular gas tank.

5- you can sell your excess hydrogen (as it can be shipped), thus agumenting your monthly income. Oxygen is also a by-product of hydrogen conversion, you can (and people are) selling that as well.

6 - most homeowners that lose their homes are just a few months behind on their notes when they do so, so if you have no electric bill, no natural gas bill, no car fuel bill, and are selling excess hydrogen and oxygen, the more likely you can make your monthly house note because you have this extra money.

7- the cost of any fuel saving system in a home increases the homes value in proportion.

8- if you ever decided to sell your home, an interested buyer are VERY interested when they know they will not have an electric, nat. gas, and possibly auto fuel bill.

So there are many, many, benefits... as I've seen them with my own two eyes and am a witness.

[GBMelBlount]

Do you have a link to a unit that can be purchased and the price including installation?

[GoSlash27]

Discuss what? you are asking me how we fix global warming, I have no idea ,why would i know that im not a scientist. Im addressing global warming being a hoax, thats what i thought we were discussing.

Reading comprehension fail. What we are discussing is whether it's intellectually honest to call people who question it "crazy".
Note that nobody in this thread has claimed that global warming *is* a hoax, yet you seem (thus far) incapable of doing anything beyond stating that it's not.

[43Hitman]

Do you have a link to a unit that can be purchased and the price including installation?

Sounds very interesting if the average American can afford it.

[Hindes204]

The upfront costs are pretty high, but will save money in the long run. The problem is, the average American doesn't have the kind of money it takes to purchase and install the nessasary equipment.


water to hydrogen converters vary from about 5Gs all the way up to 4 million. The solar panel system for an average size home runs around $10,000, not including installation.

[SteelerEmpire]

You can get this system through several sources from as little as $20,000 (or perhaps even cheaper, IF you shop around and do your homework) to $200,000 for the more nicer systems (I pushed the higher dollar systems on customers because, of course, I had a profit motive). The last I checked, the government would pay for up to 70% of the costs for various reasons, this is another good point. A lot of this stuff you can buy and assemble yourself, buy one item at a time and build up to a complete system, etc... there are many ways to save money on the purchase, I recommend doing a little homework to conclude what might fit best for you. Either way, you still reach your "break-even" point pretty quickly (the system pays for itself) and if you go the financing route, the savings are often more than the financing costs, so there is still less money going out the door (in total) "even" while your financing.



The company I sold has been absorbed by another company, however heres a link so that you can get somewhat a clearer idea (it's in pdf format). I did a little business with this company in the past and had no problems with them, but again, shop around because there are many others. There is also a one-stop web site that shows how much local, state, and the federal government will pay, can't remember the name of it right off, but will post when I find it.

http://www.neutralexistence.com/kp/HydrogenSystemBrochure.pdf

[The Patriot]

It's definitively not a hoax. It may be wrong, but I seriously doubt it's an elaborate hoax.

[X-Terminator]

Global warming is really a non issue. You can make the argument "for" solar, windpower, hydrogen, natural gas, electric, etc... without even mentioning gloabal warming.
This country will wing itself off of middle-easten oil first, and then slowly wing itself off of oil period. In that order.
The long term cost saving benefits from "alternative energy" also speaks for itself.


I sure can. On top of my just selling a business that deals in Energy, let me give you a senario.

You can equip a home with solar, wind, and a Water to Hydrogen converter. You can totally eliminate your electric, and gas bills, and even perhaps your fuel bill for your automobiles if you convert it to a dual hydro-gas vehicle. I had "many" customers praise the above particular system because:

1- your electric and natural gas bills can be totally eliminated

2- in some areas, you can sell your excess electricity back to the main, local utility provider and receive a check in the mail for the difference.

3- in times when the sun doesn't shine or the wind doesn't blow, you can run your home off of hydrogen. If, for whatever reason, your entire system goes down, you just flip a switch and you can use the local utilities service.

4- you can also use the hydrogen you produce fuel your vehicles, thus eliminating your car's fuel bill (depending on how much you drive). If you get short on fuel and are away from home, just stop at your local gas station and pump unleaded into your regular gas tank.

5- you can sell your excess hydrogen (as it can be shipped), thus agumenting your monthly income. Oxygen is also a by-product of hydrogen conversion, you can (and people are) selling that as well.

6 - most homeowners that lose their homes are just a few months behind on their notes when they do so, so if you have no electric bill, no natural gas bill, no car fuel bill, and are selling excess hydrogen and oxygen, the more likely you can make your monthly house note because you have this extra money.

7- the cost of any fuel saving system in a home increases the homes value in proportion.

8- if you ever decided to sell your home, an interested buyer are VERY interested when they know they will not have an electric, nat. gas, and possibly auto fuel bill.

So there are many, many, benefits... as I've seen them with my own two eyes and am a witness.

All very interesting, and you've caused me to research this further.

This is what I meant by going to alternative energy sources because it's the 21st century, not because "global warming is going to kill the planet." We have the technology and the scientific know-how to be able to significantly reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and foreign oil, which obviously reduces negative environmental impact. We even have the ability to make fossil fuels cleaner and less harmful to the environment. We should use a combination of both, with the additional by-product of crippling the Middle East and their rich oil barons who fund terrorism around the world.

[SteelerEmpire]

All very interesting, and you've caused me to research this further.

This is what I meant by going to alternative energy sources because it's the 21st century, not because "global warming is going to kill the planet." We have the technology and the scientific know-how to be able to significantly reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and foreign oil, which obviously reduces negative environmental impact. We even have the ability to make fossil fuels cleaner and less harmful to the environment. We should use a combination of both, with the additional by-product of crippling the Middle East and their rich oil barons who fund terrorism around the world.

Your right XT. In addition, before I'd put $1 in the stock market, I would load up on this kind of stuff as it's a much better and a guaranteed return on investment. One more thing I forgot to mention, home owners insurance covers all of this stuff.

Let me know if you have any questions.

[Hindes204]

So the government picking up 70% of $20,000-$200,000 for every family is a good thing for the economy? Maybe I'm missing something here

[Craic]

I've looked into solar power a couple times, especially now that I live in Arizona. It's never been feasible for me to do it. At best, I'd break even over say, twenty years, and there's no guarantee that I'll keep my house that long.

Am I against solar power? No, it can be a great idea, but until I can get it and install it for under 10G (about five years worth of electric bills), it's just not something that makes financial sense for me.

- - - Updated - - -


:hatsoff:

About as creditable as an insurance company link asking for your zip code. :noidea:

But at the same time it is a proven fact that the data was skewed to push a political agenda, cap and trade, green energy and grant moneys. But to say that a person solely relies on "proven scientific fact" is a fallacy on this subject matter. But as I also said further above the earth has been going through climate changes for eons, so no it's not a hoax, just the garbage in garbage out data.

:chuckle:

I do agree with every you say here, especially garbage data, which is also known as circular reasoning in this case. "There has to be man-made effects on the environment, so let's go look for them."

"Look, we found them!"

"How do you know it's man made effects?"

"Because man has an effect on the environment, here's the proof!"

Sadly, I've had these very conversations with people.

[steeldawg]

Reading comprehension fail. What we are discussing is whether it's intellectually honest to call people who question it "crazy".
Note that nobody in this thread has claimed that global warming *is* a hoax, yet you seem (thus far) incapable of doing anything beyond stating that it's not.

What else do you want me to do? The studies from the top scientific agencies and top authorities on the subject tell us its happening and provide the data, what more do you want? THe title of the thread is " Global warming: Hoax?"

[Seven]

Global warming is happening... but I think we're rather ignorant in believing we have much impact on the cycle. I really don't see how we are going to prevent something that would be happening whether we were here or not. Delay it by say, a generation or so? Maybe? I don't pretend to know the timeline like a lot of scientists do. But regardless, I'd be willing to bet something else takes out this planet before global warming gets it. Is it happening? Yeah. Does that make it relevant? Not really. Efforts to prevent it are largely a waste of time.

- - - Updated - - -


What else do you want me to do?

I have a feeling we could fill the pages of War and Peace trying to answer that question :chuckle:


THe title of the thread is " Global warming: Hoax?"

Slash just made that the topic title because that is the term you used:


if people are elected who treat this as a hoax and dont deal with it the results could be catastrophic.

[GoSlash27]

What else do you want me to do? The studies from the top scientific agencies and top authorities on the subject tell us its happening and provide the data, what more do you want? THe title of the thread is " Global warming: Hoax?"

What I want you to do is participate in the discussion if you have anything useful to add. You've exceeded the quota of "the scientists say global warming is real so it is" about 4 posts ago. Not only is that an obtuse argument, but nobody's even bothered to contradict it.

[Count Steeler]

I suppose the real question is: Where's the Beef?


http://youtu.be/Ug75diEyiA0

[LLT]

I suppose the "BEEF" of this thread is that quite a few legitimate..thinking people who wholeheartely believe in Global warming...also believe that those who stand to prosper from exagerating the man-made cause will do so in the name of research funds and monatary gain.

We all need to be good stewarts of our planet...but we need to do so out of personal conviction and the desire to maintain a natural enviroment for out children and grandchilden to enjoy. Not because we mindlessly believe "the top scientists in the field" who are shameless in their desire for funds..and not because we have a need to "look" enlightened without ever looking into the facts.

Fact: Volcanos have spewed a thousand times the amount of ozone-depeting fleurocarbons in one eruption than all the fluorocarbons manufactured by man in history.

Fact: April 28, 1975 Newsweek printed an article about scientists predicting doom and gloom because of Global Cooling.

Fact: Every Climatologist will tell you the Earth's temperature has been both much hotter and colder than it is as of now.

Fact: NASA reports because of Solar Flares the Sun is the hottest it has been in over 100 years, and reports that there is ice melting on Mars. Cant find the link...but I read somewhere that there are no cars or factories on the Sun or on Mars.

Michael Crichton was considered by most to be a brilliant...BRILLIANT man and light years ahead of his time in the scientific research that he dedicated to his books. His work and writings on cloning in which he based his Book "Jurassic Park" were spot on and decades ahead of believability. He spent three years researching "State of Fear." a scientific thriller which he based on footnotes... graphs... and scientific data which are in the book for all to see. His conclusion at the end of his research?..... The threat of global warming has been exaggerated by environmentalists who are "fomenting false fears in order to promote agendas and raise money".

He argued that researchers who study global warming often exaggerate the problem in order to get grants...often using celebrities to promote their cause...or in the case of politicians like Al Gore, create their own cult of personality and profit off of that.

A New York Times article stated...


Few people have been as vocal about the urgency of global warming and the need to reinvent the way the world produces and consumes energy. And few have put as much money behind their advocacy as Mr. Gore and are as well positioned to profit from this green transformation, if and when it comes.... Mr. Gore is poised to become the world’s first “carbon billionaire,” profiteering from government policies he supports that would direct billions of dollars to the business ventures he has invested in.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/business/energy-environment/03gore.html?_r=2&

No agenda there...right?

I actually applaud those who keep an open mind and do their part to recycle and preserve our natural resourses....but not at the expense of being a mindless lemming.

[GBMelBlount]

LLT

Fact: Volcanos have spewed a thousand times the amount of ozone-depeting fleurocarbons in one eruption than all the fluorocarbons manufactured by man in history.

Fact: Every Climatologist will tell you the Earth's temperature has been both much hotter and colder than it is as of now.

Fact: NASA reports because of Solar Flares the Sun is the hottest it has been in over 100 years, and reports that there is ice melting on Mars. Cant find the link...but I read somewhere that there are no cars or factories on the Sun or on Mars.

I actually applaud those who keep an open mind and do their part to recycle and preserve our natural resourses....but not at the expense of being a mindless lemming.

So....

Fact: The sun (which heats the earth) is the hottest it has been in 100 years.

Fact: Volcanoes have produced thousands of times the fluorocarbons as man.

Fact: Global warming scientists funding is based on their ability to convince people the humans are the primary cause of global warming.

It seems pretty cut and dry to me.

Scientist whose livelihood largely depends on convincing people that we are the primary cause of global warming are trying to convince people that we are the primary cause of global warming despite compelling evidence to the contrary.

Nice racket.

[steeldawg]

What I want you to do is participate in the discussion if you have anything useful to add. You've exceeded the quota of "the scientists say global warming is real so it is" about 4 posts ago. Not only is that an obtuse argument, but nobody's even bothered to contradict it.

Slash there is nothing more i can tell you outside of what the authorities on the subject around the world say. And its not a matter of scientist just saying it, they have the data that shows it. There is no science that disproves the data they have, there is nobody out there disproving global warming through experimentation, its simply people who dont believe in it because they think scientist from all over have skewed the data in some kind of global scientific conspiracy. What other information am i supposed to present you with besides the info from the most credible sources on the subject.

- - - Updated - - -


Global warming is happening... but I think we're rather ignorant in believing we have much impact on the cycle. I really don't see how we are going to prevent something that would be happening whether we were here or not. Delay it by say, a generation or so? Maybe? I don't pretend to know the timeline like a lot of scientists do. But regardless, I'd be willing to bet something else takes out this planet before global warming gets it. Is it happening? Yeah. Does that make it relevant? Not really. Efforts to prevent it are largely a waste of time.

- - - Updated - - -



I have a feeling we could fill the pages of War and Peace trying to answer that question :chuckle:



Slash just made that the topic title because that is the term you used:

No its not the term i used it was posted in the poll he used.

[zulater]

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/fallacies.html

6 - Peer-reviewed papers are true and accurate
The peer-review process was established for the benefit of editors who did not have good knowledge across all the fields that their journals addressed. It provided a "sanity check" to avoid the risk of publishing papers which were so outlandish that the journal would be ridiculed and lose its reputation.

In principle this notion seems entirely reasonable, but it neglects certain aspects of human nature, especially the tendency for reviewers to defend their own (earlier) papers, and indirectly their reputations, against challengers. Peer review also ignores the strong tendency for papers that disagree with a popular hypothesis, one the reviewer understands and perhaps supports, to receive a closer and often hostile scrutiny.

Reviewers are selected from practitioners in the field, but many scientific fields are so small that the reviewers will know the authors. The reviewers may even have worked with the authors in the past or wish to work with them in future, so the objectivity of any review is likely to be tainted by this association.

Some journals now request that authors suggest appropriate reviewers but this is a sure way to identify reviewers who will be favourable to certain propositions.

It also follows that if the editor of a journal wishes to reject a paper, then it will be sent to a reviewer who is likely to reject it, whereas a paper that the editor favours to be published will be sent to a reviewer who is expected to be sympathetic. In 2002 the editor-in-chief of the journal "Science" announced that there was no longer any doubt that human activity was changing climate, so what are the realistic chances of this journal publishing a paper that suggests otherwise?

The popular notion is that reviewers should be skilled in the relevant field, but a scientific field like climate change is so broad, and encompasses so many sub disciplines, that it really requires the use of expert reviewers from many different fields. That this is seldom undertaken explains why so many initially influential climate papers have later been found to be fundamentally flawed.

In theory, reviewers should be able to understand and replicate the processing used by the author(s). In practice, climate science has numerous examples where authors of highly influential papers have refused to reveal their complete set of data or the processing methods that they used. Even worse, the journals in question not only allowed this to happen, but have subsequently defended the lack of disclosure when other researchers attempted to replicate the work.

7 - The IPCC is a reliable authority and its reports are both correct and widely endorsed by all scientists

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) undertakes no research for itself and relies on peer-reviewed scientific papers in reputable journals (see item 6). There is strong evidence that the IPCC is very selective of the papers it wishes to cite and pays scant regard to papers that do not adhere to the notion that man-made emissions of carbon dioxide have caused warming.

Four more issues noted above are also very relevant to the IPCC procedures. The IPCC reports are based on historical temperature data and trends (see 1 & 2), and the attribution of warming to human activities relies very heavily on climate modelling (see item 3). The IPCC pronouncements have a powerful influence on the direction and funding of scientific research into climate change, which in turn influences the number of research papers on these topics. Ultimately, and in entirely circular fashion, this leads the IPCC to report that large numbers of papers support a certain hypothesis (see item 5).

These fallacies alone are major defects of the IPCC reports, but the problems do not end there. Other distortions and fallacies of the IPCC are of its own doing.

Governments appoint experts to work with the IPCC but once appointed those experts can directly invite other experts to join them. This practice obviously can, and does, lead to a situation where the IPCC is heavily biased towards the philosophies and ideologies of certain governments or science groups.

The lead authors of the chapters of the IPCC reports can themselves be researchers whose work is cited in those chapters. This was the case with the so-called "hockey stick" temperature graph in the Third Assessment Report (TAR) published in 2001. The paper in which the graph first appeared was not subject to proper and independent peer review, despite which the graph was prominently featured in a chapter for which the co-creator of the graph was a lead author. The graph was debunked in 2006[6] and has been omitted without explanation from the Fourth Assessment Report (4AR) of 2007.

The IPCC has often said words to the effect "We don't know what else can be causing warming so it must be humans" (or "the climate models will only produce the correct result if we include man-made influences"), but at the same time the IPCC says that scientists have a low level of understanding of many climate factors. It logically follows that if any natural climate factors are poorly understood then they cannot be properly modelled, the output of the models will probably be incorrect and that natural forces cannot easily be dismissed as possible causes. In these circumstances it is simply dishonest to unequivocally blame late 20th century warming on human activity.[7]

The IPCC implies that its reports are thoroughly reviewed by thousands of experts. Any impression that thousands of scientists review every word of the reports can be shown to be untrue by an examination of the review comments for the report by IPCC Working Group I. (This report is crucial, because it discusses historical observations, attributes a likely cause of change and attempts to predict global and regional changes. The reports by working groups 2 and 3 draw heavily on the findings of this WG I report.)

The analysis of the WG I report for the 4AR revealed that:

(a) A total of just 308 reviewers (including reviewers acting on behalf of governments) examined the 11 chapters of the WGI I report

(b) An average of 67 reviewers examined each chapter of this report with no chapter being examined by more than 100 reviewers and one by as few as 34.

(c) 69% of reviewers commented on less than 3 chapters of the 11-chapter report. (46% of reviewers commented on just one chapter and 23% on two chapters, thus accounting for more than two-thirds of all reviewers.)

(d) Just 5 reviewers examined all 11 chapters and two of these were recorded as "Govt of (country)", which may represent a team of reviewers rather than individuals

(e) Every chapter had review comments from a subset of the designated authors for the chapter, which suggests that the authoring process may not have been diligent and inclusive

Chapter 9 was the key chapter because it attributed a change in climate to human activity but:

(a) Just 62 individuals or government appointed reviewers commented on this chapter

(b) A large number of reviewers had a vested interest in the content of this chapter

- 7 reviewers were "contributing editors" of the same chapter

- 3 were overall editors of the Working Group I report
- 26 were authors or co-authors of papers cited in the final draft
- 8 reviewers were noted as "Govt of ..." indicating one or more reviewers who were appointed by those governments (and sometimes the same comments appear under individual names as well as for the government in question)

- Only 25 individual reviewers appeared to have no vested interest in this chapter

(c) The number of comments from each reviewer varied greatly

- 27 reviewers made just 1 or 2 comments but those making more than 2 comments often drew attention to typographical errors, grammatical errors, mistakes in citing certain papers or inconsistencies with other chapters, so how thorough were these reviews with very few comments?

- only 18 reviewers made more than 10 comments on the entire 122-page second order draft report (98 pages of text, 24 of figures) and 9 of those 18 had a vested interest

(d) Just four reviewers, including one government appointed team or individual, explicitly endorsed the entire chapter in its draft form - not thousands of scientists, but FOUR!

The claim that the IPCC’s 4th Assessment Report carries the imprimatur of having been reviewed by thousands, or even hundreds, of expert and independent scientists is incorrect, and even risible. In actuality, the report represents the view of small and self-selected science coteries that formed the lead authoring teams.

More independent scientists of standing (61) signed a public letter to the Prime Minister of Canada cautioning against the assumption of human causation of warming[8] than are listed as authors of the 4AR Summary for Policymakers (52). More than 50 scientists also reviewed the Independent Summary for Policymakers, the counter-view to the IPCC's summary that was published by the Fraser Institute of Canada[9

[smokin3000gt]

Fact: Evidence of climate change/fluctuation/cycles does not automatically become evidence of global warming.

[SteelerEmpire]

I personally helped make this a reality (pats myself on the back).

LINK: http://designbuildsource.com.au/1-million-residential-solar-power-installations-in-australia?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=1-million-residential-solar-power-installations-in-australia

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/544020_632891996726149_923621618_n.png

[steeldawg]

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

[Seven]

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

That's a cute chart on CO2. Too bad carbon dioxide caused by humans accounts for less than .30% of the greenhouse effect, which is the effect that every argument for mass human influence on global warming is built around. Water vapor is 90 - 95% of the greenhouse effect. Water vapor is 99.99% of natural origin (aka we don't control it).

But by all means, keep pushing every Democratic talking point you desire. Everyone loves a good fairy tale.

[Craic]

We all need to be good stewarts of our planet...but we need to do so out of personal conviction and the desire to maintain a natural enviroment for out children and grandchilden to enjoy. Not because we mindlessly believe "the top scientists in the field" who are shameless in their desire for funds..and not because we have a need to "look" enlightened without ever looking into the facts.

In a nutshell, this.


Find a better source of energy that oil? I'm all for it.
Use sun and natural energy producers? I think it'd be great.
Do my part to reduce the waste that we are accumulating? Absolutely.

But some of the "advances" make no sense. CFLs? Sure, they burn 25% of the energy a normal light bulb does. However, every CFL made has enough mercury to cover the point of a ballpoint pen. What's the effect of a thousand of those being thrown away? How about 30,000? Sorry, I don't buy that CFLs are better for the environment in the long run, but it's been jammed down our throats. Oh, I know, when you factor in the cost of coal fired plants creating energy and then the energy savings of the CFL blah blah blah . . . nope. My house is powered off a nuclear power plant.

That bring up another issue. Let's see here, solar panels are currently made of what?


Indium: in a soluble solution (say like, drinking water?) is very dangerous to kidneys. It can also be dangerous to the lungs.

Gallium Arsenide: Used in some of them - yeah, that's arsenic, and there has been the beginnings of problems with this particular compound.

cadmium telluride: toxic if ingested. Yeah, it's been approved and said to have no affect on the environment, but we're the only government to come to that conclusion. EU calls it a toxic carcinogen. China only exports it (too many questions here!)

I go on, but hopefully I've made my point. Certain "Saving the environment" solutions is doing nothing more than harming it in a different way.


Reusable Grocery bags: Great, right? Not so much. new study found that nearly half of bags are contaminated with bacteria, and not just any bacteria. 12 percent was E. Coli. On top of that, a lot of those bags are made from . . . plastic. Yep, that's right, plastic. What ever happened to using renewable resources like wood to make paper bags?

I'll end my rant here, but a number of things about environmentalism just make no sense. The biggest of which, is the labeling of nuclear power anathema.

[fansince'76]

My house is powered off a nuclear power plant.

http://www.indymedia.ie/attachments/dec2009/homernuclear1.jpg

:chuckle:

[Craic]

http://www.indymedia.ie/attachments/dec2009/homernuclear1.jpg

:chuckle:

Link isn't working, but if I had to guess: something like this?

http://honchemistry.wikispaces.com/file/view/homer.jpg/141626819/homer.jpg


You know, I could have said it was powered off natural gas:

http://www.radioactivechief.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/fart-catcher_1207842i.jpg

:chuckle:

And for clarification, I now live in Arizona and APS (Arizona electricity, power, and energy services) has three Nuclear Reactors that they power the state with - and sell power to California as well.

[vader29]

Global Warming Hoax Finally Falling Apart

Do you remember how we were told that so-called “superstorm” Sandy was a result of melting arctic ice? Oh yes, we were slammed over and over again with that bit of unfounded wisdom.

In the first place Sandy was NOT a super storm. “Superstorm” was a term made up by Mainstream Media as a scare tactic. The truth is: SANDY WAS NOT EVEN A HURRICANE WHEN IT CAME ASHORE AT ATLANTIC CITY! To be a hurricane a storm must have sustained winds of at least 74 miles per hour. Sandy was so weak that the storm didn’t have winds high enough to be classified as a hurricane and was therefore only a “tropical cyclone.” Actually, it was LESS than that. It was, in fact, what is known by meteorologists as a “Post Tropical Cyclone.” That’s about as weak as a storm can can get and still be classified as some kind of cyclone.

I know, I know! Yeah, I hate to burst your bubble, but thems the facts, Jack!

Remember, there were two other weather systems that combined with what was left of Sandy to create that godawful weather event now dubbed Superstorm Sandy.

Many of us debunkers warned at the time that the “environuts” would use those combined storms as a means to spread fear of non-existent global warming. They did. Oh, how they used it.

Just remember: “Sandy was never a superstorm. There are no superstorms.”

So what was Global Warming all about, anyway? Well, former Czech President Václav Klaus said this: “This ideology preaches earth and nature and under the slogans of their protection – similarly to the old Marxists – wants to replace the free and spontaneous evolution of mankind by a sort of central, now global, planning of the whole world”

Global governance. A one world government. To be more precise: A one-world SOCIALIST government.

Let’s face it: The socialist movement is relentless. If you ever wondered where all those communist and socialist went when the old Soviet Union collapsed—look no farther than the environmental movement—the Global Warming crowd.

Read more: http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/54601

[zulater]

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/05/02/us-headed-for-the-coldest-spring-on-record/

US tracking for the coldest spring on record.

Obviously a clear sign of global warming. Because as the data changes the goal posts are moved for the conveinance of global warming profiteers so that no matter what happens it's always somehow traced to fossil fuels and man's so called carbon imprint on the planet.