I Power
Scientific Research & Self-Development Activism
Is Global Warming For Real?
Most of us have had climate change pounded into us, through school, with images of a planet in a greehouse, through the entire media So why is it that ice caps are now growing, as reported by the Australian News? The London Telegraph reports that the world's top sea level expert denounces claims of rising sea levels, dismissing them as innacurate computer models. Paul Joseph Watson, reports, citing mainstream sources, that arctic ice has grown 30% in a year and that UN scientists have, again, been caught lying about climate statistics. to support their policies.
The London's Guardian Newspaper, explains what is happening. They report that a "Cooling Sun brings relief to sweltering Earth", explaining that climate change is caused by the sun, and its long term, and 11yr sunspot cycle. The sun's recent reduction in activity explains ice cap growth. This follows a period when, as reported by the BBC, sunspot activity was at its highest for over 1000yrs.
In the BBC article above, the BBC admit that the little ice age, between 1645 and 1715 was associated with a period of very low sunspot activity, refered to as the Maunder Minimum. During this period, the River Thames in London froze over to allow the wonderful frost fairs, that were written about by Jane Austen. That cold period preceeded a very warm period during the middle ages, when vines and olives were grown in Britain. We are no where near those high temperatures today, and the warming appears to have reversed, as it always does, in natural cycles.
For those who don't like being decieved, note the London Telegraph's report, that Polar Bears thrived during the recent warming period. Contrary to what your primary school teacher may have told you, Polar Bears are the greatest swimmers of all land mammals. They like to sail ice flows and routinely swim hundreds of miles, hunting Beluga Wales in arctic water. Increased sea ice is infact more likely to close off sea hunting grounds, and cause migrations and a reduction in polar bear populations. Not only that, but, in a rediculous game of doublethink and deception, our leaders now claim that we must destroy the environment to save it.
------------------------------
"We've got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy." - Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation
------------------------------
With these mainstream articles in mind, it is important to re-consider what we have been asked to do, to "save the planet". You may have been pummelled with childrens TV shows, where Superman, Spiderman, etc, etc, ad nauseum, save the planet, but have we been conditioned to be unrealistic about threats? Were we inundated by stories of superhero's in childhood, and more believable hero's in adulthood movies, to condition us to jump when told to do so, with the excuse of saving the planet? Are we captive of conditioned arrogance in a program of mass mind control?
Re-consider, that we have been asked to reduce our populations, stop driving, pro-creating, and, in the midst of a depression, pay crucifying carbon taxes to the very central banks that caused the economic crisis. Take note, that the taxing and regulation of carbon, means that governments everywhere can tax and regulate every single activity, because we are carbon based life forms. This is of course the dream of countless despots. And note, that the only way of dealing with these issues, is world government, also dreamed of by the nastiest of despots, from Alexander the Great to Hitler. So we have a duty to our children to question every word said by those pushing this agenda.
There is also an alternative. It is called freedom. For more on the free market approach to the environment, and we don't currently have free markets, check out this audio chapter of A New Liberty, by Murray N. Rothbard.
------------------------------
"No matter if the science of global warming is all phony... climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world." - Christine Stewart, fmr Canadian Minister of the Environment
------------------------------
Here is a great 10min podcast on climate change that is convenient to share and provides, towards the end, a refreshing solution to the crisis:
This is a great clip from Congress on the implications of government forcing us to use mercury filled CFL lightbulbs. Just goes to show the falacy of the central planning of lightbulbs! So there goes the joke, how many governments does it take to screw in a murcury filled lightbulb? Two, China to provide cover up the dirty industrial practices required to make it profitable and the Federal Government to create the propaganda to sell it to the public.
If you enjoyed the first podcast, have a listen to this, from the Mises Institute. Here is a text article if you prefer to read.
----------
In questioning the globlal warming scare, Al Gore must be exposed as the charlitan that he is. He owns an oil company for goodness sakes and is worth over $100million. He is Getting Rich Spreading Global Warming Hysteria and, you guessed it, he has financial links with Goldman Sach's who just stole over 12.8 trillion from US taxpayers, as reported by Bloomberg. It is they who would manage any futures market in carbon. That bailout is now larger in cost than all America's wars, ever, and some big government programs combined.
For those who don't know it yet, there is no altruism in top level politics. If anybody thought Obama was "Change you can believe in" A combination of interesting mainstream and alternative media reports reveal compelling links between president Obama and a privately owned carbon trading group, which also has direct ties with elitist groups such as the Club of Rome and the Trilateral Commission
First, lets rejoice that our progeny can inherit the earth. Next, lets dump the propaganda based precautionary principle in favor of scientific rigor, along with over 31,000 Scientists who have, as stated by London Telegraph, denounced claims that man is responsible for climate change. We can then focus in on real environmental issues, which are mainly caused by corporate monopolies that wonly exist because of fractional reserve banking, central banks, and big government. We must end the precautionary principle, returning to the old paradigm, whereby we constantly evaluate new data, and learn to weed out agenda based propaganda from scientific truth. The precautionary principle, in contrast, is the rediculous notion that we should act based on fear and probability. When those actions mean the userping of natural rights and liberty, we must become circumspect in our judgements, taking time to pause and think, whenever immediate action is demanded of us by those altruistic politicians.
Then remains the challenge of regaining our liberties, to counter the big brother surveillance state built up under the guise of carbon regulation, and to resist the debilitating effect of carbon regulation, tax and rationing, which is simply neo-feudalism, where we are tricked into giving most of our wealth to government. We must also resist the programming of our children on TV and at school and university, where they are tought that they are useless eaters who are destroying the earth. Hands up who has been convinced that they should avoid the joys of having children to save the earth, whilst government re-populates the country with foreigners to help us pay off the national debt? There realy is no pleasing these people. Remember that this education is indoctrinating us to accept stated United Nations Policy:
A reasonable estimate for an industrialized world society at the present North American material standard of living would be 1 billion. At the more frugal European standard of living, 2 to 3 billion would be possible.
- United Nations, Global Biodiversity Assessment
But sustainable for whom? Could it be that we are simply more manageable by corporate monopolies at 1 to 3 billion? Could it be, that the corporatist fascist model of today, and invisaged, is not capable of supporting such a high population? As we can see with the current economic collapse.
But we are not given the alternative of liberty. With liberty and freedom, the world could sustain 10x more population than we have today. Read about at Campaignforliberty and LewRockwell.com . Discover What You Should Know About Inflation, to discover the real reason why the economy doesn't provide for us. Just for example, look at Henry Ford's hemp car, 5x stronger than steel, didn't dent, didn't rust, but was never put into production, why? Because corporate monopolies don't want us to be wealthy and secure. They are at this point holding us back, supported by the state, that combination is Mussolini's model of economic fascism, and it can lead to the military form, so we should be countering it at every level. There are so many examples of repressed technolgy and natural technology, etc, that the mind boggles at where we would be today without state sponsored and bailed out corporate monopolies.
For a further example, Britain, with 60m people in a country the size of Florida, is self-sufficient in milk. Yet farmers are poor, why? Because milk is pasteurized, by law, forcing it into connected third party distributers who commoditize a complex product, allowing them to cream off the profit, whilst we pay more for a terrible substitute. Read about raw milk, and realize that legalized, it would cure most chronic deseases, it being the most perfect food, until pasteurized. raw-milk-facts.com
------------------------------
And finally, take one last look at the United Nations. They, as global government, have an interest in it, which is expressed in this quote, from United Nation's "Club of Rome" think tank's document, The First Global Revolution,:, Al Gore is a member.
p75 "In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together. But in designating these dangers as the enemy, we fall into the trap, which we have already warned readers about, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes, and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself."
---------
And London's Financial Times ran an Editorial stating "And Now for World Government". The artical admits that it would be dictatorial and has been developed in secret.
It is now time to take a stand, to differentiate between real issues, dumping the hobgoblins put before us to unite us behind a tyranical New World Order.
We must, in the face of a non-problem, have the strength to do NOTHING, to say NO.
Replies are closed for this discussion.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by KJ on -
What annoys me the most is how the warming advocates try and force it down everyones throat claiming rabidly that "The Science is settled" when it most certainly isn't. FFS!
Then you have people like Al Gore, who go and make shit up and twist data to how he wants it, and then he's given the Nobel Prize? FFS!
Then you have the Kyoto Scam. FFS!
What about biofuels? FFS learn some chemistry before saying it's carbon neutral! -
-
Permalink Reply by James on -
The thing is, many of the things I try to do because of the hype over warming are good for someone or the environment whether global warming is overblown or not. Just because the current global warming theory may be flawed doesnt mean that driving the biggest car, using the dryer to dry all my clothes, putting vegetable and fruit waste into the garbage, taking astronomically long showers because waters cheap (Canada).. ect is justified. We cant take the data twisting of environmentalists as a green light to dismiss it the issue, though it is frustrating.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Planning4aCrash on -
The difference with global warming is, like the war on (t)error, it is being used to justify usurping of our natural and constitutional rights, to consolidate control at the Federal and world level.
There are real environmental issues, but, I did provide the free market solution up there. The Murray N Rothbard audio book. I hope you have a chance to listen to it.
There is also an alternative. It is called freedom. For more on the free market approach to the environment, and we don't currently have free markets, check out this audio chapter of A New Liberty, by Murray N. Rothbard. -
-
Permalink Reply by Zach on -
Reading this actually made me sick to my stomache, I am a biology major and let me assure you this is not a joke at all, the editor of the top scientific journal in the world recently wrote an article discussing if Global Warming is even debated in the scientific community. He polled 695 mid level to prestigious scientific journals (thats alot of journals incase you dont know) and his findings found that 100% i repeat 100% claimed that global warming is happening and at happening at a faster rate than ever before. Of those articles that listed major causes for this climate shift everyone of them listed human beings as the number one cause. Its due to corprate controlled media, politics and uninformed assholes that this lie has become so wide spread. Please rethink all that you have read here and do some real research, there is no doubt in the scientific community and as we speak the largest council of scientists ever assembled in human history to discuss one topic is examining the effects of global warming and if we can potentially save our planet. Please please please dont buy into this. I am coniserding a lengthly post on this but it will take a few days Ill let you know.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Zach on
-
Your ignorance amazes me, sorry if I come off as an A-hole, but people like you are the reason that the world is collapsing. Politicians have been arguing against global warming for the past 30 years, it was only recently that they came around to say that yeah its a problem. And no the earth isn't cooling, we had been experiencing an effect called Global Dimming for the past 20 years caused by various volcanic eruptions and a decrease in solar activity which only masked the effects of global warming. If natural occurrences in the last 100 years are the reason for climate change, right now we should be be going through a global cooling, when in actuality we have risen almost .8 degrees (an outrageous amount). And as for CO2 not causing global warming, do some research and you will see it is one of the most detrimental GHG's we have regardless of if its in the plant life cycle. Do you understand how green house gases work? Please do some research before you disillusion people into thinking you actually have any idea of what you are talking about. Do you know what carbon sinks are? the effects of CO2 dissolving into the ocean? What will happen when CO2 currently frozen in the tundra that is almost 3 times the amount of that stored in global forests is released? The effects of solar radiation when the ice caps melt?
Stop telling others to do research and do some yourself. -
-
Permalink Reply by Zach on
-
Only 4% of recent warming is due to solar activity 96% has been man made- results from the IPCC 2007 meeting, the international group of scientists that I mentioned earlier they also found that there is a 100% chance that the climate is changing and that it is due to mankind. This is not a government run panel and it has more than 4,000 top researchers from 130 different countries on it. They meet once every 6 years to access the current state of our climate, new innovations that can be made, and test models of climate variables. The recent solar activity accounts for only 0.12 Watt/meters squared of increased heat. On the other hand GHG's (man produced ones) account for 2.98 w/msquared. So no, its not the Sun causing the extreme climate shift we are experiencing its human activities. Since 1900 (same time as the industrial revolution) earth has warmed by .8 degrees even with natural factors cooling the climate (i.e. decreased solar activity, volcanic eruptions).
And like I said it was only recently that politicians have accepted global warming as recently as 2005 a politician made the statement that "The threat of catastrophic global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated by the American people." Guess who said this infamous line? Sen James Inhofe the Chairmen of the Committee on Environment, the leading eco committee in Washington that sets our environmental guidelines. So yes scientists have had to fight tooth and nail to have their point heard and it only within the last 2 years that the media and politicians have put emphasis on this crisis. In my opinion far to little emphasis I would rather have my taxes doubled and go towards something that i believe in, rather than get a tax break and watch my world turn to shit. How can you put a price on the planet? Its not life that will go extinct, its us. Life will adapt and evolve even if it has to take 2 billion years of evolution back and reverts to extremophile bacteria it will live on, but we wont.
To me it seems that you base all of your views off of zeitgiest, the greatest hoax ever perpatrated, and the obama deception, these movies are proven to use emotional and psychological tricks that convince people of "facts" that they would not normally accept by way of their presentation. If you don't step back and examine how outrageous the claims are you are sucked into it. If this isnt the case for you good I'm glad, otherwise I'd recommend examining what you base all of these "facts" that you know on. Since everything you have said here is wrong to the worst degree. "CO2 can't cause global warming as its crucial to the plant life" is a good example I will make sure to address this in my in depth article, sorry if I took a negative edge with this I understand alot of people are uniformed about this stuff, I guess I just get frustrated. No offense intended I'll leave it at this. -
-
Permalink Reply by Planning4aCrash on
-
The IPCC are a group of politicians, very few of them are even climatologists:
Scientists sign petition denying man-made global warming (9,000 with PHD's) - London Telegraph
In comparison, twelve times fewer - just 52 scientists - participated in the much touted IPCC Summary for Policymakers meeting in April 2007. Climate scientists allied with the IPCC were recently caught citing fake data to make the case that global warming is accelerating.
Less than half of all published scientists endorse what has been dubbed the "consensus view".
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.
“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”
Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.
“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists,” - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.
“The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” - Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico
“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.
“Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.
“After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet.” - Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.
“For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" - Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.
“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” - Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.
“Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.” - Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.
“Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” - Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.
“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” - Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.
“The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.” - Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata. # # -
-
Permalink Reply by Amer Rhys on -
Sideways (alex),
Could you provide me links to some of your reputable sources? Preferably ones that put the debate of global warming above their entertainment factor or hate for the government. -
-
Permalink Reply by watchout on -
Amer Rhys,
Allow me to proved some possible reasons for why the earth is getting warmer. (links provide) I have said in other discussions that I don’t believe it is man’s fault for the earth getting warmer, it is more about government finding ways to control us. It also provides them with the ability to tax us as if we are at fault for these current conditions.
Pole Shift
According to some geologists and scientists, we are in the middle of a deadly 11,500 year cycle when the ice age comes back. The start of the cycle is marked with a Polar reversal, super volcanic activities, massive earthquakes, Tsunamis and nasty hurricanes. 11, 500 years back, the last ice age happened and what we have started experiencing – all happened. In the last one year the earth experienced the largest three earthquakes in the last two hundred years. The under water volcanoes and earthquakes have gone up 88% over the last three years. The continental earthquakes have gone up by 62% during the same time frame. The rate of increase of these earthquakes and volcanoes when drawn against time is staggering.
NASA Claims Polar Shift Due In 2012
Did you notice? In February 2001, the Sun did a magnetic polar shift. The next one is due again in 2012. NASA scientists who monitor the Sun say that our star's awesome magnetic field flipped 22 months ago, signaling the arrival of a solar maximum. But it wasn't so obvious to the average human.
The Sun's magnetic north pole, which was in the northern hemisphere just a few months ago, now points south. It's a topsy-turvy situation, but not an unexpected one. "This always happens around the time of solar maximum," says David Hathaway, a solar physicist at the Marshall Space Flight Center. "The magnetic poles exchange places at the peak of the sunspot cycle. In fact, it's a good indication that Solar Max is really here."
The Sun's magnetic poles will remain as they are now, with the north magnetic pole pointing through the Sun's southern hemisphere, until the year 2012 when they will reverse again. This transition happens, as far as we know, at the peak of every 11-year sunspot cycle -- like clockwork
The North Magnetic Pole is slowly drifting across the Canadian Arctic. The Geological Survey of Canada keeps track of this motion by periodically carrying out magnetic surveys to redetermine the Pole's location. The most recent survey, completed in May, 2001, determined an updated position for the Pole and established that it is moving approximately northwest at 40 km per year. The observed position for 2001and estimated positions for 2002 to 2005 are given in the table.
http://www.geolab.nrcan.gc.ca/geomag/northpole_e.shtml
See other below links.
http://www.huttoncommentaries.com/article.php?category=3&articl...
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/29dec_magneticfield...
http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/q279.html
Like I have said I don’t think man can cause this kind of damage to the earth. I feel until all avenues are explored we should try to do what we can to be a “cleaner” species. That however doesn’t mean I am a believer in man made global warming. -
-
Permalink Reply by Amer Rhys on
-
Watchout,
While i respectfully disagree that we are not causing global warming, striving to become more environmentally friendly should be a goal in either case.
Thank you for the links. I would like to hear your opinion about the video posted below. -
-
Permalink Reply by rightwing on -
Amer Rhys,
That "argument” could also be used in your believe or non believe of anything. Let say for argument sake, God. That is, is it not better to worship him then risk the misfortune of hell. It’s just good “risk management” after all. Is it not better (safer) in heaven? I mean you don’t want your soul to burn in hell do you. Therefore based on this argument of “risk management” you or anyone else who believes in this argument should also believe in God. For if you don’t then you are just as foolish as those who don’t believe in man made global warming.
So what do you think?
Peace. -
Forum
Condemning others to validate ourselves.
Started by Lore in I Power: Self-Development Activism. Last reply by Anthony D 19 hours ago. 1 Reply 0 Likes
The ethical implications of "Temporal Isolation"
Started by Aya in Off-Topic. Last reply by Aya yesterday. 33 Replies 1 Like
Lexical argumentation and its merit
Started by Anthony D in Off-Topic. Last reply by Anthony D on Thursday. 21 Replies 0 Likes
Latest Activity
Anthony D replied to Lore's discussion Condemning others to validate ourselves.Lore's discussion was featuredCondemning others to validate ourselves.
Lore posted a discussionCondemning others to validate ourselves.
Aya replied to Aya's discussion The ethical implications of "Temporal Isolation"
Tyler Jackson replied to Aya's discussion The ethical implications of "Temporal Isolation"
Dave replied to Aya's discussion The ethical implications of "Temporal Isolation"Aya replied to Aya's discussion The ethical implications of "Temporal Isolation"
Anthony D replied to Anthony D's discussion Lexical argumentation and its merit© 2013 Created by Reese Leysen.
