Showing posts with label Global warming. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Global warming. Show all posts

Friday, March 14, 2014

Lord Christopher Monckton ends the Global Warming Debate

Mean surface temperature change for 1999–2008 ...
Mean surface temperature change for 1999–2008 relative to the average temperatures from 1940 to 1980 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)



Lord Christopher Monckton is a hotly requested speaker in climate change and global warming debates. This is a presentation he gave to an audience in California where the government wanted to introduce climate change legislation.

Lord Christopher Monckton can almost be considered a neutral observer in the climate change and global warming debate. He takes a middle ground and says he does believe in global warming, but when you evaluate the statistics correctly, the impact on the environment is so tiny that the entire global warming fiasco is effectively a dupe.

This powerful presentation covers most of the general arguments used by global warming propagandists, and demonstrates the deceptive tactics and outright fraud that they use to steer public opinion on this matter with their fake graphs. Furthermore, he covers the topic from an economic view, and points out that the climate change hoax is nothing more than another tax grab from greedy politicians.

In fact, Lord Christopher Monckton even using the climate change scientists own figures to do some simple math, and shows that with their proposed tax schemes to stop global warming; $450 billion dollars will only reduce the effect of global warming by 1/1000th of a degree Fahrenheit. It is disgraceful and without doubt, maybe the greatest hoax of our lifetime.




Originally broadcasted March 8, 2007 on British Channel 4.

A documentary, by British television producer Martin Durkin, which argues against the virtually unchallenged consensus that global warming is man-made. A statement from the makers of this film asserts that the scientific theory of anthropogenic global warming could very well be "the biggest scam of modern times."

Our Notes:

We think it's funny that the local Gloucester paper considers Global Climate change an unquestionable reality and has offered no other views.  Are their reporters that shallow that they are unable to view all sides of the issue?  Or do they support a hidden agenda?  

  You have to ask, if those who bow to the Climate change religion do not think that their goddess, Mother Nature, is no longer up to the challenge of maintaining Earth's balance, then maybe she should be fired and a new god brought in who is up the the challenge of maintaining the Earth's balance in today's modern world and will take us into the future as well.  On the one hand, that might sound crazy, but on the other hand, so does the so called science behind global climate change and how man is destroying the world.  Those folks need a new god.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Thursday, March 13, 2014

Climate Science Debate : Global Warming Alarmist VS. Global War




A balanced respectful climate science debate at last.

July 7, 2011: Scott Denning, PhD, Professor of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University (supporting the dangerous anthropogenic global warming hypothesis) VS. Roy Spencer, PhD, Principal Research Scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville (opposing the hypothesis).


Our Notes:

This is the perfect suckers game.  There is no way anyone can ever win this debate and everyone who has spent any amount of time on this knows that this is the case.  It's very simple and let us show you the tricks of why no one can ever win.

One:  The more people on the planet, the more pollution.  Simple.  How can anyone argue that?  

Two:  Industrialization is a very heavy contributor to pollution.  Simple.  Of course it is.  

Three:  The earth is more polluted than ever.  Undeniable.  

One man and no one else on the Earth will cause these issues.  Are we to get rid of all humans off the face of the Earth?  Then the animals will become responsible for all the pollution on the Earth.  Who is going to clean up after the animals?   What about their carbon emissions?  Oh wait, maybe there is the answer?  Let's get rid of all the other animals on the planet first and see how that works out for us all.  If that does not do anything, then maybe we should just nuke ourselves off the face of the Earth.  Wait, that will cause more pollution.

  Well we can't all just kill ourselves.  That would be more pollution.  Since when has the Earth become a globe that no longer is self cleaning?  The holy grail of antiquity and the major source of all life is water.  We have never had a replenishment come from another world.  Man has polluted water since the beginning of time.  We still drink that water as the Earth has filtered it for us into a non polluted form.  So it is in all other areas of life.  Air has been polluted since the beginning of time.  Anyone ever see smog from Ancient Rome float on by?  

Why it will not go away.  It now pulls in a great deal of money.  Since so many people are willing to pour untold amounts of money into such foolish concepts, it will not go away.  It's the golden cow effect.  Worship the golden cow.  Anyone can pick any area to argue this suckers game and more than likely be correct to some degree.  It's all so illuminating.


Enhanced by Zemanta

Monday, January 20, 2014

Europe Goes Orange And Scraps Green Initiatives

Europe is going orange and scrapping green initiatives.  We said it before and we will say it again, none of it ever made any sense unless of course you are purposely trying to raise costs.

  See the link below for the entire story.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/european-commission-move-away-from-climate-protection-goals-a-943664.html

  There is no possible way that we can create substantial damage to the climate based on burning fuels.  Now we can make local air difficult to breathe while burning toxins, but complete climate change?  A volcano does more in one eruption to the overall climate than every person on the planet can do in 100 years of modern living.  So exactly how are we contributing to climate change?  We are not.  We are being sold a bill that causes the prices of everything to constantly go up from what we see.  The real climate change that industry is probably guilty of?  Water pollution.  That is where our biggest issues are.  And who gets to foot the bill for the cleanup?  That's right, you do.  They create the pollution but you are to blame and therefore it's your expense to have to pay for the cleanup of the mess they make.

  Ya gotta love how these plans are put into place.
Enhanced by Zemanta