The mammoth global warming scam Options

[Timothy Osman]

On the topic of eugenics then so am I.

But then trying to compare the eugenics movement with climate change science is like comparing apples to tomatoes (both being a fruit but one of which is often used as a vegetable)- not very helpful and indicates an attempt at obfuscation.

I don't think Crichton is actually comparing eugenics with climate change, though my little remark pushes the boundary. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/whistle.gif) What he is saying is to be cautious, look to the past abuses of scientific theory to push an agenda. This is what we should be doing in this instance simply because they have stated over and over that the debate is over. When is a scientific debate ever over?

[Omega892R09]

I don't think Crichton is actually comparing eugenics with climate change, though my little remark pushes the boundary. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/whistle.gif) What he is saying is to be cautious, look to the past abuses of scientific theory to push an agenda.

Yes. I did get that but as I indicated it is a bad comparison.

This is what we should be doing in this instance simply because they have stated over and over that the debate is over. When is a scientific debate ever over?

When we have seen the face of God. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/laughing1.gif)

[Quest]

The following article should shed some light on those who are pushing "global warming".....

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march...308_b_banks.htm

World's Most Powerful Banks Behind Push To Introduce Global Carbon Trading Markets

Daryl Mason
Your New Reality
Thursday, March 13, 2008

Contrary to popular belief, Al Gore did not invent the theory of man-made climate change. Does this sound like him?

As for the climate of the future: science has done an about-face from its once-prevailing view that the earth was gradually cooling off and would wind up icy and barren ... Now, evidence points unmistakably to a climate that's getting warming all the time. Besides glacial melting all over the earth, actual temperature rises have been recorded over the past century in cities throughout the northern hemisphere, and various warm-weather fish have been noted in recent years migrating far north of their usual habitats.
The newest theory of climatic change attributes it to man's own doing. It's because of the sizable increase in carbon dioxide found in the atmosphere these days, due to industrial activities and forest fires. Millions of tons of CO2 are being sent into the air constantly from these causes.

An increase of 50 per cent in the carbon dioxide concentration of the earth's atmosphere could happen in the next century, which could easily happen at the present rate it's being discharged, could raise the surface temperature of the globe about 2.2 degrees centigrade. Eventually this CO2 factor could make an extreme change in climate everywhere.

According to the always awesome iO9 blog, the above appeared in a popular American magazine called Pageant in February, 1955.

It should come as a surprise to absolutely no-one that many of the world's richest and most powerful banks are pushing hard for the introduction of a 'no caps' world trading market for carbon :

A group representing some of the world’s leading banks will urge the United States and other industrial nations this week to move quickly to introduce a lightly regulated system for trading carbon emissions permits.

Permit-trading systems offer banks a potentially vast new business. For it to grow, leading economies — particularly the United States — will need to set limits on the quantities of greenhouse gases that can be released and to allow companies in other parts of the world to buy emissions permits.

The banking companies, which include Citigroup, Lehman Brothers Holdings and Morgan Stanley, are giving strong signs that Wall Street wants Washington to open the way to reduced emissions using a trading system based on the Kyoto Protocol, an agreement the United States did not ratify, rather than by enacting carbon taxes.

The group also includes European institutions like BNP Paribas, Barclays Capital and Deutsche Bank, as well as niche investment banks like Climate Change Capital and the law firms of Baker & McKenzie and DLA Piper.

“Price caps should play a very limited role in the system,” said Gia Schneider, a vice president for carbon markets at Credit Suisse, which is a member of the lobbying group. “Such policies could lead to market distortions and stymie efforts to raise enough capital to fund new energy technologies such as windmills and solar power.”

Carbon traders say emissions permits could become the world’s largest commodities market...
The introduction of a global carbon trading market will mark the introduction of a world tax can reach into the pockets of, literally, every human on the planet.

[Quest]

Can you say, "smoking gun"?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/26/business...amp;oref=slogin

The New York Times

September 26, 2007
Banks Urging U.S. to Adopt the Trading of Emissions
By JAMES KANTER
PARIS, Sept. 25 — A group representing some of the world’s leading banks will urge the United States and other industrial nations this week to move quickly to introduce a lightly regulated system for trading carbon emissions permits.

Permit-trading systems offer banks a potentially vast new business. For it to grow, leading economies — particularly the United States — will need to set limits on the quantities of greenhouse gases that can be released and to allow companies in other parts of the world to buy emissions permits.

“Where politicians opt to implement carbon constraints, then it should be cap-and-trade,” said Imtiaz Ahmad, head of emissions trading at Morgan Stanley in London and vice president of a lobbying group called International Carbon Investors and Services, which is being created to represent the banks.

The banking companies, which include Citigroup, Lehman Brothers Holdings and Morgan Stanley, are giving strong signs that Wall Street wants Washington to open the way to reduced emissions using a trading system based on the Kyoto Protocol, an agreement the United States did not ratify, rather than by enacting carbon taxes.

The group also includes European institutions like BNP Paribas, Barclays Capital and Deutsche Bank, as well as niche investment banks like Climate Change Capital and the law firms of Baker & McKenzie and DLA Piper.

A Kyoto-style trading system already operates in the European Union, where governments limit the polluting emissions that industries are allowed and require purchases of permits for any excess. But the European system had a rocky start. Overallocation led to volatility and a collapse in the price of permits last year.

Even though analysts say the European overallocation problem has largely been corrected, the banks are pushing for the European Union to auction permits to ensure that they are scarcer and costlier. The banks want any comparable American system to establish a maximum price for carbon permits.

“Price caps should play a very limited role in the system,” said Gia Schneider, a vice president for carbon markets at Credit Suisse, which is a member of the lobbying group. “Such policies could lead to market distortions and stymie efforts to raise enough capital to fund new energy technologies such as windmills and solar power.”

The idea of price caps has been floated by Senator Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico, chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, who has suggested a so-called safety valve provision to prevent the price of carbon trading from rising too high.

Carbon traders say emissions permits could become the world’s largest commodities market if developed economies agree to take part in second-phase Kyoto negotiations, to be held in Bali, Indonesia, in December.

[Timothy Osman]

No Quest, they're not satisfied with trading it .

We're All Gonna Die

“Most scientific and policy discussions about avoiding climate change have centered on what emissions would be needed to stabilize greenhouse gases in the atmosphere,” says Caldeira. “But stabilizing greenhouse gases does not equate to a stable climate. We studied what emissions would be needed to stabilize climate in the foreseeable future.”



The scientists investigated how much climate changes as a result of each individual emission of carbon dioxide, and found that each increment of emission leads to another increment of warming. So, if we want to avoid additional warming, we need to avoid additional emissions.



With emissions set to zero in the simulations, the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere slowly fell as carbon “sinks” such as the oceans and land vegetation absorbed the gas. Surprisingly, however, the model predicted that global temperatures would remain high for at least 500 years after carbon dioxide emissions ceased.



Just as an iron skillet will stay hot and keep cooking after the stove burner’s turned off, heat held in the oceans will keep the climate warm even as the heating effect of greenhouse gases diminishes. Adding more greenhouse gases, even at a rate lower than today, would worsen the situation and the effects would persist for centuries.



"What if we were to discover tomorrow that a climate catastrophe was imminent if our planet warmed any further? To reduce emissions enough to avoid this catastrophe, we would have to cut them close to zero — and right away," says Caldeira.



Global carbon dioxide emissions and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations are both growing at record rates. Even if we could freeze emissions at today’s levels, atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations would continue to increase. If we could stabilize atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations, which would require deep cuts in emissions, the Earth would continue heating up. Matthews and Caldeira found that to prevent the Earth from heating further, carbon dioxide emissions would, effectively, need to be eliminated.



While eliminating carbon dioxide emissions may seem like a radical idea, Caldeira sees it as a feasible goal. “It is just not that hard to solve the technological challenges,” he says. “We can develop and deploy wind turbines, electric cars, and so on, and live well without damaging the environment. The future can be better than the present, but we have to take steps to start kicking the CO2 habit now, so we won't need to go cold turkey later.”

http://www.ciw.edu/news/stabilizing_climat...arbon_emissions

Unless we stop emitting any form of carbon dioxide we're just roasting in the iron skillet of denial and doom.
Since this is mission impossible I say fuckit, lets riot and start hitting and pinching everything that draws breath until it's dead. Then we have to dispose of these carcases before release any poison Co2, which means we have to dig holes with our bare hands while naked and holding our breath and other bodily functions until we to are dead and finally all Co2 emissions are eliminated, at least from our perspective.

[Timothy Osman]

When we have seen the face of God.

That's not a bad answer really.

I have to post this video, I know you don't agree with the premise that the science is totally wrong, and you're probably right. What this bloke says about a coincidence of powerful interests exploiting what would otherwise be a pretty mundane theory that would have been either abandoned or adapted with new data. This little theory now has a singular stand alone life beyond the reach of any new data that would have otherwise let it evolve.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7c8_1205244863

[lunk]

The only actual indisputable fact, I thought, that proves
carbon dioxide is a green house gas, is based on its' absorption spectrum.

Then I found this:

http://www.nov55.com/ntyg.html

CO2 "sinks," (as a way of storing carbon?)
No,
CO2 sinks (because it's one-and-a-half times heavier than air!)

Carbon dioxide is not a green house gas,
it's plant food.

It might be an indicator of PAST ocean temperatures
and gaseous volcanic eruptions and maybe even massive forest fires.

imo, lunk

EDIT ADDED
Does this mean that we are due for another ice age?

http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archiv...-sediments.html

" Despite the current relatively warm climate on Earth, regular recurring epochs of glaciation have dominated the planet for the past million years. Ten times, glaciers have advanced and then retreated with the duration of retreat (and corresponding warmth) frequently lasting not more than 10,000 years. The Earth has been in a warm period for about 10,000 years now."

Trying to keep on tropic, lunk

This post has been edited by lunk: Mar 14 2008, 02:23 AM

[Quest]

Weather Channel Founder Wants To Sue Al Gore For Global Warming Fraud
Coleman says man-made climate change advocates would lose landmark court case

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march...rming_fraud.htm

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Friday, March 14, 2008


A landmark court case that would destroy the so-called "consensus" behind man-made global warming could be in the works after Weather Channel founder John Coleman expressed his intention to sue Al Gore for fraud.

Companies that sell "carbon credits" on the basis that they offset carbon emissions could also be in the firing line as Coleman stated his conviction that man-made advocates would lose the case if a fair debate, something that the establishment is loathe to allow, was allowed to take place.

"Since we can't get a debate, I thought perhaps if we had a legal challenge and went into a court of law, where it was our scientists and their scientists, and all the legal proceedings with the discovery and all their documents from both sides and scientific testimony from both sides, we could finally get a good solid debate on the issue," Coleman said. "I'm confident that the advocates of 'no significant effect from carbon dioxide' would win the case."

Coleman said that any degree of warming that has taken place over the last 25 years is beginning to be offset by a recent cooling trend. China, the largest emitter of carbon dioxide, has just experienced its coldest winter for 100 years.

"I think if we continue the cooling trend a couple of more years, the general public will at last begin to realize that they've been scammed on this global-warming thing," said Coleman.

Coleman questioned whether carbon dioxide caused temperature increase, a point borne out by ice core samples that show increases in carbon dioxide in the environment are a result and not a cause of higher temperatures, lagging behind by as much as 800 years.

"Does carbon dioxide cause a warming of the atmosphere? The proponents of global warming pin their whole piece on that," he said.

"The compound carbon dioxide makes up only 38 out of every 100,000 particles in the atmosphere."

"That's about twice as what there were in the atmosphere in the time we started burning fossil fuels, so it's gone up, but it's still a tiny compound," Coleman said. "So how can that tiny trace compound have such a significant effect on temperature?

"My position is it can't," he continued. "It doesn't, and the whole case for global warming is based on a fallacy."

Coleman's call for a court case to take on the global warming orthodox comes in the same week that the Carnegie Institute urged the need to reduce carbon emissions to zero within decades, a move that would devastate the third world and likely end human civilization as we know it, returning man back to the stone age.

[Omega892R09]

Coleman said that any degree of warming that has taken place over the last 25 years is beginning to be offset by a recent cooling trend. China, the largest emitter of carbon dioxide, has just experienced its coldest winter for 100 years.

"I think if we continue the cooling trend a couple of more years, the general public will at last begin to realize that they've been scammed on this global-warming thing," said Coleman.

Please note.

Climate change rather than global warming - implies some places could get cooler.

The warming trends in atlantic waters and also the high number of years in the last 10 that have seen higher than average temperatures in many areas including Europe. Despite slight increase in rainfall (associated with a big increase in flooding mostly down to land use change and poor infrastructure provision) in the UK last summer that year was the warmest on record here.

The rising temperature is proven by the melting of polar ice and of the ice on the Andes and Himalayas and the migration or extinction of climate sensitive species. Read the books cited previously.

I consider the idea of trading carbon offsets a very bad idea (probably basis for one of Gore's motives) as is the idea of promoting the growth of bio-fuels (probably another Gore family benefactor) - unless these latter are grown in areas otherwise of little use to agriculture, i.e. either crop growing or grazing.

Also remember that other changes in the complex system that is the earth ecosystem can bring on cooling or mask a warming trend. Sulphate particulates and other volcanic ejecta can cause this. Hence the brake on warming in the early-mid 1990's.

This post has been edited by Omega892R09: Mar 14 2008, 11:43 AM

[Quest]

Please note.

Climate change rather than global warming - implies some places could get cooler.

The warming trends in atlantic waters and also the high number of years in the last 10 that have seen higher than average temperatures in many areas including Europe. Despite slight increase in rainfall (associated with a big increase in flooding mostly down to land use change and poor infrastructure provision) in the UK last summer that year was the warmest on record here.

The rising temperature is proven by the melting of polar ice and of the ice on the Andes and Himalayas and the migration or extinction of climate sensitive species. Read the books cited previously.

I consider the idea of trading carbon offsets a very bad idea (probably basis for one of Gore's motives) as is the idea of promoting the growth of bio-fuels (probably another Gore family benefactor) - unless these latter are grown in areas otherwise of little use to agriculture, i.e. either crop growing or grazing.

Also remember that other changes in the complex system that is the earth ecosystem can bring on cooling or mask a warming trend. Sulphate particulates and other volcanic ejecta can cause this. Hence the brake on warming in the early-mid 1990's.

Also important to remember that the biggest determining factor of the earth's temperature is the sun which we have no control of whatsoever. This is my biggest fear; that unfounded claims of global warming - something that has occurred naturally for THOUSANDS of years, like unfounded claims of "terror", and the phoney "war on drugs", will be used to control the masses and literally tax us to death.

This post has been edited by Quest: Mar 14 2008, 11:52 AM

[painter]

Also important to remember that the biggest determining factor of the earth's temperature is the sun which we have no control of whatsoever. <s>

I'm going to posit a different hypothesis: That the biggest (in any case, nearest) determining factor of the earth's temperature is ITS CORE -- and more specifically ITS ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELD. There is ample evidence that the magnetic poles have flipped numerous times in earth history and some evidence that the poles, i.e., rotational axis, has also changed, sometimes cataclysmically. My understanding is that the rotational axis of the core is at odds with that of the crust by several degrees and that in between the relatively 'egg shell' thin crust lies the hot, relatively molten, mantle with currents and varying degrees of density. The crust and mantle rotate in alignment but as we descend toward the core, that alignment is off. All this not to mention the 'wobble' in earth's axis which produces the 'seasons' relative to the plane of the ecliptic. If the hypothesis is correct, all these factors, including changes to atmospheric composition, have to be considered.

[Omega892R09]

Also important to remember that the biggest determining factor of the earth's temperature is the sun which we have no control of whatsoever. This is my biggest fear; that unfounded claims of global warming - something that has occurred naturally for THOUSANDS of years, like unfounded claims of "terror", and the phoney "war on drugs", will be used to control the masses and literally tax us to death.

From:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/

Myth 2 - Solar activity is the main driver of climate change
There are many factors which may contribute to climate change. For example, over the last million years most of the long-term changes in climate were probably due to small but well understood changes in the Earth's orbit around the Sun. Over much of the last 1,000 years most of the variability can probably be explained by cooling due to major volcanic eruptions and changes in solar heating.

However, the situation in the 20th century is more complicated. There is some evidence that increases in solar heating may have led to some warming early in the 20th century, but direct satellite measurements show no appreciable change in solar heating over the last three decades. Three major volcanic eruptions in 1963, 1982 and 1991 have led to short periods of cooling. Throughout the century, CO2 increased steadily and has been shown to be responsible for most of the warming in the second half of the century.

The final piece of the jigsaw is that as well as producing CO2, burning fossil fuels also produces small particles called aerosols which cool the climate by reflecting sunlight back into space. These have increased steadily in concentration over the 20th century, which has probably offset some of the warming we have seen. Only when all of these factors are included do we get a satisfactory explanation of the magnitude and patterns of climate change over the last century.

The bottom line is that changes in solar activity do affect global temperatures. However, what research also shows is that increased greenhouse gas concentrations have a much greater effect than changes in the Sun’s energy over the last 50 years.

Many contrarian's mentioned with glee the fact that satellite data from the 1980s demonstrated an increase in temperature from solar activity. This was true but then it was realised that the instumentation was not differentiating altitudes of data collection. When this was realised and allowed for the increase vanished. This is a matter mentioned by Corefield in his 'Architects of Eternity' cited earlier.

To be sure we should avoid being manipulated by those driven by greed, however this debate has become rather like the 9/11 scenario with agenda drivers pusing out dissinformation so as to enable those agendas.

[Quest]

To be sure we should avoid being manipulated by those driven by greed, however this debate has become rather like the 9/11 scenario with agenda drivers pusing out dissinformation so as to enable those agendas.

Not sure I understand this statement. Can you please explain?

[Omega892R09]

There is ample evidence that the magnetic poles have flipped numerous times in earth history...

Indeed and evidence lies all along either side of the fissure that is at the mid-Atlantic ridge.

My understanding is that we are overdue for a flip and the behaviour of what we understand as magnetic deviation, or declination, which varies over time and can drift from more west to more east and back again could be an indicator.

Those who have walked any distance, or done orienteering, relying on map and compass will know about declination and how to consult the map for its date of publication and allow for any magnetic variation in the interim.

The strength behind this deviation is on the decline, I believe (not sure where I got that from though) which could be the harbinger of a flip of the poles.

A change in magnetic field could have an impact on how the solar wind interacts with the atmosphere and an effect on the amount of solar radiation reaching paricular places on earth.

But then what is the mechanism behind the magnetic field in the first place? The currents in masses of iron rich molten material. A switch in magnetic field may well mark a change in the way that plate techtonics are proceeding, with a shift in the pattern. This in turn could bring on a geologicaly unstable period with more quakes and volcanic activity. Indeed an increase in periodicity of these events could be another harbinger of a swap of magnetic poles.

Just some thoughts.

[painter]

<s>
Just some thoughts.

Yes, and they match up with things I've been pondering as well.

[Quest]

Another thing to consider is those pushing "peak-oil" and "global warming" are 2 sides of the same coin. They are playing both sides of the fence and stand to profit from both scenarios whether fiction or not. Please check out the NYT article I posted earlier and see who is pushing carbon-credits. These are the same people that brought us 911, the phoney "war on drugs" and phoney "war on terror".

This post has been edited by Quest: Mar 14 2008, 12:42 PM

[Omega892R09]

Another thing to consider is those pushing "peak-oil" and "global warming" are 2 sides of the same coin. They are playing both sides of the fence and stand to profit from both scenarios whether fiction or not. Please check out the NYT article I posted earlier and see who is pushing carbon-credits. These are the same people that brought us 911, the phoney "war on drugs" and phoney "war on terror".

I am not disputing that Quest only that 10 years ago those same people were paying people to skew the science or bury reports that indicated there was an anthropogenic signature in current climate change trends. Check out Fred Singer and who was pushing his buttons for one.

[Quest]

I am not disputing that Quest only that 10 years ago those same people were paying people to skew the science or bury reports that indicated there was an anthropogenic signature in current climate change trends. Check out Fred Singer and who was pushing his buttons for one.

Gotcha. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[Omega892R09]

Gotcha. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

How? (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/dunno.gif)

[Quest]

Gotcha. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

\
Sorry, I mean I agee. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/thumbsup.gif)