Global Warming Scam Reason #3
Author: Kevin Clarke
Recently when Monday Night Football lit a bunch of candles and told us all to turn off our lights to stop global warming, they go busted. They were broadcasting under 1000s of 3000W bulbs telling us to save the environment with turning off our 60W bulbs.
They could move the game to the afternoon and save alot of energy, but that would mean THEY lose money. The climate isn’t that important apparently. On the other hand the answer could be that it’s all a huge scam and politics of fear.
Glenn Beck then exposed them further as the TV station is owned by General Electric who would stand to make billions of dollars with their worthless “carbon-credits” if global waming laws are passed by liberals.
So they were using their TV station to produce propaganda so they could get rich. Then they tell you that oil companies are evil and they are just trying to save the planet.
Well here is “reason #3″ from an article on the top 10 reasons global warming is not a crisis.
“There is a lot of money in global warming. There have been charges laid against companies like Exxon/Mobil for paying for climate change research, however, there is more money involved in proving the theory than debunking it.
For example, the Union of Concerned Scientists, an organization with a history of left wing positions, accepted over $2 million between 2000 and 2004 to study the effects of climate change and promote renewable energy. Would they continue to get money if they announced that global warming was not man-made? Or are they also influenced by where their bread is buttered?
In 2004, the United States spent nearly $2 billion (Warning: PDF) to support climate change research. Private foundations spend between $35-50 million a year on climate change and related projects. Are we to believe that only scientists who study against anthropogenic global warming are motivated by greed, or is it possible that proponents of AGW have a dog in the money hunt as well?
As Warren Meyer of CoyoteBlog notes in his book “A Skeptics Guide to Anthropogenic Global Warming”:
If AGW theory is proven correct, the likely political response might cut Shell’s revenues by 20-30%, at most. If AGW theory is proven incorrect, then university climate research funding might be cut by 100%. Directionally, all the incentives in academia are to inflate global warming projections. No one is going to make the news, or even continue to get funding, if they argue that warming will only be a degree or two in the next century. The guys that get the fame and the grants are those pushing the numbers higher and higher.”
|
You can comment below or even write your own online article instantly right here. |
7 Responses to “Global Warming Scam Reason #3”
leave your opinion on this subject
Or check out related stickers and shirts in the store.
Global Warming Scam Reason #3
Recently when Monday Night Football lit a bunch of candles and told us all to turn off our lights to stop global warming, they go busted. They were broadcasting under 1000s of 3000W bulbs telling us to save the environment with turning off our 60W bulbs.
Learn how to build your own solar panels! save thousands!
[...]
 Which recent candidate do you believe has a history of working with hispanic voters? |
|
What best describes your view on the Democrat pushed bailouts of companies, banks and in general? |
|
What is the one issue your ideal candidate neds a solution for! |
The way to solve Global warming is to stop Gorebal alarming. If he could invent the internet, he surely was able to invent this new myth!
That sounds all well and good but how would you explain the fact that the polar caps are melting and the proof that the water tables are rising at an alarming rate sounds more to me like one side trying to grab money from the other side somthing that has gone on for far to long and we have all suffered because of a little word called GREED
I have a spiffy computer model that tells me you may contract cancer in the future. Maybe twenty or 100 years from now. Who knows? Forget the measurable fact that you have no symptoms now; my program predicts your demise — your temperature may rise to least 110 and all of your fingers may fall off. And your dog may die with you.
Therefore, the only logical thing to do to avert your pending demise is to administer chemotherapy to you, starting today. You will get terribly sick from this preventative medicine, you’ll suffer serious side-effects, and you could easily die from it. Many doctors have objected to my course of action, advising a more cautious approach, but they are deniers. My intentions are good and my models are flawless, reviewed by my like-minded friends. Who are these doctors to question me?
Take your medicine. It’s for your own good. Trust me.
— Posted by Dr. Agore
A warning or disclaimer should appear with any story promoting “man-made global warming” and it should read something like this:
Anthopomorphic global warming is a theory promoted by scientists (who use climate change to explain environmental changes in order to win funding from part of the multi-billion dollar budget of research grants from foundations, corporations, and the US government), Environmental activists (who have turned climate fears into successful fund-raising tools and a way to control global resource use), and politicians (who get to grandstand green credentials, cement relationships with activists who can support reelection campaigns and higher aspirations, transform $14-billion in alternative energy pork into ethical planetary protection, and promote policies that otherwise would raise serious eyebrows).
“To determine the losers, look in the mirror. Activists and politicians are creating a Frankenstein climate monster on steroids. Were it real, we’d need a wholesale dismantling of our economy and living standards to slay the monster. How else could we eliminate 80–90% of US and EU fossil fuel emissions by 2050, to stabilize carbon dioxide emissions and (theoretically) a climate that has always been anything but stable?
“Think lifestyles circa 1900, or earlier. Ponder the British environment minister’s latest prescription: World War II rationing, no meat or cheese, no airport expansions, no veggies that aren’t grown locally. France wants a new government agency that would single out, police and penalize countries that “abuse the Earth.” Others propose to give Africans little solar panels for their huts, while their kleptocratic rulers get millions of dollars for trading away people’s right to generate electricity and emit CO2.
We should improve energy efficiency, reduce pollution, and develop new energy technologies. But when we demand immediate action to prevent exaggerated or imaginary crises, we stifle debate, railroad through programs that don’t work, and impose horrendous unintended consequences on countless families. That is shortsighted and immoral.” -courtesy of Paul Driessen
I highly recommend his book “Eco-Imperialism: Green Power, Black Death”
It’s time that people, especially our political leaders, take a hard look at the “science” of anthropomorphic global warming (AGW). A bill that was created late last year will create a cap-and-trade system that would limit the amount of greenhouse gases emitted by factories, power plants, and transportation companies in the world’s largest economy,the USA. Bill – S.2191, otherwise known as the “America’s Climate Security Act of 2007,” will be brought before the senate this year. It will require a 70% reduction in greenhouse gases by 2050. This legislation is based on the assumption that human activities-producing things, being a mobile society, owning a home, and simply participating in a modern society-are the primary cause of rising temperatures on the planet’s surface over the past century. Proponents demand that without significant corrective action, those same activities will produce environmental catastrophe within this century. “With the scientific evidence mounting that we are fast approaching a dangerous tipping point beyond which climate change will accelerate rapidly, we really urgently need to move the bill forward,” said Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I., Conn.) the subcommittee chairman and one of the authors of the legislation.
This bill is based on trying to avert projected catastrophes that are the result of simulations from computer models used by the IPCC that produce false and unreliable information. “They are models that are based mostly on assumptions rather than knowledge about critical climate processes: water vapor, feedbacks, clouds, aerosols, ocean currents, and solar variability. Knowledge of these processes would seem to be necessary to understand past climate change, to produce realistic models, and to provide a basis for credible projections into the future,” writes William O’Keefe, CEO of the Marshall Institute. The computer climate models used by the IPCC have been proven to be full of flaws, so much so that they cannot even predict the past, let alone the future.
Climate scientists (Prof. David H. Douglass, Prof. John R. Christy, Benjamin D. Pearson, and Prof. S. Fred Singer) reported in the December 2007 issue of the International Journal of Climatology, published by Britain’s Royal Meteorological Society, that observed temperature changes measured over the last 30 years don’t match well with temperatures predicted by the mathematical climate models relied on by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The global-warming hypothesis is based on climate models that suppose that temperature trends in the troposphere, the lowest part of the atmosphere, should be 2-3 times greater than trends in surface temperatures. “When we look at actual climate data, however, we do not see accelerated warming in the tropical troposphere. Instead, the lower and middle atmospheres are warming the same or less than the surface. For those layers of the atmosphere, the warming trend we see in the tropics is typically less than half of what the models forecast.” The 22 climate models used in this study are the same models used by the UN Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC).
New scientific research (Russell and Toggweiler) has also lead to a “controversial shift in thinking on the impact of global warming on ocean circulation.” Eric Schwartz of the Arizona Daily Star reports that “the scientific community has long believed that as global warming continues and large amounts of freshwater ice melt into the ocean, the ocean’s circulation will slow. This would have a catastrophic impact on the environment as vividly, if somewhat overdramatically, portrayed in the film “The Day After Tomorrow.” But a paper published last week in Nature magazine, the result of several studies of past and possible future weather, says that in fact the very opposite is true and ocean circulation will become stronger as the icecaps melt. ”
Going counter to claims made by Al Gore and others that hurricanes will increase with global warming, a new study published recently in the journal Geophysical Research Letters by Miami-based scientists Chunzai Wang and Sang-Ki Lee
concludes that the warming of the world’s oceans due to global climate change may actually decrease the number of hurricanes that make landfall in the United States.
Also, a recent scientific paper written by Dr. Wei-Hock Soon, Dr. Arthur B. Robinson and Dr. Noah E Robinson, which is entitled “Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide,” exposes the many weaknesses behind the “Man-made Global Warming Theory” which we are all told by Al Gore and others is settled and accepted science.
David Roach reports that at a “Stewardship of the Earth” luncheon Jan. 31, 2008 during the New Baptist Covenant Celebration in Atlanta, Al Gore proclaimed that “protecting the earth from global warming is a mandatory part of following Jesus.” Gore cited Luke 12:54-57 for scriptural support and argued that it is dishonest for anyone to claim that global warming is merely a theory rather than a scientific fact. “The evidence is there,” Gore said. “The signal is on the mountain. The trumpet has blown. The scientists are screaming from the rooftops. The ice is melting. The land is parched. The seas are rising. The storms are getting stronger. Why do we not judge what is right?” While introducing Gore, Robert Parham, executive director of the Baptist Center for Ethics, called the former Democratic presidential nominee a “Baptist prophet” and appeared to criticize the Southern Baptist Convention for its failure to commend Gore for his achievements. He also presented Gore with a “Baptist of the Year Award.” AGW truly has become a religion. If you are not a believer, then you are apparently damning the world to a “global warming inferno.”
In an open letter the UN Secretary General dated December 13, 2007 and signed by 100 scientists, they state “It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages.. Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity’s real and pressing problems.” Paleoclimate scientist Bob Carter, who has testified before the Senate Environment & Public Works committee, explained how much money has been spent researching and promoting man-made global warming fears and so-called solutions. “In one of the more expensive ironies of history, the expenditure of more than $US50 billion on research into global warming since 1990 has failed to demonstrate any human-caused climate trend, let alone a dangerous one,” Carter wrote on June 18, 2007.
Does it seem reasonable or rational that our government should be setting forth mandates that would put a death grip on our economy and way of life based on a flawed hypothesis? Kenneth P. Green, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, recently wrote an article entitled “How Not to Address Climate Change.” Green states, “Common sense should tell us that good policies produce more in benefits than they cost us. Unfortunately, common sense has left the building when it comes to climate policy.” Green says that, “cap-and-trade schemes are fundamentally flawed, and particularly ill-suited to greenhouse gas control.” This is assuming that any real reductions could ever be achieved without returning human society to the stone age. The Act (Bill – S.2191) would require U.S. per capita emissions to fall by a total of 13.8 percent over the 2000-2012 period, plus an additional 20.2 percent from 2012 to 2020, and a further 27.6 percent from 2020 to 2030. This adds up to “about 25 to 35 times greater” than all of the emissions from 1990 to 2000. This represents a “regulatory drag on economic growth.” “When the economy grows, energy demand rises, which means the demand for the limited number of carbon permits would rise, strangling growth in its cradle,” Green explains. He reports that “economist Anne Smith testified to Congress that her state-of-the-art economic modeling estimates that Warner-Lieberman (Bill – S.2191) would cause net reduction in 2015 GDP of 1.0% to 1.6% relative to the GDP that would otherwise occur. That loss rises to the range of 2% to 2.5% after 2015. Smith found that the annual loss in GDP would increase to the range of $800 billion to $1 trillion. By 2020, Smith estimates losses of 1.5 to 3.4 million jobs-and that is net jobs, after adjusting for the new “green” jobs that might be created by the bill.” Green also notes that such schemes provide “incentives to cheat.” and would generate “a perpetual group of rent-seekers – those raking in profits in new carbon trading” that would want more and more restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions. “Its benefits are non-existent,” said Green. So basically this cap and trade scheme is a market based on a hypothetical which will involve any use of energy. As if the current economic nose-dive that we are facing isn’t enough, now the bureaucrats want to pass this bill which will raise the costs of energy, goods, and services. Basically everything in our daily life will increase. As Alan Caruba points out, “This bill is making its way through the Senate. It is not unlike the December “energy” bill that, among other things, bans the purchase and presumably the manufacture of Thomas Edison’s incandescent light bulb starting in 2012. Its ethanol mandates have driven up the cost of corn around the world and has already led Brazilian ranchers and farmers to destroy a huge section the size of Rhode Island of that nation’s rainforest for more grazing and growing acreage.”
Wise words were spoken in a lecture delivered on the Hillsdale College campus (Michigan) on June 30, 2007, when Professor S. Fred Singer said the following: “because of the mistaken idea that governments can and must do something about climate, pressures are building that have the potential of distorting energy policies in a way that will severely damage national economies, decrease standards of living, and increase poverty. This misdirection of resources will adversely affect human health and welfare in industrialized nations, and even more in developing nations. Thus it could well lead to increased social tensions within nations and conflict between them.. We can only trust that sound science and good sense will prevail in the face of irrational and scientifically baseless climate fears.”
“That sounds all well and good but how would you explain the fact that the polar caps are melting and the proof that the water tables are rising at an alarming rate”
theres actually been news lately that the global ice-caps are re-freezing, i don’t have anything to refrence that, but its something you might want to research a bit, also the waters rising i have a hard time believing, i live on the cost, i’ve been going to the same beach for the past 15 years, if so much is really going to be under water in like 10 years that they say, why are the beaches i’ve been going to still there? there are shops right by the beach, why aren’t those under water? the beach has been exactly the same for the past 15 years, and global warming was an idea that came about like 20 years ago, if they were able to find “proof” of it 20 years ago, shouldn’t we be seeing some of the changes, especially with everyone saying “soon! the end is near!” and what ever nonsense.. the only “proof” i’ve seen of us losing land to the ocean, are the pictures of the islands, and their not dissapearing because of the ocean rising, their being desolved (for lack of a better word) by the constant tide.
there might be a global climent change, but the fact that people are so pompous as to think that its humans that could cause it, people forget how insanely powerful the earth is, we don’t have the ability to “ruin” the world, if there is a climent change happening, theres a really good chance its something not caused by people, you know… there weren’t any cars or anything before the ice-age, to think that couldn’t happen again,
i’d take global warming serious if it wasn’t the rich and famous tell all the people who are already struggling to pay their bills to pay more for gas and energy for “the greater good”, they don’t know what its like being broke, eating one meal a day, putting off stuff like getting stuff fixed or even going to a doctor because they don’t have the money, they don’t know what its like to work two jobs just to be broke and have all your money cleaned out at the pumps just to get to a job you hate, if they care so much about the evirment and people, they’d give up their bloody riches and actually do something rather then spending all day playing guilt trips on everyone
Read the research paper called: Environmental Effects of Increased Carbon Dioxide by Arthur B. Robinson, Noah E. Robinson, and Willie Soon from the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, 225 Dick George Road, Cave Junction, Oregon 97523
This paper is the best I have seen it is loaded with facts not hypothoses such as the Al Gore so called sceintists put out. If someone out there is a lawyer I think it is time to file a class action against the networks, Al Gore and memebers of the House and Senate who are trying to put a needless hardship on the American People. There are 17,000 scientists who have signed a petition against the belief of man made global warming and CO2 greenhouse effects. Somebody needs to get this stopped before the middle class is driven into bankruptsy by the Al Gores of America.