Skip to main content

cartoonThose of us who have chronicled the global warming hoax, now called “climate change”, know that it is based on decades of lies about carbon dioxide and other “greenhouse gas” with predictions that the Earth will heat up and cause massive problems unless those emissions are drastically reduced by not using coal, oil and natural gas.

Two American think tanks, The Heartland Institute and the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) have been among those exposing those lies for years. The lies have been generated and led by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

“Despite the panel’s insistence that the Earth is getting hotter, five different datasets show that there have been no observable warming for 17 and a half years even as carbon dioxide levels have risen 12%,” notes Christopher Monckton, a science advisor to Britain’s former Prime Minister Thatcher. “The discrepancy between prediction and observation continues to grow.”

Recently, two Chinese assistant professors of economics, Fuhai Hong and Xiaojian Zhao, were published in the American Journal of Agricultural Economics. Their paper, “Information Manipulation and Climate Agreements”, openly advocated lying about global warming/climate change in order to get nations to sign on to the International Environmental Agreement.

“It appears that news media and some pro-environmental organizations,” they noted, “have the tendency to accentuate or even exaggerate the damage caused by climate change. This article provides a rationale for this tendency.”

Craig Rucker, CFACT’s Executive Director, responded to the Chinese authors saying “They’re shameless.” Theirs and others ends-justify-the-means tactics reflects the attitudes and actions of environmental organizations and serves as a warning to never accept anything they say on any aspect of this huge hoax.

CFACT’s President and co-founder, David Rothbard, noted that “Global warming skeptics have long charged that alarmists are over-hyping the dangers of climate change.” How long? Back in 1989, the late Stanford University professor, Stephen Schneider, said, “So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ which we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance between being effective and being honest.”

There is no “right balance” between telling lies and telling the truth when it comes to science or any other aspect of our lives. Suffice to say that thousands of scientists who participated in the IPCC reports over the years supported the lies, but many have since left and some have openly denounced the reports.

As the latest IPCC summary of its report has garnered the usual verbatim media coverage of its outlandish predictions, The Heartland Institute has released its own 1,062 page report from the “Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) called “Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts. An 18-page summery is available at http://climatechangereconsidered.org.

Among its findings:

# Atmospheric carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.

# There is little or no risk of increasing food insecurity due to global warming or rising atmospheric CO2 levels.

# Rising temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels do not pose a significant threat to aquatic life.

# A modest warming of the planet will result in a net reduction of human mortality from temperature-related events.

Based on hundreds of peer-reviewed studies, the NIPCC report is free of the lies that are found in the IPCC report whose studies have been, at best, dubious, and at worst, deliberately deceptive.

In light of the natural cooling cycle the Earth has been in that is good news and it will be even better news when the planet emerges from the cycle that reflects the lower levels of radiation from the Sun.

On March 31, CNS News reported that “The United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s latest report estimates it will cost developed nations an additional $100 billion each year to help poorer nations adapt to the devastating effects of ‘unequivocal’ global warming, including food shortages, infrastructure breakdown, and civil violence. But that figure was deleted from the report’s executive summary after industrial nations, including the United States, objected to the high price tag.”

The price tag reveals the IPCC’s real agenda, the transfer of funds from industrial nations to those less developed. It’s about the money and always has been. It’s not global warming the planet needs to survive, it is the costly lies about it.

 

http://www.climatechangedispat...ate-change-okay.html

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

This claims there have been no noticeable warming in seventeen and a half years. That is excellent proof that measures taken in 1995 due to laws enacted in the early seventy's to stop production of CFC refrigerants and to begin phasing out the production of HCFC's till the year of 2020 when they will cease to be produced is working. Now with this proof in hand, don't you think it is a good time to consider being a good steward to Mother Earth and show that we can leave a better planet than destroying it for our own economic prosperity!

 

 Good job bestworking for finding this information and bringing it forward. Thanks,

If you worship at the alter of Liberalism, and it is a religion as it must be followed to the letter if you are a true believer. You must except every premise the Liberal agenda posts. You may not think for yourself or accept other views from other sources. The only good thing that will come out of "global warming" is that it will silence all the Liberals as well as the Naysayers and I am sure none of us will be around to see that happen.

right gus.

------------------------------

“The U.S., Japanese, and German scientists write” [bestun's]

Statements such as this is scattered throughout this “thing” bestun has submitted.

It’s simply a report; not a scientific study with experimental proofs reached by the scientific method with strict laboratory procedures laid out. There is no abstract, no data smoothing, controls  nor comparability between arguments. All that to tell us that plants like carbon dioxide and lots of it. Lol We knew that already.

Originally Posted by Bulldog63:

If you worship at the alter of Liberalism, and it is a religion as it must be followed to the letter if you are a true believer. You must except every premise the Liberal agenda posts. You may not think for yourself or accept other views from other sources. The only good thing that will come out of "global warming" is that it will silence all the Liberals as well as the Naysayers and I am sure none of us will be around to see that happen.


OK Bulldog, so you care less about the destruction of our environment as long as it is not going to happen in your lifetime? That is quite a selfish way to think! 

 

The banning of CFCs and HCFCs was probably a good idea.  They were agents in diminishing the ozone layer.  However, there was a joker in the deck.  Ozone is a natural product of lightning.  And, a byproduct of pollution in urban areas.  Eventually, all the ozone drifts upwards -- to eventually replace what was destroyed. 

directly from the NOAA website.. explaining how 'ozone is replaced'..

 

The production of ozone near the surface does not significantly contribute to the abundance of stratospheric ozone.The amount of surface ozone is too small in comparison and the transport of surface air to the stratosphere is not effective enough. As in the stratosphere, ozone in the troposphere is destroyed by naturally occurring chemical reactions and by reactions involving human-produced chemicals. Tropospheric ozone can also be destroyed when ozone reacts with a variety of surfaces, such as those of soils and plants.

i'm guessing that 'lying about climate change' must be OK.. if you're a regressive, trying to impress people.. with your lack of knowledge.

 

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/a...010/twentyquestions/

 

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/a...entyquestions/Q2.pdf

 

Last edited by Crash.Override

no dire science shows it as a pollutant not an O3 source. and O3 is unhealthy to breathe. Come up with some other nonsense. the urban ozone is from natural occurrences involving sunlight. Paris is known for it's ozone hole right above all it's urban pollution. That's in French you know. 

Contreiverite : le GIEC suppose que toute

l'augmentation de CO

2 depuis la revolution

industrielle est d'origine fossile

La theorie du GIEC est basee sur l'hypothese que l'augmentation

du CO

 

2 dans l'atmosphere depuis la periode preeindustrielle, soit

environ 20 % dans les annees quatre-vingt-dix, est entierement due

aux combustibles fossiles. (Marko et al. 57)

Voici un extrait de l'

 

Assessment Report 4 (AR4) du GIEC[12] qui contredit

cette armation de Marko et al. (c'est moi qui souligne) :

Originally Posted by Crash.Override:

first, the earth was reported to be flat....

(see what i did there?)

___________________________________

Only among the very ignorant.  Greeks proposed it was round when observing the three great pyramids at Giza appearing apex first, then bit by bit.  They realized that curvature was hiding the object, but more appeared as they got closer.  See, what I did.  Differentiate the fact from popular fiction. 

 

Last edited by direstraits
Originally Posted by direstraits:
Originally Posted by Crash.Override:

first, the earth was reported to be flat....

(see what i did there?)

___________________________________

Only among the very ignorant.  Greeks proposed it was round when observing the three great pyramids at Giza appearing apex first, then bit by bit.  They realized that curvature was hiding the object, but more appeared as they got closer.  See, what I did.  Differentiate the fact from popular fiction. 

 

____________________

so, now that you've proven you can do that.. we are only left with the 'willful ignorance' excuse.. and that seems to be your M.O.

Originally Posted by Crash.Override:

directly from the NOAA website.. explaining how 'ozone is replaced'..

 

The production of ozone near the surface does not significantly contribute to the abundance of stratospheric ozone.The amount of surface ozone is too small in comparison and the transport of surface air to the stratosphere is not effective enough. As in the stratosphere, ozone in the troposphere is destroyed by naturally occurring chemical reactions and by reactions involving human-produced chemicals. Tropospheric ozone can also be destroyed when ozone reacts with a variety of surfaces, such as those of soils and plants.

i'm guessing that 'lying about climate change' must be OK.. if you're a regressive, trying to impress people.. with your lack of knowledge.

 

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/a...010/twentyquestions/

 

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/a...entyquestions/Q2.pdf

 


Ozone has nothing to do with "climate change".  I guess lying that global warming is occurring when there has been no mean global temperature change in the last 17 years is a  demonrat tactic.

 

Originally Posted by Mr. Hooberbloob:

Ozone depletion is not a contributor to global warming.  It serves to block UV radiation, which is an ionizing radiation.  Ozone prevents cancer, not global warming; which does not exist of course.  Climate change does exist, as it has for billions of years.


This statement couldn't be farther from the truth. It helps me to understand the ignorance of some people!

 

Originally Posted by direstraits:
Originally Posted by Crash.Override:

first, the earth was reported to be flat....

(see what i did there?)

___________________________________

Only among the very ignorant.  Greeks proposed it was round when observing the three great pyramids at Giza appearing apex first, then bit by bit.  They realized that curvature was hiding the object, but more appeared as they got closer.  See, what I did.  Differentiate the fact from popular fiction. 

 

dire, I think you are having some sort of spell. Go to the front desk and tell the nurse you are confused.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×