This article has a part 2, which can be viewed here.
Firstly, I do not disagree that the Earth’s temperature is rising. (Edit: I should say ‘changing’). I do disagree that it is being caused by carbon dioxide emissions created by humans. Consider this article in the context of a court presentation. To convict someone you need to be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the allegation is true. Beyond a reasonable doubt.
If there is any doubt that humans are directly altering the latent temperature of the planet then all of the taxation, depopulation and energy price schemes that are being pushed through are being done because of another reason.
The main thrust of this hysteria about man-made global warming stems from the UN IPCC report. In order to give their report credibility to the ignorant masses, the UN frequently mentions that large majority of scientists endorse the report.
This is a lie.
…Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers “implicit” endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no “consensus.”
The introduction and the summary of the IPCC’s report was written entirely by politicians under the mandate of the UN, the input of actual scientists was minimal. In addition, all sections that were written by selected scientists were edited to comply with the report summary.
Some of the scientists involved even admitted that the IPCC models failed to accurately predict climate change and that “none of the climate states in the models corresponds even remotely to the current observed climate”.
…Nor are the purveyors of panic giving much notice to the scientists like Dr. Chris Landsea who in his own words, resigned from the IPCC because:
“I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound.”
There is PLENTY of doubt about the IPCC report, they are just not reporting it to you. Why? This is even more clear to see when you consider that although most people do not believe in the man made global warming hype the UN and the governments are pushing ahead with these taxes, restrictions and regulations anyway.
The temperature of the Earth has oscillated since it formed, over 4.5 billion years ago. As recently as the seventies, there was the global cooling hysteria which had its proponents screaming from the rooftops about how the Earth was entering into a new ice age, billions are going to die etc.
This cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people. If it continues and no strong action is taken, it will cause world famine, world chaos and world war, and this could all come about before the year 2000. — Lowell Ponte “The Cooling”, 1976
If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder by the year 2000…This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age. — Kenneth E.F. Watt on air pollution and global cooling, Earth Day (1970)
That did not stick. So they left it for a few decades and now they are trying to push a new flavour of climate change. Why?
Because the global warming subject is a catalyst for globalists and other elitists to push for sweeping changes to the social, industrial and legal structure of the world. A common fear to scare the global population into acquiescence…
“The threat of environmental crisis will be the ‘international disaster key’ that will unlock the New World Order.” — Mikhail Gorbachev, quoted in “A Special Report: The Wildlands Project Unleashes Its War On Mankind”, by Marilyn Brannan, Associate Editor, Monetary & Economic Review, 1996, p. 5
Now, we have established that the Earth is warming, but why? What can contribute to the rise of this global temperature if it isn’t humans breathing or cows farting?
Before we answer that question, we should take a quick look at basic thermodynamics (which are the laws that govern the behaviour of energy and entropy in a system.) Hot objects emit more energy than they absorb. Cold objects absorb more energy than they emit. That is about as basic as it gets. You can prove this with an experiment at home. Put some water in an ice tray and pop it in the freezer. After a while it will freeze. Obviously. Thermodynamically the freezer is essentially a form of energy vacuum, because it is designed to stay cold (absorb more than it emits) by channeling energy (heat) away from the freezer. The energy level of the water drops as it constantly emits more than it absorbs. The ambient energy level of the freezer is below water’s freezing point, so the energy of the water can drop so low that the water freezes.
Now, take the ice out and put it in a hot oven and you can literally watch the ice melt before your eyes. Why? Well it is the same as the above, but in reverse. Now the system has more energy than the ice. The ice absorbs more than it emits. Its temperature rises until the H2O molecules have enough energy to break the lattice in the ice, and it becomes water again. If it is hot enough, the water will heat up, absorbing more and more energy, eventually boiling off and becoming steam. Steam is a very high energy form of water.
I think we can all agree that this is basic common sense. You wouldn’t stick an ice cube in an oven and come back 30 seconds later to find the inside of the oven looking like Santa’s Grotto. Ever.
Now that is out of the way, lets look at the main source of energy in the solar system.
There is a reason why it is called the Solar System, and that is because the Sun dominates it in every single possible way. Let establish this with some interesting facts about our local mega-ball of plasma.
The sun contains over 99.5% of the mass of the entire solar system.
The sun is over 1 million times bigger than the Earth. Click here for a comparative graphic.
In a single second, the sun generates enough energy to supply all U.S. energy needs for 9,000,000 years.
Global human energy consumption per year = Solar output of less than 1.5 millionths of a second.*
One second of solar output = More than 800,000 years of human energy needs.
The sun is about 92 million miles away. Click here for a comparative graphic. Using the fastest production car ever built, the gorgeous SSC Aero travelling at 256.15 miles per hour, it would take you over 350,000 years.
Reading those facts, it shouldn’t come as much of a surprise to read this:
“Solar energy is energy from the Sun. This energy drives climate and the weather supports virtually all life on Earth.” — Solar energy, Wikipedia.
Now, back to thermodynamics. Let’s say that the solar output goes up. We would expect to see the effects of this throughout the solar system, ‘global warming’ on other planets if you will.
Well, the solar output has been increasing. An obvious effect of the sun getting hotter would be other planets exhibiting signs of global warming. Like Mars, for instance.
The sun’s increased irradiance over the last century, not C02 emissions, is responsible for the global warming we’re seeing, says the celebrated scientist, and this solar irradiance also explains the great volume of C02 emissions.
“It is no secret that increased solar irradiance warms Earth’s oceans, which then triggers the emission of large amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. So the common view that man’s industrial activity is a deciding factor in global warming has emerged from a misinterpretation of cause and effect relations.”
How about Jupiter?
May 2006: Jupiter’s Great Red Spot is a swirling storm seen for over 300 years, since the beginning of telescopicChristopher Go noticed it had been joined by Red Spot Jr – formed as smaller whitish oval-shaped storms merged and then developed the remarkable reddish hue. This sharp Hubble Space Telescope image showing the two salmon-colored Jovian storms was recorded in April. About half the size of the original Red Spot, Red Spot Jr. is similar in diameter to planet Earth. Seen here below and left of the ancient storm system, it trails the Great Red Spot by about an hour as the planet rotates from left to right. While astronomers still don’t exactly understand why Jupiter’s red spots are red, they do think the appearance of Red Spot Jr. provides evidence for climate change on the Solar System’s ruling gas giant.
Global warming has finally been explained: the Earth is getting hotter because the Sun is burning more brightly than at any time during the past 1,000 years, according to new research.
The simple fact is that throughout the ages the earth has swung wildly between a warm, wet, stable climate, to a cold, dry and windy one – long before the first fossil fuel was burned. The changes we are now witnessing are a walk in the park compared to the battering that our planet has taken in the past.
This is not a defense of the oil cartels or the Neo-Con wreckers, who would have every motivation to ignore global warming whether it is man-made or not.
Nor is it a blanket denial of the fact that the earth is getting very gradually hotter, but how do we reconcile global warming taking place at the farthest reaches of the solar system with the contention that it is caused by human activity? Have our exhaust fumes left earth’s atmosphere and slipped through a black hole to Triton?
Remember our experiment with the ice and the oven? Of course, it over-simplifies the issue, there are countless processes that complicate the transfer of energy around the solar system and on individual planets. For example, if the sun’s output increases, it warms the oceans, which then release CO2 into the atmosphere, as is described in this next quote:
Dr. Abdussamatov goes further, debunking the very notion of a greenhouse effect. “Ascribing ‘greenhouse’ effect properties to the Earth’s atmosphere is not scientifically substantiated,” he maintains. “Heated greenhouse gases, which become lighter as a result of expansion, ascend to the atmosphere only to give the absorbed heat away.”
The real news from Saint Petersburg — demonstrated by cooling that is occurring on the upper layers of the world’s oceans — is that Earth has hit its temperature ceiling. Solar irradiance has begun to fall, ushering in a protracted cooling period beginning in 2012 to 2015. The depth of the decline in solar irradiance reaching Earth will occur around 2040, and “will inevitably lead to a deep freeze around 2055-60” lasting some 50 years, after which temperatures will go up again.
The truth is that this is all perfectly natural and unless the human race comes up with a plan to regulate the temperature of the sun, is completely unavoidable.
As far as human CO2 being a driving factor in global CO2 levels:
From The Global Warming Hoax:
Some Quick Facts:
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant, but a naturally occurring atmospheric substance.
CO2 makes up .054% of the atmosphere.
Volcanoes produce far more CO2 than humans.
Animals produce more CO2 than volcanoes.
Decaying vegetation produces more CO2 than animals (remember Gore’s explanation for why the red line is so squiggly?; He left out half the explanation.)
The OCEANS produce more CO2 than vegetation, animals, volcanoes, and the puny, insignificant amount of CO2 humans produce.
Do you still believe beyond a reasonable doubt, that human-created CO2 is the primary driver of global warming?
These facts cannot be unknown by the multi-billion dollar UN and government agencies, yet they continue to push this ‘humans are to blame myth’, using the media and government owned public services, like state school.
Children are being brainwashed by propaganda from the Government on climate change, a court heard yesterday.
The “New Labour Thought Police” were accused of indoctrinating youngsters by handing out thousands of Climate Change Packs to schools.
The packs include the documentary film An Inconvenient Truth, made by Bill Clinton’s former vice president Al Gore.
The film – acclaimed by the movie industry and the global warming lobby – was described in the High Court as irredeemable, containing serious scientific inaccuracies and “sentimental mush”.
Here is a quote from an open letter written by a physics teacher by the name of Wellington Grey:
The number of questions that relate to global warming is appalling. I do not deny that pupils should know about the topic, nor do I deny its importance. However, it should not be the main focus of every topic. The pupils (and their teachers) are growing apathetic from overexposure.
A paper question asked: `Why must we develop renewable energy sources?’ This is a political question. Worse yet, a political statement. I’m not saying I disagree with it, just that it has no place on a physics GCSE paper.
Pupils are taught to poke holes in scientific experiments, to constantly find what is wrong. However, never are the pupils given ways to determine when an experiment is reliable, to know when an experiment yields information about the world that we can trust. This encourages the belief that all quantitative data is unreliable and untrustworthy. Some of my pupils, after a year of the course, have gone from scientifically minded individuals to thinking, “It’s not possible to know anything, so why bother?” Combining distrust of scientific evidence with debates won on style and presentation alone is an unnerving trend that will lead society astray.
Destroying the critical thinking process of a population is important for creating a moral and scientific class system. This all revolves around the gathering of power away from all countries and peoples of the world, in one place.
Global warming, as an environmental movement, has added benefits for those in power. By blaming the human race for global warming, they can then proceed to punish the human race for existing, as our mere existence threatens Gaia, or Mother Earth. This leads conveniently to population control, and population reduction. Think of the children!!!
Had Toni Vernelli gone ahead with her pregnancy ten years ago, she would know at first hand what it is like to cradle her own baby, to have a pair of innocent eyes gazing up at her with unconditional love, to feel a little hand slipping into hers – and a voice calling her Mummy.
But the very thought makes her shudder with horror.
Because when Toni terminated her pregnancy, she did so in the firm belief she was helping to save the planet.
HAVING large families should be frowned upon as an environmental misdemeanour in the same way as frequent long-haul flights, driving a 4×4 car and failing to reuse plastic bags, according to a report to be published tomorrow by a green think tank.
Even the most greenest of American families are generally hurting the earth, just not at the rate of others. So could we really save the earth by limiting our population? Would it be right for governments to limit how many children a couple can have for the sake of saving the planet?
A top scientist gave a speech to the Texas Academy of Science last month in which he advocated the need to exterminate 90% of the population through the airborne ebola virus. Dr. Eric R. Pianka’s chilling comments, and their enthusiastic reception again underscore the elite’s agenda to enact horrifying measures of population control.
The story of over-population is also a myth and just an excuse to condition the public to accept the killing over 5 billion people and embracing global government.
Newspapers have become overpopulated, so to speak, with warnings about human overpopulation. Such warnings have been issued regularly for decades – even centuries – with consistently incorrect predictions. On the first Earth Day, Paul Ehrlich’s 1968 bestseller, The Population Bomb, was widely quoted. He predicted that by 1985, the “population explosion” would lead to world famine, the death of the oceans, a reduction in life expectancy to 42 years, and the wasting of the Midwest into a vast desert. He was about as accurate as Malthus himself, the Englishman who, in 1798, predicted catastrophic food shortages that never came.
The population doomsayers usually offer the solution of global government – BIG government – to determine, in Gaylord Nelson’s words, “the optimum number of people.” Ironically, where there is famine, the problem usually is not an excess of people but an excess of government, which leads to gross misallocation and misuse of resources as corrupt bureaucrats or dictators seek power more than the welfare their subjects.
It has become the bogeyman used to scare us into accepting desperate measures to curb this threat to our way of life. A vivid picture is painted of our being submerged in the struggle for survival. We will drown in a sea of people, gasping for the room to breathe, as the last square foot of inhabitable land sinks beneath the overwhelming tide of surging humanity.
So it turns out that if 5% of the United States were converted into urban area with a population density of 6,000/km2, and 45% were converted into suburban area with a population density of 2,000/km2, with the remaining 50% left for rural area, parks, and farms, there would be enough room for 3 billion in the urban areas, and 9 billion in the suburban areas, for a total population of 12 billion. This is in the US alone. This scheme could be extended to the other countries and continents for a total population of around 100 billion. Everything between the Arctic and Antarctic circles are potential targets for colonization. This is about 130,000,000 km2 of land area (the circumpolar regions have about 20,000,000 km2 of land).
Another related scam is the idea of carbon credits, which amounts to global taxation.
Companies and individuals rushing to go green have been spending millions on “carbon credit” projects that yield few if any environmental benefits.
A Financial Times investigation has uncovered widespread failings in the new markets for greenhouse gases, suggesting some organisations are paying for emissions reductions that do not take place.
Others are meanwhile making big profits from carbon trading for very small expenditure and in some cases for clean-ups that they would have made anyway.
You can’t trade in something unless you own it. When governments and companies “trade” in carbon, they establish de facto property rights over the atmosphere; a commonly held global commons. At no point have these atmospheric property rights been discussed or negotiated – their ownership is established by stealth with every carbon trade.
And finally, a nice article about Al Gores’ carbon trading.
Talk about the biggest fraud in the history of frauds. This guy is good, really good. Not only is he perpetrating a hoax on the world with this global warming stuff, he is a hypocrite who doesn’t practice what he preaches. Not only that and perhaps even more sinister, he is profiting from the hysteria he help create by buying his carbon credits from himself, from his own company.
Just another scam to tax the middle class and the poor, while at the same time depopulating the planet, consolidating power in organisations controlled by these globalists, forcing a global union, a new world order, a global governance, where the sovereignty of individual nations is superseded by the UN and other related groups. It is also a cover to push Communism on the entire human race, using various movements like feminism, socialism, environmentalism etc.
I am not sure what more there is to say about global warming. It seems obvious to me that the UN is speaking out of its arse in regards to this subject. I mean, what a way to make $7 trillion!
The United Nations says it can end poverty, stop global warming, and end the threat of contagious disease while also unlocking $7 trillion of hidden wealth from developing nations in the process. If this sounds too good to be true, that’s because it is.
I will provide links to more articles and sites below for further reading. Something to keep in mind is that this is just the tip of the iceberg. Lies and distortion of the truth are being carried out by governments and the media daily. Their goal is to make us believe a version of reality that will suit the elitists. There is plenty on this site and others can be used as a guide to uncovering the truth. Please, don’t allow the propaganda of the TV or spin of politicians to think for you. Think for yourself, and question everything.
I will leave with this piece from the founder of the Weather Channel.
The founder of the The Weather Channel in the US has described the concept of global warming as ‘the greatest scam in history’ and accused global media of colluding with ‘environmental extremists’ to alarm the public.
“It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM,” John Coleman wrote in an article published on ICECAP, the International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project, which is known for challenging widely published theories on global warming.
His original post is here.
“We are moving toward a new world order, the world of communism. We shall never turn off that road.” — Mikhail Gorbachev 1987
“National Socialism will use its own revolution for establishing of a new world order.” — Adolph Hitler during World War II
“Hitler’s dictatorship differed in one fundamental point from all its predecessors in history. It was the first dictatorship in the present period of modern technical development, a dictatorship which made complete use of all technical means for the domination of its own country. Through technical devices like the radio and the loud-speaker, eighty million people were deprived of independent thought. It was thereby possible to subject them to the will of one man…” — Albert Speer, Hitler’s Minister for Armaments (at his trial after World War II
“The world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes.” — Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli of England, in 1844
“The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is the American Branch of a society which originated in England … (and) … believes national boundaries should be obliterated and one-world rule established.”— Professor of History Carroll Quigley, Georgetown University, in his book “Tragedy and Hope”.
“We shall have World Government, whether or not we like it. The only question is whether World Government will be achieved by conquest or consent.” — Statement made before the United States Senate on Feb. 7, 1950 by James Paul Warburg
These links below will continue to be updated as more information comes to my attention…
*Total solar output per second = 3.86*10e25 J
Total human energy consumption in 2004 = 4.71*10e19 J
(4.71 * 10e19) / (3.86 * 10e25) = 1.22020725*10e-7 seconds or 1.22020725 microseconds. You can reverse this to obtain the number of years 1 second of solar output can provide for the human race.
(3.86 * 10e25) / (4.71 * 10e19) = 819 532.909 years per solar second.