4 things you may not know...aka WHY GLOBAL WARMING IS BULLSHIT

[hayenmill]

"Why Global Warming cannot be supported by data" Summed up in 4 points

After all the media time dedicated to Global Warming and the new proposals to stop such apparent threat, little is often heard about voices that have tried to explain logical inconsistencies inside the IPCC Man-made Global Warming theory. This is why Eco Wanderer wishes to present its readers with the other side of the argument, and ultimately let the readers make their own logical conclusions from analysis of the information.

The article will now present 4 pertinent arguments that point out inconsistencies in the current widely accepted theory that Man is responsible for the increase in the average temperature of the Earth’s near-surface air and oceans since the mid-twentieth century and its projected continuation.

The notion that “debate time is over” and that we should base our opinions on the opinions of scientists without readers looking at the data themselves is not only unscientific but misleading

Water Vapor, the most relevant greenhouse gas, is accountable for approximately 95% of the greenhouse effect. Among climatologists this is common knowledge, but among certain interest groups, governmental groups or news reporters such fact is not mentioned and ends up ignored.

digg it!

oh and comment

[hayenmill]

bumpsies

[pete1061]

It's just an excuse to pass more taxes and spend money on projects for politicains buddies.

I could give a rats ass about my "carbon footprint"... It's all just media hype.

[Alex Libman 14]

*ShoutToAll'd*

The government-sponsored environmental hysteria is maddening!  You can't turn on a mainstream media source for 10 minutes without being bombarded with that bullshit like it's a state religion (which it is)!  Any critical thinking is immediately dismissed as "anti-science", doubleplusungood... 

[dc0de]

Recent article, interview with a climatologist who was part author of the 2001 IPCC report:

http://money.cnn.com/2009/05/14/magazines/fortune/globalwarming.fortune/?postversion=2009051411

[hayenmill]

for those interested, or too lazy to actually visit the post, here's some interesting images



Hockey stick graph proved fake



how even though temperature and co2 concentrations graph might appear to fit one another, there are inconsistencies (check around 130 000 years)

In the above graphic, which is the same graphic presented by Al Gore in his Inconvenient Truth, and by turning our attention to a specific date, such as 130 000 years-100 000 years, we see temperature droping while the concentration of CO2 remains the approximately constant, instead of leading the way.

Such modest difference could seem trivial at first glace, but it needs to be remembered that the scale of the graphic is very large, which means any trivial difference such as this occurred over tenths of thousands of years.

[Alex Libman 14]

From guardian.co.uk -- 'Global warming is baloney' signs put the heat on Burger King --

A row between the fast food giant Burger King and one of its major franchise owners has erupted over roadside signs proclaiming "global warming is baloney".

The franchisee, a Memphis-based company called the Mirabile Investment Corporation (MIC) that owns more than 40 Burger Kings across Tennessee, Arkansas and Mississippi, has described Burger King as acting "kinda like cockroaches" over the controversy. MIC says it does not believe Burger King has the authority to make it take the signs down.

The dispute began to sizzle last week, when a local newspaper reporter in Memphis, Tennessee, noticed the signs outside two restaurants in the city and contacted the corporation to establish if the message represented its official viewpoint. Burger King's headquarters in Miami said it did not, adding that it had ordered MIC to take the signs down.

But a few days later readers of the Memphis paper said they had seen about a dozen Burger King restaurants across the state displaying the signs and that some had yet to be taken down. Media attempts to contact MIC to establish why it was taking an apparently defiant stance were rebuffed, but the Guardian managed to grill MIC's marketing president, John McNelis.

"I would think [Burger King] would run from any form of controversy kinda like cockroaches when the lights get turned on," said Mr McNelis. "I'm not aware of any direction that they gave the franchisee and I don't think they have the authority to do it."

McNelis added: "The [restaurant] management team can put the message up there if they want to. It is private property and here in the US we do have some rights. Notwithstanding a franchise agreement, I could load a Brinks vehicle with [rights] I've got so many of them. By the time the Burger King lawyers work out how to make that stick we'd be in the year 2020."

He continued: "Burger King can bluster all they want about what they can tell the franchisee to do, but we have free-speech rights in this country so I don't think there's any concerns."

The Guardian sent a transcript of the interview to Susan Robison, Burger King's vice-president of corporate communications.

She responded: "The statement that was posted on several restaurants' reader boards in the Memphis area, and the view expressed by the franchisee on this issue does not reflect Burger King Corp's opinion … BKC has guidelines for signage used by franchisees [which] were not followed. We have asked the franchisee to remove the signage and have been told that the franchisee will comply."

Who's in the right in this situation is a matter of contractual details between the franchises and the parent company, but the lesson here is - if at all possible, set up an independent business rather than a franchise!  The more independent you are, the more power you have to speak the truth and resist government tyranny!

[ChristianAnarchist]

Here's a classic example of how the propagandists try to fool the public into thinking that there actually is a problem with man caused climate change...

In this story, astronaut Bob Thirsk says that he sees less snowcover on the mountians than when he was in space 12 years ago...
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,534891,00.html

His quotes are "it looks like Earth's ice caps have melted a bit since he was last in orbit 12 years ago" and "This is probably just a perception, but I just have the feeling that the glaciers are melting, the snow capping the mountains is less than it was 12 years ago when I saw it last time,"

All very "subjective" conclusions based on nothing but his "perception".  Well, my "perception" about this whole subject is that these little tiny germs called "humans" on this gigantic ball floating through space CAN NEVER (no matter how hard we try) AFFECT THIS CLIMATE !!!  Not on purpose, not by accident.  The amount of energy required to change this planet is not available to mankind.  We can detonate every atomic weapon we have and all it will do is exterminate most of the humans on this ball, but the ball will just shake it off and go on...

[youtube=425,350]eScDfYzMEEw[/youtube]

[ChristianAnarchist]

Some more "carlin"...

[youtube=425,350]0T7MFz9Li8Y[/youtube]

[youtube=425,350]OG5eBYclF8Q[/youtube]

and although I think Glenn Beck is a turkey...

[youtube=425,350]alt_gVzLGzo[/youtube]

[Diogenes The Cynic]

What I dont understand about the global warming thing is this:

They say ocean levels will rise as a result of the increased temperatures because of the melting arctic snow.

My knowledge of high school chemistry is a little rusty now, but wouldnt a gas (like the atmosphere) be able to hold more liquid in it at warmer temperatures then at colder ones? So shouldnt the excess water from the arctic caps be absorbed by warmer air that can retain more water?

[ChristianAnarchist]

don't confuse the issue with the laws of physics...

[Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith)]

What I dont understand about the global warming thing is this:

They say ocean levels will rise as a result of the increased temperatures because of the melting arctic snow.

My knowledge of high school chemistry is a little rusty now, but wouldnt a gas (like the atmosphere) be able to hold more liquid in it at warmer temperatures then at colder ones? So shouldnt the excess water from the arctic caps be absorbed by warmer air that can retain more water?

Well that's one point, another is that ice is less dense than water so if the glaciers melt the water level will remain the same or even drop a little, but what the global warming propagandists are suggesting is that the snow on the mountains in the arctic will melt and drain into the ocean raising the water level.  In my opinion, it won't make any significant difference because all of these factors will cancel each other out.

[Diogenes The Cynic]

Thats an excellent point I had not thought of. The ice in the polar caps takes up less volume then liquid water, so even if it melted, there wouldnt be enough to raise ocean levels.

[ChristianAnarchist]

I have not "done the math" but I use my own two eyes to make the following conclusion based on flying over the north pole several times:  The surface of the planet is mostly water.  Only a very small percentage of land has a layer of ice or snow on it.  This layer is not terribly thick (maybe an average of 10 feet?).  Seems to me that if you melt ALL the snow and ice and dump it into the vast oceans of the world, you might maybe possibly perhaps get a couple of inches rise??

But then I always tend to doubt what the "current" popular trend happens to be... (they told us in the 60's that we were entering into an "ice-age" due to the same BS about us creating too much polution)

[libertylover]

I have not "done the math" but I use my own two eyes to make the following conclusion based on flying over the north pole several times:  The surface of the planet is mostly water.  Only a very small percentage of land has a layer of ice or snow on it.  This layer is not terribly thick (maybe an average of 10 feet?).  Seems to me that if you melt ALL the snow and ice and dump it into the vast oceans of the world, you might maybe possibly perhaps get a couple of inches rise??

But then I always tend to doubt what the "current" popular trend happens to be... (they told us in the 60's that we were entering into an "ice-age" due to the same BS about us creating too much polution)

Yep and Hollywood even jumped on that ban wagon producing a movie about the impending ice age called, "Quintet."  It was playing off the fears in the public that we were entering a new ice age.