"It is the greatest scam in history."
 

The Amazing Story Behind the Global Warming Scam

By John Coleman
January 28, 2009 (Revised and edited February 11, 2009)

The key players are now all in place in Washington and in state governments across America to officially label carbon dioxide as a pollutant and enact laws that tax us citizens for our carbon footprints. Only two details stand in the way: the faltering economic times and a dramatic turn toward a colder climate. The last two bitter winters have led to a rise in public awareness that there is no runaway global warming. A majority of American citizens are now becoming skeptical of the claim that our carbon footprints, resulting from our use of fossil fuels, are going to lead to climatic calamities. But governments are not yet listening to the citizens.

How did we ever get to this point where bad science is driving big government to punish the citizens for living the good life that fossil fuels provide for us?

The story begins with an Oceanographer named Roger Revelle. He served with the Navy in World War II. After the war he became the Director of the Scripps Oceanographic Institute in La Jolla in San Diego, California. Revelle obtained major funding from the Navy to do measurements and research on the ocean around the Pacific Atolls where the US military was conducting post war atomic bomb tests. He greatly expanded the Institute's areas of interest and among others hired Hans Suess, a noted Chemist from the University of Chicago. Suess was very interested in the traces of carbon in the environment from the burning of fossil fuels. Revelle co-authored a scientific paper with Suess in 1957?a paper that raised the possibility that the atmospheric carbon dioxide might be creating a greenhouse effect and causing atmospheric warming. The thrust of the paper was a plea for funding for more studies. Funding, frankly, is where Revelle's mind was most of the time.

Next Revelle hired a Geochemist named David Keeling to devise a way to measure the atmospheric content of Carbon dioxide. In 1958 Keeling published his first paper showing the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and linking the increase to the burning of fossil fuels. These two research papers became the bedrock of the science of global warming, even though they offered no proof that carbon dioxide was in fact a greenhouse gas. In addition they failed to explain how this trace gas, only a tiny fraction of the atmosphere, could have any significant impact on temperatures.

Back in the1950s, when this was going on, our cities were entrapped in a pall of pollution left by the crude internal combustion engines and poorly refined gasoline that powered cars and trucks back then, and from the uncontrolled emissions from power plants and factories. There was a valid and serious concern about the health consequences of this pollution. As a result a strong environmental movement was developing to demand action.

Government heard that outcry and set new environmental standards. Scientists and engineers came to the rescue. New reformulated fuels were developed, as were new high tech, computer controlled, fuel injection engines and catalytic converters. By the mid seventies cars were no longer significant polluters, emitting only some carbon dioxide and water vapor from their tail pipes. New fuel processing and smoke stack scrubbers were added to industrial and power plants and their emissions were greatly reduced as well.

But an environmental movement had been established and its funding and very existence depended on having a continuing crisis issue. Roger Revelle?s research at the Scripps Institute had tricked a wave of scientific inquiry. So the concept of uncontrollable atmospheric warming from the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels became the cornerstone issue of the environmental movement. Automobiles and power planets became the prime targets.

Revelle and Keeling used this new alarmism to keep their funding growing. Other researchers with environmental motivations and a hunger for funding saw this developing and climbed aboard as well. The research grants flowed and alarming hypotheses began to show up everywhere.

The Keeling curve continues to show a steady rise in CO2 in the atmosphere during the period since oil and coal were discovered and used by man. Carbon dioxide has increased from the 1958 reading of 315 to 385 parts per million in 2008. But, despite the increases, it is still only a trace gas in the atmosphere. The percentage of the atmosphere that is CO2 remains tiny, about 3.8 hundredths of one percent by volume and 41 hundredths of one percent by weight. And, by the way, only a fraction of that fraction is from mankind?s use of fossil fuels. The best estimate is that atmospheric CO2 is 75 percent natural and 25 percent the result of civilization.

Several hypotheses emerged in the 70s and 80s about how this tiny atmospheric component of CO2 might cause a significant warming. But they remained unproven. As years have passed, the scientists have kept reaching out for evidence of the warming and proof of their theories. And, the money and environmental claims kept on building up.

Back in the 1960s, this global warming research came to the attention of a Canadian born United Nation's bureaucrat named Maurice Strong. He was looking for issues he could use to fulfill his dream of one-world government. Strong organized a World Earth Day event in Stockholm, Sweden in 1970. From this he developed a committee of scientists, environmentalists and political operatives from the UN to continue a series of meetings.

Strong developed the concept that the UN could demand payments from the advanced nations for the climatic damage from their burning of fossil fuels to benefit the underdeveloped nations?a sort of CO2 tax that would be the funding for his one-world government. But he needed more scientific evidence to support his primary thesis. So Strong championed the establishment of the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (UN IPCC). This was not a pure, ?climate study? scientific organization, as we have been led to believe. It was an organization of one-world government UN bureaucrats, environmental activists and environmentalist scientists who craved UN funding so they could produce the science they needed to stop the burning of fossil fuels.

Over the last 25 years the IPCC has been very effective. Hundreds of scientific papers, four major international meetings and reams of news stories about climatic Armageddon later, it has made its points to the satisfaction of most governments and even shared in a Nobel Peace Prize.

At the same time Maurice Strong was busy at the UN, things were getting a bit out of hand for the man who is now called the grandfather of global warming, Roger Revelle. He had been very politically active in the late 1950's as he worked to have the University of California locate a San Diego campus adjacent to Scripps Institute in La Jolla. He won that major war, but lost an all important battle afterward when he was passed over in the selection of the first Chancellor of the new campus.

He left Scripps finally in 1963 and moved to Harvard University to establish a Center for Population Studies. It was there that Revelle inspired one of his students. This student would say later, "It felt like such a privilege to be able to hear about the readouts from some of those measurements in a group of no more than a dozen undergraduates. Here was this teacher presenting something not years old but fresh out of the lab, with profound implications for our future!" The student described him as "a wonderful, visionary professor" who was "one of the first people in the academic community to sound the alarm on global warming." That student was Al Gore. He thought of Dr. Revelle as his mentor and referred to him frequently, relaying his experiences as a student in his book ?Earth in the Balance,? published in 1992.


continued

http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemans.../38574742.html

The thread title got me thinking about the global central banking network

Between inventing the internet and global warming Al Gore should go down as one of the biggest con men of all time

18 month old tinfoil hat wearing nonsense ftw!

nice of you to finally admit the truth.

aliens are on earth, and they want all our moneies :)

im praying to the aliens!

The carpet sweeper is the biggest scam ever perpetrated on the American public since One Hour Martinizing.

I think "freedom" has it beat.

damn i thought this thread was going to be about adult website rebills...

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh




.Actually, I clicked through and read the whole article... A very well-written piece! :thumbsup

Indeed it is. Filled in some holes for me. I should email him and have him look into when Al Gore meets Ken Lay (Enron) who developed the Carbon trading scheme for an update.

For the love of porn...

Global Warming is REAL. It's happening right now. I'm tired of idiots who dismiss the facts because they're afraid it will take away their "Freedom" to burn oil. Give me a break. The world is so fucked unless we start paying attention to and helping REAL SCIENTISTS, and learn to question all of the pseudo-science bullshit that anyone can come up with.

You have no idea what a Neocon even is do you?

The IPCC consensus on climate change was phoney, says IPCC insider

The UN?s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change misled the press and public into believing that thousands of scientists backed its claims on manmade global warming, according to Mike Hulme, a prominent climate scientist and IPCC insider. The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was ?only a few dozen experts,? he states in a paper for Progress in Physical Geography, co-authored with student Martin Mahony.

?Claims such as ?2,500 of the world?s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate? are disingenuous,? the paper states unambiguously, adding that they rendered ?the IPCC vulnerable to outside criticism.?

Hulme, Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia ? the university of Climategate fame ? is the founding Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research and one of the UK?s most prominent climate scientists. Among his many roles in the climate change establishment, Hulme was the IPCC?s co-ordinating Lead Author for its chapter on ?Climate scenario development? for its Third Assessment Report and a contributing author of several other chapters.

Hulme?s depiction of IPCC?s exaggeration of the number of scientists who backed its claim about man-made climate change can be found on pages 10 and 11 of his paper, found here.


http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/...#ixzz0qscZ2muB

the planet is cooling douche bag.

weather change is a natural occurrence.

we are heated by the sun. we do not even fully understand how the sun works. and you are going to tell me we understand our own weather fully?

"The Sun's diameter is 864,938 miles (1,391,980 km). This is almost 10 times larger than the planet Jupiter and about 109 times as big as the Earth. The volume of the Sun is 1,299,400 times bigger than the volume of the Earth; about 1,300,000 Earths could fit inside the Sun"

you are going to tell me air pollution is heating the planet? we are a mere spec in the universe. air pollution is real. but if you think that weather change is from pollution you have no hope.

not to mention the earth is moving closer to the sun. use your head for 2 seconds.

Just remember, no one really gives a shit about the planet...they only care about self preservation...the earth is just fine and always will be...when the time comes where all of us human bacteria are rid of her, she'll evolve and move on and won't give a shit

one thing though...if it's just fine to let tons of toxic smoke into the air and dump oil and poisons into the water supply...then why don't all of you non-tree huggers, move closer to chemical plants and drink the water? I mean, after all, it's good for us right? it could never harm us or cause us problems..correct? or am I off base here...anyone have some tasty oil water to drink lately? Anyone up for running out to a dow chemical plant and inhaling the amazing vapors coming out of the smokestacks?

The technology as stated in the article changed those smokestacks that you mention into harmless vapors we developed many years ago. We already have organizations such as the EPA to check that stuff. In fact if I as an individual pour a few quarts of used oil from my car in the grass and someone see's it the EPA will come in and fine me a boatload. Companies like BP on the otherhand buy off this person or that. Maybe you should be more concerned with the chemicals they are spraying out of airplanes (and they are doing it) to fight this so called global warming. The Global Warming scam was never about a cleaner environment. It was about taxing everyone and allowing a handful of people dictate everyone's lives. Again, where's Al "Green thumb" Gore now during the oil spill? You'd think if he gave a flying flip about the environment he'd be using his "power" to do something there. That's if he didn't know it was furthering his scam.

BINGO!!!


(You win a cookie! :winkwink:)


.

Yeah, we shouldn't ever get off of antiquated fossil fuels. They are great for the planet!

http://www.inewscatcher.com/timages/...d9f0e36700.jpg

And cigarettes are good for you too! All of the experts agree...

http://mallix.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/14.jpg

the thread is about global warming, but nice spin. try to stick on topic champ.

He WAS on topic. The global warming movement is meant to be a wake-up call against our continued reliance on fossil fuels.

Even if some aspects may or may not be 100% true, who cares? The goal is a cleaner world.

Are you against a cleaner world? WTF?

And he's right about the planet too... it will be just fine once humans are finally kicked the fuck off!

um no it is not a "wake up" it is another excuse to put in a tax to further distance the middle class.

where did i say im against a cleaner world? point that out. yes "WTF" are you reading i agree.

"even if some aspects may or may not be true". i guess you are ok with being lied to? not to sure about you but i like when people start movements off of truth and not lies. normally when a movement is started from a lie it is never intended to be a positive one in the long one.

any movement started by lie is meant to benefit those who control the direction of the lie. nothing else.

"Are you against a cleaner world? WTF?"
no i am not. i am against people who spin 3000 different subjects instead of sticking to the topic. ie yourself and pulling stuff out of your ass in this post.

if you want to start a new topic. start a new thread. us this button:

https://gfy.com/skins/gfy/images/buttons/newthread.gif

does that clear it up for you?

I'm confused... you want me to use that button to pull stuff out of my ass?

I'm not following you....

great job at avoiding my entire post because you are wrong.

Yet still NOAA reports that May was the hottest may ever recorded by humans.

And the first quarter of 2010 was the hottest quarter ever recorded by humans.

And 2010 is so far the hottest year ever recorded by humans.

And the arctic surface ice is melting this year at the fastest rate ever recorded by humans.

You rightwing puppets of the oil corporations parrot their manufactured press releases and media reports like good little buttboys.

But science is not politics, and it will keep on measuring and subjecting the measurements to peer review, no matter what your oil corp masters tell you to say.

Apparently EVERY leader for the past 50+ years has promised to deliver us from fossil fuels. It NEVER happens!

When gas goes up a bit at the pump MIRACULOUSLY car manufacturers offer cars that get better gas mileage. Weird, right?

Well, if the ONLY way to FINALLY shake shit up, is to price this crap out of existence, then let's do it!

Once gas hits $10 a gallon I can guarantee we suddenly have tons of cars running on electric or whatever, or they will suddenly, and miraculously, develop cars that get 100+ mpg.

Whatever it takes... change is not easy, and the powers that be (ie Big Fucking Oil) are not going to help us.

dude this thread isnt about oil companies, start one about oil companies and ill respond to it.

It is amazing how easily people are influenced by big corp. Drill baby drill!

But IT IS about BIG OIL!

Don't you get it?

Who benefits from discrediting global warming?

It's amazing how you haven't realized that BP is one of the main players behind the lie which you believe in. "Beyond Petroleum..."

Weather changes.. It's done it since the beginning of time and will continue to do so...


And,

An Inconvenient Truth: The Ice Cap Is Growing
http://www.washingtontimes.com/weblo...e-cap-growing/


You see that was another part of the lie which has ben debunked. They were only measuring a portion of the ice which is prone to decrease while the other part is prone to increase. Just like ponds freeze over in the winter and melt in the summer it's something that will continue on.




I'm not rightwing.. I'm an independent thinker.. The science was fudged via politics. The peer reviews were reviewed by those in on the scam. Anyone who was not in on it and reviewed them saying anything other than what they claimed got blackballed..

how can you discredit something that holds no credit?

that makes 0 sense.

You guys may be right. I could be wrong on the politics and the details. I have never been an Al Gore fan - I don't like him at all.

I guess I WANT to believe that the anger and fear spread by the Global Warming stories will result in less dependence on fossil fuels, and a focus on a cleaner planet.

If somehow that is NOT what this is all about, then it is sad...

next month they'll come up with a new theory

Technology that makes cars more efficient has been developed for MANY MANY years.. In fact are you aware that they knew how to power cars off of hemp oil back in the 30's? Are you aware that American car makers sell cars in other countries which get 80+ miles to a gallon for a number of years now?

If they gave you a car which you could grow your own fuel in the backyard.. They lose control.. They may consider giving it to you though if they can tax the air you breathe..

I guess the big question is, who is "they"?

manmade global warming is a scam, the tropics are the hottest i've ever seen this year tho. gonna be fun!

so let me get this straight: the entire world and even part of US is wrong, but oil companies are right? Just trying to get this right, because objective data shows there's a climate change and a very big one (here in South America we're having +5º Celsius in summer and -4º Celsius in winter from historical data). Anyway, just asking, I'm sure oil companies and any kind of environment polluting companies are absolutely right, I can't believe they're telling lies :helpme

Companies such as BP, Gm, Ford, etc, etc have been buying up patents and hiding them for at least a 100 years. But knowledge has been hidden from the masses for thousands of years. Flat Earth? "They" = the ruling class, have kept us in the dark for a long long time. Only since the internet and people from around the World being able to easily get together to share knowledge has that changed.

If you are angry with big oil, and agree that big corporations are fucking the regular people over, by burying technologies that could be helping us, like Chevron purchasing and burying the lithium battery technology used for the EV-1 way back, as just one easy example... then you are singing to the choir on this. We are in complete agreement.

No the oil companies are behind the global warming movement. If you can be in on taxing the World you could give a shit less about selling oil. "Beyond Patroleum." Back in 1913 when they were trying to pass the Federal Reserve Act the bankers launched a campaign against it. The people thought that since the bankers didn't want it it was a good thing. Well little did they know it was a trick. Reverse psychology.

So since we agree that companies such as BP doesn't want us to advance and have been hiding tech for many years. Would it at all surprise you that they would blow up an oil well and hamper the cleanup efforts making it worse to further an agenda which they have more or less their company's future riding on?

No, that doesn't make any sense at all.

I believe the 911 conspiracies are 100 x's more likely, than BP destroying their company intentionally.

ah OK, this post is Kirk approved :thumbsup

http://freeprivaterooms.com/kirk.gif

If they can't get the carbon credit scam sold their company is destroyed. They and their cohorts are holding shitloads of carbon credit derivatives. Obama, Goldman Sachs, Warren Buffet, Al Gore, the Queen on England and the whole gang would all be broke...

You are either a delusional lunatic, or an inspired soothsayer.

Let's see where the facts lead us on this one...

The facts are that all of those people are heavily invested in this "global warming" scam.

For example

Burmah Oil, one of Britain’s oldest companies, had once effectively owned the company that became BP, before selling its majority holding to the British government at the start of World War I.

http://www.bp.com/printsectiongeneri...tentId=7027816

Scandal: Obama, Gore, Goldman, Joyce Foundation CCX partners to fleece USA
http://www.examiner.com/x-14143-Oran...-to-fleece-USA

Hate that the above quotes Glenn Beck but anyway.. It's all facts.

yes, I can see this is a really serious article

see if you can spot the difference:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/50/14...dc94d59460.jpg

http://cache3.asset-cache.net/xc/826...0AA4DCD10D7C9C

Pretty sure this is a lucky coincidence where it appears like NO CO2 EMISSION=NO POLLUTION when in fact the second photo must be taken in a place where 75% of natural CO2 emission isn't happening because they're breaking the laws of physics and chemistry

Where is the Iraqi Minister or Propaganda when you need it? :Oh crap




































































































aaaah, here he is :thumbsup :
http://www.pikeynet.com/myloftextens...5/minister.jpg

Which is why I just report the fact of the measurements, and dont take the obviously speculative step of saying it proves anything.

Science doesn't work like politics.

And the climate system of the planet is too complex to be modeled with the kinds of slogans and is-of-identity statements that politics relies on to manipulate the human brain.

---

The ice link you posted is standard political tripe. That's not how science works. You need to keep examining the new measurements and learn how to model a complex trend over time.

We had a colder than average winter on some parts of the globe last year - and colder than average winters ARE ALSO PREDICTED as part of the global warming model.

But the ice that reformed last winter was thin, and has remelted again at a rate never before measured by humans so far this year.

Your politics can never work like science. In order to understand global warming theory you need to learn how to use the scientific method and understand the scientific process.

Science doesn't care what you believe. Its about measurements. Yes, it's done by humans and therefore has human failings, but it is not in the same case of human activities as politics.

Politics is about beliefs and the art of the possible, science is about measurements and shared criticism of models.