No, it's not a myth. There is evidence that the earth's temperature is slightly higher than it used to be and they predict it will slowly increase. On the other, we've also seen colder winters. So now, it's called "climate change" and not "global warming".

I know pollution has a lot to do with all that, but everything that the world attributes to global warming gets a bit ridiculous, such that they are trying to tax based on CO2 emission. Then there are those who want to kill off all the cows and force people to eat vegetables instead. These are such extremes in thinking.

But, is it really CO2 emission? Is that what is causing the heat?

We were in a crowded room the other day. It was a museum with high ceilings. There was room to move and there was air conditioning - at least you could feel some air come out of the vents. But it was so stuffy! Humans were emitting so much heat that you couldn't feel the ventilation unless you were directly on top of it.

We know there's a population crisis and we know where in the world that crisis is the worst. So, if the sheer volume of people is the cause of global warming, shouldn't we encourage people to have fewer children? Why do we continue to send in monetary support to those third world countries just so they can continue to reproduce and contribute to the problem?

Hi Dig,

I've never heard of us humans emitting heat, being a partial cause of climate change. Wow, to me that's out there.
Climate change has been going on since the beginning, and will continue forever into the future.
You obviously didn"t watch the utube video I suggested, so I will dispel some of these myths for you.
IF temperatures are rising it is being caused by our sun going into sun cycle 23, which will bring about more sun spots.
Our oceans are like lungs. They release CO2 as ocean temperatures rise, and take in CO2 as their temperatures drop.
CO2 is a green house gas. But so is many other gases, and water vapor.
Of all green house gases CO2 only comprises about 2% of them.
All animals on the planet release twice as much CO2, as all of mankinds actions.
Volcanoes each year produce 10 times as much CO2 as man does.
Of all the CO2 released into our atmosphere mans contributing only .052%

CO2 levels are now at the lowest levels in over 600 million years.
Higher Co2 levels are excellent for our environment.
The International Panel for Climate Change was organized by the UN( world government) at the request of Margret Thatcher.

As for your suggesting that countries should not help other countries financially(we know who they are?) unless they stop having babies, sounds alot like racial eugenics to me. Don't worry Warren Buffet, Ted Turner, and Bill and Linda Gates among many other global financial elites are already carrying out this agenda through their aids vaccine program that is really only being given to sterilize the women there.
Did you know that Bill Gates father is the head of planned parenthood in the US? Yes it's a eugenics operation along with others started by the Rockefellers in the early 20th century. Research it, this info is available online. It all is. Stop believing in the state run media and think for yourself.

Do you really believe that man has more to do with global warming than the sun? Then explain why Mars icecaps are also melting?.
The only way people will be able to awaken from the government induced matrix, is to start thinking for themselves. To start researching for themselves, to stop drinking the fluoride and taking the vaccines.Also, stop allowing state run mainstream media to tell you what you should believe. They are pushing the globalists agenda to tax,trace and database us all.

Please don't believe anything I say, prove me wrong.

aghost4u2c

It was tongue-in-cheek. I'm not sure I buy into all this CO2 emissions people love to spout about. I do believe there is climate change, but it's not purely global warming, and I don't know if it's due to CO2. I think it's still just a hypothesis, not proven in any real sense, and just a way to increase our taxes.

As for humans emitting heat, I just wanted to put the argument out there that human bodies lose heat in various ways - radiant heat being the most common. That's why when you snuggle up with someone on a cold day, it feels so nice and warm. We are always losing that heat. I used the example in the museum to demonstrate that the air becomes very stuffy just because of a crowd. So, if the global warming experts want to put the blame somewhere, why don't they just say it's due to the population explosion. More people, more heat released. According to these experts, China and India have the highest level of CO2 emission. Is it CO2 emission or heat? They are the two largest population groups. India may surpass China because China taxes its people if they have more than one child, while India's (and the Indian subcontinent) population continues to multiply rapidly. Meanwhile, the pope tells the African nations not to use contraception.

As for racial eugenics, the way the world is going, we will be supporting a larger and larger group of underdeveloped and developing countries. It's like giving them fish without teaching them how to fish. Or, maybe they just don't want to learn. I'm tired of listening to any media and this is just my opinion. I guess I don't belong to the do-gooder class because I believe in tough love. I also believe that nature does have a way of controlling things, including population and climate change. The problem is, we are constantly fighting against it. Sometimes, because we believe it's good and sometimes, because we're idiots.

Take the HIV issue you mention. I'm not sure there is an AIDS vaccine available, so if they're using it, then it's just experimental. I won't argue the sterilization because I wouldn't know. But, at the risk of sounding completely insensitive and politically incorrect, I question why we need to SAVE THE WORLD from HIV. It looks like mother nature trying to control population. I'm not saying we shouldn't provide compassionate care - that's different from expecting to spend millions on providing all the medicines necessary. There is no cure for AIDS, even in the US. But we live in a society where people expect a cure for everything, therefore, science has to keep exploring in the name of saving the world. I'm not against technology and moving forward, but at what cost?

Sometimes I wish we could just return to the horse and buggy days. Yes, it took longer to get to work and play. Yes, mortality was high and life expectancy was low. Yes, living conditions for many people were horrendous. But look at where we are today. If we could take that knowledge back to those horse and buggy days and rearrange our priorities, maybe we can create a better world. That's just dreaming. We can never go back, except in science fiction.

Of course, the sun is the real reason for global warming. As someone pointed out, "how do we stop the sun from shining?" But, experts will answer that it's CO2 emissions that are creating the greenhouse effect, causing the earth to heat up. Mars icecaps are melting because that is normal melting. However, our pollution is causing our icecaps to melt even faster. How do you prove that CO2 emissions are creating a "greenhouse" rather than protecting us from harmful rays?

Hi Dig,

Thank you for clarifying your last post as tongue in cheek. I apologize for being sharp tongued ( so to speak) myself.

As to humans giving off a lot of heat, I totally agree. We sure do. I can't recall where I heard or read it but they stated we give off something like 50,000 BTU per day?

I agree India and China have high CO2 emissions from pollution. I watched a science show where they talked about why so many droughts in Africa. The scientists talked about a higher number of particulates in the jet stream, causing water vapor to form larger droplets, becoming heavier and therefore falling as rain before reaching Africa. They said normally the water vapor would form around a single floating particle, where know when they tested how many particles are in each raindrop the number is very high. How true or not I'm not sure. But it seems to make sense to me anyhow.

I too believe in tough love, and as far as the false left/right paradigm I would say I lean to be more conservative. An excellent free utube video is called America-Freedom to Fascism and in it they explain all about why Africa will never be Industrialized. The people sold as slave labor to the World Bank/IMF.
I should have been more clear myself about the comment, "aids Vaccine".
I have read several articles by high level scientists saying that HIV is made made. I've tried to find at least one and couldn't in my very large archives.
So when I said aids vaccines I mean they put HIV into the shots to give them HIV.
Return to the horse and buggy days? Are you trying to steal y retirement plans or what? haha. I'm serious though. Of course it would be very hard to go back if not impossible. I'd like to build a green dwelling in the wild forests here in BC away from most. A very self sufficient lifestyle,as I'm a gardener also.
I'm not against they environmental movement at all, quite the contrary. We need a better way of doing things. Yes If the icecaps are melting faster now, and I'm not sure they are. I've seen a lot of views going both ways on that. But if they are I'd say it was the particulates "dirtying" the ice attracting heat to do the melting, rather than CO2.
My problem with the environmental movement demonizing CO2 which gives life to all the worlds plants, and something all animals exhale is purely an evil Eugenics plot to brain wash people into believing humans are bad.
Have you heard of a famous Canadian scientist named David Suzuki?
In 1972 he said, and I quote," Humans are nothing but maggots living in their own deification" I wondered why he didn't commit suicide if he felt that way.
Anyhow sorry about getting touchy by my misinterpretation. I do love children and people in general and when some hierarchy start talking about who should get to live or die it gets my hackles up.

Ghosty

A carbon emissions plan under consideration in Washington aimed at global warming and climate change could cost the U.S. economy between 1.8 million and 2.4 million jobs over the next two decades.

The study, released Wednesday by the National Association of Manufacturers and the American Council for Capital Formation, worries about plans of Democrats and the Obama administration plans that would put caps and fees on carbon emissions and pollution.

The business study says the climate bill would increase costs that would be passed onto consumers and that a U.S. household would lose as much as $250 annually by 2020 and $1,250 by 2030. Also, according to the study, the GDP could lose 2.4 percent of its value by 2030.

Environmental groups discounted the business study’s conclusions, saying the climate and energy plans will bolster alternative energy development and production, reduce carbon emissions and pollution and reduce U.S. reliance on fossil fuels and foreign oil.



Global Research Articles by Mike Sunnucks

An interesting read....

Regards Mikal

(08-15-2009 06:09 AM)Mikal Wrote:  A carbon emissions plan under consideration in Washington aimed at global warming and climate change could cost the U.S. economy between 1.8 million and 2.4 million jobs over the next two decades.

Is this a net loss of jobs? The author does not say, so I am guessing the answer is no. Or will the plan, directly and indirectly, create more than this number of jobs in other areas?

Politically charged articles always have to be read in context.

Watts...in all fairness I would have to go and read some more of Mr. Sunnicks articles. Maybe Ghosty or Dig will add further....
Thanks for chatting...

Regards Mikal

---

Well I just found this, it is also interesting....

About 250 of the scientists quoted in the report (presented to the UN) have joined the dissenting scientists in the last year alone.

In fact, the total number of scientists represented in the report is 12 times the number of U.N. scientists who authored the official IPCC 2007 report.

Here are some choice excerpts from the report:

* "I am a skeptic ... . Global warming has become a new religion." -- Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

* "Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly ... . As a scientist I remain skeptical." -- Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called "among the most pre-eminent scientists of the last 100 years."

* Warming fears are the "worst scientific scandal in the history ... . When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists." -- U.N. IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning Ph.D. environmental physical chemist.

* "The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn't listen to others. It doesn't have open minds ... . I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists." -- Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the U.N.-supported International Year of the Planet.

* "The models and forecasts of the U.N. IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity." -- Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico.

* "It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don't buy into anthropogenic global warming." -- U.S. Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

* "Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapor and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will." -- Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, New Zealand.

* "After reading [U.N. IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet." -- Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an associate editor of Monthly Weather Review.

* "For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" -- Geologist Dr. David Gee, the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer-reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.

* "Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp ... . Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact." -- Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch U.N. IPCC committee.

* "Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined." -- Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh, Pa.

* "Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense ... . The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning." -- Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.

* "CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another ... . Every scientist knows this, but it doesn't pay to say so ... . Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver's seat and developing nations walking barefoot." -- Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.

* "The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds." -- Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata.


Regards Mikal

Hi all,

Here's a good clip about NAFTA and the globalist Global Warming Scam.

Ghosty

http://www.infowars.com/nafta-global-war...list-scam/

(08-13-2009 12:03 PM)Digressor Wrote:  No, it's not a myth. There is evidence that the earth's temperature is slightly higher than it used to be and they predict it will slowly increase. On the other, we've also seen colder winters. So now, it's called "climate change" and not "global warming".

I know pollution has a lot to do with all that, but everything that the world attributes to global warming gets a bit ridiculous, such that they are trying to tax based on CO2 emission. Then there are those who want to kill off all the cows and force people to eat vegetables instead. These are such extremes in thinking.

But, is it really CO2 emission? Is that what is causing the heat?

We were in a crowded room the other day. It was a museum with high ceilings. There was room to move and there was air conditioning - at least you could feel some air come out of the vents. But it was so stuffy! Humans were emitting so much heat that you couldn't feel the ventilation unless you were directly on top of it.

We know there's a population crisis and we know where in the world that crisis is the worst. So, if the sheer volume of people is the cause of global warming, shouldn't we encourage people to have fewer children? Why do we continue to send in monetary support to those third world countries just so they can continue to reproduce and contribute to the problem?

Well atleast your not one of the nay-sayers who still refuse Global Warming is factual, but Humans do radiate heat, but not so much where it would cause a global catastrophe. So no haha I wouldn't agree with stopping third world countries reproduction rate. Really the cause has a lot to do with the way our industry pollutes the air, there has been no further inventing to improve our reduction of pollutent waste. Wether its through factories or car emissions, it is a fact that if we continue to live the way we have been, the Earth will react and we'll suffer great.

But I will also address the issue with humans. See we humans do not react to serious problems untill the last minute when something happens and makes everyone believe and react. Its the way we are, similiar to the saying "I'll believe it when I see it". I will guarantee that most people will do nothing till the problem is unfixable.

Also Global Warming can be blamed on the Car Industries, I believe that many humans do not know how long ago the electric car was introduced, it was because of corrupt rich Car administrators that the electric car was a diminished possibility.