Global Warming: A sinister engineered plot to steal your money from more taxes
Scroll to see replies
Original post by AreYouDizzeeBlud_x
What is the point in bringing up this issue?
The government will always do what they please if they can provide a valid excuse, whether it be authentic or manipulated evidence. Yes there has been a graph that says that emissions have gone up but we all know the governments history of manipulating statistics, its always happened, just look at last years crime statistics. They showed that crime on the whole was down, however they didn't include rapes, cautions for drugs or petty crimes. Therefore it was biased and manipulated data. There is nothing at all we can do about it even if it is a farce.
It also doesn't help when you have Climatologists with PhD's saying that man made global warming doesn't exist.
http://educate-yourself.org/cn/globalwarmingdeception05feb07.shtml
Then you have reports like this
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/environment/ryanair-boss-oleary-says-global-warming-theories-are-nonsense-14945507.html
Surely, he has a point? Most governments around the world inject a lot of money into the science community to aid research into global warming or climate change, whatever you want to call it. Without this phenomenon then they wouldn't get that funding and therefore would lose a lot of money. Also, where is the proof that all the money given to them by the governments goes into funding and none of the other branches within scientific research?
The fact is, whether you agree or disagree with it, whether it exists or doesn't, until a senior scientist comes out with concrete evidence to put the issue to bed, there is nothing we can do about it. That's hardly going to happen is it? As the money from government funding goes straight into his very sector.
The government will always do what they please if they can provide a valid excuse, whether it be authentic or manipulated evidence. Yes there has been a graph that says that emissions have gone up but we all know the governments history of manipulating statistics, its always happened, just look at last years crime statistics. They showed that crime on the whole was down, however they didn't include rapes, cautions for drugs or petty crimes. Therefore it was biased and manipulated data. There is nothing at all we can do about it even if it is a farce.
It also doesn't help when you have Climatologists with PhD's saying that man made global warming doesn't exist.
http://educate-yourself.org/cn/globalwarmingdeception05feb07.shtml
Then you have reports like this
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/environment/ryanair-boss-oleary-says-global-warming-theories-are-nonsense-14945507.html
Surely, he has a point? Most governments around the world inject a lot of money into the science community to aid research into global warming or climate change, whatever you want to call it. Without this phenomenon then they wouldn't get that funding and therefore would lose a lot of money. Also, where is the proof that all the money given to them by the governments goes into funding and none of the other branches within scientific research?
The fact is, whether you agree or disagree with it, whether it exists or doesn't, until a senior scientist comes out with concrete evidence to put the issue to bed, there is nothing we can do about it. That's hardly going to happen is it? As the money from government funding goes straight into his very sector.
A very credible and valid point you made there. Its a shame people don't always think outside the box but what can we do really
Original post by darknessbehold
I can bet you my whole life savings that no matter how much aid is funded to these third world countries, not even in a 100 years time will they come close to the western equivalence. Infact, it would create a massive wealth inequality in those countries and I think its safe to say India is a prime example even though it is one of the world's largest economies.
And this supports your view that global warming is a con to damage third world countries how? I've provided evidence against it (albeit evidence you've judged to be insufficient - but it's still relevent), how about you try providing some supporting it?
Or is it just based on an assumption you've made?
don't embarrass yourself any further and stop this nonsense.
Original post by AreYouDizzeeBlud_x
It also doesn't help when you have Climatologists with PhD's
It also doesn't help when you have Climatologists with PhD's
I'm not sure where I stand on 'Global Warming' without further evidence, but just because someone has a PhD or is a scientist, doesn't mean they're right.
(edited 13 years ago)
Original post by No Future
I'm not sure where I stand on 'Global Warming' without further evidence, but just because someone has a PhD or is a scientist, doesn't mean they're right.
Agreed. So in theory, you admit also that all the scientists who claim it does exist could also be wrong?
Without concrete evidence on way or the other, we won't know. So realistically bringing up the topic time and time again is pointless until such evidence has surfaced.
Original post by AreYouDizzeeBlud_x
What is the point in bringing up this issue?
The government will always do what they please if they can provide a valid excuse, whether it be authentic or manipulated evidence. Yes there has been a graph that says that emissions have gone up but we all know the governments history of manipulating statistics, its always happened, just look at last years crime statistics. They showed that crime on the whole was down, however they didn't include rapes, cautions for drugs or petty crimes. Therefore it was biased and manipulated data. There is nothing at all we can do about it even if it is a farce.
It also doesn't help when you have Climatologists with PhD's saying that man made global warming doesn't exist.
http://educate-yourself.org/cn/globalwarmingdeception05feb07.shtml
Then you have reports like this
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/environment/ryanair-boss-oleary-says-global-warming-theories-are-nonsense-14945507.html
Surely, he has a point? Most governments around the world inject a lot of money into the science community to aid research into global warming or climate change, whatever you want to call it. Without this phenomenon then they wouldn't get that funding and therefore would lose a lot of money. Also, where is the proof that all the money given to them by the governments goes into funding and none of the other branches within scientific research?
The fact is, whether you agree or disagree with it, whether it exists or doesn't, until a senior scientist comes out with concrete evidence to put the issue to bed, there is nothing we can do about it. That's hardly going to happen is it? As the money from government funding goes straight into his very sector.
The government will always do what they please if they can provide a valid excuse, whether it be authentic or manipulated evidence. Yes there has been a graph that says that emissions have gone up but we all know the governments history of manipulating statistics, its always happened, just look at last years crime statistics. They showed that crime on the whole was down, however they didn't include rapes, cautions for drugs or petty crimes. Therefore it was biased and manipulated data. There is nothing at all we can do about it even if it is a farce.
It also doesn't help when you have Climatologists with PhD's saying that man made global warming doesn't exist.
http://educate-yourself.org/cn/globalwarmingdeception05feb07.shtml
Then you have reports like this
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/environment/ryanair-boss-oleary-says-global-warming-theories-are-nonsense-14945507.html
Surely, he has a point? Most governments around the world inject a lot of money into the science community to aid research into global warming or climate change, whatever you want to call it. Without this phenomenon then they wouldn't get that funding and therefore would lose a lot of money. Also, where is the proof that all the money given to them by the governments goes into funding and none of the other branches within scientific research?
The fact is, whether you agree or disagree with it, whether it exists or doesn't, until a senior scientist comes out with concrete evidence to put the issue to bed, there is nothing we can do about it. That's hardly going to happen is it? As the money from government funding goes straight into his very sector.
One PhD cannot stand against the overwhelming consensus on anthropogenic global warming. Look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
Of especial interest is this sentence: 'No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.'
Original post by AreYouDizzeeBlud_x
Agreed. So in theory, you admit also that all the scientists who claim it does exist could also be wrong?
Without concrete evidence on way or the other, we won't know. So realistically bringing up the topic time and time again is pointless until such evidence has surfaced.
Without concrete evidence on way or the other, we won't know. So realistically bringing up the topic time and time again is pointless until such evidence has surfaced.
They could be wrong, yes.
Obviously the ice caps are melting because of global cooling!
Why didn't we see it from the start?
It's a conspiracy I tell you!!!!
Why didn't we see it from the start?
It's a conspiracy I tell you!!!!
Original post by darknessbehold
Huh, global warming.
Almost all of us believe we are the cause of it. Almost all - except the "deranged" few like me perhaps.
We are brought up to believe that global warming is the cause of man made CO2 emissions - and we even have a nice little graph showing a steep exponential increase in global temperatures in the last 100 years.
Let me just cut to the chase here -
-> I think this so called global warming is a sinister engineered plan to further steal our money in various forms of taxes. Too many to describe really.
-> To stall/injure economic growth of third world countries such as Africa, India, etc. You have to really ask yourself - the west reached economic dominace by the use of oil and gas in the past 100 years and now they want the third world countries to reduce theirs. Like many jobs will be created for the billions in these
third world countries by mere renewable energies!
-> Meeting of several world leaders to discuss Global Cooling. Yes thats right. GLOBAL COOLING AND ITS IMPLICATIONS OF SLOW ECONOMIC GROWTH.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100055500/global-cooling-and-the-new-world-order/
http://www.bilderbergmeetings.org/conferences-10s.html
I seriously wonder WHY would world leaders discuss global cooling at a time when global warming is supposed to be the biggest threat to mankind?
Call me a loony, a retard, a low IQ individual, a fool - but honestly I don't care.
I'm not asking you to believe me. I'm just providing you with some information which can hopefully open your eyes to and see the big picture.
Almost all of us believe we are the cause of it. Almost all - except the "deranged" few like me perhaps.
We are brought up to believe that global warming is the cause of man made CO2 emissions - and we even have a nice little graph showing a steep exponential increase in global temperatures in the last 100 years.
Let me just cut to the chase here -
-> I think this so called global warming is a sinister engineered plan to further steal our money in various forms of taxes. Too many to describe really.
-> To stall/injure economic growth of third world countries such as Africa, India, etc. You have to really ask yourself - the west reached economic dominace by the use of oil and gas in the past 100 years and now they want the third world countries to reduce theirs. Like many jobs will be created for the billions in these
third world countries by mere renewable energies!
-> Meeting of several world leaders to discuss Global Cooling. Yes thats right. GLOBAL COOLING AND ITS IMPLICATIONS OF SLOW ECONOMIC GROWTH.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100055500/global-cooling-and-the-new-world-order/
http://www.bilderbergmeetings.org/conferences-10s.html
I seriously wonder WHY would world leaders discuss global cooling at a time when global warming is supposed to be the biggest threat to mankind?
Call me a loony, a retard, a low IQ individual, a fool - but honestly I don't care.
I'm not asking you to believe me. I'm just providing you with some information which can hopefully open your eyes to and see the big picture.
Okay.
You're a loony, a retard, a low IQ individual and a fool.
In response to your underlined comment: Yes, there is some evidence to suggest what you say. The key word though being some. There's a damn lot more saying otherwise.
Original post by MagicNMedicine
Global warming was last year's scam.
This year's scam is "THE DEFICIT"
Its all a big myth invented by the governments, so that you accept it when they put your taxes up like they did VAT.
Oh nos we have a big deficit, if it grows further then global armageddon will ensure, we're all doomed doomed, pay more tax to avoid this desperate fate.
If I had my way we would just build more coal and gas power stations and pay for it through government borrowing. Live for today people, chill dem.
This year's scam is "THE DEFICIT"
Its all a big myth invented by the governments, so that you accept it when they put your taxes up like they did VAT.
Oh nos we have a big deficit, if it grows further then global armageddon will ensure, we're all doomed doomed, pay more tax to avoid this desperate fate.
If I had my way we would just build more coal and gas power stations and pay for it through government borrowing. Live for today people, chill dem.
The deficit does exist, you can look at government taxation receipts (£600m annually) against spending levels (£800m annually) for evidence
If, for example, a family were earning £600 weekly, but spending £800, what would you recommend? Taking a weekly bank loan of £200 which will gradually built up into a massive debt which can never be paid off, or would you recommend that they simply cut their weekly spending by £200? Why should this principle not be extended to the government?
'Fraid the OP is just full of nutcase conspiracy theories, so I've gone and found a post that I can respond to with some science. So sorry Meron, you were just unlucky. 
You absolutely can. Fundamentally, there are only two ways to affect the Earth's energy balance. You can either vary the amount of solar radiation it receives, or vary the amount it reflects back into space. That means either changing solar luminosity, the Earth's albedo (reflectivity), its orbit and axis, or its greenhouse effect. Albedo has not changed appreciably on a human timescale, though the current warming may be beginning to have an effect as sea ice extent in the Arctic summer decreases. The Milankovitch Cycles in orbital eccentricity, axial tilt and precession also have had a negligible effect over the last century - the timescale over which they happen is simply too long. Solar luminosity has reduced since the middle of the twentieth century, and we're also at a solar minimum in the 11-year sunspot cycle which is indicative of the amount of radiation it's blasting out into space.
Therefore, the blame can be squarely pinned on the greenhouse effect. Then the question becomes: what is causing the greenhouse effect to change? For that we need to alter greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, and the near-doubling of CO2 concentrations (from a stable 270ppmv throughout the Holocene to 390ppmv today) absolutely fits the bill. We know where this increase in CO2 concentrations has come from - anthropogenic sources, not volcanic ones.
Consider these two graphs:
The first shows a comparison of the observed increase in temperature (black line) over the twentieth century compared with the modelled effect natural forcings alone would have had on the climate. Note the clear divergence from the middle of the twentieth century.
It is only when Anthropogenic forcings are added that the model and observations are in general agreement.
The science really is pretty settled. We know our planet is warming and we know why it's warming.
There's plenty of concrete evidence out there and the debate, within the scientific community at least, has been put to bed. We know its happening, we know why its happening, and all that remains is the will to actually do something about it.
Original post by Meron
I must admit it must be difficult to study global warming only because of its complex nature by that I mean you can not isolate one cause alone. Even if global warming is not the issue we are running out of fossil fuels so we have to look for alternatives.
You absolutely can. Fundamentally, there are only two ways to affect the Earth's energy balance. You can either vary the amount of solar radiation it receives, or vary the amount it reflects back into space. That means either changing solar luminosity, the Earth's albedo (reflectivity), its orbit and axis, or its greenhouse effect. Albedo has not changed appreciably on a human timescale, though the current warming may be beginning to have an effect as sea ice extent in the Arctic summer decreases. The Milankovitch Cycles in orbital eccentricity, axial tilt and precession also have had a negligible effect over the last century - the timescale over which they happen is simply too long. Solar luminosity has reduced since the middle of the twentieth century, and we're also at a solar minimum in the 11-year sunspot cycle which is indicative of the amount of radiation it's blasting out into space.
Therefore, the blame can be squarely pinned on the greenhouse effect. Then the question becomes: what is causing the greenhouse effect to change? For that we need to alter greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, and the near-doubling of CO2 concentrations (from a stable 270ppmv throughout the Holocene to 390ppmv today) absolutely fits the bill. We know where this increase in CO2 concentrations has come from - anthropogenic sources, not volcanic ones.
Consider these two graphs:
The first shows a comparison of the observed increase in temperature (black line) over the twentieth century compared with the modelled effect natural forcings alone would have had on the climate. Note the clear divergence from the middle of the twentieth century.
It is only when Anthropogenic forcings are added that the model and observations are in general agreement.
The science really is pretty settled. We know our planet is warming and we know why it's warming.
Original post by AreYouDizzeeBlud_x
The fact is, whether you agree or disagree with it, whether it exists or doesn't, until a senior scientist comes out with concrete evidence to put the issue to bed, there is nothing we can do about it. That's hardly going to happen is it? As the money from government funding goes straight into his very sector.
The fact is, whether you agree or disagree with it, whether it exists or doesn't, until a senior scientist comes out with concrete evidence to put the issue to bed, there is nothing we can do about it. That's hardly going to happen is it? As the money from government funding goes straight into his very sector.
There's plenty of concrete evidence out there and the debate, within the scientific community at least, has been put to bed. We know its happening, we know why its happening, and all that remains is the will to actually do something about it.
"All the Scientists are just collaborating with the Government who pay for their research, they say Global Warming is real and come up with these results, and the Government can use it to bring in a whole raft of new taxes. "
Of course, such doubters conveniently ignore the other (smaller) group of Scientists who drag up evidence against the theory, but who pays for their research? The oil companies? Brazil? China?
Somebody has too.
Whatever way you look at it, there will be people manipulating too make money.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDj6WechLhw&feature=related
Of course, such doubters conveniently ignore the other (smaller) group of Scientists who drag up evidence against the theory, but who pays for their research? The oil companies? Brazil? China?
Somebody has too.
Whatever way you look at it, there will be people manipulating too make money.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDj6WechLhw&feature=related
Original post by Kaiser MacCleg
The Milankovitch Cycles in orbital eccentricity, axial tilt and precession also have had a negligible effect over the last century - the timescale over which they happen is simply too long.
Thank you! Its so hard to find information about how the Milankovitch cycle is affecting global temperature at the moment (well, I couldn't find much). That was a very enlightening post, as well. +rep.
Original post by channy
Please, just shut the **** up
This. Maybe we should have a separate section for conspiracy theories so they have somewhere to put their tired ramblings.
Original post by AreYouDizzeeBlud_x
Without concrete evidence on way or the other, we won't know. So realistically bringing up the topic time and time again is pointless until such evidence has surfaced.
Without concrete evidence on way or the other, we won't know. So realistically bringing up the topic time and time again is pointless until such evidence has surfaced.
Science doesn't work like that. It's not just one guy who starts thinking one day and then boom it is proven/disproved.
'Concrete evidence' doesn't exist, but by looking at all of the evidence that is fairly good, we can work some things out. For example, if there are thousands of small studies all saying the same thing, and only a few that disagree, then we can say that the thousands of small studies have a very high chance of being correct, if they have been done properly. We can't know 100% without concete evidence, but we will never get that, the best we can hope for is to be 99.9% sure, and although not perfect, it is worthwhile acting on information we are 99.9% sure about.
This is what we have with global warming, and it's called a scientific consensus.
Original post by Kaiser MacCleg
There's plenty of concrete evidence out there and the debate, within the scientific community at least, has been put to bed. We know its happening, we know why its happening, and all that remains is the will to actually do something about it.
I’d like to echo this succinct response, and applaud your thoroughly concise yet striking post. I loathe it when people, whether sceptics or those too apathetic to reach a conclusion, resort to the ostensibly inoffensive, balanced approach of stating that there ‘needs to be more research,’ that it’s ‘impossible to reach a conclusion with available evidence,’ that there are ‘uncertainties that need resolving,’ that there ‘could be other explanations,’ etc ad infinitum. It's the typical response of a politician to a report/research that they don't like and want to dismiss out of selfish emotive interests.
Of course, in reality, a person informed by peer-reviewed journals and rigorous reports will see that this is merely a cowardly, manipulative act of rhetoric from those that are woefully under-informed, have not/poorly researched the underlying science, and are too prideful or stubborn to admit their truthful ignorance of the matter. It isn’t balanced, it isn’t inoffensive. It’s asinine nonsense that masquerades as rationality because those spouting such drivel are, at heart, fully aware that expressing the true foundations underlying their views would get them laughed at and rejected.
The truth would be something akin to: “The only things I know about climate change are those details available from mass media and political figures because I haven't read the thousands of thoroughly peer-reviewed scientific reports available, and want to deny reality. Also, I didn’t approach the issue with an open-mind in an impartial, rational manner but rather reached a conclusion based on my initial emotive response and what I thought was most convenient for me. I then realised that people wouldn’t listen to my opinion if I didn’t masquerade as knowledgeable by using a few typical rhetoric techniques or use a few jargon words in my vocabulary to suggest scientific awareness, such as ‘solar forcing,’ or ‘natural cycle.’ I learned of those things by watching things like the ‘Great Global Warming Swindle’ or by doing a Google search for ‘global warming not real.’ The arguments sounded scientific so I used them to earn respect for my opinion that it doesn’t deserve, because most people are bamboozled by it but those that have bothered to research it know that they’re all debunked pseudo-science or poorly proven hypotheses at best.’
I also should state that, whilst I may be somewhat derisive, I don’t mean to suggest superior knowledge as I know nothing of climatology beyond what I have read. However, I do trust in the hundred(ish) scrutinised, self-aware, humble, considered, holistic reports that I've read. I trust in them because they are open to the world and endlessly peer-reviewed, thus can be attacked and refined if needed. Moreover, I know that the reports I've read are just a small sample that have been accumulated via the application of the scientific method's holistic, unbiased, fact-guided, humble, self-aware, honest, clear, and logical approach to matters.
I also don’t mean to suggest certainty with the above as nothing in science is truly certain, but empirical evidence can be overwhelming nonetheless. Further research is always excellent as new data and new perspectives strengthen, challenge, or help to refine a theory. However, when people say 'further research is needed' they almost never mean it in that way; they always seem to mean that they'd simply prefer to ignore the evidence since it avoids them having to reach a conclusion or do anything to change their life.
If the above sounds cynical then it’s because I’m sick of people applying political and emotional manipulative social mechanics or techniques for linguistic duplicity to something that is fundamentally scientific. If you know nothing then admit it rather than trying to waffle, awareness of your ignorance allows others to provide reports that lead to self-enlightenment rather than indoctrination. In my view, there is no weakness in it, it shows strength to overcome pride and admit error or a lack of knowledge.
(edited 13 years ago)
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Desire for net zero referendum growing among public, poll finds
- Paying back student loans the quickest way for low income students
- What would I get out for this essay I wrote for english language paper 2 question 5
- Housing crisis
- Rishi Sunak gives Net Zero speech: PM waters down key policy goals
- Should I make a Stocks and Shares ISA now?
- Not sure want to do in my future
- electrical schematics and analyzing signals
- What does 'Custom charges raised' mean?
- How much do chemical engineers make 2024?
- Which STEM careers actually make decent money?
- weather
- Explain Liss truss policies to me
- imperial global summer school
- Applying for a Chemical Engineering degree with no Physics A-level : Good move?
- Where can I find cash-in-hand jobs?
- Msc Engineering Management or Msc Management
- I didn't watch a single minute of the coronation today!
- Computer Science Bsc G402 Modules
- Even if you gain funding for a phd, you still have to pay for other student debts...
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
