Chemtrail Central
Login
Member List
Image Database
Chemtrail Forum
Active Topics
Who's Online
Search
Research
Flight Explorer
Unidentifiable
FAQs
Phenomena
Disinformation
Silver Orbs
Transcripts
News Archive
Channelings
Etcetera
PSAs
Media
Vote


Chemtrail Central
Search   FAQs   Messages   Members   Profile
global waarming scam

Post new topic Reply to topic
Chemtrail Central > Weather

Author Thread
sicntired





Joined: 27 May 2007
Posts: 593
Location: columbus, ohio
global waarming scam PostFri Jan 30, 2009 1:01 pm  Reply with quote  

The Amazing Story Behind the Global Warming Scam

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 we 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 lead to a rise in public awareness that CO2 is not a pollutant and is not a significant greenhouse gas that is triggering runaway global warming.

www.earthchangesmedia.com
 View user's profile Send private message
visual ray wizard





Joined: 09 Jul 2005
Posts: 461
Location: United States
2008 recorded the lowest sun acitivity readings since modern PostSun Feb 01, 2009 12:04 am  Reply with quote  

times and our ability to record such events. Sun gazers have called it the "blankest year in modern recorded history" of course our arrogance seems to over look the fact that the sun has a mind of it's own with both predetermined patterns and not so predetermined patterns. Google solar cycle 24 (we are still waiting)

Recently the polar alignments of the sun and earth were determined to be completely opposite of what was long assumed in terms of what conditions best protected earth from solar storms.

Right now the current (polarity)alignment was thought to protect the earth and further strengthen our magnetic shield from solar disturbances but now they have determined that it has actually weakened it? Amazing we are so arrogant considering the very very slender piece of the pie we have as a data base to project such proclamations.

There is a newly discovered "hole" in our protective shield which is growing larger as reported by newly deployed satellites which means that even though we are way over due for the start of solar cycle 24, when it does eventually begin the effects here on earth will be quite substantial in regards to both power grids and orbital platforms.

We THINK we know so much and at every turn we find out that we have so so much to learn. That is why I have actively debunked the CO2 scam as the sole and only reason we are experiencing greater variances in our ecosystem.

Planetary magnetics affect climatology as well as gamma rays and sudden ionospheric disturbances which we are just beginning to understand and they can occur light years away from our galaxy.

The fact is 2008 went down in the record books as the year the sun simply went blank. Less net energy received from our beloved sun will have a direct impact on what happens here on earth since it is the main driver of everything that allows life to flourish. On the other side of the coin when she does go active watch out we are going to be in for one hell of a ride......

P.S.
Al Gore makes me snore. His "documentary" was full of charts that were missing numerical scales of any kind. Methane is 60 times more powerful as a global warming agent as an example and when and if a small fraction of the methane trapped under polar ice is released into the atmosphere we will see ice melting on a biblical scale. Then again we don't understand in it's entirety how our ecosystem will counterbalance such effects. This is a fear based movement without the total understanding of many complex interactions.

I agree with you that the CO2 scam is just that another gimmick to tax the daylights out of our societies although developing alternate energy solutions in a serious way is long over due in my humble opinion.

So long as the dollar is based on the price of oil versus gold or some other tangible asset our ability to free ourselves from the almighty barrel of oil will be subdued by the powers to be. That won't stop the fed from printing our currency like it is going out of style and charge interest to boot!
_________________
Being one with nature never felt so good!
 View user's profile Visit poster's website Send private message
Free World Order


tagged & banned


Joined: 18 Apr 2006
Posts: 2013
Location: Totalitarian EU
PostWed Feb 04, 2009 1:57 pm  Reply with quote  

Then if we think we have biospheric problems, polluting of the oceans, deforestation, pollution of atmosphere, etc. We should promote or stop weather control technology? Tell us all the pros and cons, we know the risks already based on UK and European declassified documents. What are the benefits of weather control, and do they out weigh the disadvantages, such as pharma and biotech companies use in their pseudo ethical slanted policy debates...?

What are the real solutions?

Why are the real solutions being ignored or aren't they?

Tell us soon before readers are alienated by this, so much so they become pro NWO and want biotech food and weather control because it is the 'solution!' The more environmentalists push for pro environmentalism the more the opposite happens. There will be no real progress because both sides are too biased, and for this very reason we have a stalemate. No action = status quo is preserved.

Heheh, maybe Obama will save you after all once he invests a few trillion into renewables. NO!, Wait. That cannot possibly be allowed. Since the US has the worlds largest military defense budget. Obama stated that he would not cut funding, so i guess he loves to play world cop corp America! Ah, well so much for hope. keep up the hope if it is not lost, but false hope just kills. I promise you, it really does kill life not just dreams.

When the US military defense fund is compared to Russia, China, Taiwan, and India and all of the UK, EU and Africa the USA still has the worlds largest military defense fund even when all of the worlds are combined excluding USA!!! After the USA the UK is the 2nd # in rank for weapons exports.

I am not anti military but if we did reduce military funding by 30% - 60% we could solve all problems within 20 years, including all world poverty, and make trillions more in profit in the process. Pity some people are so short sighted in all of this.

And I mean all problems! No Utopia like UN or EU needed then!!!

Just as this was realised, natural population control would be "normalised" to an acceptable rate world wide, in a sustainable fashion.
_________________
http://home.comcast.net/~plutarch/PoliceState.html
Disclaimer: all my posts are thought crimes and only IMO in the police state we all live in...
http://www.europeantruth.co.uk/index1.html UK is history, USA to RESIST?
http://www.freedom-force.org
 View user's profile Send private message
PAK





Joined: 03 Feb 2006
Posts: 1324
PostWed Feb 04, 2009 5:04 pm  Reply with quote  

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

By John Coleman

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 we 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. The public is now becoming skeptical of the claim that our carbon footprints from the use of fossil fuels is going to lead to climatic calamities.

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 saw the opportunity to obtain major funding from the Navy for doing measurements and research on the ocean around the Pacific Atolls where the US military was conducting 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, who was very interested in the traces of carbon in the environment from the burning of fossil fuels. Revelle tagged on to Suess studies and co-authored a paper with him in 1957. The paper raises the possibility that the carbon dioxide might be creating a greenhouse effect and causing atmospheric warming. It seems to be 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 1960 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.

Now let me take you back to the1950s when this was going on. Our cities were entrapped in a pall of pollution from the crude internal combustion engines that powered cars and trucks back then and from the uncontrolled emissions from power plants and factories. Cars and factories and power plants were filling the air with all sorts of pollutants. There was a valid and serious concern about the health consequences of this pollution and a strong environmental movement was developing to demand action. Government accepted this challenge and new environmental standards were set. Scientists and engineers came to the rescue. New reformulated fuels were developed for cars, as were new high tech, computer controlled engines and catalytic converters. By the mid seventies cars were no longer big time polluters, emitting only some carbon dioxide and water vapor from their tail pipes. Likewise, 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. So the research papers from Scripps came at just the right moment. And, with them came the birth of an issue; man-made global warming from the carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels.

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 began to flow and alarming hypothesis began to show up everywhere.

The Keeling curve showed a steady rise in CO2 in atmosphere during the period since oil and coal were discovered and used by man. As of today, carbon dioxide has increased from 215 to 385 parts per million. But, despite the increases, it is still only a trace gas in the atmosphere. While the increase is real, the percentage of the atmosphere that is CO2 remains tiny, about 41 hundredths of one percent.

Several hypothesis emerged in the 70s and 80s about how this tiny atmospheric component of CO2 might cause a significant warming. But they remained unproven. Years have passed and the scientists 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 meeting.

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. 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 the UN funding so they could produce the science they needed to stop the burning of fossil fuels. Over the last 25 years they have been very effective. Hundreds of scientific papers, four major international meetings and reams of news stories about climatic Armageddon later, the UN IPCC has made its points to the satisfaction of most and even shared a Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore.

At the same time, that 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 to become a major global warming activist. 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.

So there it is, Roger Revelle was indeed the grandfather of global warming. His work had laid the foundation for the UN IPCC, provided the anti-fossil fuel ammunition to the environmental movement and sent Al Gore on his road to his books, his move, his Nobel Peace Prize and a hundred million dollars from the carbon credits business.
What happened next is amazing.

The global warming frenzy was becoming the cause celeb of the media. After all the media is mostly liberal, loves Al Gore, loves to warn us of impending disasters and tell us "the sky is falling, the sky is falling". The politicians and the environmentalist loved it, too.


But the tide was turning with Roger Revelle. He was forced out at Harvard at 65 and returned to California and a semi retirement position at UCSD. There he had time to rethink Carbon Dioxide and the greenhouse effect. The man who had inspired Al Gore and given the UN the basic research it needed to launch its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was having second thoughts. In 1988 he wrote two cautionary letters to members of Congress. He wrote, "My own personal belief is that we should wait another 10 or 20 years to really be convinced that the greenhouse effect is going to be important for human beings, in both positive and negative ways." He added, "…we should be careful not to arouse too much alarm until the rate and amount of warming becomes clearer."

And in 1991 Revelle teamed up with Chauncey Starr, founding director of the Electric Power Research Institute and Fred Singer, the first director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service, to write an article for Cosmos magazine. They urged more research and begged scientists and governments not to move too fast to curb greenhouse CO2 emissions because the true impact of carbon dioxide was not at all certain and curbing the use of fossil fuels could have a huge negative impact on the economy and jobs and our standard of living. I have discussed this collaboration with Dr. Singer. He assures me that Revelle was considerably more certain than he was at the time that carbon dioxide was not a problem.

Did Roger Revelle attend the Summer enclave at the Bohemian Grove in Northern California in the Summer of 1990 while working on that article? Did he deliver a lakeside speech there to the assembled movers and shakers from Washington and Wall Street in which he apologized for sending the UN IPCC and Al Gore onto this wild goose chase about global warming? Did he say that the key scientific conjecture of his lifetime had turned out wrong? The answer to those questions is, "I think so, but I do not know it for certain". I have not managed to get it confirmed as of this moment. It’s a little like Las Vegas; what is said at the Bohemian Grove stays at the Bohemian Grove. There are no transcripts or recordings and people who attend are encouraged not to talk. Yet, the topic is so important, that some people have shared with me on an informal basis.

Roger Revelle died of a heart attack three months after the Cosmos story was printed. Oh, how I wish he were still alive today. He might be able to stop this scientific silliness and end the global warming scam.

Al Gore has dismissed Roger Revelle’s Mea culpa as the actions of senile old man. And, the next year, while running for Vice President, he said the science behind global warming is settled and there will be no more debate, From 1992 until today, he and his cohorts have refused to debate global warming and when ask about we skeptics they simply insult us and call us names.

So today we have the acceptance of carbon dioxide as the culprit of global warming. It is concluded that when we burn fossil fuels we are leaving a dastardly carbon footprint which we must pay Al Gore or the environmentalists to offset. Our governments on all levels are considering taxing the use of fossil fuels. The Federal Environmental Protection Agency is on the verge of naming CO2 as a pollutant and strictly regulating its use to protect our climate. The new President and the US congress are on board. Many state governments are moving on the same course.

We are already suffering from this CO2 silliness in many ways. Our energy policy has been strictly hobbled by no drilling and no new refineries for decades. We pay for the shortage this has created every time we buy gas. On top of that the whole thing about corn based ethanol costs us millions of tax dollars in subsidies. That also has driven up food prices. And, all of this is a long way from over.

And, I am totally convinced there is no scientific basis for any of it.

Global Warming. It is the hoax. It is bad science. It is a highjacking of public policy. It is no joke. It is the greatest scam in history.

To email John Coleman, click here.

For more info on the global warming scam, check out Coleman's Corner.
_________________
... we are in process of developing a whole series of techniques which will enable the controlling oligarchy who have always existed and presumably will always exist to get people to love their servitude. Aldous Huxley
 View user's profile Send private message
WECWATURDOIN





Joined: 28 Mar 2006
Posts: 186
The real reason for global warming PostWed Mar 04, 2009 3:14 am  Reply with quote  

Global warming is a natural part of earths history and future.

http://tinyurl.com/coohlx
 View user's profile Send private message

Post new topic Reply to topic
Forum Jump:
Jump to:  

All times are GMT.
The time now is Thu Dec 18, 2014 10:22 pm


  Display posts from previous:      



Conspiracy List | Arcade Webmaster | Escape Games


© 21st Century Thermonuclear Productions
All Rights Reserved, All Wrongs Revenged, Novus Ordo Seclorum