http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/30/ho...
So it is only reasonable for one to come to the conclusion that people like YYYZZ 2 believe in AGW because they believe anything there is on the internet and simply believe in the big lie as explained by Hitler:
The theory of the Big Lie was succinctly expounded by Adolf Hitler, an acknowledged master of the genre. Here is what Der Führer wrote in vol. I, Chapter 10 of Mein Kampf (in James Murphy' translation):
"...in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying."
It is easier to believe a lie jammed down our throats by the government than to search for the truth.
My view is global temperature fluctuates due to natural forcings. I am yet to be convinced CO2, let alone man-made CO2, has anything to do with fluctuating temperature. If there is a relationship it is small and insignificant. There is a massive problem with the propaganda associated with climate change policy and this is linked with the banking families that unfortunately have control of the planet at this point in time.
Taking care of the planet is an entirely different thing. This has nothing to do with carbon taxes or dictatorial control of industry. Reducing genuine pollution, significant reduction in land clearing, decentralisation away from cities, and significant investment in accessibility and highly energy efficient transportation is all part of it. Major redevelopment of urban living space to limit impermeable area to 15%, combined with the wise use of energy, significant development of renewable energy, and eventual enabling of FREE ABUNDANT ENERGY to all is the huge part of it - which I think is entirely doable.
Energy and how it is used has been controlled for centuries primarily so that it can be metered and therefore some Organisation can charge you for it. A range of free energy options are known but their knowledge and development suppressed because the financiers (Bankers) for the project cannot find ways to meter the energy and therefore have it controlled and charged back to a supplier. It is a threat to existing and highly profitable money spinning ventures under their control and therefore must be terminated.
So I believe in caring for the planet and some of the desires that the climate change people seek. The spin doctored propaganda, indoctrination, pseudoscience, carbon tax, and industry control is rejected outright. Firmly believe the AGW advocates are seriously deluded by the propaganda and indoctrination. This is difficult to overcome but possible and definitely necessary if they have any real regard for the planet's sustainability and therefore our own future and well being. Banksters and their monopolising Corporations have no interest whatsoever in a sustainable world - ongoing control and power domination is their principle objective and everything must merge with this. AGW advocates need to focus their efforts on the real causes of the environmental problems that exist in the world. These problems will eventually relate back to the 'banking families' behind the US Federal Reserve and global central banks. So it is these people that need to be the focus of the AGW advocates rage.
The most ironic part of all this is that the passionate/ idealistic as well as just the self seeking AGW advocates are all highly likely on the Banksters payroll in one way or another. The AGW advocates as a group therefore need to sort the "men from the boys' and 'women from the girls' to harness their significant efforts and energy in the most beneficial way for the sustainable, energy efficient cause that I think most of them value. This has very little to do with IPCC and the existing climate change policies, indoctrination and propaganda.
I believe in global warming because that's what the evidence seems to show.
It's pretty clear, through multiple lines of evidence, that the planet *is* getting warmer, over the long term. There has been a pause or slowdown in *surface* warming over the past several years, likely caused at least in part by long-term cycles like the PDO that *will* be reversing sooner or later, likely sooner.
And as far as your .02% increase... if I increase the concentration of a strong dye in a vial of water from .02% to .04%, will that result in a tiny change in color, or will it roughly double the intensity of the color?
The only reason global warming has been a scare the last few decades is because of the ozone. In a recent study, they found out the the ozone is slowly fixing itself, making global warming decrease. I believe that global warming is real but not in a dramatic way. If humans don't decrease their eco-footprint, it could definitely be a problem in the future though.
I don't think the people in the midwest would agree. Seriously, Earth has warmed and cooled, off and on for millions of years. The Earth is destined to have weather changes hot and cold, because that is the normal way of things. I hate to disappoint Al Gore.
Some people require far less evidence than others to believe. I am a scientist so belief isn't something that I strive for. I do suspect that many claim to believe because they think that shows they care about the planet and that elevates them over non-believers.
We believe to be able to control Nature instead of trying to arrange ourselves with Nature. This haughtiness is the true main cause of global warming. As a matter of fact, some people still believe that technical solutions alone would be sufficient to fight global warming.
Although we are guests on Earth, we behave as if no further visitors would arrive after us. It's like having a wild party where we destroy beds, the kitchen as well as the living room of a hotel without ever thinking about our future staying in the hotel nor about other guests arriving later.
Climate Summits―Just Talk?
“The world must come together to confront climate change. There is little scientific dispute that if we do nothing, we will face more drought, famine and mass displacement that will fuel more conflict for decades.”―U.S. President Barack Obama.
IN THE view of some scientists, planet Earth is ill. It is running a fever. According to them, the global temperature may be approaching the so-called tipping point―that delicate threshold where a slight rise in temperature may “cause a dramatic change in the environment that itself triggers a far greater increase in global temperatures,” says the British newspaper The Guardian.
How did we get into this situation? Can it be reversed? Indeed, is it even within mankind’s ability to solve the problem of global warming―not to mention the many other major challenges confronting the human race?
Many scientists believe that human activity is a major factor, beginning with the industrial revolution and the subsequent increase in the use of fossil fuels, such as coal and oil. Another factor involves rampant deforestation. Forests serve as lungs for our environment. Trees absorb some of the greenhouse gases that produce global warming. However, the cutting away of large amounts of forest results in leaving increasing amounts of these gases in our atmosphere. In order to address these problems, world leaders have convened climate summits.
The Kyoto Protocol
The 1997 Kyoto Protocol, or agreement, set new goals for carbon dioxide emissions. By signing the protocol, the countries of the European Union and 37 other industrialized countries committed themselves to reducing their emissions by an average of 5 percent against 1990 levels, and this over the five-year period from 2008 to 2012.
The Kyoto Protocol, however, had some serious weaknesses. For example, the United States never ratified it. Also, larger developing countries, such as China and India, did not commit themselves to specific limits on their emissions. Yet, the United States and China alone contribute about 40 percent of the global carbon dioxide emissions.
The Copenhagen Summit
The objective of the Copenhagen summit, called COP 15, was to replace the Kyoto Protocol and set new, binding goals for 2012 and beyond.* To confront climate change, representatives from 192 nations, including 119 heads of State, gathered in Copenhagen, Denmark, in December 2009 to attend the event. COP 15 was faced with the following three primary challenges:
1. Reaching legally binding agreements. Would developed countries accept the necessary emission caps or limits, and would the major developing countries limit the growth of their emissions?
2. Financing a perpetual solution. The developing countries would need billions of dollars for many years in order to cope with the accelerating consequences of global warming and to generate environmentally clean technology.
3. Agreeing on a model for monitoring emissions. Such a model would help individual countries stay within their emission limits. It would also help to ensure that developing countries use donated funds properly.
Were these three challenges met? Negotiations ran into such serious problems that even a much less ambitious consensus seemed out of reach. Within the final hours of the conference, leaders from 28 countries hammered out a final document called the Copenhagen Accord. This accord was formally accepted with these rather bland words: “The conference . . . takes note of the Copenhagen Accord,” says Reuters news service. In other words, it was up to the individual countries to act on it.
What Next?
More conferences have been held or are planned, but skepticism runs high. “The planet will continue to cook,” said New York Times columnist Paul Krugman. All too often, short-term political and economic benefits outweigh long-term environmental factors, encouraging a business-as-usual approach. “If you want to understand opposition to climate action, follow the money,” says Krugman. He also wrote that the action on climate change in his country was essentially killed by “the usual suspects: greed and [political] cowardice.”
Global warming seems to be much like a hurricane. Meteorologists can measure the force of a hurricane and chart its possible course with reasonable accuracy―much to the benefit of those in its path. But all the scientists, politicians, and business leaders in the world cannot stop a hurricane. It seems that the same may be true of global warming. This fact calls to mind the words found in the Bible at Jeremiah 10:23: “To earthling man his way does not belong. It does not belong to man who is walking even to direct his step.”
Global Warming Will End―God’s Way
The Bible tells us that “the Former of the earth and the Maker of it . . . did not create it simply for nothing.” (Isaiah 45:18) The Bible also says: “The earth endures for ever.”―Ecclesiastes 1:4, The New English Bible.
Yes, God will not allow the earth to be rendered uninhabitable. Rather, he will intervene in human affairs and bring an end to failed human rule and those who have no regard for the earth. At the same time, he will preserve alive all who lead morally upright lives and sincerely want to please him. Says Proverbs 2:21, 22: “The upright are the ones that will reside in the earth, and the blameless are the ones that will be left over in it. As regards the wicked, they will be cut off from the very earth; and as for the treacherous, they will be torn away from it.”
The Conference of the Parties, COP, is arranged on a regular basis by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
A greenhouse gas is a component of the atmosphere that absorbs radiation emanating from the earth’s surface. Many of the gases emitted into the atmosphere by modern industrial processes are greenhouse gases. They include carbon dioxide, chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide. More than 25 billion tons of carbon dioxide alone is now released into our atmosphere every year. Reports indicate that since the start of the industrial age, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have risen by 40 percent.
Yes I agree with you. I feel like trashing the environment is the same as the eating the forbidden fruit kind of thing. Its just not something we humans should be doing regardless if it causes harm or not.
You don't have to care about the planet to believe in global warming. I suspect that there are people out there who privately believe in global warming and yet publicly deny it because they hope for global warming to cause the downfall of humanity. But, those of us who do care about our home and its inhabitants will only believe in global warming when presented with evidence.
Global warming is happening
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010...
And we are causing it
http://c1planetsavecom.wpengine.netdna-c...
The ten warmest years in the instrumental record are 2010, 2005, 2009, 2007, 2002, 1998, 2006, 2003, 2011 and 2012.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs...
No. It's clear that the planet is getting warmer.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp...
It's clear that the planet isn't getting warmer, and that a 0.02% increase in a trace atmospheric gas isn't going to change the climate. But do you still believe in global warming because you think people should be taking care of the planet? Do you want to be a good environmentalist even though global warming isn't real?
As a right winger you want to destroy the world. We get it
i read the same thing in the NY post today . " no global warming " seems to be the concensus of jewish controlled media outlets . the 99.9 % rest of the world disagrees . we can SEE it happening before our eyes .
I believe in global warming because there is positive proof - year by year photos that show glaciers receding and finally disappearing.
Global warming is real. I care about our planet because I want to live long in it
I dont give a sht for this planet as long I am doing fine. Not my problem...
According to statistics, freely available on the internet, temperatures have risen 0.7° C over the last 2 seasons. If that is not global warming I don't know what is!
Peace.
yes we should always care about our enviroment.
If you ignore the fact that oceans exist and a very tiny virus can kill you.
