"Global Warming"

Dim looks like he's keen for a Friday night conspiracy thread :WINK1: So here goes.

For years i've been trying to work out why they are feeding us all this treetree about global warming, it doesn't make sense.

Fact : Atmospheric Co2 is at its lowest point in geological history since the Coal measures were formed in the Carboniferous Period some 300 million years ago.

Co2 today - 335 parts per million.

Co2 in the Carboniferous - 400 Parts per million.

In the Jurassic & Cretaceous periods it rose to over 2000 parts per million. There were no Ice Caps then but it didn't turn into "Water World" there was still lots of land.

The ice started forming again 34 million years ago when Co2 was still at 800ppm.

So, although it may be a factor, Co2 is not the be all and end all of global warming, and its more likely due to Solar output.

Fact : The USA mislead the world about the Himalayan Glaciers melting. They are NOT.

http://www.theresilientearth.com/?q=content/himalayan-glaciers-not-melting

Fact : Melting Sea ice will cause no net level change in Sea Level. Only ice melting from a land mass will do that.

If all the land ice melts, we would loose low lying land to the sea. The Nederlands, Bangladesh etc.

If the glaciers start rolling to the extent they did a mere 10,000 years ago (thats just seconds geologically speaking) Then we would loose Northern Europe, above a line from The Severn Estuary to Northern Japan would be under an ice sheet. South of that would be mostly permafrost.

Likewise across the pond we'd loose all of Canada and a fair chunk of the Northern USA.

Basically, an ice age will do a whole lot more damage than a rise in sea level & a warmer climate could ever do.

So why are we being fed all this Bull Poo about Global Warming being such a terrible thing?

I have a new theory as to whats driving the false crusade, but i'll see what the others have to say first.

 

I am a great conspiratory theorist - I firmly belive that Humpty Dumpty was pushed !!

 

Lets say you are in a position of power in a tiny country with a long tradition of imperialism, but you realise that now your nation has no great power left. Your engineering heritage, as great as it is, is just heritage. Everyone else can do it now too. Your military might is no longer there, over the past several centuries your nation has sold all the best kit to the potential foe, and through relentless asset stripping, the your nations force, although formidable, isn't enough to bully the rest of the world any more. So lets say the nations your nation once bullied now have all the resources, and all the assets. You can't just take it. Not only is that no longer popular, but your nation isn't powerful enough anyway any more.

There are two ways to the top. You can either climb up on your merits, or you can drag everyone else down. So you look at the main source of strength (money) in your rivals, and you try to break it. The middle east was made rich and powerful because of our thirst for fuel. China is powerful because of our materialistic need for cheap things, and India is powerful because of our desire to have everything done for us by someone else (outsourcing). We can't possibly fight them all. The yanks would like to try but even they realise they can't do it. So you take the countries that still have influence, and convince the people in those countries to spread the word that we should buy less of the China's, India's, the middle east's stuff. The idea being to weaken them economically, so that the original holders of power stay powerful. After a time, it becomes apparent that simple propaganda isn't working. People are still driving whatever car they like as much as they like, and heating their houses even in summer, all while sitting in their excessively heated living rooms in their boxers playing with their latest gadget that was made in the far east. So another plan is needed. Lo and behold, the whole western world suddenly loses all the housekeeping money in a game of poker (or whatever happened), so people start losing their jobs, or are so worried about losing their jobs that they daren't spend their money. So all in all, the aim is to send less money abroad, not for fear of us losing it but for fear of someone else gaining it.

That's my theory anyway.

 

A good and viable theory other Dave That will certainly play a part in it somewhere.

 

As both Ziggy and Clueless1 have posted, it is not really a threat, it is just so that an excuse is available to tax and penalise the peasants

If the end is nigh then what is the problem with Nuclear Power, lots of cheap energy for free, we can all heat our homes, and use as much Electrickery as we want, for almost free, heat our greenhouses, heat our homes,
Ooops that would be bad for the rich owners of Energy company's

Local problem here in Fife
(for years we have been exporting our scrap heaps of metal to China a willing buyer, we almost have no old metal scrap heap now, just the relatively modern cars, plastic and tin)
Fife/Scotland is building a new Forth road bridge as the original one after 50 years is in a critical condition
The steel for the new bridge is coming from CHINA, but low and behold China have just doubled the price of the steel we bought :-) Oh dear how sad

We can not source it from elsewhere as there is a shortage in the World and China has it all oops we sold and closed all our IRON FOUNDRIES too

Jack McH

 

Its interesting you say this, because our local steel works have just restarted production after 2 years of being closed. The first steel 'beam' was supposed to roll off the production line at 0913 a couple of mornings ago according to the local radio.

However, as usual, there is a bit of controversy now, as it has been suggested that almost all of the steel produced just a few roads away from me will actually go to the far east. I'm puzzled by that. I'm happy for the chaps who've got their jobs back, and I'm happy for the fact that we're getting our storage heater back (before the furnace closed, Redcar never really froze in winter, then while its closed we got an unheard of -10'C on more than one occasion). But as much as I'm glad its back on, I'm a bit puzzled as to how it can be economically viable to produce steel in a very expensive expensive country and then ship it to the other side of the world.

 

I'm all for taxing the worldwide public, and using those funds to develop cleaner energy and stop polluting/oil drilling and Fracking

However, they should not try and fool the public and say that it is to combat 'global warming'

from what I have read, 'global warming' is happening in the whole universe:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread221608/pg1

even top scientists are having a laugh

as for cleaner energy, Tesla developed free energy, but that info is withheld from us, as if we don't buy oil, worldwide economies will fail, and millions will loose jobs



a few years back, Stan Meyer developed a gadget/technology that allowed engines to run on tap water .... he was offered 1 billion USD from the Saudi's for the patent.... refused the offer, and 'died' suddenly a few weeks later .... US officials came to his home and removed all the equipment and papers etc and we have not heard anything since?

 

I like to keep an open mind, but this bit made me laugh. 'Universal global warming'. Where is all that extra energy coming from? And more importantly, what we going to do when refugees from planets whose oceans have already boiled off start arriving here en mass to nick our land?

 

Never thought of global warming to be anything other than a way to tax us for the good of the world.
A few countries seem to realise this and wont play ball.

People watch too many disaster movies these days, it makes them gullable.

As to the weather, its not really changed, its just we get more info these days.
In the 50s they just told you if it might rain or not, but now they throw all kinds of statistics at you.

Always makes me laugh when they say things like its been as dry as 1976? For instance.
That proves its happened before.
And the other good one is, "since records began", so when was that? A couple of hundred years at the most.

 

Also on that point, when they talk about changes to a fraction of degree, and compare it to statistics gathered decades ago, I wonder how they can say its definitely a like for like comparison considering factors such as:

* Measuring equipment has changed over the years from someone looking at a mercury based thermometer and writing down what they see, to nowadays with very precise electronic gear.

* The location (and therefore the local microclimate) of weather monitoring stations has changed over the years.

These factors and probably others mean that unless we're talking about a very significant difference in the average temperature over the years, it just seems to me that its the age old situation of making the statistics suit the agenda.

 

Exactly Gentlemen,

They mention the short term fluctuations but ignore what has been happening in recent pre history and in geological time spans.

Yes, there has been warming since "The Little Ice Age" but that is a good thing. We don't want the Thames freezing over & the English channel freezing up.

This global warming panic story has to be driven by ulterior motives, some of which have already been highlighted.

 

If you could control the weather

You would allways be in some one's good books
but you would allways be in some one's bad books

The most like person, and the most unlike person in the world

Who would take a job like this if there were one

 

the job has already been filled by HAARP (High-frequency Active Aural Research Program)

:WINK1: