Global Warming Debunked?

[SxyxS]

mtu9356 said:

SxyxS said:

mtu9356 said:

SxyxS said:

global warming was debunked many years ago and even the sheeple should have realised it after the so called climate gate.
that's the reason why the IPCC has changed the specific name "global warning" into the arbitrary word"climate change" as the climate is changing almost all the time(even 10 seconds of sun rays on a rainy day are a climate change)
even people like lord monckton(former high ranked british politician) or Vaclav Claus(tschech president)
have proven long ago that global warming is a fraud.
Unlike Al Gore Vaclav Claus is neither a liar nor an amateur-he is a real
scientist and he wrote a book about this scam and why Al Gore was given the nobel piece price.

it is very easy to prove that co2 does not work the way we are told.
just buy 2 visible ballloons or condoms.
buy 2 thermometers
buy 1 co2 cartridge
fill one balloon with air and put the thermometer inside the balloon.
fill the other balloon with pure 100% co2+thermometer.
expose both balloons to the sun for 1 hour and then take a look at both thermometers.
You will see that both balloons will have almost the same temperature.

the climate change is based on the lie that 0.01% manmade co2 inside our atmosphere will heat up planet earth up to 5 degrees.
how should this be possible if 300% co2 (compressed co2) can't heat up a balloon 5 degrees.

Co2 is a climate gas but it does not work with quantities.it is more like a color.
imagine an object with a white surface exposed to the sun-if you paint this surface black the object will become
warmer.But you can paint it black a thousand times more-the temperatur won't increase.Even a million black layers won't increase the temperature significantly.

another proof:steam is climate gas number 1.As the world is full of water every single rise of temperature will produce more steam.According to the global warming theory(more climate gas= warmer)
more steam will heat up the atmosphere,a warmer atmosphere will produce more steam.More steam would heat up the atmosphere more and more and more.
If it would work like that planet earth would be in a perpetual state of heating up-but that's not how our climate works.Sometimes we have more steam,sometimes less.

There's quite a bit wrong with this post.

Firstly, you should look up the definition of climate and understand the difference between weather and climate. 

Vaclav Claus is a politician not a scientist.  So is Al Gore which is why both should be ignored when having a discussion about this.

Believe it or not, the earths atmosphere is more complex than a ballon.

Are you comparing black paint with CO2?  One is a gas and the other is a solid.  I don't follow your logic with the layers of paint argument.

Hence weather, ever wondered why it rains?

1)vaclav claus is a scientist-the fact that he is politician does not mean that he can't be a scientist.Al gore has a fucking bachelor of arts.

btw claus is not writing much about science in his book,but how politics work and why they (and the UN)need this carbon tax to generate money.And Al Gore himself 

2)i wish you was only5% as sceptic to the climate change as you are to my arguments-than you'd understood my explanation with the layer of black paint and co2.

if you add some co2 to" co2 free air " you will see some warming effect.But this is just working until a certain point.As this point is reached there will be no more warming.

it works like a color:you can paint something white into grey=it will get warmer.(you can add some co2,it will get warmer)

you can paint it in darker grey it'll get even warmer(add some more co2=get warmer)

paint it black= it will get warmer(add more co2= warmer)

but as soon as you have painted it black once you've reached the maximum point of warming,as black is absorbing the maximum of sunrays and converting them into heat.The same with climate gas-the climate gas in our air has already passed the point where it can absorb the maximum of sunlight and turn it into heat(infrared rays)

i hope you now know what i mean.

 

what i'm really dissapointed is that you don't understand my explanation with the balloons.

I know that balloons are a simple model,but i never wanted to use it as modell.

I use the balloons to show you that co2 does not work as they tell you.

if 0.01% could really heat climate up to 5 degrees,than co2 must be a hell of a molecule.0.01% is 1/10000.this is so fucking low-just like pissing into a pool and claiming that the temprature of the pool will rise 4 degrees.You know that this is impossible,but pissing into a pool is more realistic because by pissing in a pool you are adding heat from outside into the pool,with co2 you don't.

if you are just a little bit sceptical you will have to ask yourself:Why the hell can 1/10000 co2 heat up our planet 5 degrees when 100% co2 inside a balloon have almost  no effect.(1/10000co2=5degrees,100%co2=0degrees+ this is impossible.+answer-co2 is harmless.If co2 can do with sunrays what they tell us,than co2 would be the most precious stuff for the energyindustry.But noone is using it.Why?it does not work.

 

Imagine you walk into a room.

Inside this room there is a big elephant(99.9%).Next to the elephant there is a huge pile of shit.At the top of the shit there is,just like always,a fly(0.01%).

now Al Gore enters the room,and he is trying to tell you that the fly is responsible for the big shit.Would you believe him?never ever.

But who is the elephant(99.9%) and who is the fly(0.01%)

The elephant is the sun.ca 99.9% from our(earth) heat is from the sun.the rest is from burning fuel(which is stored sun energy as plants and animals) and from the earth core.

the big shit is:global warming

the fly at the top of the shit is co2.(0.01%)

Al Gores lie is,that he is pretending that a tiny amount of co2(0.01%) is responsible for the global warming and(that's really shameless:he(and the IPCC) is excluding the sun as the main factor for global warming.How can you ignore 99.9% of the system?-this is not science but a scam.

have you never asked yourself why the sun was never considered as main reason for global warming?Very simple psychlogy:They can tax co2,as you breathe co2,as you produce co2-but they can never tax the sun.noone would pay tax for the sun,but you will for co2 as you feel guilty and responsible.  

 

btw-meanwhile Al Gore has earned several hundred millions of dollars with his carbon story.He is so altruistic-isn't he.

Hmmm his wiki page doesn't mention him being a scientist, let alone a climate scientist.  He's primarily a politician; he cofounded the Civic Democratic Party (considered to be the "largest conservative political party in the Czech Republic").  Just learning that throws up all kinds of red flags.  For better or for worse conservatives generally are against taxes and regulations.  One could come to the conclusion that there are political reasons influencing his opinions on climate change.  Al Gore is also a politician.  Your the one that brought him into the discussion.  All politicians should be ignored when having a scientific debate.  Anyways, this shouldn't become a politcal discussion so I'll stop there.

Skepticism is a fundamental part of science.  Firstly, a someone proposes a hypothesis based on evidence from scientific method.  This hypothesis is scrutinized by others in the scientific community.  They run the same or similar tests to see if the result can be replicated.  If it is repeatedly confirmed then a theory can be established. 

Do you have a research paper or scientific article I could read?

I am wondering where you got those numbers from?  And who said that CO2 was the only thing that caused a rise in temperature?  Other gases (we've generated) like H20 and CH4 contribute to the greenhouse effect.  The temperature is affected by many other things including the sun, volcanoes, and loss of sea ice.  CO2 in the atmosphere has risen 35% since humans became industrialized and is just one of the many contributors of climate change.

We shouldn't be questioning whether climate change is real or not, because it is and its naturally occuring.  It has existed before us and it will continue to exist after us.  The question we should be asking is how much are humans impacting it?  The scientific concesus is "that climate is changing and that these changes are in large part caused by human activities,".

I'm interested in your thoughts on a couple of other things after reading second to last paragraph.  Do you believe we ever landed on the moon?  Was 911 a coverup by the US gov't?  That paragraph makes you sound like a conspiracy theorist imo.

I wanted to end by saying I'm not one of those doomdayers who say climate change will kill us all.  Not at all, its just something we should accept

moonlanding-are you kidding?do you really think i'm interessted in wether the  moon landing was real or fake.I wished they never landed on the moon as this was an incredible waste of money.We could have got the same scientific results by just sending some robo-car to the moon picking up the stones armstrong and aldrin picked up.Why should they fake the landing?Even if you could prove me that the landing was fake-i wouldn't care .

Could they fake the landing?No-they may try to fake it on tv but you'd never be able to fool the russians.They 've been just waiting for the americans to make a mistake,to expose them,to ridicule them to show the world that communism is superior to capitalism,to win the stupid race to the moon-and the russians weren't just watching tv,but were controlling the sky,the conversation between spaceshuttle and ground control and hundreds other things.

911-the nist report was a shame.I do not believe a single word from the officiall version.As a nutjob i believe in "architects and engineers for 911truth"

that"s a group of almost 2000 scientists(experts) prooving that the official version is 100% bullshit and violating physical laws.They don't give you cheap answers they just show whats possible and what not(maybe you can prove them wrong)you can watch them on youtube.

I got my problem with 911 as i never understood why aluminium wings of an airplane can destroy massive 10inch steel bars from a wtc building but could not break through the thin steelless pentagon wall.

After i found out that 3 skyscrapers collapsed on 911 and not just two I asked myself why noone is talking about the 3rd building(building7) and why 99% of us do not know about building 7.It got even more interessting when i found out that the collaps of building 7 was announced in the news 15minutes before it collapsed-prophetic isn't it.And that the owner of the building(larry silversteen) acvidentally admitted that he gave the order to "pull it down".you can find all this on youtube if you are not just searching for a comfortable explanation.

about global warming:I was for the global warming tax even after climate gate as i thought the money would be used for regenerative energies,but those bastards just use it to make money,support the UN and ask for more atomic powerplants.

i can't post you a link about some scientific works disproving the global warming as i 'm writing from a mobile device(vita has no copy+paste)but i'll edit you the names of the researchers.I think this is better as you can research on your own-that's better than a link that may lead you to a site that's too onesided.(btw:until the 70ies global icing was the proven official fact)

 

edit:try it with "hockey schtick.blogspot

the works of lindzen+choi

spencer/brazwell-cloud feedback is negative(btw roy spencer has a great website-no jambo wambo but trying to explain eg global warming periods that occured several times before humans existed 

ferenc miscolczki(nasa atmopheric physicst)has 

demetrius kotsouyannis(hydrologist) has not just proven the IPCC computer model to be wrong to predict the future,but that it does not work for the present and more important:it even can't model the past.

mcshane wyner-the hockeystick is broken