The climate lie?
I was just watching a very interesting documentation about global warming that kept me thinking. They say the CO2 exhaustion is not to blame for our weather change. Let me explain the arguments they give.
Researches have shown that there were times with ten times more CO2 emission on our earth and nothing dramatic happened. The earth is still here. And what the IPCC has announced has nothing to do with science they say. We tend to say, and especially the media likes to make a big deal out of it, that when there is a big storm or heat, it's because of the massive CO2 emission. How come then, that there were times when it was even hotter on our earth, or the other extreme: alot colder?
Examples:
- In the Medieval Warm period it was much warmer than nowadays. Back then, there wasn't alot of CO2 emission. And not long after that the earth went through a little ice age.
- Greenland, for example was named for being green, with agriculture and meadows, in the first century. It must have been different back then, without all the ice maybe.
Climate change, many scientists say, is natural and not our fault. In the media and politics it is said that CO2 is the cause of this climate change. Scientist Augusto Mungini, nevertheless, studied stones and found out that ages ago there were already hotter and colder days.
Between 1905 and 1940 there was the highest rise of world temperature. Back then though, not many big industries existed and cars were rarely seen. With the beginning of the Post War Economic Boom where the CO2 emission started to rise, the temperatures, strangely enough, sank again. Therefore, climate change can't have much to do with the CO2 emission.
Actually, CO2 is only a tiny part of our atmosphere. Other gases are more important, such as water gas (H2O). Water gas is responsible for two third of the global warming.
So has CO2 ever affected the temperatures? Scientists studied ice caps and found out that there is a connection between CO2 and the temperature change, but in a different way. The temperature affects the CO2 emission. Jan Clark found out that when the temperatures rise, the CO2 sinks. So the CO2 follows afterwards, as a result.
But who is responsible for the global warming?
It is most likely the sun. Piers Corbyn studied the magnetic field fields on the sun and found out that they appear when the sun is very hot. Also the Danish Meteorologic Institute studied the development in 400 years and found out that there is a relationship between temperature and solar activity. Furthermore, the sun also has an influence for example on the arrangement of clouds.
The sun is the cause of the climate change.
But if so many scientists found out that CO2 is not the cause of global warming,how come then that politics and media propagate the opposite?
Well, they use the climate change. In 1974 the BBC warned of storms and hurricanes and called them the forerunner of a catastrophe. In the 70s there was a discussion that there will be a new ice age. Then a Swedish scientist said on TV that the CO2 emission is the cause.
The more attention and advertency this problem gets, the more money flows. Whole branches of science get dependent on the money.
Alot of money is put into climate models. But those are only as good as their basic assumptions. But all basic assumptions say that CO2 is the cause. Also, the models only work with hypothetical numbers. If you change only one tiny basic assumption you get completely different results. Climate models aren't even able to forecast clouding.
Also the media spread a climate panic. They say that the poles are melting. But only in a small sub clause they say that Antarctica isn't melting. No, it's actually getting colder there. And there is where most of the most ice lies.
Are there more and more climate catastrophes and extremes? No. Do the humans have an influence on it? Well, we definitely don't make the north pole melt. Polar caps are always moving. They shorten and disperse. It's the natural movement of the ice. Breaking ice caps is something natural just like leaves that fall in autumn.
Or the change of the sea level happens because the land is rising and the thermal dimension of the sea is varying.
Climate change is big business. Font manager profit from it. Thousands and thousands of jobs depend on the global warming. Immense economical interests lie in the climate change.
At the end the documentary sums up everything with 3 thesis:
1. Global warming is natural.
2. CO2 does not influence the climate.
3. Warm climate is better than cold.
Okay so this is a long summary of the documentary. Has anyone of you seen it? I'm not sure if I should believe it. Actually, I get their points and it seems logical. But it's kinda hard to admit something totally different from what you are used to. This is actually the first time I've heard of this theory. They say it is researched, proven. But I still can't believe it should be true. It might make people think they don't need to care for the environment. That is dangerous. What do you think?
[Source: TV documentary "EXTRA Spezial: Der Klima-Schwindel" on RTL (German TV), June 11, 2007]
Researches have shown that there were times with ten times more CO2 emission on our earth and nothing dramatic happened. The earth is still here. And what the IPCC has announced has nothing to do with science they say. We tend to say, and especially the media likes to make a big deal out of it, that when there is a big storm or heat, it's because of the massive CO2 emission. How come then, that there were times when it was even hotter on our earth, or the other extreme: alot colder?
Examples:
- In the Medieval Warm period it was much warmer than nowadays. Back then, there wasn't alot of CO2 emission. And not long after that the earth went through a little ice age.
- Greenland, for example was named for being green, with agriculture and meadows, in the first century. It must have been different back then, without all the ice maybe.
Climate change, many scientists say, is natural and not our fault. In the media and politics it is said that CO2 is the cause of this climate change. Scientist Augusto Mungini, nevertheless, studied stones and found out that ages ago there were already hotter and colder days.
Between 1905 and 1940 there was the highest rise of world temperature. Back then though, not many big industries existed and cars were rarely seen. With the beginning of the Post War Economic Boom where the CO2 emission started to rise, the temperatures, strangely enough, sank again. Therefore, climate change can't have much to do with the CO2 emission.
Actually, CO2 is only a tiny part of our atmosphere. Other gases are more important, such as water gas (H2O). Water gas is responsible for two third of the global warming.
So has CO2 ever affected the temperatures? Scientists studied ice caps and found out that there is a connection between CO2 and the temperature change, but in a different way. The temperature affects the CO2 emission. Jan Clark found out that when the temperatures rise, the CO2 sinks. So the CO2 follows afterwards, as a result.
But who is responsible for the global warming?
It is most likely the sun. Piers Corbyn studied the magnetic field fields on the sun and found out that they appear when the sun is very hot. Also the Danish Meteorologic Institute studied the development in 400 years and found out that there is a relationship between temperature and solar activity. Furthermore, the sun also has an influence for example on the arrangement of clouds.
The sun is the cause of the climate change.
But if so many scientists found out that CO2 is not the cause of global warming,how come then that politics and media propagate the opposite?
Well, they use the climate change. In 1974 the BBC warned of storms and hurricanes and called them the forerunner of a catastrophe. In the 70s there was a discussion that there will be a new ice age. Then a Swedish scientist said on TV that the CO2 emission is the cause.
The more attention and advertency this problem gets, the more money flows. Whole branches of science get dependent on the money.
Alot of money is put into climate models. But those are only as good as their basic assumptions. But all basic assumptions say that CO2 is the cause. Also, the models only work with hypothetical numbers. If you change only one tiny basic assumption you get completely different results. Climate models aren't even able to forecast clouding.
Also the media spread a climate panic. They say that the poles are melting. But only in a small sub clause they say that Antarctica isn't melting. No, it's actually getting colder there. And there is where most of the most ice lies.
Are there more and more climate catastrophes and extremes? No. Do the humans have an influence on it? Well, we definitely don't make the north pole melt. Polar caps are always moving. They shorten and disperse. It's the natural movement of the ice. Breaking ice caps is something natural just like leaves that fall in autumn.
Or the change of the sea level happens because the land is rising and the thermal dimension of the sea is varying.
Climate change is big business. Font manager profit from it. Thousands and thousands of jobs depend on the global warming. Immense economical interests lie in the climate change.
At the end the documentary sums up everything with 3 thesis:
1. Global warming is natural.
2. CO2 does not influence the climate.
3. Warm climate is better than cold.
Okay so this is a long summary of the documentary. Has anyone of you seen it? I'm not sure if I should believe it. Actually, I get their points and it seems logical. But it's kinda hard to admit something totally different from what you are used to. This is actually the first time I've heard of this theory. They say it is researched, proven. But I still can't believe it should be true. It might make people think they don't need to care for the environment. That is dangerous. What do you think?
[Source: TV documentary "EXTRA Spezial: Der Klima-Schwindel" on RTL (German TV), June 11, 2007]
Comments
Page 1/2 | Next
I thought that Vikings named the island Greenland because they wanted more people to move there...oh well. So much for 9th grade World Cultures.
., July 15th, 2007 at 04:29:10am
I'm not going to lie. I know absolutely nothing about environmental science but I do know that 1. Humans and animals can't breathe CO2 and 2. The hole in the ozone layer is a serious problem. I agree that some forms of global warming is just nature but some of it is caused by humanity. We all need to do as much as we can to save our planet regardless.
whyamIstillhere?, June 12th, 2007 at 02:56:13pm
There are a few 'facts' getting thrown around which I feel inclined to justify properly.
Warm climates are NOT better than cold climates. Temperate climates - like Central Europe or Central America or even New Zealand - are the best types of climates for good agricultural soil. Plenty of dampness for worms to do their thang and a good cold winter to kill the little buggers during winter. Consider the rainforest, it is damp and humid. Terribly hot and humid. All the creatures have been adapted to the heat due to the lovely process of evolution. They thrive in those conditions, growing all year round. Perpetual summer. If even a slight shift in the wetness or the heat, this can overthrow the little bugs and enzymes in the soil. Those die, plants die. Plants die, animals die. Whereas, in the temperate climate, the bacteria and such in the soil are more adapted to a temperate, cool and soggy climate. Happy as worms in mud. One would assume that more 'rainforest' style climates popping up around the world would only be good as this would bring more life to the planet and help with all the carbon dioxide! Excellent idea, yeah?
Well, actually, no. In order to get a rainforest climate...you need rain. As the planet heats up then...guess what? That ol' H20 in the atmosphere known as clouds boil and turn into vapours, increasing the effect! Y'see, it is a chain reaction, like nuclear fusion. (which will pop up in a bit, yipee!) More gaseous H20, more padding around in the atmosphere, more radiation staying within the planet meaning more H20 in the atmosphere and so forth. Oh, and remember, the deserts are increasing. I wonder why that is? Less water about maybe? Cutting down trees?
The use of Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in industry has depleted the Ozone (trioxide molecules) and this HAS been proven over the years. The Ozone layer is the shield from cosmic, gamma, x, ultra violet and infra-red rays from the Sun and other cosmos detail. These electromagnetic radiations are very powerful and can heat up the Earth. Even the humble microwave (which is a very low frequency compared to the ones listed above) can toast things. If more of these rays can hit the Earth, then the Earth will obviously heat up! Therefore, global warming.
Carbon dioxide is not the biggest offender, but with more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, then these rays will pass through the atmosphere and be REFLECTED back on to the Earth. Basic Physics. Therefore, greenhouse effect.
Sulphur dioxide which causes acid rain is a more destructive substance and also the fact that 'premium' petrol that used to contain lead (poisonous) is now being labelled as friendly. How? They're bunging in benzene (carcinogenic!) Smart move, eh? Benzene is an AWFUL substance which can easily react to any number of particles in the air to create DDT, novocaine or LSD. Hell, maybe someone should do a drugs raid on the atmosphere.
Secondly, back to ol’ Physics. YAY! Our glorious sun…well…actually ain’t all that glorious after all. Our Sun is a regulation, normal main sequence star (Known as a G2). It is actually brighter than 85% of stars the same size as it, however these other stars are actually collapsed stars known as Red Dwarfs (not like the idiotic TV programme). Most normal G2 stars that are the same age as our Sun are usually twice the size. Since of its size, The Sun will not get hotter as it begins to die. It will start to implode on itself, pulling in the outer layers of gas that surrounds it. The Sun’s centre, will yes, heat up but the outside of the Sun will cool down, turning a reddish colour, making it a Red Dwarf too! No huge explosions or black-holes here! As TS Elliot said, the world ends not with a scream but with a whimper. Our planet will actually – when the Sun actually kicks the celestial bucket – freeze. Cool beans, literally.
Thirdly, Mars may have a greenhouse effect of its own but this is due to different reasons. There is far less atmosphere on Mars than on Earth. There is a quick scattering of carbon dioxide and little else. Maybe a bit of methane if you’re lucky. If Mars is heating up, this must be due to the atmosphere thickening. This could be due to all those little critters we’ve sent up or maybe it’s Osama being a prat on Mars. Either way, without actually going to the planet and measuring its atmosphere, we will not know. After all, which is closer to the Sun: Mercury or Venus? Mercury. Which is hotter? Venus. Venus an extraordinarily thick atmosphere of sulphuric acid (Hey, like acid rain!) and this blankets the planet, making it constantly warm. After all, on the dark side of Mercury, it’s bloody cold at a teeth-chattering −183.2°C (−297.7°F). Yikes. Without that…protective…blanket of sulfuric acid, Venus would be a damn sight colder.
I personally think that if we don’t do something then we’re going to end up living on Venus.2. Something must be done to reverse global warming or at least slow it down.
The Doctor, June 12th, 2007 at 11:34:35am
I always thought that people find global warming a socialist`s prank. Doesn't America think of it as European bull? Anyways, all you have said makes sense. But tbh I do think its our fault. Not only our fault, but we definitely have something to do with it. Its not about the climate being warmer and the ice poles melting, its about spring being as hot as summer, winter with no snow, tornadoes and more catastrophes. Its all a mess. The thing is human kind is destroying Earth and now more people give money for the environment and for the development of products that will not harm it. Its better to think CO2 causes it because we will treat Earth better if we think we can produce less CO2 and reduce global warming. More and more people are getting environment friendly and that is whats most important.
worn-out astronaut., June 12th, 2007 at 10:03:58am
Nice blog, really!
I'm just a bit sceptical towards the source...RTL is sometimes a bit...well...they love to exaggerate ....and the media in general...don't trust any source that you haven't fake yourself...:)
But what I think is the important thing is, that even if this may be true, we can't just stop doing something against the climate change...I don't want to sit in the hot sun 365 days a year, while there are tornodos elsewhere destroying houses, etc....
soudain, June 12th, 2007 at 06:09:26am
Polexia: I got this info from a German TV documentary, involving professors and scientists from all over the world.
Love, June 12th, 2007 at 03:26:57am
I also find this belivable. I think the media has completely overstretched global warming. Did you know there is global warming apparently on Mars?
Yeah. We get a lot of emissions there *rolls eyes*
And besides, isn't it a fact that through time the sun gets bigger and then finally explodes? I always wondered about that.... global warming could honestly just be a side affect of the sun getting larger.
Anyway, I do my bit to save the enviroment, so I'm fine either way,.
GreenDayCookieFairy, June 12th, 2007 at 03:10:34am
Nice blog.
I actually find that pretty believeable. That it's just the world changing and not our fault. Apparently in like around a million years or something large like that we'll have another ice age.
vonny, June 12th, 2007 at 01:08:18am
I know,I didn't say he didn't. The load of bull was the fact he put his personal life into it.
ohmygodshutyourbutt, June 12th, 2007 at 12:34:05am
But he laid down the facts. Cold, hard, evidence that you can't argue with.
Miley Cyrus, June 12th, 2007 at 12:26:41am
I thought An Inconvient Truth was a load of bull.
It be much better if Al Gore just stuck to the issue of Global Warming and CO2.Not his personal life.
ohmygodshutyourbutt, June 12th, 2007 at 12:19:07am
Have you seen an Inconvenient truth?
'Cause actually we're emitting close to a twenty times more CO2 than we ever have in the last decade.
Just thought I'd put that out there.
By the way, I would definitely reccomend it, it's very eye-opening.
Miley Cyrus, June 11th, 2007 at 10:30:59pm
exactly
Dumbfuck, June 11th, 2007 at 07:55:56pm
where did you get this info?
Mycophobia, June 11th, 2007 at 07:38:45pm
thanx Oh Kiss me Deadly
that's why I'm asking for your opinions :D
the problem also is that with that, people might think it's no use to protect the environment. and that is false.
Love, June 11th, 2007 at 06:35:06pm