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
Previous | Page 2/2
Ok the thing here is after the industrial revolution the world become much more hotter and has being kept like that each day and its going up
No warm aint better because appart from the fact that the poles are melting and that it is gonna cause flods there is also the thing that our planet wont reflect enough light to keep the atmosphere there. So we will end up with a weak atmosphere. Its provoquing droughts that are killing most envirorments
like did you knew ñus did not migrate in 2005? the thing is it was to hot and none of their food survived so they completly disbalanced the envirorment cuz the predators had no food then.
Now all this about CO2 not being dangerous its false I know you say scientist prooved here and there but its false
Recently you may have seen how gober,ment is strangely financiating this alternative theories but well infact they are paying them to do that. Media is not making a big deal out of it It is A BIG DEAL you know cuz we are gonna die, whjhen plants are exterminate and oxygen appears only in few amounts we will all die
Why dwould the goberment pay for that? simple cuz they can, and it would affect all their industries.
Global warming aint natural, its natural to have some degrees up but what we are doing is creating the plant house effect that causes the ozono layer to trap all the toxic gases we release into atmosphere, so they stay and not only contaminate but reflect the sun twice as it would normally be reflected
what happens with CO2 is that it should nt exist on such enormeous amounts on the atmosphere
so Im sorry but the whole thing its wrong and its clearly manipulated in order to make society believe nothing happens
global warming aint normal aint apocaliptic aint natural aint good its gonna kill us unless we act
Dumbfuck, June 11th, 2007 at 06:31:37pm
Well,I do,and I don't. Global warming is both natural and I think created from all the pollutants. And,while a warmer climate is nice,it melts the Ice Caps. And,personally I enjoy cold weather. But,I don't think any of these factors can destroy the earth.
ohmygodshutyourbutt, June 11th, 2007 at 06:30:56pm
but do you think they are right with their thesis? It actually seems pretty trusting to me.
Love, June 11th, 2007 at 06:28:28pm
This whole 'Global Warming' thing really sets me off. I mean,bad stuff is happening,but at the same time it can be good.
Good blog.
ohmygodshutyourbutt, June 11th, 2007 at 06:27:32pm