The Greenhouse Conspiracy - Aussie movie from 1990

Geeeeezzzzz people what has happened.

Looks like we were one of the first to catch on to the SCAM that is Antropogenic Global Warming.

And here we are a few decades later with the most expensive carbon tax!

[video=youtube;4Btd6L31ZYg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Btd6L31ZYg[/video]

 

There was a movie in 1984 called The Terminator. We're still here.

 

[video=youtube;oFZv90oHO1E]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFZv90oHO1E[/video]

 

These “dark figures” controlling the UN who want a Global Government, think that if they cab frighten enough people into believing that the planet is in danger from man made pollution; then they might just have success in achieving their ambitions of a one world Government.

Not once have I heard these so-called learned climate scientists in favour of reducing carbon dioxide ever suggest that the increase in the Earths temperature “might” be caused due to the physics of that big nuclear power station in the sky we call the “Sun”.

School children are taught that as the sun ages, it becomes bigger, hotter and more active, but none of these activities or calculations have ever been taken into the calculations or models when these so-called proactive climate scientists start preaching their messages of doomsday.

I feel extremely sorry for the dummies that support Australia’s carbon tax, because not once had their beloved troll queen ever told them or the people where the revenue raised for the CT is going and what new projects its going to develop. The troll queen has never costed one cent of the revenue raised by the CT, and her faithful “headless chicken” fanatical supporters have simply believed all her verbal diarrhoea without question.

The troll did tell us however that 10% of all revenue raised by the CT will be handed over to the UN. Is that the price the UN charges for a seat on their Council these days!!

Personally, I wouldn’t “flip” those dirty grubs 20c.

 

The schoolchildren are also taught that the sun gets bigger and hotter over millions and billions of years not hundreds of years.

The sun is no where near a red dwarf.

 

With all our miraculous technology we are “just” able to escape our own planets gravity, but we have scientist advocating they know everything about that big nuclear furnace right above us.

Ever consider everything these so-called scientists know about the Sun is based entirely on models and guesswork, and that the models and guesswork “might” be completely wrong?

Ever consider that the Sun is much older than these learned scientists proclaim, and the recourse of that is what’s driving the planets increase of temperature on planet Earth, not the increase of carbon dioxide?

It was my understanding that accurate science and credible scientists once based their methodologies on completed examination and experimentation; so why are we now just believing and accepting scientific “make-believe” models and guesswork?

What some scientists are doing now is no different to what Christianity did during the Dark Ages when they stifled humanities social and technological advancement through fear and lack of knowledge with fictional make-believe. The people were deliberately keep uneducated and misinformed so they would not question the individuals in authority.

The truth and facts stand: that man made carbon dioxide is causing global temperatures to rise is based entirely on scientific “fictional evidence” (models and guesswork) and until such time as this evidence can be reverted to non-fiction; (experimentation & examination) than carbon dioxide “should” be dismissed from the theory as being the primary cause of planetary temperature increase.

 

This video debunks all that is Anthropogenic Global Warming due to manmade CO2 emissions.

Well worth watching.

[video=youtube;YtevF4B4RtQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtevF4B4RtQ[/video]

 

I liked the quote "“The Great Global Warming Swindle” is aimed at and appeals to the “Don’t bother me with the facts - I’ve already made up my mind” audience."

Whenever I watch a controversial film I immediately go online and look for criticism of it to see if it holds up. You should really do the same.

https://www.google.com.au/search?q=...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle

 

Sorry Lep you believe what you want to believe, i have no problems with that.

But trying to debunk everything i throw up just shows that what your saying above might actually apply to you yourself.

You may think i'm radical when it comes to AGW but if evidence was presented to say the opposite of what i'm saying i would look at it try and understand it and if it was so i would accept it.

Unfortunaetly i still haven't seen any evidence to change my mind.

That video has many prominent scientists and people in it who know more than you or me.

Time will tell, lets wait and see.

 

As a layman I listen to what the bulk of credible experts and scientific organizations have to say and draw my conclusions from that. Why don't you?

You have been shown evidence multiple times and you still cling to the minority view. You simply don't want to hear it.

Like the Royal Society said in response to the film, "Those who promote fringe scientific views but ignore the weight of evidence are playing a dangerous game". You'd do well to listen up...and lets not pretend that the bulk of 'prominent scientists' support you in this because the fact is they don't.

 

Why should i follow your lead, I and every other human on this planet is free to think for themselves, why are you trying to make me believe what you believe?

I'm sorry but all the theory based on the IPCC papers and their GCM's is questionable at best and sometimes very misleading.

They haven't got a foot to stand on, we have both seen those scientific papers they all attribute climate change to the sun not one shows that manmade CO2 is the cause of any warming at all.

And empirically it can't be shown that CO2 drives global warming and the runaway green house effect, not now nor millions of years ago when CO2 levels where at 7000ppm, so why should i start to believe it now that the IPCC is saying that is the way of it.

As a matter of fact CO2 concentrations follow the temperature and not the other way around like Al Gore would have us believe in an inconvenient truth.

Show me the evidence? and i will believe!

The Royal Society gets its grants from the government and they also sponsor the IPCC, why should i beleive the Royal Society.

Didn't Maggie Thatcher give them grants to prove CO2 causes global warming so she could get England to go nuclear?

Science by consensus means that once the science is settled all scientists can prove the theory and as we are seeing more and more scientists even ones that once working for the IPCC are jumping ship and rejecting the science that is climate change.

And so far global cooling - come global warming - come climate change is nothing but a hyotheses based on Global Circulation Models.

There is just no other science to back it up.

 

Maybe because its the only rational position to have as a layman? I'm not trying to make you believe anything either. I simply want to know why you decide to go with the minority view as a layman.

There is plenty of evidence to show we are having an impact. The only thing that is debatable is the extent of that impact. I don't understand why people are against moving to a cleaner fuel source anyway. Win win situation....unless you are a conspiracy theorist

Can you please explain why you think a study specifically on solar activity would say anything about CO2? Really you are just proving how little you understand about science. It is worrying you know so little and yet have become so deeply entrenched in your views. Luckily people like you are in the minority and are rarely taken seriously.

I don't know man, what I do know is that personal incredulity does not amount to an argument in science.

Now you are delving into the realm of conspiracy theory. This also does not amount to a real argument.

 

Yeah i am a layman when it comes to climate change and the science behind it, but i'm also an engineer which helps me to understand the concepts and principles behind climate change.

The only evidence seems to come from the IPCC and their computer models which are just not sophisticated enough to predict tomorrows weather let alone next centuries. FAIL.

Because the study verifies that the mean average global temperature here on Earth correlates to the suns activities, in other words the sun drives global warming - global cooling and climate change here on Earth, simple really.

You might not know man but i do, if CO2 drives global warming and the runaway green house effect then it would have been apparent from our past history, but as most scientists have noted we have had periods where the concentrations of CO2 have been much higher than we have today but guess what we never had a runaway greenhouse effect before and wont be having one anytime soon.

You are wrong its all based on facts nothing ever amounts to anything from disbelief.

Well then i must have my wires crossed but i do remember Thatcher trying to destroy the miners who were on strike for over a year. Not only that but she was stalwart supporter of nuclear power, no if you put the two together it would be that much of a fantasy, anyway its in that video Im sure Tony Jones in his haste to prove all the wrong things in the video wouldn't have forgot that one.

No that's how your hypotheses turns into a science, when every scientist by using your forumlae or theory or principles etc can prove it for himself half the world away.

Have a look on the internet, this space is filling fast, more and more scientists.

Which proves one thing the science that is global warming has never been proven beyond a hypothes created by the IPCC which if you didn't know are a political body that prints scientific papers.

I repeat

And so far global cooling - come global warming - come climate change is nothing but a hyotheses based on Global Circulation Models from the IPCC.

There is just no other science to back it up.

 

And yet you have demonstrated many times that you don't understand the concepts and principles behind climate change ...What a joke.

LOL. So you think the only evidence that shows we are having some sort of impact on the climate comes from the IPCC computer models?!? In five seconds I found this: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html

"Our results provide direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect that is consistent with concerns over radiative forcing of climate."

There is absolutely TONS more studies that show or suggest we are having some sort of impact. So now we have established you were wrong in your claim that the only evidence comes from IPCC computer models. Moving on....

We know the sun usually is responsible. What you are ignoring now is the bulk of evidence that shows the sun is not responsible for current warming. Again you adopt the minority view.

And why would you say: "they all attribute climate change to the sun not one shows that manmade CO2 is the cause of any warming at all." if you know the studies have got absolutely nothing to do with CO2? Seriously, what game are you playing here?

Personal incredulity does not amount to a scientific argument. Also check out: http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past-intermediate.htm

Funny you ignore the effects of the sun when it doesn't agree with your previously drawn conclusion. Honestly I don't think I can be bothered with you anymore. It is a terrible waste of my time.

 

So, if you have not heard about it, it does not exist? Do I have that right? Just because you have not heard about the solar research does not mean that it has not been done. Don't believe what Alan Jones has been telling you - go out and check it out for yourself READ the research don't just assume that it has not been done

 

Hey lep

Why do you persist this paper attributes the last 27 years of warming to CH4 and not to CO2 so what are we talking about here?

Are we talking about methane or Carbon Dioxide?

Actually the forcing from CO2 is so weak it falls into the margin of instrument error, hardly a paper that you would take to court to prove your findings on CO2 cause climate change and the runaway greenhouse effect, it would get tossed out on its ear.

The other thing is they had to do a recall because they printed the wrong statistics for the wrong satellite!!!

I bet if we took another reading today it would be different again what a whole lotta garbage not worth the time and effort, the Earth is a dynamic environment not a static one.

Well then where are they?

You still stuck on that paper get over it and produce something real will ya.

Like i said for the last 11000 years or so scientists have proven that the average mean global temperature correlates to the sun, if you have trouble understanding this statement i cant help you.

So true lep so true.

Makes two of us - til the next round

 

lol I know I said I wasn't going to respond but you just make responding too easy with the gaping flaw in your posts. This will only take a sec..

You said: The only evidence seems to come from the IPCC and their computer models - in regards to whether we have an impact on the climate. I proved you wrong within 5 seconds of being on google. Nice try at deflection but you should know it won't work with me.

lol apparently you didn't even look before posting that nonsense about the IPCC. The empirical evidence comes from the fact that we are raising CO2 levels, CO2 traps heat and our planet is accumulating heat. I know for a fact that you have been shown these studies before (bugalugs springs to mind) so now I know you are being lazy, dishonest or both. Moving on...

What paper? I said: We know the sun usually is responsible. What you are ignoring now is the bulk of evidence that shows the sun is not responsible for current warming.

So scientific evidence that does not agree with your views is not real? This has to be your worst argument so far

Are you suggesting humans were around 11000 years ago pumping CO2 into the air, destroying HUGE areas of forest, and mining up Earth's resources on a mass scale? Like I said: We know the sun usually is responsible. What you are ignoring now is the bulk of evidence that shows the sun is not responsible for current warming.

Why do you ignore this? If you can give a reasonable explanation as to why you deny the bulk of scientific evidence I will leave you alone.

Cool. It is good you can admit when your arguments are not valid. There is hope for you yet and hope for this to be a meaningful exchange.

I don't ignore the effects of the sun. Unless you want me to cast aside all reason and go with the fringe view

 

Well Lep i've only been talking about CO2 all this time and i've been saying there is no other evidence other than the IPCC models that prove CO2 is responsible for global warming and the greenhouse gas effect.

Now you post a paper that claims CH4 (methane) is responsible for the last 27 years of global warming and some how claim that i was wrong and you were right.

Ok i cant argue with logic like that.

But i want to ask you where is a paper that claims CO2 is solely rsponsible for the last 30 years or more of warming?

My original arguement.

The empirical eveidence comes from the fact that we are raising CO2 levels bla...bla ..bla

Not quite sure what your point is on this one!

But lep i have been telling & showing you that there are papers that do attribute the last 30 years of warming to the sun.

I'm afraid its a case of in one ear out the other with no stops in between.

Which scientific evidence that paper on CH4, thats on methane not CO2, ofcourse i still dont agree with you because its not CO2 and thast what i have been talking about from day one.

Little puzzled by the first sentence, never said anything like that but obviously this is how you have understood it then, no comment to something i didn't say.

See above. about the sun and the last 30 years.

Bring it on lep.

Dude i was being sarcastic

EErrrrhhh ok never said you ignored the sun unless your from the IPCC, maybe in time it will be you with the fringe view.

Ohh yes its doomsday the sky is falling the land is sinking!!! HELP

WHY

Becasue the mean average temperature of the Earth has risen 0.5 degrees celsius in the last 100 years.

HELP HELP

What's up doc?

 

Bower, I’m attempting to explain to others how I rationalise this debate. Humanity has the limited technology to barely escape its on planets gravity by using antiquated fossil fuel, but we have scientists telling us they know everything about the sun without any hands on examination or experimentation. The sun, probably one of the greatest mysteries in the Universe.

I know scientists have conducted solar research, but all that research is now based on models and diagrams of pure speculation without direct examination and experimentation. Its comparable to Neanderthals trying to explain how a 747 works - the hypothesis would be based on misinformation and speculation.

Just remember scientists used models and speculations using NO experimentation and examination who told people for hundreds of years that the Earth was a the middle of the solar system and the Universe - turned out to be incorrect didn’t it?

Just because modern scientists are using modern methods and modern technology, doesn’t necessarily mean they are making correct scientific theories. I suppose the scientists in the middles ages using their modern methods & technology thought their theories were also correct.

By scientists advocating they know “everything” about the sun and including that data into their global temperature models, and then releasing that date by saying that humanities contribution to carbon dioxide is responsible for the planets temperature increase, is completely scientifically irresponsible.

 

LOL. Did you even read the abstract or did you just stop at CH4 and go 'AHA!'?

It clearly states: "Here we analyse the difference between the spectra of the outgoing longwave radiation of the Earth as measured by orbiting spacecraft in 1970 and 1997. We find differences in the spectra that point to long-term changes in atmospheric CH4, CO2 and O3 as well as CFC-11 and CFC-12."

It doesn't even say anything about what is responsible for warming in the abstract. You just made that up. It simply provides "direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect that is consistent with concerns over radiative forcing of climate.". Which proves your claim that the only evidence is from IPCC models as being completely, 100% WRONG.

Also see: http://spiedigitallibrary.org/proceedings/resource/2/psisdg/5543/1/164_1?isAuthorized=no - "Difference spectra are compared to simulations created using the known changes in greenhouse gases such as CH4, CO2 and O3 over the time period. This provides direct evidence for significant changes in the greenhouse gases over the last 34 years, consistent with concerns over the changes in radiative forcing of the climate."

And: http://www.eumetsat.int/Home/Main/P...nts/document/pdf_conf_p50_s9_01_harries_v.pdf - "Changing spectral signatures in CH4, CO2, and H2O are observed, with the difference signal in the CO2 matching well between observations and modelled spectra."

Then we also have evidence of earth receiving more downward longwave radiation: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009JD011800.shtml - "The rising trend results from increases in air temperature, atmospheric water vapor, and CO2 concentration. "

And for the final nail in your coffin we have: http://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_100737.htm - "This experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming. "

I'm sure I could dig up a few more but eh, I've already demolished your claim that "The only evidence seems to come from the IPCC and their computer models" which was in response to my claim that "There is plenty of evidence to show we are having an impact. "

Strawman. Nobody has ever claimed CO2 is solely responsible. Again you demonstrate how confused you are on this subject. People have suggested it is the dominant factor in recent decades. You made the exact same mistake in another thread where you thought the sun being the dominant factor = the sun is solely responsible. You were corrected and yet here you are repeating the same nonsense.

The point is it provides empirical evidence that we are HAVING SOME SORT OF IMPACT which you seem to think only comes from IPCC computer models.

Yes, I know. I have also explained to you that I listen to the BULK of the evidence and not the fringe views. The bulk of scientific literature on the subject states the sun isn't responsible for current warming. Why do you ignore those papers? I have given my reason. Going with the majority of experts is the only rational position for me to have. Now you give me your reason why you ignore those studies...And remember, personal incredulity is NOT a valid reason.

Then you should know the sun being the main driver for the last 11000 years (or even the entire life of the Earth) isn't particularly meaningful because we weren't around pumping CO2 into the atmosphere, removing huge chunks of forest etc for that whole time. If you know this, why mention it like its some sort of crucial point?

And I'm repeating myself but...: "Like I said: We know the sun usually is responsible. What you are ignoring now is the bulk of evidence that shows the sun is not responsible for current warming.

Why do you ignore this? If you can give a reasonable explanation as to why you deny the bulk of scientific evidence I will leave you alone."

Interesting that you ignored that part of my post. The only conclusion I can draw from that is that you don't have a reasonable explanation. "Bring it on lep" is not an answer

LOL. You are the first person I've ever met that thinks personal incredulity makes a valid argument.

 

u

((((((((((((((sigh))))))))))))))))))))

Thought as much - Harry Potter science. At least you have the rationalisation part right

Mind you - how in this Galaxy or the next is one supposed to do "hands on" examination of the sun - go at night?

Never heard of SOHO?

Gee - that was how many centuries ago? The essence of science is about formulating hypothesis and then testing them against observed facts to wee whether the hypothesis is sound - the theory of a geocentric universe was found to be not sound USING MATHEMATICAL MODELS - the very things you are saying we cannot rely on now.

Yes but the cancer of that are about the same as the chances of a large volcano suddenly appearing in the middle of Sydney Harbourtr

It would be if that was what was happening. In fact it is not what is happening at all

 

LOL i did read it and it says that most of the global warming is due to increase concentrations of CH4.

CO2 forcings are so small that they fall within the margin of instrument error in other words negligable.

Not wrong bud get your facts right so we mat have a meanigful conversation instead of calling each other twits about what we did or didn't do.

PAPER-1
Comparison of spectrally resolved outgoing longwave data between 1970 and present
Jennifer A. Griggs and John E. Harries

Ok i concede i did stipulate IPCC GCM's (bet ya that makes you feel good doesn't it, got that warm feeling ), non the less these scientists are using computer models, and due to the instrument characteristics of old and new technology they,

a. Degraded data from IGM & AIRS to the poorer specifications of IRS.
b. Only used cloud free spectra - now does that set some bells ringing why try and sumulate a labrotory.
c. Data simulated on Modtran20 version3 band modeller.

OK not IPCC but still GCM's.


PAPER-2
Spectral signatures of climate change in the Earth;s infrared spectrum between 1970 and 2006
Claudine Chen John Harries Helen Brinkley Mark Ringer

Again computer modellers that use the IPCC a historical and accurate data source, say no more for me.

Ditto again computer modellers,again say no more from me.

You are the one that is making up this story of my life as we go, its an interesting read but like your assertions tottaly based on your wild imagination and fiction.

What provides empiracle evidence? What are you talking about? again you have lost me to your assumptions! Please explain so we can comunicate like two human beings.

More of your inner most thoughts about me stop talking rubbish.

I know allthat information looks like you do too Yipee good on you.

Ok so you have read one or two papers that say in the conclusion or the abstract the sun cannot be soley responsible for all the warming that has happened over the last 30 years.

In one of the same papers it also says that there have been periods in the past one lasting 30 years and the other lasting 70 years where the sunspots didn't correlate to the average mean temperature.

So if you have understood this statement it means that this has happened before.

What the bulk scientist - you mean the 980 papers that form the IPCC's bases, how many thousands of papers are out there.

You know if they got up and stage and debated with the skeptics i think that would make them more credidable than simpy denouncing someone as a witch if they dont believe, even their attitude stinks of SCAM imo.

If the science is in get up on the stage take all comers on and shut them up.

Otherwise thier just blowing hot air.

More stories lepm ever thought about writting a novel.

 

I'm trying to but its hard when you don't provide any quotes to back up your claims. Nowhere in the abstract does it say "most of the global warming is due to increase concentrations of CH4" or even hint at that. Maybe you paid the money to have access to the full study? Either way, it isn't very important as I was just providing you with evidence we are having an impact that is outside of IPCC computer models. Which I have done.

Yep, say no more. You were wrong in your claim the only evidence comes from the IPCC computer models. I'm glad you can accept that. Although you don't seem to understand those studies also rely on their observations, not just computer modelling.

"Changing spectral signatures in CH4, CO2, and H2O are observed, with the difference signal in the CO2 matching well between observations and modelled spectra."

So you accept this is a strawman argument?...If you really want I could show you where you made the exact same error. It is in the State Of The Climate thread.

I already did. If you want to communicate like human beings then you would go back and read previous posts so you know exactly what we are discussing. Empirical evidence is not an assumption I know you get easily confused so you really need to learn to read back so as not to get lost and go off-topic.

All I'm doing here is copy pasting what I already wrote. The empirical evidence that we are having some sort of impact comes from the fact that we know we are raising CO2 levels, we know CO2 traps heat and we know our planet is accumulating heat. Do you deny this is empirical evidence that we are having some sort of impact? Because that is what you are arguing against here. I honestly don't know how anybody can deny there is evidence we are having an impact on earth and the atmosphere.

So your incredulity leads you to simply assume that is the case now? This is not a scientific argument. In fact I haven't even heard any of your prominent skeptics taking this line but feel free to prove me wrong. I honestly hope you are right but you need to understand that incredulity and assumptions do not amount to an argument that can be taken seriously. Where are your studies that demonstrate this is the case? If you can produce a few of them then I will SERIOUSLY consider your position.

There are also many more than 1 or 2 studies on the sun's lack of influence in recent years and you know this. Stop trying to play it down and face the facts.

ROFLMAO. You are doing it again. Personal incredulity is NOT an argument.