Global warming causes...biggest con since 9/11... Mars proof

mason-free party · Post by **mason-free party** » Sat Mar 03, 2007 9:55 pm

"GLOBAL WARMING "IS A GOVERNMENT CON...DUE TO SOLAR ACTIVITY NOT CARBON EMISSIONS (SOLA) Add Favourite

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... source=rss

AL GORE...YA FULL OF S-H-I-T-E

Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says
Kate Ravilious
for National Geographic News

February 28, 2007
Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural—and not a human- induced—cause, according to one scientist's controversial theory.

Earth is currently experiencing rapid warming, which the vast majority of climate scientists says is due to humans pumping huge amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. (Get an overview: "Global Warming Fast Facts".)

Enlarge Photo

Email to a Friend

RELATED
Photo Gallery: Global Warming
New Mars Pictures Show Signs of Watery "Aquifers" (February 16, 2007)
Climate Change Predictions Not Exaggerated, Analysis Says (February 1, 2007)

Mars, too, appears to be enjoying more mild and balmy temperatures.

In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.

Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of the St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.

"The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars," he said.

Solar Cycles

Abdussamatov believes that changes in the sun's heat output can account for almost all the climate changes we see on both planets.

Mars and Earth, for instance, have experienced periodic ice ages throughout their histories.

"Man-made greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance," Abdussamatov said.

By studying fluctuations in the warmth of the sun, Abdussamatov believes he can see a pattern that fits with the ups and downs in climate we see on Earth and Mars.

Abdussamatov's work, however, has not been well received by other climate scientists.

Light Infantree · Post by **Light Infantree** » Sat Mar 03, 2007 11:36 pm

mason-free party wrote:
AL GORE...YA FULL OF S-H-I-T-E

The fact that AL 'save the planet' Gore has been tasked with the job of bringing global warming to the attention of the masses is more than enough to confirm that it is an agenda driven move. Al Gore is about as green as a greenhouse. But like the greenhouse I think many can see through him.

We have FUBAR'd our lovely planet and have become a blinkered, selfish greedy bunch for certain. But that said, our planet is going through changes. This has occured many times before and will again in the future, its the nature of things. To get our ship sailing on a course for freedom, humanity is required to clean up its act in many ways. Part of this clean up is the exposure of the controling elite et al. For me exposing the truth about 911 is a chance to kick start the slumbering billions.

Like 911, global warming is another way to create fear and therefore control and dominate. The World Management Team are using this card to the full. Can't blame them for trying, perhaps they know the 911 plan has gone tits up?

Save the world. Quick, get down to the bottle bank before its too late

Pikey · Post by **Pikey** » Sat Mar 03, 2007 11:39 pm

Thanx for that MFP. I also believe its a con and that its due to solar activity.

This ties in with the ancient knowledge and the reserach and discoveries made by the likes of Graham Hancock ("Fingerprint of the Gods"), Robert Bauval, etc. and the Mayan cycle

John White · Post by **John White** » Sat Mar 03, 2007 11:48 pm

The cause of global warming appears relevant (or even if its occuring at all), and to a certain extent it is, if government uses global warming as an excuse to lurch towards totalitarianism: but I wonder if it truly is. Whether the planet is changing becuase of mans activities or solar radiation, or even a photon belt, does nothing to change the fact that the way humanity treats it's one and ONLY home is retarded: and thats the point I always try to hammer home

Dogsmilk · Post by **Dogsmilk** » Sun Mar 04, 2007 12:44 am

Just one thing - why is this always either/or?

I see no reason why the propositions

a/The earth heats through natural solar cycles
b/Human activity releases 'greenhouse gasses' that cause the planet to heat up

Can't both be true.

Even if the earth would be heating up naturally anyway, perhaps we could also contribute to it...?

paul wright · Post by **paul wright** » Sun Mar 04, 2007 1:56 am

This isn't either/or, dogsmilk
The earth is warming as the solar vibration attenuates and the magnetic fields weaken
There may be a contribution from carbon emissions but it's not the only factor
The vibratory field element is the most important
The earth's warming because it's vibrating faster
Simple as that

ian neal · Post by **ian neal** » Sun Mar 04, 2007 2:28 am

This thread title is highly misleading

The link MFP links to and similar information posted on this thread do not deny global warming, they challenge whether it is human caused. Big difference

Claiming global warming is a con is counter-productive

What dh is referring to

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schumann_resonance

mason-free party · Post by **mason-free party** » Sun Mar 04, 2007 5:29 am

ian neal wrote:This thread title is highly misleading

The link MFP links to and similar information posted on this thread do not deny global warming, they challenge whether it is human caused. Big difference

Claiming global warming is a con is counter-productive

What dh is referring to

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schumann_resonance

If there is a slight global warming caused by humans it would be down to cutting down of trees and building concrete/stone structures all over the planet ...basically the [free] masons are too obsessed with stone and we should be growing more trees and building more log homes at a quarter of the cost of brick houses.

Newspeak International · Sun Mar 04, 2007 8:47 pm

Telgraph even says human impact is exaggerated:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... warm11.xml

ian neal · Post by **ian neal** » Sun Mar 04, 2007 9:02 pm

Hi MFP

I'm just trying to point out that such a title can and probably will be interpretted by critics as saying

Ha, look at these fruit loops, they even deny there is any such thing as global warming. What next

I know this not what the link that you posted is saying. I know what that link and the links I post below are saying is to challenge the collective wisdom of the IPCC that global warming is caused by human activity.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/letters/story ... 43,00.html
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/m ... 31208.html
http://www.xtec.es/recursos/astronom/hst/hst2/9715b.htm
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/rele ... iter.shtml
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2002/pluto.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/u ... 363818.ece
An experiment that hints we are wrong on climate change

More news reviewing the same book: The Chilling Stars
http://news.google.co.uk/news?hl=en&q=T ... a=N&tab=wn
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... warm11.xml

This article was interesting as well
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6115644.stm

Check out channel 4's documentary on this subject this coming Thursday
http://www.channel4.com/science/microsi ... g_swindle/

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/ ... 91,00.html
http://news.independent.co.uk/environme ... 326210.ece

On climate change I would keep an open mind.

Cheers

Ian

alfsevic · Post by **alfsevic** » Sun Mar 04, 2007 9:27 pm

just my opinion,
in the seventies, Margaret Thatcher discovered that nuclear energy was much cheaper than thousands of coal miners digging away. So she employed thousands of scientists to prove that coal and oil was not so good, just so she could sell her nuclear power, "mainly because there were so many CND demonstrations in England then". OK a scientist can prove the cause of something, and if his existence depends on it he can come to any result that is expected from him. Actually it´s about the same with the media. So we´ve got global warming now, and millions of fundamentalist brainwashed greenies really believe that the doomsday is nearing without even thinking about ice ages and interglacial times.

like i said just my opinion

johndoe · Post by **johndoe** » Sun Mar 04, 2007 10:25 pm

the solar variation theory was debunked a while ago. if solar variation did have such an impact then we would need to rethink such fundamental questions as the young sun problem.

Ignatz · Post by **Ignatz** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 12:23 am

Dogsmilk wrote:Just one thing - why is this always either/or?

I see no reason why the propositions

a/The earth heats through natural solar cycles
b/Human activity releases 'greenhouse gasses' that cause the planet to heat up

Can't both be true.

Even if the earth would be heating up naturally anyway, perhaps we could also contribute to it...?

And there we're in total agreement.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas and it's on the increase, whether or not you agree that it's the primary cause of global warming.
Even if you believe global warming is primarily a solar phenomenon, it seems to make sense to reduce CO2 production in order to mitigate the effects.
4+2=6
4+1=5

5 might save us from disaster.
And - bottom line - it can't do any harm to reduce our energy profligacy

andyb · Post by **andyb** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 8:38 am

Thursday Channel 4 9PM:

The Great Global Warming Swindle

rodin · Post by **rodin** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 10:45 am

johndoe wrote:the solar variation theory was debunked a while ago. if solar variation did have such an impact then we would need to rethink such fundamental questions as the young sun problem.

What's your explanation for the simultaneous warming of Earth and Mars?

ian neal · Post by **ian neal** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 11:14 am

Ignatz wrote:
Dogsmilk wrote:Just one thing - why is this always either/or?

I see no reason why the propositions

a/The earth heats through natural solar cycles
b/Human activity releases 'greenhouse gasses' that cause the planet to heat up

Can't both be true.

Even if the earth would be heating up naturally anyway, perhaps we could also contribute to it...?
And there we're in total agreement.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas and it's on the increase, whether or not you agree that it's the primary cause of global warming.
Even if you believe global warming is primarily a solar phenomenon, it seems to make sense to reduce CO2 production in order to mitigate the effects.
4+2=6
4+1=5

5 might save us from disaster.
And - bottom line - it can't do any harm to reduce our energy profligacy

Good post ignatz (he says through gritted teeth

)

It is indeed not necessarily a case of either/or but both, since it appears undeniable that industrialisation and human activity is significantly contributing to CO2 concentrations and there is an undoubted correlation between CO2 concentration and global temperature.

The only thing I would add is that if solar activity/non-human causes is the primary cause of global warming, then there is the potential that global warming is the primary cause of greater releases of CO2/greenhouse gases into the environment. In other words, rather than increases CO2 leading to global warming, the relationship is reversed. If this is the case, the impact of humanity on co2 concentrations would be greatly overstated by the IPCC.

Regardless of whether the reason is

global warming
imminent peak oil (if you buy that one)
energy security
blood oil (the link between oil and conflict)
environmental pollution
concentration power in the hands of big oil and abuse of that power
or all of the above

there are compelling reasons for the world to move away from oil and carbon based energy towards a more sane and locally accountable model of energy production and consumption

johndoe · Post by **johndoe** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 12:27 pm

"there is the potential that global warming is the primary cause of greater releases of CO2/greenhouse gases into the environment."

it could be true but in fact the carbon cycle relies on an increase in temperature resulting in an increase in erosion and therefor carbon lock up.

"What's your explanation for the simultaneous warming of Earth and Mars?"

it could of course be coinidental. remember mars and earth are very different planets

Leiff · Post by **Leiff** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 12:42 pm

johndoe wrote:it could of course be coincidental. remember mars and earth are very different planets

They might be very different planets but one thing they do have in common is the laws of physics eg. if the temperature rises enough - ice melts...

The thing that we require most of all is honesty in the media if we are expected to believe what they say about global warming or 9/11.

rodin · Post by **rodin** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 12:56 pm

johndoe wrote:"there is the potential that global warming is the primary cause of greater releases of CO2/greenhouse gases into the environment."

it could be true but in fact the carbon cycle relies on an increase in temperature resulting in an increase in erosion and therefor carbon lock up.

"What's your explanation for the simultaneous warming of Earth and Mars?"

it could of course be coinidental. remember mars and earth are very different planets

I could have added and every other member of the solar system. They are ALL warmıng up probably due to structural faılure brought about by the ıntense heat...

johndoe · Post by **johndoe** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 1:17 pm

"They might be very different planets but one thing they do have in common is the laws of physics eg. if the temperature rises enough - ice melts... "

only half true, there are other ways to make ice melt without increasing the temperature.

"I could have added and every other member of the solar vsystem. They are ALL warmıng up probably due to structural faılure brought about by the ıntense heat..."

care to provide any evidence for this?

Leiff · Post by **Leiff** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 1:25 pm

johndoe wrote:only half true, there are other ways to make ice melt without increasing the temperature.

What is your hypothesis - be specific.

johndoe · Post by **johndoe** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 1:33 pm

my hypothesis? hardly, a bit of well known physics.

rodin · Post by **rodin** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 5:36 pm

johndoe wrote:"They might be very different planets but one thing they do have in common is the laws of physics eg. if the temperature rises enough - ice melts... "

only half true, there are other ways to make ice melt without increasing the temperature.

"I could have added and every other member of the solar vsystem. They are ALL warmıng up probably due to structural faılure brought about by the ıntense heat..."

care to provide any evidence for this?

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/p ... 21009.html

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/no ... upiter.htm

http://www.mcculloughsite.net/stingray/ ... arming.php

and there are many more - really all I had to do was Google 'Solar System Warming'. The internet - the antipyramid. Dontcha just luvvit?

johndoe · Post by **johndoe** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 6:27 pm

well lets' see.... if i want to be a pednat i could always kick pluto back on the basis that it's not planet. unless we are going to count "member" as object and then your proof of warming on every "member" in the solar system as was claimed gets much harder.

but let's allow pluto and just look at the source and see what it says

"The change is likely a seasonal event"

"The increasing temperatures are more likely explained by two simple facts: Pluto's highly elliptical orbit significantly changes the planet's distance from the Sun during its long "year," which lasts 248 Earth years; and unlike most of the planets, Pluto's axis is nearly in line with the orbital plane, tipped 122 degrees. Earth's axis is tilted 23.5 degrees."

oh my god an object rotatating around the sun has seasons, do you want the front page for that one?

as for jupiter it actually gives out more heat than it can possibly absorb from the sun anyway so the effects of any solar variation are also going to be insignificant.

also two of your sources are far from reputable, try to find something with a little less bias from now on. it does your argument no good.

James C · Post by **James C** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 6:33 pm

rodin wrote:
johndoe wrote:"They might be very different planets but one thing they do have in common is the laws of physics eg. if the temperature rises enough - ice melts... "

only half true, there are other ways to make ice melt without increasing the temperature.

"I could have added and every other member of the solar vsystem. They are ALL warm?ng up probably due to structural fa?lure brought about by the ?ntense heat..."

care to provide any evidence for this?
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/p ... 21009.html

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/no ... upiter.htm

http://www.mcculloughsite.net/stingray/ ... arming.php

and there are many more - really all I had to do was Google 'Solar System Warming'. The internet - the antipyramid. Dontcha just luvvit?

I think you should re-read your links. In most of them it clearly suggests that it is the position of the planets which affects their temperature. Since Earth doesn't have such a dramatic orbit, the position of our planet cannot be blamed for global warming.

FYI I support the link between CO2 and global warming, it makes obvious sense, but I also believe there could be many additional factors such as cosmic radiation and solar activity. However, to ignore the historical link between CO2 rises and temperature rises and to pass off the massive and sudden upturn in both since the beginning of the industrial revolution as being due to weird goings on in the solar system is like stating the 9/11 conspiracy theories are all nonsense and OBL really did do it!

As for 'prison planet' and its fictional tales, well I'm not a fan. It's hardly surprising that Jones suggest oil grows out of the ground and climate change is a product of the PTB when he himself is an overweight American and therefore a product of the land of the free (and ignorant). I can imagine him saying to his congregation at home, "fossil fuels and the freedom to pollute the atmosphere with them is our right as Americans!!!"

Leiff · Post by **Leiff** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 7:24 pm

johndoe wrote:only half true, there are other ways to make ice melt without increasing the temperature.

Can you be specific on what you think is melting the Martian ice caps without increasing their temperature?

johndoe · Post by **johndoe** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 7:55 pm

okay leiff but we'll need to start at the beginning.......

mars is a smaller planet than earth and because of this lost it's internal heat much quicker.

so it doesn't have a liquid core.

because of this it no longer has a dynamo effect like earth has.

this is why it doesn't have a magnetosphere.

the magnetosphere stops the solar wind.

without the magnetosphere the solar wind can erode the planetary atmosphere.

less atmosphere = less pressure.

less pressure = lower melting temperature.

lower melting temperature = less ice.

this has been an ongoing process on mars, it started out as a moist warm planet with a hospitable atmosphere, but this has slowly changed and it will eventually end up a cold, dry, dead planet.

Leiff · Post by **Leiff** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 8:08 pm

I see, but the article mentions three summers in a row...

In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.

So I don't think they are referring to the gradual process that you describe and I guess the thinner atmosphere and lack of magnetosphere would make Mars more susceptible to variations from the sun despite being further away than the Earth.

rodin · Post by **rodin** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 8:09 pm

johndoe wrote:okay leiff but we'll need to start at the beginning.......

mars is a smaller planet than earth and because of this lost it's internal heat much quicker.

so it doesn't have a liquid core.

because of this it no longer has a dynamo effect like earth has.

this is why it doesn't have a magnetosphere.

the magnetosphere stops the solar wind.

without the magnetosphere the solar wind can erode the planetary atmosphere.

less atmosphere = less pressure.

less pressure = lower melting temperature.

lower melting temperature = less ice.

this has been an ongoing process on mars, it started out as a moist warm planet with a hospitable atmosphere, but this has slowly changed and it will eventually end up a cold, dry, dead planet.

...and this is causing a 5 billion year old planet to melt its ice caps in the few decades timescale of the global warming phenomenon?

The Martian changes you outline are operating on a scale several orders of magnitude longer than global warming. And what's more you know this.

johndoe · Post by **johndoe** » Mon Mar 05, 2007 8:39 pm

"and this is causing a 5 billion year old planet to melt its ice caps in the few decades timescale of the global warming phenomenon? "

who said it was limited to the last few decades? this has been an ongoing process we just haven't been looking for the last 5 billion years.

we are noticing now because we have the technology to.

"So I don't think they are referring to the gradual process that you describe and I guess the thinner atmosphere and lack of magnetosphere would make Mars more susceptible to variations from the sun despite being further away than the Earth."

well no...... the magnetosphere protects the planet from the solar wind not radiation (the solar wind is made of electrons and protons not photons). and what would be truly important to surface temperature is distance from the sun. and you have it backwards over the atmosphere, in fact if mars had a thicker atmosphere it would be hotter.

9/11, 7/7, Covid-1984 & the War on Freedom

Global warming causes...biggest con since 9/11... Mars proof

Global warming causes...biggest con since 9/11... Mars proof

Re: Global warming...biggest con since 9/11... Mars proof