ChristiansUnite Forums

Perhaps that's because they realize how much quack science and political agendas are involved in this global warming scam. A group of environmental quacks that think we should use light bulbs that do more damage than they do good, to use corn fuel products that cause more co2 than oil based fuel products and to use one square of toilet paper per bathroom visit. They cause more damage to humans than they do good just as they did with the banning of DDT.

Let's get real. Those things that effect climate the most in this world is beyond the control of mankind and is in the hands of God. When true global warming does come to this planet it won't be because of humans creating too much co2 but rather because they have turned their backs to God.

You know, I'm still waiting for Gore and the rest of them to explain "global warming" on Mars, Saturn, and Neptune.

They won't even acknowledge it as it doesn't fit their agenda. The only thing they will acknowledge is junk science.

So they can't see the forest for the trees..

BELC Membership
----------------------------------------------------------
ABB
 
Air Products
 
Alcan
 
Alcoa Inc.
 
American Electric Power
 
Bank of America
 
Baxter International Inc.
 
BP
 
California Portland Cement Co.
 
CH2M HILL
 
Citi
 
Cummins Inc.
 
Deutsche Telekom
 
DTE Energy
 
Duke Energy
 
DuPont
 
Entergy
 
Exelon
 
GE
 
Georgia-Pacific
 
Hewlett-Packard Company
 
Holcim (US) Inc.
 
IBM
 
Intel
 
Interface Inc.
 
John Hancock Financial
 
Lockheed Martin
 
Marsh Inc.
 
Novartis
 
Ontario Power Generation
 
PG&E Corporation
 
PNM Resources
 
Rio Tinto
 
Rohm and Haas
 
Royal Dutch/Shell
 
SC Johnson
 
Sunoco
 
The Boeing Company
 
Toyota
 
TransAlta
 
Travelers
 
United Technologies
 
Weyerhaeuser
 
Whirlpool Corporation
 
Wisconsin Energy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This group of so-called "environmental quacks" represent many of the "who's who" of major corporations in America - DuPont, Boeing, Toyota, IBM, Intel,
John Hancock Financial, Lockheed Martin, GE, Georgia-Pacific, Hewlett-Packard.

The list also includes many oil/gas, and energy companies, who to their credit, are not in a state of denial -  Wisconsin Energy, Sunoco, Royal Dutch/Shell, DTE Energy, Duke Energy, Ontario Power Generation, American Electric Power, BP.

These corporations are in the business of "getting real" and have the resources to do their own research and come to their own conclusions - independent of Al Gore.

If these corporations didn't live in  "the real world,"," they wouldn't be in business, 3.8 million employees would be out on the streets and America brought to its knees.

I hope you have something more substantial than sarcastic comments about light bulbs, corn fuel products, squares of toilet paper and global warming in Neptune to support you case.

I do ... I have God. I would imagine that you are one of those that believe in evolution just because some of those ""who's who" of major corporations" and their scientists says it's true.

Global Warming, a scam of worldwide ignorance.........…

The global warming scare has enabled environmental advocacy groups to raise billions of dollars in contributions and government grants. It has given politicians (Al Gore down) opportunities to pose as prophets of doom and slayers of evil corporations. And it has given bureaucrats at all levels of government, from the United Nations to city councils, powers that threaten our jobs and individual liberty.

Incredibly, the much-publicized United Nations climate change report, which blames global warming on people, has no published science to back it up. The front page Washington Post story about the report waited until the 20th paragraph of a 21-paragraph story to mention that the "detailed scientific documentation" for the claim is not yet available and won't be released "for a few months."

A New York Times account waited until the 40th paragraph of a 44-paragraph story to disclose that "thousands of pages of technical background," supposedly the basis for the alarming conclusions, would be released later in the year.

Now how many people read until almost the end of these articles to discover that the scientific evidence is not yet available? After searching the United Nations archives, I still haven’t found this highly publicized report.

It is time for common sense to return to the debate over protecting the environment. An excellent first step would be to end the “global warming” scam.

Most scientists do not believe human activities threaten to disrupt the Earth’s climate. More than 17,000 scientists have signed a petition circulated by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine saying, in part. “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”

Our most reliable sources of temperature data show no global warming trend. Satellite readings of temperatures in the lower troposphere (area scientists predict would immediately reflect any global warming) show no warming since readings began 23 years ago. These readings are accurate to within 0.01ºC, and are consistent with data from weather balloons. Only land-based temperature stations show a warming trend, and these stations do not cover the entire globe, are often contaminated by heat generated by nearby urban development, and are subject to human error.

Global climate computer models are too crude to predict future climate changes. All predictions of global warming are based on computer models, not historical data. In order to get their models to produce predictions that are close to their designers’ expectations, modelers resort to “flux adjustments” that can be 25 times larger than the effect of doubling carbon dioxide concentrations, the supposed trigger for global warming.

Richard A. Kerr, a writer for Science, says, “climate modelers have been ‘cheating’ for so long it’s almost become respectable.”

The IPCC did not prove that human activities are causing global warming. Alarmists frequently quote the executive summaries of reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a United Nations organization, to support their predictions. But here is what the IPCC’s latest report, Climate Change 2001, actually says about predicting the future climate: “The Earth’s atmosphere-ocean dynamics is chaotic: its evolution is sensitive to small perturbations in initial conditions. This sensitivity limits our ability to predict the detailed evolution of weather; inevitable errors and uncertainties in the starting conditions of a weather forecast amplify through the forecast. As well as uncertainty in initial conditions, such predictions are also degraded by errors and uncertainties in our ability to represent accurately the significant climate processes.”

A modest amount of global warming should it occur would be beneficial to the natural world and to human civilization. Temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period (800 to 1200 AD), which allowed the Vikings to settle presently inhospitable Greenland, were higher than even the worst-case scenario reported by the IPCC. The period from about 5000-3000 BC, known as the “climatic optimum,” was even warmer and marked “a time when mankind began to build its first civilizations,” observe James Plummer and Frances B. Smith in a study for Consumer Alert. “There is good reason to believe that a warmer climate would have a similar effect on the health and welfare of our own far more advanced and adaptable civilization today.”

Efforts to quickly reduce human greenhouse gas emissions would be costly and would not stop Earth’s climate from changing. Reducing U.S. carbon dioxide emissions to 7 percent below 1990’s levels by the year 2012. The target set by the Kyoto Protocol would require higher energy taxes and regulations causing the nation to lose 2.4 million jobs and $300 billion in annual economic output. Average household income nationwide would fall by $2,700, and state tax revenues would decline by $93.1 billion due to less taxable earned income and sales, and lower property values. Full implementation of the Kyoto Protocol by all participating nations would reduce global temperature in the year 2100 by a mere 0.14 degrees Celsius.

Efforts by state governments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are even more expensive and threaten to bust state budgets. After raising their spending with reckless abandon during the 1990s, states now face a cumulative projected deficit of more than $90 billion. Incredibly, most states nevertheless persist in backing unnecessary and expensive greenhouse gas reduction programs. New Jersey, for example, collects $358 million a year in utility taxes to fund greenhouse gas reduction programs. Such programs will have no impact on global greenhouse gas emissions. All they do is destroy jobs and waste money.

The best strategy to pursue is “no regrets.” The alternative to demands for immediate action to “stop global warming” is not to do anything. The best strategy is to invest in atmospheric research now and in reducing emissions sometime in the future if the science becomes more compelling. In the meantime, investments should be made to reduce emissions only when such investments make economic sense in their own right.

Senator James Inhofe, ranking Member of the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee, called the IPCC report "the corruption of science for political gain" and said the process is completely lacking in scientific integrity.

He notes that page 4 of "Appendix A to the Principles Governing IPCC Work" includes the following: "Changes (other than grammatical or minor editorial changes) made after acceptance by the Working Group or the Panel shall be those necessary to ensure consistency with the Summary for Policymakers or the Overview Chapter."

This means that the scientific data may be altered to conform to what has already been published.

Instead of highlighting the lack of scientific data to support the man-made global warming assertions, our media are trying to discredit critics of the report by trying to tie them to oil companies. Such stories never mention the billions of federal dollars being showered on advocates of the man-made global warming theory.

cont'd next post

Global warming and melting polar ice caps are not just problems here on Earth. Mars is facing similar global changes, researchers say, with temperatures across the red planet rising by around 0.65 degrees over the last few decades. Neptune has been getting brighter since around 1980; furthermore, infrared measurements of the planet since 1980 show that the planet has been warming steadily from 1980 to 2004. As they say on Neptune, global warming has become an inconvenient truth.

Looking at annual global temperatures, it is apparent that the last decade shows no warming trend and recent successive annual global temperatures are well within each year's measurement errors. Statistically the world's temperature is flat. The world certainly warmed between 1975 and 1998, but in the past 10 years it has not been increasing at the rate it did. No scientist could honestly look at global temperatures over the past decade and see a rising curve. It is undisputed that the sun of the later part of the 20th century was behaving differently from that of the beginning. Its sunspot cycle is stronger and shorter and, technically speaking. Its magnetic field leakage is weaker and its cosmic ray shielding effect stronger. So we see that when the sun's activity was rising, the world warmed. When it peaked in activity in the late 1980s, within a few years global warming stalled.

Greenhouse effect is not a bad thing. Without it, our planet would not support life, as we know it. As the average temperature would be too cold to support liquid water.

So, if humans ceased all technological activity, we would still see 99.883% of the carbon dioxide remain in the atmosphere, assuming all other factors remain stable (which is, of course, silly.)

Dioxide levels increased after the rise in global temperature. Let me re-state that. Studies of Antarctic ice show that the Earth would get warmer, and then Carbon Dioxide levels would increase. And there is nothing at all mysterious about this. Carbon dioxide is a very unique chemical in that it is more effectively dissolved in liquids in lower temperatures. Normally, air will hold more water when warm, sugar will dissolve in water more quickly when warm, but carbon dioxide will escape from solution as the temperature rises, which is why your beer will soak your shirt if it is too warm when you open it.

So, as the sun warms the Earth (as recorded in the ice) carbon dioxide dissolved in the oceans and lakes bubbles into the sky like too-warm soda pop fizzing over the top of the glass, and as the Antarctic ice reveals, winds up in the atmosphere.

Now, this is not to say that I think we should waste our planet's resources. Quite the contrary, I think we need to be very careful of what we have, because we are not likely to get a replacement planet any time soon. But the global warming scam is exactly that, a scam to sell products and policies.

The founder of The Weather Channel has spoken out, strongly against the man-made global warming scam. “It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM. Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create an illusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental whacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the “research” to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus.”

About six to seven years ago, Coleman says he began to hear about supposed "global warming" and decided to research the subject deeper and to investigate it from a scientific stance in order educate his viewers.

According to Coleman, the science that supports arguments favoring global warming "has been manipulated" and much of the data has been "manufactured," resulting in what he calls "bad science" that, unfortunately, passed peer review. He argues that the research passed that review only because of an underlying agenda held by scientists. He claims they wish to strike fear of environmental catastrophe if people do not hold to their radical ideas.

In a blog posted on KUSI.com, Coleman dispels that fear by stating that the earth is not in peril. He states that natural cycles in weather are more responsible for any climate change, and that over the next two decades there is an equal chance for a cooling trend as there is for a warming trend. He also believes that once the dire predictions of global-warming scientists fail to pass, people will realize they have been "duped."

Yet the Weather Channel currently is the biggest proponent of global warming.

It has been proven that they made a mistake in their calculations at NASA, which are the figures used to support global warming. When the error was corrected it in fact proved that the earth has been cooling not warming.

“The scare over global warming, and our politicians' response to it, is becoming ever more bizarre. On the one hand we have the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change coming up with yet another of its notoriously politicized reports, hyping up the scare by claiming that world surface temperatures have been higher in 11 of the past 12 years (1995-2006) than ever previously recorded.”

"Global warming" predictions are based on bad science from the very start. There are many in the secular world that are seeing through all of this and calling it garbage. This is really just a con game being played for over 6 billion taxpayer dollars, and it's working.

Sources used;

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/03/science/earth/03climate.html?_r=1&ref=science&oref=slogin
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/02/AR2007020200192_pf.html
Scientific Consensus on Global Warming by Joseph Bast and James M. Taylor
http://www.ipcc.ch/about/app-a.pdf
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/04/05/martian_warming/
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/05/08/neptune-news/
http://www.pacificfreepress.com/content/view/1314/81/
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/JC_comments.doc
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/25/nbook125.xml

Just as I suspected.


(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v311/randers/My%20Smilies/footinmouth.gif)


(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v311/randers/egor.gif)


(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v311/randers/My%20Smilies/sign0113.gif)


(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v311/randers/My%20Smilies/23_50_11-1.gif)