# I CAN PROVE THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS GLOBAL WARMING



## floortrader (Feb 5, 2009)

I will now prove it once and for all. 10,000 years ago the glaciars came as far south as Ohio. For ten thousand years give or take a few miles the glaciars have been receding. Now the kicker who was driving all the SUVs over the last 10,000 years that caused all the global warming that melted all that ice. . Only been burning fossil fuel for less than 150 years. Almost all scientists disagree with politicians on global warming. Keep dreaming of that electric go cart car and wearing sweaters while you watch TV with the heat down. While Al Gore heats and airs one of his many huge homes even when he is not there, And John TRavolta flys one of his 7 planes. How about when he flys the family to NYC for a special dinner and burns more fuel in one night than you will in 10 years. DAH


----------



## beaverskins (Mar 11, 2009)

i agree, global warming is a joke. its all just a normal cycle that the earth takes....ice age, tropical, ice age, tropical and in between. right now were in between the last ice age and the next tropical


----------



## beaverskins (Mar 11, 2009)

i agree, global warming is a joke. its all just a normal cycle that the earth takes....ice age, tropical, ice age, tropical and in between. right now were in between the last ice age and the next tropical


----------



## NDhunter14 (Oct 17, 2007)

global warming is not a joke. yes the world does go through phases of heating and cooling which causes tropical area of time and ice ages. the problem is though, that through increased levels of co2 and greenhouse gases trap heat in the the atmosphere, we have accelerated this process to an astronamical rate of heating. through this weather patterns have been completely screwed up and none of this really matters because its not really going to effect anything hugely until about 300 years or more into the future.


----------



## floortrader (Feb 5, 2009)

Human s have been on earth in there present form about 50 000 years. Probibly will invent a super bug that escapes the lab and wipes the human race off the face of the earth. So crank up the funace and pass the high test. Global warming is poo pooed by the best scientist and cheered on by politicians and flim flam men ala Al Gore. The squae miles of uninhabited earth real estate is too lare to allow air polution other than in small areas. Nancy and the idiots need to get out of San Fran or DC.. Fly across the USA or the Atlantic Ocean or Alaska. There is nothing out there. All the people on the world would all be able too stand shoulder to shoulder on Long Island New York about 120 miles long by 30 miles wide. Get your scope right. In the scope of the earth all that smoke you see in the air in the citys in the scope of the earth would be like me throwing a bucket of water in the ocean.


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

> the problem is though, that through increased levels of co2 and greenhouse gases trap heat in the the atmosphere


Is that all our fault ? There is no denying that the population of the earth by humans is impacting it but by how much. Consider these factors. While the human population has increased much of the animal population has decreased. Many large animals that once produce significant amounts of methane gas (Dinosaurs, bison, etc) are gone or have been reduced to levels of insignificant impact. While man burns a lot of fossel fuels it probably doesn't even compare to the CO2 put in the air during period of heavy volcanic ativity and prolific, uncontrolled forest and prarie fires and other means prior to mans arrival. The biggest difference there may be the deforestation caused by man and the earths natural ability to absorb that CO2 which manifests itself in one way or another whether man is here or not. Mankind has only recorded weather and weather patters for a few hundred years and still struggles to do it accurately. So they can make claim to accuratley knowing what the weather patterns have been for the las millions of years and make that comparison to today??????? I'm not convinced!!

Does that mean we should do nothing? Absolutly not. There are other detrimental effects to what we humans do here on earth besides the weather. We need to control what we can. Frankly most of the solutions being presented are potentially as problematic as the problems they are supposed to fix.

When utilization fossel fuels initally began no one had the knowledge forsight to know we would be where we are today. I submit that it is the same with solar and wind power. While they seem Clean I suspect they will cause future problems that we have no insight in today. Will massive solar arrays rob the ground beneath them from the suns heat and cause if nothing else a change in the local environment? Will massive wind farms alter local wind patterns again having a similar result and if enough of these small changes are combined will they alter the jet streams? I doubt we can answer these questions. 200 years from now the human race may be fighting a whole new set of environmental problems caused by our good intentions and looking back and saying what the heck were they thinking. My point is EVERYTHING we do has the potential to adversley effect our environment. No matter how "clean" we THINK it is.

Here is an example. Electric cars? Are they really that much better for the environment?. They require many high tech materials that may be difficult or hazardous to manufacture, deplete limited resources and/or require special handling and or disposal. A fuel burner puts CO2 in the air but has maybe 3 batteries in it's lifetime. An electric car puts no CO2 in the air but may require 50-100 times the batteries . All of which have to be disposed of or reprocessed./recycled. Electric cars are far from clean as the powers to be would have us to believe but undoubtedly are CLEANER than fuel powered vehicles.

The key to all of this is to find the balance point. Maybe in another 1000 years we will be closer to that.


----------



## MOB (Mar 10, 2005)

NDhunter14 said:


> we have accelerated this process to an astronamical rate of heating. through this weather patterns have been completely screwed up and none of this really matters because its not really going to effect anything hugely until about 300 years or more into the future.


An astronomical rate with no effect for 300 years? Sounds like liberal or media brainwashing to me. Al Gork would be proud!

I remember when I was in school in the 70"s.all the hype was about global cooling from the pollution and smog. They were wrong then and they're wrong again mow.


----------



## floortrader (Feb 5, 2009)

all the smoke put out by man is nothing in relation to the clean air out there. Cities with air polution maybe 1- 100th of one percent of earth space . Can anyone out there grasp that. All the fosile fuel going into the air space of earth amounts to nothing outside of the area where it is created. If you live in Africa Austrailia Alska Montana the Oceans Etc Etrc Etc New Mexico. Upstate NY Almost everywhere outside of a large city air polution is not there there is none. Ask Al Gore on truth serum and he will agree.


----------



## Honker Hunter 1 (Jun 24, 2007)

NDhunter14 said:


> global warming is not a joke. yes the world does go through phases of heating and cooling which causes tropical area of time and ice ages. the problem is though, that through increased levels of co2 and greenhouse gases trap heat in the the atmosphere, we have accelerated this process to an astronamical rate of heating. through this weather patterns have been completely screwed up and none of this really matters because its not really going to effect anything hugely until about 300 years or more into the future.


But the Earth has been cooloing for the last 10 years and now they think this trend will continue for another 30 years :eyeroll:


----------



## floortrader (Feb 5, 2009)

While with a naturalist in Alaska this summer I was shown some glacers that had receded. But I was shown some Glaciars that had moved south 10 miles since 1965. But you can listen to uncle Al Gory.


----------



## Kris brantner (Sep 22, 2009)

you know that crap they always show, with the glaciers falling into the ocean? thats not called global warming, its called SPRING! happens every year!
obama wants you to think that we are going to ruin the world, so you dont feel so guilty paying for the new cap and trade tax. it will tax every kind of energy known to man. they say, if it costs you more, than you will use less. well, how many less gallons of gas did you use driving to work and back last summer when it was over 4 dollars?

and btw, they are so god dam dumb in washington. lets make electric cars to cut down on co2 emissions. well how do you think they charge the cars! buring coal to make the electricity to charge the cars! hmmmmm. sounds kinda dumb to me! they are making detroit spend billions on these new mpg mandates, making them produce cars that no one wants to buy! you cant give a hybrid awat.

nuke power plants are the cleanest most efficitent way of making energy, but its all of the enviormentalists that wont let anyone build anymore! it takes a 32 sq mile wind farm to pruduce the amount of energy one nuclear reactor will produce. now what is better for the enviorment?

i have heard that while the artic cap may be loosing some ice, that antartica is gaining ice. the earth is always changing one way or another. they are just trying to tax the crap out of you and make you feel guilty. they dont call it global warming anymore. because like another poster said, we have been cooling for the last 10 years. i sure enjoyed the summer, we had an average temp all summer of 68 degrees. but that is due now to climate change. not global warming.


----------



## ej4prmc (Dec 3, 2004)

I find it hard to say, but I am with Floortrader on this one! :roll:


----------



## possumfoot (Nov 7, 2006)

we had the collest summer i can remember..

and ist not global warming anymore.. they call it global climate change.. WTF... when will people realize there is nothing more than politics involved..


----------



## Anas Strepera (Nov 10, 2004)

Thank you floortrader for proving that global warming is a myth through your incidental comments and personal observations. Dang gone liberals tricked the entire global scientific community into believing in this farse! Some of these poor bastards wasted most of their lives as climatologists 'studying' climate change and they didn't even realize that their findings were somehow fraudelent since we all know the liberals concocted this cockamamy idea.

These climatologists said they discovered that co2 is the highest it's been in over 600,000 years through studying ice cores and it's increasing at an exponential rate. So what if these past high levels have coincided with warming trends. It's a bunch liberal bologna!

I think that studying ice cores sounds a lot like studying the fossil record. And we all know that the fossil record was just another trick by the libs to make us believe in evolution! I didn't evolve from any dang monkey!

If global warming is real I look at it this way. God destroyed the earth once with a flood. Man cannot control the weather in God's creation known as earth. If global warming happens and the earth scorches it is God's way of cleansing the earth and punishing man for our hedonistic ways.


----------



## floortrader (Feb 5, 2009)

more liberal passing by whats true. 90 percent of scientist say we are cooling not warming please do not reply you will not talk me into believing black is white and no mister liberal that was not a racial statement


----------



## MSG Rude (Oct 6, 2003)

I seem to recall someone in the 70's screaming about global cooling...who was that person again? I think that the person was working on a thing called the 'Internet' then too...his name escapes me now.


----------



## MSG Rude (Oct 6, 2003)

Anas Strepera said:


> Thank you floortrader for proving that global warming is a myth through your incidental comments and personal observations. Dang gone liberals tricked the entire global scientific community into believing in this farse! Some of these poor bastards wasted most of their lives as climatologists 'studying' climate change and they didn't even realize that their findings were somehow fraudelent since we all know the liberals concocted this cockamamy idea.
> 
> These climatologists said they discovered that co2 is the highest it's been in over 600,000 years through studying ice cores and it's increasing at an exponential rate. So what if these past high levels have coincided with warming trends. It's a bunch liberal bologna!
> 
> ...


Well, it very well could be from 'heat' as the destruction by 'water' was already done once....

In Genesis 9:15-16, God told Noah and his sons, "And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh. And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth."

But the Earth has gone through natural heating and cooling cycles for hundreds of thousands of years and you want to tell me that gas from a cow and warming from the freon in my air-conditioner are going to do it now? Naa...


----------



## Anas Strepera (Nov 10, 2004)

floortrader said:


> more liberal passing by whats true. 90 percent of scientist say we are cooling not warming please do not reply you will not talk me into believing black is white and no mister liberal that was not a racial statement


Was this intended at me? Liberal? Ha! How many liberals do you know that have the confederate flag custom painted on their truck's tailgate? I thought not.

I bet you I'm way more conservative than you. The fact that you would have to disprove global warming means that at one point you let the liberals get in your head. I won't even read a newspaper. Too much liberal gobily-**** in them. The bible is the only news I read.

But I hear you on the global warming thing. There was this one day this past summer that was really cold and I thought to myself, "That Al Gore is full of it. Global warming? Ha!"


----------



## Anas Strepera (Nov 10, 2004)

floortrader said:


> more liberal passing by whats true. 90 percent of scientist say we are cooling not warming


Can you list a few of these scientists and some of the studies they've done where they show that we're headed into a cooling trend? I tried to do a search and all I could find was more liberal BS. It's like they've taken over all media!

I want to know the facts so the next time I talk to a liberal I can tell them to shut the heck up. My Glenn Beck books have helped me immensely with this.


----------



## floortrader (Feb 5, 2009)

Having the confederate flag painted on your truck does not qualify a person as a rocket scientist. Read my lips no global warming due to people. It would be scientificly impossible under the conditions we live under right now. To much space too little smoke. DAH :withstupid:


----------



## floortrader (Feb 5, 2009)

DO YOU NEED A SCIENTIST TO TELL YOU 2 PLUS 2 IS 4. READ THE FACTS I STATED A FEW.


----------



## omegax (Oct 25, 2006)

The plural of "anecdote" isn't "proof"


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

Here is some good information. This is 2009 International Conference on Climate Change.

http://www.heartland.org/events/NewYork09/index.html

You can view all the presentations here:

http://www.heartland.org/events/NewYork ... dings.html

A couple of my favorites:

"The Overstated Role of Carbon Dioxide on Climate Change"

"Nature, not Human Activity, Rules the Climate"



> The science is settled" - Al Gore
> 
> But not in the way he imagined it: Global Warming is mostly of natural origin. The human contribution is not significant
> Therefore climate change is unstoppable
> We look at the warming pattern calculated from GH models and compare with the pattern measured by weather balloons





> What About Sea Level Rise?
> 
> Predictions of the IPCC - from 1990 to 2007 --have decreased dramatically.
> Their 2007 value is 18 - 59 cm by 2100.
> ...





> CO2 Mitigation is Not Needed
> 
> Cap & Trade: pointless, political, expensive
> Ethanol: ineffective and wasteful; subsidized
> ...


The only reason for not finding this information, Anas Strepera, is if you don't really want to.


----------



## Kris brantner (Sep 22, 2009)

Anas Strepera said:


> floortrader said:
> 
> 
> > more liberal passing by whats true. 90 percent of scientist say we are cooling not warming
> ...


i should get his new book aruging with idiots, then i would know how to argue with you! i cant really tell if you believe in it or dont?

look, im all for the enviorment. dont litter, recycle, save the rainforest, but i am not going to pay another god dam tax. what are they going to do with all that money anyways? is it going to help clean up the earth? um no... its just more bs so the goverment can take more conroll of our lives!


----------



## rberglof (May 17, 2007)

Kyoto Treaty Exposed

E. Ralph Hostetter Wednesday, March 7, 2007

A comment last week by U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., did more to set the future of the Kyoto Protocol in perspective, perhaps, than all the hype of global warming to the present.

In answer to an apparent hypothetical question with respect to the chances of the Kyoto Protocol passing a vote in the U.S. Senate, a step necessary for U.S. adoption of the concept, Sen. Feinstein said approval by the U.S. Senate "could be years to come, if ever."

No doubt Sen. Feinstein was recalling a test vote taken during the Clinton administration in the late 1990s on the Kyoto Treaty which resulted in a 98-0 defeat. Both President Clinton and Vice President Al Gore signed the Kyoto Treaty in defiance of the Senate vote.

Support for Kyoto beyond the year 2006 is collapsing on nearly every front.

Canada, one of the signatories to the Kyoto Protocol in 2004, has reneged on its commitments. Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper has referred to the Kyoto Protocol as a "socialist scheme designed to suck money out of rich countries." Canada was obligated to the draconian provisions of Kyoto by former Prime Minister Jean Chretien's socialist government.

Canadian Environmental Minister John Baird said meeting Kyoto's emission reduction targets in Canada would require an economic collapse similar to Russia's post-communist fall.

Canadian climatologist Timothy Ball recently called fears of man made global warming "the greatest deception in the history of science."


----------



## ej4prmc (Dec 3, 2004)

And Floortrader says I only vote/think what the Dems think. I spit on his feet!


----------



## Anas Strepera (Nov 10, 2004)

Longshot said:


> The only reason for not finding this information, Anas Strepera, is if you don't really want to.


Thanks but no thanks for the information Longshot. At first I was gracious and really thought I had something to shut up those idiot liberals on global warming. I even tried putting it to use just the other day talking to this darn liberal moron. It didn't go so well. 

He quickly showed me that the Heartland Institute, via the sponsors that contributed to funding their Climate Conferences, all receive a lot of money from Exxon Mobil, Koch Foundations, and the Scaife Family of Foundations. Now this dang liberal had me fired up because he was implying that the science produced by the Heartland institute was biased, or even propaganda. Now I told this stupid lib, "Hey you Libby turd, I realize Exxon and Koch mean oil money, but what about Scaife? I'm sure they are a nice, unbiased family."

Then the dang lib showed me this,


> The Scaife Family of Foundations is, "financed by the Mellon industrial, oil and banking fortune. At one time its largest single holding was stock in the Gulf Oil Corporation. Became active in funding conservative causes in 1973, when Richard Mellon Scaife became chairman of the foundation. According to a recent article, 'In 1993, the Carthage and Sarah Scaife Foundations...gave more than $17.6 million to 150 conservative think tanks.'"


He further went on to show me how all of the "work" done by the "researchers" for Heartland was not peer reviewed or accredited. Basically anyone of these guys could have wrote anything they wanted to.

This is the same route that "researchers" proved that there was absolutely no harm caused by cigarette smoking, while they're "think-tank" happened to be funded largely by Phillip Morris and other tobacco companies.

That's when I told libby there to shut the heck up! Those tobacco guys got a bad rap. I told him if he thinks cigarette smoking causes cancer then he is a dang 'ol moron.

Either way, can anyone provide me any information where that wasn't financed by oil companies? I know they're just looking out for us conservatives but it's just too easy for those liberals to make me look stupid when the research I'm citing is being funded and conducted by the same people who are supposedly responsible for climate change. I think if you guys could give me some links to some stuff that is a little less prone to being biased I'll be ready to go on a tear getting these liberal bafoons to shut the heck up!


----------



## Bowstring (Nov 27, 2006)

Anas Strepera said:


> Longshot said:
> 
> 
> > The only reason for not finding this information, Anas Strepera, is if you don't really want to.
> ...


You should have asked "that liberal" how GE funding of special interests in the "crap and trade" bill coming up is different. Liberals always criticize the "other side" but can't see their own funding from special interest groups.

Big business's have financial contributors to continue the research they are interested in or that would benefit them, it has nothing to do with the scientific findings.

:stirpot:


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

Anas Strepera do you have a link to this.



> The Scaife Family of Foundations is, "financed by the Mellon industrial, oil and banking fortune. At one time its largest single holding was stock in the Gulf Oil Corporation. Became active in funding conservative causes in 1973, when Richard Mellon Scaife became chairman of the foundation. According to a recent article, 'In 1993, the Carthage and Sarah Scaife Foundations...gave more than $17.6 million to 150 conservative think tanks.'"


From what I have found this only sounds like a half truth if that.

http://www.heartland.org/about/faqs.html#funding



> Q: Who funds The Heartland Institute?
> 
> A: The Heartland Institute is a publicly supported charity under Section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code. Its funding comes from tax-deductible contributions from approximately 2,700 individuals, foundations, and corporations.
> 
> ...


Here is a list of their donors for the conference:



> Accuracy in Academia
> Accuracy in Media
> African Center for Advocacy and Human Development
> Alternate Solutions Institute
> ...


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

I know this is very long, but I found it interesting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VDDNgl- ... _embedded#

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRwTbMj6 ... r_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4s1lkdNO ... r_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWiv5QAZ ... r_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIpo2Jhi ... r_embedded


----------



## Anas Strepera (Nov 10, 2004)

Longshot, I showed libby the same thing! He then showed me the funding records for the 'sponsors' of the conference. Most of them had ties to oil money and the ones that didn't had no records at all.

It appears that a bunch of libs were raising a stink about Heartland taking oil money to fund their science saying burning oil has no atmospheric effects. So what'd the conservatives do? They circumvented it by not dishing any money to Heartland directly from Exxon, Koch or Scaife by setting up satellite organizations to funnel the money to them. Way to go fellas, I love it when our guys outfox those dang libs! Ha!

Here's just the first few on the list and their funding a la libby d-bag,


> Accuracy in Academia
> _No funding records from Exxon, Koch, or Scaife._
> 
> Accuracy in Media
> ...


The total breakdown of money received by sponsors of Heartland was this,


> ExxonMobil (1998-2006): $6,199,000
> Koch Foundations (1986-2006): $4,438,920
> Scaife Foundations (1985-2006): $36,868,640
> 
> *Grand Total: $47,506,560*


So that dang lib outfoxed me again! Dangit!

I'll show him some of that youtube stuff once I get a chance but I bet that dang lib will find someway to make me a fool again. I'm getting sick of this!

*Can anyone post me some non-partisan science that shows that global warming is a myth? Something where there isn't a cent of oil money involved in it's funding?*

Once I have that I'm going to really stick it to the libs and tell them to shut the heck up! Ha!


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

Post the link to your information Anas Strepera. Until then I don't believe a bit of it. From what your questionable information has it only lists a couple of a large list of donors. Even a couple listed said no funds found from those interest groups.



> ExxonMobil (1998-2006): $6,199,000
> Koch Foundations (1986-2006): $4,438,920
> Scaife Foundations (1985-2006): $36,868,640
> 
> Grand Total: $47,506,560


I would like to see where they get their numbers.

Enjoy talking to your imaginary friend.


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

heres some nonpartison science that throws a wrench in the man made global warming theory.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... rming.html


----------



## Anas Strepera (Nov 10, 2004)

You read my post like a dang liberal Longshot, I never said that was all of them or that they all had ties. As I stated,


Anas Strepera said:


> *Here's just the first few on the list and their funding a la libby d-bag*,


I'm sure libby d-bag got that info from some moveon.org site or some dang other liberal hogwash. I think the info was obtained under the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006. From my understanding it requires all non-profit groups to provide full disclosure of where they receive their funding.

But I'm sure they are probably just made up numbers by some liberal to trick the public into believing that global warming is real! Those libs play so dirty. If they were honest and played ethically like us conservatives none of that phony-boloney science about smoking would have ever came out and I'd still be able to smoke everywhere!

Dang liberals and their fake science. First it was smoking causes cancer and then second hand smoke causes cancer and, "your conservative science isn't good science becase Phillip Morris funded it." Now their fake science is all about global warming and again they're like, "your conservative science isn't good science because the oil companies are funding it."

When will the liberal spin machine end!


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

Dang SUV driving martians! :roll:


----------



## Anas Strepera (Nov 10, 2004)

Gun Owner, thank you!

That liberal is going to wet his pants when he reads that. He frickin' loves national geographic!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Well, I don't smoke, and I do believe it causes cancer, but I guess in a free country your free to die of whatever you want.
As far as global warming I think we were moving that way, but this year makes me wonder if a shift is coming. Some people I talked to about 15 years ago said soil ion data analysis suggests we are entering the end of a 400 year drought. Don't ask me to explain it I'm not that good a chemist, or geologist. 
Since vegetation, especially wetland vegetation brings in carbon and stores it in the roots I would guess that wetland drainage in North Dakota has perhaps released more carbon than all the cars in New York and California combined. Then we have the rain forest slash and burn where a lot more carbon is going into the atmosphere. I am baffled why the concentrate on the internal combustion engine as the culprit and ignore many other things. I also get a little ticked at the UN that wants to put heavy restrictions on the United States, but let third world nations continue their carbon emissions. If guys like Al Gore had stayed out of it the science would have a lot more credability. It has become politicized and that has polarized people, and because of that we will never come to a consensus now. 
It would lend more credability if they compiled a list of all carbon contributors, where they fit in the total emissions contributed, and ways to cut emissions, or mitigate for emissions. If the left really takes it serious then they need to stop trying to use it as a club and sit down with conservatives and look at our alternatives. If the left takes it serious they have done a terrible job of convincing people so far. Extremely bad public relations effort. Perhaps dropping the arrogance would help.


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

> Perhaps dropping the arrogance would help


Plainsman your statement says alot. I in my lifetome have noticed climate change/global warming. What also turns me off is.........
How vain are most of these clowns? :eyeroll: 
God is in control of this earth and this universe. (my humble opinion)
I believe we should do things to tke better care of our planet, and I am willing to do my part.
That being said in the end us mere mortals will NOT change God's plan.


----------

