Global Warming Hoax, Planned in 1961

Category:

Nonprofits & Activism

Tags:

• global
• warming
• fraud
• conspiracy
• ron
• paul
• climate
• control
• carbon
• tax
• population
• eugenics
• terror
• war
• bomb
• iran
• israel
• john
• mccain
• sarah
• palin
• barack
• obama
• joe
• biden
• george
• bush
• soros
• hillary
• bill
• clinton
• economy
• drill
• alaska
• united
• nations
• al
• gore
• iraq
• troops
• nuclear
• weapon
• wmd

[nigelelsass]

@ParrhesiaJoe : The science has only become clearer.

Sunspots? How can a sinusoidal function (integrated average=0) on 11year yield an increase? PLEASE ANSWER... don't make just stuff up.

How do you want the Sun in any manner to cause the warming if the TSI (total solar irradiation) has not increased? even if it had increased, why would tropo&stratosphere not have equally warmed (the stratosphere is cooling).

Looks like its your theories which are more than full of holes & shaky!

[nigelelsass]

@ParrhesiaJoe : It most likely looks to me like you cook the science!!!

You have to make your lie as big as possible now that all science academies acknowledge AGW - and that 97% of all scientists with 20 or more publications in climate research acknowledge it (this leaves only about 20-30 deniers out of more than 1,300 scientists).

But PLEAAAAAASE ANSWER MY QUESTION ON SCIENCE.

I am not trying to scare anybody

[nigelelsass]

@ParrhesiaJoe : THEY ARE NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!­!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

IN YOUR IMAGINATION AND ON YOUTUBE ONLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ok this just shows how what you say is out of touch with reality!

You are just a moron for quoting "peer review" and "alchemy" in the same sentence and just shows how you have no clue...

FYI: scientific academies started when "alchemy ended.

FYI: There wasn't a consensus on global cooling (if you know that then you LIE on purpose)

[nigelelsass]

@ParrhesiaJoe : DRAMATICALLY..... OMG +/-1W WHILE CO2 ABSORBTION ACCOUNTS FOR 5.... yeah come on

You know that there solar cycles do not explain the warming of the last 40 years.

* You have a short term cycle (11-y sunspot cycle) which does not increase and on which YOU LIE!!!!

* You have a phenomenon from the past you quote which cannot explain the present warming

You have NO CLUE.... QUIT MAKING LIES.

[nigelelsass]

@ParrhesiaJoe : WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A CHANGE, NOT THE GENERAL PHENOMENON... NICE TRY TO AVOID THE QUESTION WHICH YOU FAIL TO ANSWER...

why? because you do not have an answer

[nigelelsass]

@ParrhesiaJoe : YOU ARE LYING...

The 11-years average of sunspot cycle does not increase!!!

THANKS FOR MAKING A LIE SO OBVIOUS ANYBODY CAN EASILY FIND IT OUT.

[Dayversion]

@ParrhesiaJoe Thank you for the compliment, and the fine saying, thats a good one! Google "British Petroleum and ECX" also google "Utility companies spend $68 million lobbying for Cap and Trade" . The goal of corporations is to increase profits, thats why these articles show that the very same oil, energy corps want cap and trade, to increase profits, which contradicts the lies of the global warmers saying they despise the OIl and energy corps when they are assisting them

Cheers!

[ParrhesiaJoe]

@Dayversion Love your posts, man. Keep fighting the good fight!! You dig deep, and that's the only place you get real treasure... understanding.

[ParrhesiaJoe]

@nigelelsass You use big words that will confuse some, but here's what you are saying. The average radiation is constant. The average of sunspots is constant. You also imply a static frequency (11 years). NONE of this is true.

The Armagh record (northern Ireland 1800-1992) shows this. Frequency varies (6 years to 14 years) and average radiation varies dramatically. Now, I'm calling bullshit on you, BIG TIME. PLEASE change your mind... only you can do it. At LEAST stop posting.

[ParrhesiaJoe]

@Dayversion We must be conscious of the fact that we are asking people to question the institutions that they have trusted for their entire lives... institutions that have power to change the world.

It is NOT easy to accept that these trusted bodies could be betraying science for funding. It is very hard for me to accept, even in the face of so much evidence. It's way worse than finding out your parents lied about Santa.

[ParrhesiaJoe]

@nigelelsass As for the stratosphere, warming is caused by collision of photons, which are more abundant at the ground, against solids, rather than the sparse air of the upper atmosphere. Radiation has to hit something to transfer heat... clouds, ground, water, etcetera. Clouds are there sometimes... the ground is always there.

Plus, the IPCC models don't even consider clouds, which makes them useless, not to mention the inline documentation of the fraud in the code itself.

[ParrhesiaJoe]

@nigelelsass You are postulating an integrated average of zero, but nature has yet to produce such a static system. It is postulated to further the argument, and not because of observation, which shows variation from a flat mean.

The record CLEARLY shows that CO2 follows warming, and does not cause it. That is why Gore separated the two graphs for his fakeumentary, because it debunks the whole scheme.