Global Warming: The BIGGEST LIE Exposed

World’s Biggest Lie has been exposed: Evil heart of the “global warming” hoax​

By Alan Caruba
September 21, 2013

I will never understand the kind of thinking behind a lie so big that it became an international fraud and swindle. I cannot understand why an international organization, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, (IPCC) operating under the umbrella of the United Nations, was permitted to issue reports of an imminent threat to the Earth, to mankind, that a freshman student of meteorology would know were false.

At long last the Big Lie of Global Warming has been totally exposed and we can thank The Heartland Institute, a free market think tank that has organized and hosted eight international Conferences on Climate Change since 2008 to expose the lies behind global warming—now called “climate change”—as it became clear that seventeen years of continuous cooling has put a Big Chill on this Big Lie.

I suspect that the Heartland team, led by Joe Bast and including some remarkable, dedicated people, will only get a line or two in some future historian’s account of the deception that began in 1988 before a congressional committee. Thereafter the global warming hoax was given momentum by former Vice President Al Gore who, along with the IPCC, would receive a Nobel Peace Prize!

It helps to have a sense of humor when you are doing battle with hucksters who have the entire world’s media to defend them. The climate “skeptics”—some of the world’s most renowned meteorologists—dubbed their effort the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) and, working with the Heartland Institute, have just released a new edition of “Climate Change Reconsidered II.”

It arrives just as the IPCC will release its 5th Assessment Report. The IPCC’s lies will get lots of news coverage. Heartland’s NIPCC report was fortunate to have notice taken by Fox News, but beyond that most of the intransigent U.S. news media ignored it.

As often as not one has to look to foreign newspapers to get the truth. In Great Britain’s The Mail, the headline on September 14 was “Global warming just HALF what we said: World’s top climate scientists admit computers got the effects of greenhouse gases wrong.” A leaked copy of the IPCC report revealed “scientific forecasts of imminent doom were drastically wrong.”

Well, of course, they were wrong. The so-called “science” on which they were based was idiotic. It focused primarily on carbon dioxide (CO2) and other so-called “greenhouse gases”, claiming they were trapping heat while being produced by all manner of human activity related to generating energy with coal, oil, and natural gas.


[Excerpt]

Read more:
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/58053


Al Gore and his Progressive friends have perpetrated and international fraud on the people of earth. It's all about taxes and money. Then there's those that swallow the idea hook line and sinker.
See:

Global Warming Hoax​

bronxtparty.tripod.com/global-warming-hoax.html
The Climatic Research Unit at East Anglia University headed by Phil Jones ... The International Conference on ... WHAT ARE THE GOALS BEHIND THE GLOBAL WARMING FRAUD?

 

I enjoyed this part of the article.

Well, of course, they were wrong. The so-called “science” on which they were based was idiotic. It focused primarily on carbon dioxide (CO2) and other so-called “greenhouse gases”, claiming they were trapping heat while being produced by all manner of human activity related to generating energy with coal, oil, and natural gas.

It is as if the rebuttal to global warming was simply to deny that it occurred.

Is CO2 not a greenhouse gas? I believe it is pretty much accepted science that elevated CO2 will cause increased heat within the atmosphere.

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

So why would this anti global warming piece simply state the opposite of what appears to be true?

 

Ideology always trumps facts. Always has, always will. Human nature at work.

 

Oh "I believe it is pretty much accepted science that elevated CO2 will cause increased heat within the atmosphere."

Complete nonsense, and why the OP is correct in pointing out the arrogant disregard for Scientific Method of the entire Warmist Movement.

There is FAR MORE empirical evidence that CO2 RISES FOLLOWING warming, not vice-versa.

 

Really? Because I provided a citation that affirms my position.

It seems that it has been known for 150 years that an increased CO2 level causes temperature to rise as it traps heat.

It doesn't? I am going to have to disagree with your assessment here. You can argue causation for CO2 levels rising, but just sitting there and denying actual science whilst abusing the shift key on your computer will not make you right. It makes you wrong in the face of facts.

 

I try to be civil with people who blatantly disbelieve global climate change (Climate change, because warming in some areas causes a cooling in others...). If you honestly are too dense to accept (because it is 97% certain) the truth, the rest of the world will not wait for you to come to your senses.

Personally, I think anti-climate change measures such as EPA restrictions need to be heightened even further until we can at least stablize our climate change to a minimal level.

In short: Don't be an idiot. Climate change is as serious as a heart attack. Common sense and decades worth of climatic data are in agreement.

 

Lmao!!! Don't even entertain them, sir.

His statement about CO2 rising because of warming is just plain hilarious. Heat doesn't produce chemical compounds unless it is combusting! Typical conservatives... Heat is a by-product of most processes, not a cause.

 

The Heartland Institute is an American conservative and libertarian public policy think tank

In the 1990s, the group worked with the tobacco company Philip Morris to question serious cancer risks to secondhand smoke, and to lobby against government public-health reforms

In addition to research, Heartland features an Internet application called "Policybot" which serves as a clearinghouse for research from other conservative think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation, the American Legislative Exchange Council, and the libertarian Cato Institute.

The Heartland Institute does not disclose its funding sources. According to its brochures, Heartland receives money from approximately 1,600 individuals and organizations, and no single corporate entity donates more than 5% of the operating budget, although the figure for individual donors can be much higher, with a single anonymous donor providing $4.6 million in 2008, and $979,000 in 2011, accounting for 20% of Heartland's overall budget

Oil and gas companies have contributed to the Heartland Institute, including over $600,000 from ExxonMobil between 1998 and 2005. Greenpeace reported that Heartland received almost $800,000 from ExxonMobil

 

Agreed the time for "debate" is over, action is now required. Let these people continue to think its a hoax. Simply slam the door in their face and get to coming up with a solution on how to either slow it or reverse it.

 

Once Claude Allegre' turned on Global Warming... I knew it was over, but instead of listening to the Socialist Scientist, the Liberals attacked him repeatedly. He was one of the front runners and honest scientists that believed before the media and Al Gore got a hold of this bull crap.

 

What is hilarious is your gross lack of understanding of chemical action/reaction.

ANY form of heating causes CHEMICAL CHANGE,and forms compouinds.

What do you think RUST IS?

OXIDATION? What is ALL "combustion"? OXIDATION,and it occurs at vastly different rates.

Warming of carbon rich organic substances, such as plant matter, MOST DEFINITELY releases CO2, without fail.

Rotting vegetation is a GREAT EXAMPLE.

WARMING OCCURS BEFORE the DECOMPOSITION TAKES PLACE, which then, (wait for it...) RELEASES CO2 and other CARBON from said organic matter...AFTER THE WARMING.


Take a CHEMISTRY CLASS, or an advanced BIOLOGY CLASS; either one will help your grasp of SCIENTIFIC REALITY immensely, I assure you.

 

You're "citation" (aka: OPINION PIECE) ,doesn't alter the CHEMICAL REALITY that warming releases CARBON from organic material,and that CARBON INCREASES appear to FOLLOW WARMING in most cases.

Got a COMPOST PILE? Go measure the CO2 level IMMEDIATELY OVER IT.

Holy Golly GEE!!! Is it a MIRACLE of GLOBAL WARMING, that the CO2 level over your compost heap is MUCH HIGHER than the surrounding atmosphere?!!!!


THE GAIA BE PRAISED !!!!!

Der....

 

How dare you burst bubbles with mere facts............the nerve.

 

In the past, a CO2 increase lags an increase in temperatures.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=ice-core-data-help-solve

One should at least question why such an anticausal relationship would exist.

"Heat is a by-product of most processes, not a cause" - Whew, I guess we don't have to worry now about polar ice melting because of increasing temperatures.

 

Der. Der. Der. Der. Der. Der.

The premise in the OP is that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, and increased levels of it do not raise the temperature of the planet. The reality is, and this was cited, CO2 is a greenhouse gads.

Now i am not sure what your der is supposed to mean. if you would like to demonstrate that I am incorrect, that it is not a greenhouse gas, have at it. I am not sure what the point of your post here is. I have never stated that more CO2 is not released when the planet warms,. so perhaps your der comment should be directed at the strawman argument in your posts.


For (*)(*)(*)(*)s sake, let your post take me to task on something I said rather than hammering capital letters about things I did not say.

 

Well it's better than Soros funded groups like Southern Poverty Group, Tides Foundation, or Moveon.

 

Why? Studies funded by stakeholders have very little value. The stakeholders desperately want to keep their profits so they want to make sure the "experts" do the "right" study.

 

Don't argue with right trash blogs! Particularly ones that pretend to be international news sources!

 

Nice dancing, per usual following the exposure of your failed premise.

No, the premise in the OP is that claims of the miniscule amounts of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere are "causing the climate to change" are ridiculous...and they are.

What you ACTUALLY SAID:


"It seems that it has been known for 150 years that an increased CO2 level causes temperature to rise as it traps heat. "


Which is COMPLETE BULLCRAP. It is total SPECULATION.

Flooding a tube with CO2 , in no way, is equitable with the less than 400 PPM (.0004) CO2 that actually exists in the atmosphere.

Now, dance around that, and claim that you "never claimed to be referring to the existing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere..blah,blah,blah..."


Oh look!! Now I "have a 'CITATION'" !!! And it points to all the evidence that WARMING LEADS to CO2 INCREASES, not VICE-VERSA:


Carbon Dioxide and Global Warming


C. D. Idso and K. E. Idso

Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change


There is little doubt the air's CO2 concentration has risen significantly since the inception of the Industrial Revolution; and there are few who do not attribute the CO2 increase to the increase in humanity's use of fossil fuels. There is also little doubt the earth has warmed slightly over the same period; but there is no compelling reason to believe that the rise in temperature was caused by the rise in CO2. Furthermore, it is highly unlikely that future increases in the air's CO2 content will produce any global warming; for there are numerous problems with the popular hypothesis that links the two phenomena.
A weak short-term correlation between CO2 and temperature proves nothing about causation. Proponents of the notion that increases in the air's CO2 content lead to global warming point to the past century's weak correlation between atmospheric CO2 concentration and global air temperature as proof of their contention. However, they typically gloss over the fact that correlation does not imply causation, and that a hundred years is not enough time to establish the validity of such a relationship when it comes to earth's temperature history.

The observation that two things have risen together for a period of time says nothing about one trend being the cause of the other. To establish a causal relationship it must be demonstrated that the presumed cause precedes the presumed effect. Furthermore, this relationship should be demonstrable over several cycles of increases and decreases in both parameters. And even when these criteria are met, as in the case of solar/climate relationships, many people are unwilling to acknowledge that variations in the presumed cause truly produced the observed analogous variations in the presumed effect.

In thus considering the seven greatest temperature transitions of the past half-million years - three glacial terminations and four glacial inceptions - we note that increases and decreases in atmospheric CO2 concentration not only did not precede the changes in air temperature, they followed them, and by hundreds to thousands of years! There were also long periods of time when atmospheric CO2 remained unchanged, while air temperature dropped, as well as times when the air's CO2 content dropped, while air temperature remained unchanged or actually rose. Hence, the climate history of the past half-million years provides absolutely no evidence to suggest that the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 concentration will lead to significant global warming

http://www.co2science.org/about/position/globalwarming.php
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

And don't refute a single point, but pretend to attack the source, instead.

 

Let's all hope grokkie is right, and the entire thing is a giant misunderstanding. We should know within a century or so.

 

do you even know what percentage of atmospheric CO2 emissions is contributed to man?
If you don't know that simple fact you shouldn't even be discussing the issue

So I will ask all you man made global warming hoaxsters. how much does man contribute to atmospheric CO2 emissions
Educate your self if you don't know, because how can you claim man is the cause of global warming when you don't even know that simple very relevant fact

 

According to the ORIGINAL Warmist claims, we "should know" by now, since there were going to be " no more snowfalls", the "oceans rising precipitously", etc., as nauseum.

"Misunderstanding"?

No, a DELIBERATE FRAUDULENT SCAM, is more like it.

 

Well, folks, now we have seen a summary of the ENTIRETY of Denialist Climate Science effort.

Who could possibly still believe Global Warming is occurring after such a persuasive scientific presentation?

 

Listen. You barged in and started arguing with me about crap I did not say. Don't sit there and accuse me of dancing for failing to play some little trolling game with your posts.

Whatever dude. If you want to sit there and argue that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas then you go right ahwead. It simply makes your post wrong in the face of facts.