Global Warming

Global Warming has come to be a hotly contested issue. Are there valid concerns that we should consider, or is Global Warming just the latest manufactured crisis to cash in on the public’s fears and generate new support for global governance, global carbon taxes and other oppressive policies?

On November 20, 2008 Ron Paul said in a New York Times / Freakonomics interview:

“I try to look at global warming the same way I look at all other serious issues: as objectively and open-minded as possible. There is clear evidence that the temperatures in some parts of the globe are rising, but temperatures are cooling in other parts. The average surface temperature had risen for several decades, but it fell back substantially in the past few years.

Clearly there is something afoot. The question is: Is the upward fluctuation in temperature man-made or part of a natural phenomenon. Geological records indicate that in the 12th century, Earth experienced a warming period during which Greenland was literally green and served as rich farmland for Nordic peoples. There was then a mini ice age, the polar ice caps grew, and the once-thriving population of Greenland was virtually wiped out.

It is clear that the earth experiences natural cycles in temperature. However, science shows that human activity probably does play a role in stimulating the current fluctuations.

The question is: how much? Rather than taking a “sky is falling” approach, I think there are common-sense steps we can take to cut emissions and preserve our environment. I am, after all, a conservative and seek to conserve not just American traditions and our Constitution, but our natural resources as well.

We should start by ending subsidies for oil companies. And we should never, ever go to war to protect our perceived oil interests. If oil were allowed to rise to its natural price, there would be tremendous market incentives to find alternate sources of energy. At the same time, I can’t support government “investment” in alternative sources either, for this is not investment at all.

Government cannot invest, it can only redistribute resources. Just look at the mess government created with ethanol. Congress decided that we needed more biofuels, and the best choice was ethanol from corn. So we subsidized corn farmers at the expense of others, and investment in other types of renewables was crowded out.

Now it turns out that corn ethanol is inefficient, and it actually takes more energy to produce the fuel than you get when you burn it. The most efficient ethanol may come from hemp, but hemp production is illegal and there has been little progress on hemp ethanol. And on top of that, corn is now going into our gas tanks instead of onto our tables or feeding our livestock or dairy cows; so food prices have been driven up. This is what happens when we allow government to make choices instead of the market; I hope we avoid those mistakes moving forward.”

After additional consideration and analysis and shortly before the release of the Climategate emails in late 2009, Ron Paul identified the artificial panic around Global Warming as an elaborate hoax:

“The greatest hoax I think that has been around for many, many years if not hundreds of years has been this hoax on […] global warming.” – Ron Paul on Fox Business, Nov. 4, 2009

“[The Copenhagen treaty on climate change] can’t help the economy. It has to hurt the economy and it can’t possibly help the environment because they’re totally off track on that. It might turn out to be one of the biggest hoaxes of all history, this whole global warming terrorism that they’ve been using, but we’ll have to just wait and see, but it cannot be helpful. It’s going to hurt everybody.” – Ron Paul on the Alex Jones Show, Nov. 5, 2009

For an environmental insider’s view on the “Green Agenda” and its background and motivations check out The Green Agenda. Also read Lew Rockwell’s Anti-Environmentalist Manifesto.

  • Michael Alfano

    Be worried about two things.

    1. Look at weather Cycles for past 2000 years.

    2. How to grow crops in the cold in june. If you can find enough land that isn’t flooded that is.

    To The Republic

  • other guy

    The whole point is… I don’t care about what political party you are or aren’t with. We are americans. We are suppose to be for liberty and constitutional government. We are not getting that at 1600 penn ave… We are suppose to be a Republic. We have individual rights free from gov oppression.

    I payed 50% in taxes this year… 6 months I went to work for the government. This is outrageous!!! I could have spent more time with my family or traveled… We were NEVER intended to pay anywhere near this amount. Maybe I would be a little less uptight about them charging us for GW if they weren’t already screwing me blind…. The income tax is criminal. Gov should be able to function fully on half the budget…

    If freedom is the absence of government coercion as Dr. Paul writes… Then I am far from free when I am taxed in half… Great, now I can’t sleep I am so mad. Seriously, criminal…

    • Sean

      There is no way you paid 50% income tax. The highest bracket is 35%

      • other guy

        34% federal 10% california state… Not to mention sales tax throughout the year and property tax… Trust me… You pay a lot more than you think. Every week I can see that I lose close to half my gross… I get some back but nothing compared to what I payed. I am in the worst bracket, yes… Either way it is outrageous. Just getting rid of the income tax like Dr. Paul speaks of would be very american… You know the history of the income tax? We don’t need it and never should have allowed it…

        • Sean

          Wow, you should move away from california.. I agree, I don’t believe in the income tax, but we insist on having wars.

          • other guy

            I used to live in Nashville. No state tax which helps. Ever notice that states without state income tax have equal to or lower sales tax.

            I know… many people are leaving…
            The war is the main reason… I agree…

          • Sean

            States used to compete with eachother through taxes. People would migrate to the states with less taxes and would ultimatly then collect more money from a larger population.. Thats why cities and states with the lowest taxes are growing the fastest and doing the best.

          • other guy

            I am waiting for a state to declare independence for the the federal gov. I would move there… Low low taxes and no property tax… I dream of Dr. Paul being the president of Texas… I wish he was 20 years younger… I know, but I can dream…

            thanks for the dialogue and exchanging of ideas…

  • other guy

    There are over 100,000 “rogue” PH.D card carrying scientist that challenge the official story.

    Also, ones political views are not relevant. Many people question both motives and hypotheses… I

    In case you didn’t notice the NOVA special (all about pointing the finger at man) was sponsored by Exxon Mobil. Scientist also stand to gain huge $$ for their GW research. If it’s not true and the sun is all to blame, who can you tax? Have you read the “cap and trade” proposal? $3,200 per family rise in energy cost based on “man made” global warming claims. Europe is already being taxed. Governments will def exploit this, make no mistake. When it happens, and you are taxed for carbon, will you think it’s bizzar???

    The IPCC is a political organization aimed at push man made GW…

    1. [FREEMAN DYSON is professor of physics at the Institute for Advanced Study, in Princeton. One of the top scientist in the world
    Good level headed perspective to me…

    The main subject of this piece is the problem of climate change. This is a contentious subject, involving politics and economics as well as science. The science is inextricably mixed up with politics.

    My first heresy says that all the fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated. Here I am opposing the holy brotherhood of climate model experts and the crowd of deluded citizens who believe the numbers predicted by the computer models.

    When I listen to the public debates about climate change, I am impressed by the enormous gaps in our knowledge, the sparseness of our observations and the superficiality of our theories.]

    2. Geologist outspoken with a different perspective…,20867,21542331-1702,00.html

    3. “Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical…The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system.” – Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”

    • Sean

      We’re trying to become energy independent, start using renewable resources, bc we can’t afford to import energy like we do.. Thats the bottom line issue.

      • other guy

        I am 1000% for renewable energy… I am 1000% percent angry about the pollution in this world. I think every individual house could be independently sustainable with food and energy… I wish that day would come.

        Lobbyist? These are the Obama Admin own numbers. He even put money in the “stimuls” to redistribute as subsidies to low income families to off set rising prices…

        Either way you can’t monetize debt without hyperinflation… So It’s irrelevant I guess…

        • Sean

          I would like to see where you got 32k per family in rising energy cost.

          • other guy


          • other guy

            I actually heard it on the countdown with Keith… I just googled it real quick… $3,100 sorry… I’m sure it will be less… Governments never waste money… (sarcastically)…


            How do Republicans arrive at the $3,100 dollar figure? It’s pretty simple. We took MIT’s own estimate of a key “cap-and-trade” bill from the 110th Congress (S. 309) cosponsored by then-Senator Obama

        • Sean

          The government isn’t planning “hyperinflation.” hyperinflation happens when there is too much demand and not enough goods.. In other words, it would happen if the government just started handing out money to people like they did in germany.. Right now it is the opposite, we have too many goods with not enough demand. Its called deflation…

          • Sean

            The government has to increase the M1 to create hyperinflation like they did in the seventies.

          • other guy

            My understanding is, we have de leveraging, not deflation… If we do it’s short lived. Hyperinflation is predictable, which is just as bad as planning… They are handing out money. The fed is handing out money to the tune of trillions. The money supply is going up faster than ever before… The dollar is losing value in the long run. Bernanke thinks he can reign that in after things stabilize. No other country has, I don’t know why he thinks we’ll be the first… When our currency has no value we will have hyperinflation regardless of supply and demand.

          • Sean

            Hyperinflation is a direct result from supply and demand from consumers.. If consumers aren’t given money, than it wont effect the demand.. The general public, or consumers, are not going to recieve money, so there will not be hyperinflation.

      • Sean

        We will have to pay a downpayment to make this transition, but it will be cheaper and healthier for generations to come so I think its justified. Plus, all of our economic troubles started bc of oil. We’re trying to get away and become energy independent.. Thats the whole purpose of the cap and trade. Government has to create initiatives instead of forcing businesses to change.

        • other guy

          Cap and trade is not a good option in my opinion. Maybe better than the carbon tax like you eluded to earlier… I think it is pure fantasy to think the government will actually be successful… They haven’t done anything right that I can remember…

          Keep in mind the government is the whole reason we don’t have clean independent energy. Why do I trust them? The people that killed or let Oil kill the electric car??? Blasphemy!

          Economic troubles started from many things. Let’s not leave out the banks.

          • Sean

            They got rid of the electric car because we don’t have energy grids that can support it.. The economic troubles started in the 60’s and 70’s when we got off the gold standard so we could start importing oil. The free makret obviuosly wont change the way they run business. They need incentives.


        • Mike

          Sean Obama hasn’t done anything to curb the dependence on foreign oil. Now Obama wants to get more oil from Ghana. That’s really solving the dependence issue. Plus Sean the reason the us got off of the gold standard to pay for the fiscal strain of Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society expenditures and the Vietnam War.

    • Pete

      If you’re referring to the OISM petition with that 100,000 rogue scientists number, it currently only has 31,000 signatures, and (and this is very important) there is no indication what field they are in or where they earned their credentials.

      On the other hand, if we just assume there’s maybe a million people who would call themselves scientists in the world (which is probably pretty low), that’s about 3%. Which means 97% don’t.

      Do you care what a social scientist thinks about it? That’s a PhD in science. I surely don’t. The same goes for a physicist like Freeman Dyson; I don’t see what his opinion has to do with it.

      I had a chemistry professor tell my class that evolution was a scam and force us to write “I SHOUT AMEN” as the right answer to a multiple choice section. Evolution does not come up in a chemistry class; he was just trying to insert his opinion about it in front of a captive audience.

      Within the crowd of people who actually know anything about it, there is virtually no disagreement.

      • Pete

        That said, I am reading the links you provided, and I agree with Dr. Dyson that science, politics, economics, religion and many other factors all come into play in understanding this contentious issue. but WHERE IS THE CO2 GOING?

        • other guy

          I obviously have limited understanding… That is what I mean by your greater knowledge of the issue. I’m sure it’s frustrating to hear my perspective.

          My tone is light hearted here…

      • other guy

        For Dyson, who is clearly very qualified to think. I like his perspective.

        Not that I want you to go through all these people. Point is, whether through selective perception or pure knowledge, you won’t see what I see… I am simply interested in debate. I mean Al Gore has had real big holes punched in his movie. But it won’t matter cause people only see a big melting ice cap.

        I gave you a geologist also… and what about Joanne S.?

        “Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical…The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system.” – Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”

        What do we think when the warming stops? which it has. What will we say then? What do you say about all the hysteria surrounding the COOLING a few decades ago… I mean they were so sure then.

        • Sean

          Well the temperature dramatically rised during WW2 and then dramatically decreased after it. I would say that the mass usage of oil during this time supports everything.

          • Sean

            and ever since other countries have started fully developing the temperature has been rising at a steady rate.

          • other guy

            Yeah (sigh)

            I can’t know cause I am not qualified. I clearly would like to be off oil. I am seriously just concerned about the solution not being extreme in gov cost. If it’s legit like “most” 🙂 scientist say (I don’t know) Then I pray for an actual solution.

          • Sean

            Its got to happen somehow… I can’t think of any better way.

        • Pete

          I am reading the other articles you mentioned.

          Many people are qualified to think but have substantial unstated biases and assumptions that make their conclusions worthless. For instance, I am sure Galileo’s persecutors or Jesus’ were at the top of their field, highly respected, well-educated, intelligent. (And yes, I understand that you all feel like the Galileos or Jesuses here, but frankly so do I; an uphill battle against a crowd of people who don’t know what I’m talking about).

          Am I qualified to question Dr. Simpson or even Dr. Dyson? No. I take their opinions seriously and try to find time and patience and be open-minded. But the people who are qualified to disagree with them all do, en masse, and what they’re saying makes sense. I haven’t heard or read one credible contrasting theory, and I’ve been watching and learning about this for 20 years. I am not a leftist; I take both sides seriously, but…

          There are still people who literally believe the earth is flat. Should I have to take them seriously, too? What about people who don’t “believe in” carbon dating because it contradicts their interpretation of the Bible?

          • other guy

            Well, I appreciate you taking the time to read/critic my opinions. I can respect what you said. I will continue to try and understand, I appreciate the help.

            I think I have stated my main concern enough 🙂 Time will tell how deep they push their hands into our pockets…

          • Sean

            Well actually, income taxes have been declining overall.

  • other guy

    I mean… You say I don’t have the understanding… Maybe true. But I’m sure these Ph.d guys do and they disagree… My whole point is this. Whether it is or isn’t man made, governments will be taxing you… I will send you the proposed bill which sites man made carbon emissions as the basis. This is not a “conspiracy”… They will overreact and not even come close to putting money and resources in the right places… We both lose…

    You sound level headed about the fix. I respect that… Mr. Dyson agrees from what I can tell…

    • Sean

      They aren’t setting up a carbon tax.. They are making a cap and trade system. 2 COMPLETELY different things.

      • other guy

        I know what they are doing… I touch on it specifically below… It’s not completely different in that it all comes out of your wallet/purse… No need for nitpicking pointless points…

        • Sean

          It’s not going to cost that much, thats just lobbyist figures. Why dont you read my post below

      • Christine

        They ARE setting up a carbon tax and it will hit those who do not comply. This is a part of the financial scheme to turn Cap & Trade into a commodity so our Wall Street folks can have another run at American’s pockets, to make another heist so the rich get richer, another bubble bursting. It talks about this at the end of the article, though the whole article helps in understanding what is going on financially.

        Cap & Trade has more to do with Wall Street, adding to the collapse of the economy.

        Read this article: The Great American Bubble Machine

  • other guy

    google cause and effect relationship between Co2 and temperatures… Co2 does not drive temperature…

    “we now know for certain that the temperature changes before the Co2” “in the theory of GW due to humans, is the Co2 goes up the temp goes up, but the ice bowl records show it’s exactly the opposite…”

    Tim Ball PH.D. in Climatology

    Nova also backed that up… I do agree with that snippet from the Exxon Mobil backed documentary…

    AND I QUOTE “125,000 years ago temps went up 7 degrees caused by the earths orbit around the sun” that warmed the oceans and released co2 from the ocean… It wasn’t enough for the SUN warming the oceans and causing the melting…. BUT! the Co2 released was the culprit (of course)$$$$$… That is very flawed thinking…

    • Pete

      What happened was, the CO2 and methane in the ice was released by solar activity, which in turn enormously accelerated global warming. It’s not correct to say that the temperature causes CO2 release, which has no effect on temperature. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Please look up what a greenhouse gas is. It is correct that as temperature goes up, CO2 locked in polar ice and on the ocean floor is released, which makes the problem that much worse.

      The same thing is likely to happen again due to man-made GW or whatever this is. All the more reason to focus heavily on developing co2 sinks, and reducing our own emissions to buy ourselves time.

  • Pete

    A large ice shelf is about to break off the south pole – the SOUTH pole – after receding since the mid-90’s.

    • other guy

      So I guess these scientist are irrelevant? We now know that temps go up, Co2 goes up… Temps go up do to solar activity…

      But where is the monetary gain if it’s a natural cycle… God forbid mother nature is the culprit like every other time temp change in history. What a missed opportunity for governments to tax if it’s not man made. Show me the money!!! Scientist need grants to continue their fundamentally flawed research…

      try not to engage in ad homonym attacks… These are scientist Phds who completely disagree with you…

      yun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and Founding Director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks:

      “The method of study adopted by the International Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) is fundamentally flawed, resulting in a baseless conclusion”

      • Pete

        Where’s the ad hominem attack? A huge ice shelf breaks off antartica.

        I know that scientists disagree with me. But it’s a tiny minority, most of whom are in the employ of “private organizations” that I don’t trust. If YOU follow the money, and think about what deep-pocketed industry might be funding any and all research to “disprove” global warming (oil), you’ll see there’s more to this.

        The paranoia about taxes has always struck me as bizarre. I can’t understand why anyone would need more than a million dollars a year or so, and we could do so much as a society with that money. You people just aren’t team players.

        As I understand it, the two major lines of attack from scientists are:

        * global warming and CO2 increase started before the industrial revolution.

        But that would just be the natural cycle. Perhaps it should have leveled off and dropped by now. In any case, we have no control over that, but we can control CO2 and thus the temperature, and save ourselves, if we can get the right to pull its head out of the sand.

        * solar activity causes temperature change.

        Again, so what? Yes it does, but we can’t control that. We can control CO2 levels by building CO2 sinks and cutting our output.

        Whatever you want to say about me – because to be honest, if you were as frustrated having this conversation with people who don’t understand the science we’re talking about, you’d be having a hard time holding your tongue, too – it’s ridiculous that you’ve sided with these rogue scientists simply because they’re rogues. You don’t have enough information or understanding to evaluate which side is right. And you’re just assuming that the right wing press has no agenda. I can’t understand it.

        The reason I side with the mainstream science is because a) I have a good scientific education, and it’s obviously true if you know what’s going on, and b) science is extensively cross-checked for errors, and breakthroughs, not conformity, make people’s names in science.

  • other guy

    See this article in the recent issue of The Register, “Japan’s boffins: Global warming isn’t man-made.”

    The Register link: or google it…

    Unfortunately Western scientists have been trained by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to follow the trail of federal research funds, as Pavlov’s dogs were trained to salivate at the sound of a dinner bell.

    NAS obviously had no idea that public interest in the weather (climate) might expose the entire house of cards that they have fabricated since the US government started pouring public funds into research after the end of World War II.

    Many other untruths are identified in a manuscript that was published in Russia a couple of years ago:

    “The Sun is a plasma diffuser that sorts atoms by mass,” Physics of Atomic Nuclei 69, number 11, pp. 1847-1856 (Nov 2006); Yadernaya Fizika 69, number 11, (Nov 2006); PAC: 96.20.Dt DOI: 10.1134/S106377880611007X

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel

  • Awe how cute, the free trader Libertarian is going to ride the Global Warming bandwagon to oppose subsidies (oil companies). How is that any different then Democrats riding the Global Warming bandwagon to push for more taxes, it isn’t. It is dishonest, and a liberal trait, because Libertarians are Liberal.

    Long live Pat Buchanan.

    P.S. All the evidence of Global Warming points to the Urban Heat Island effect.

    • Pete

      “In any case, ground temperature measurements, like most weather observations, are logged by location; 19th-century United States air temperatures were often logged at Post Offices; early-20th-century temperatures added airfield observation sites. Both predate the massive sprawl, roadbuilding programs, and high- and medium-rise expansions contributing to UHI. More importantly, the logs allow sites in question to be filtered easily from data sets. Doing so, the presence of heat islands is visible, but overall trends change in magnitude, not direction.”

  • liberty

    I really enjoyed the discourse between Pete and Unsure… I also liked the random Pistol perspective. 🙂 It was like reading a book of philosophy and that’s exactly what I enjoyed with Unsure… I think you have very logical reasoning and justified skepticism… I share your same beliefs.

    My question to Pete, since you seem to have a very strong understanding of the situation… For the first time you made me think we have a roll in this… My questions are… Do you think it is dangerous to liberty for the gov to just react wildly (like they will) and there will be misplaced energy and resources as the government tries to impose things like cap and trade?

    cap and trade seems like a ridiculous idea from either understanding of GW… If the companies are just going to pass the cost onto consumers, how is that an incentive to develop “clean” energy? The gov is the reason we don’t have clean energy in the fist place because they’re bought by big oil to keep it that way. Seems a bit ridiculous for them to impose new taxes and bad ideas… Thoughts on that please?

    Let’s say I accept your premise and we need to cut co2 emissions. The fear and scare tactics used?The pictures of melting ice caps and starving polar bears are a bit outrageous, no??? Justified? I feel like they are going to do what they always do, use a crisis to further oppress the people. I mean Obama has some large new taxes set up that will only punish the citizens. I’m mostly worried about the actions they will take. If the gov has anything to do with it, and they do, it will be tons of wasted resources and taxpayer money… What do scientist think about the solution and gov role. Links, articles???

    I hate pollution and can’t believe what is done to the rivers and lakes in this country… You have to understand why people reject GW based solely on the fear gov will abuse them with new and misguided taxes and regulation…. It’s superficial for gov to care about GW and not the other pollutants…

    thank you for your time…

    • Pete

      I’m more or less unplugging from this as I’ve said everything I’m qualified to say, more or less. I feel like not trusting scientists is like not trusting calculators; they’re nerds and they have no reason to lie. I do think “fear tactics” are justified, if you look at it from another perspective. Would it be a fear tactic of your carbon monoxide detector to start beeping?

      I’m not worried about liberty. Liberty can restore itself if we’re still alive.

      • liberty

        I appreciate the response… I can’t say I agree about the liberty issue mainly because we know from history how governments uses panic to oppress. It’s not that GW isn’t real or needs to be addressed, it’s that I don’t trust gov to do the right thing. To me it would be 90% their personal agenda and 10% dealing with the problem, al least that’s how they always operate. Recent, the sky is falling examples, the bailouts and Iraq….

        I clearly can’t write well but I do like to think I have some common sense. I don’t know if you saw Bill Maher last night (i have a love/hate with him) but one of his guest talked about how fear and panic will only produce negative results. He gave the example of Denmark and let’s say Germany (can’t remember the other one, sorry)… Denmark sharply curved their emissions and Germany in a panic implemented a 40% tax on carbon and it actually increased emissions over the year by 43%… I’m just saying, dead or alive we have to have a plan that actually attacks the problem and doesn’t line the pockets of big companies and Washington. If we use fear and panic I strongly feel we will get only the latter…

        take care,


    • fluidly unsure

      And I have enjoyed this also. Like running around the block, a little exercise (intellectual or physical) can be very invigorating.

      Besides, this is an emotional subject that usually doesn’t allow honest debate without both sides loading their arguments with personal attacks.

  • James

    1] Is Global Warming “Real” ?
    2] If Warming is “Real” do we want to “fix” it? Do we know the consequences of “fixing” ?
    3] What is the casue of warming [assuming it’s real and we want to fix it]?
    4] Is the cause able to be “fixed” by human intervention?

    Not to be a downer- but, Meth Hydrates are a far more potent green house gas – and humans have no ctrl over the release.

    Also, the Human Population explosion is largly a problem in itself; yet, the consequence of “fixing” the environment from a political POV will more often end in global conflict [nuclear even] with devistating consequence –

    IF, IF, IF “the world” agreed Co2 is the problem…and, “the world” agreed to “fix” it – 1) Human Birth rates would be restricted 2) The entire world would deploy Nuclear Tech as a means of 90% of power production – with dire urgency and disreguard to laws of zoning, construction red tape and burocratic bs.

    Reality is: Thinking the Gov. will “save us” from ANYTHIG is ignorant. To think humanity can save itself without realizing first hand “expensive and deadly” consequence of non action is naive.

    IMO the US and rest of the world are going to have it’s hands full dealing with the implied destability of diminished US influence and associated economic, political and cultural dynamics this will bring. I think the entire planet should think it best to try and avoid nuclear war first – “save the planet and CO2” second.

  • Pete

    Actually, now that I think about it more, it’s a 33% increase over the natural level (1/3 of 75% is 25%), which is worse. Not ‘tiny’ in either case. There’s such a thing as right-wing spin, too.

    • liberty

      A little help… I thought you might get an email if I hit reply… Questions below.

  • Pete

    I have looked at a lot of the deniers’ work. The science denying global warming is man-made all seems to miss my point. I will continue to insist that the case for natural, cyclical warming is excellent, and that it coincides with a man-made effect _over which we have some control_, and that arguing about the size of this effect is a red herring.

    If CO2 levels directly correlate with temperature changes leading to uninhabitable conditions, and we can sink instead of dramatically increase CO2 levels, this is the only responsible course of action. We may win, we may lose, but at least we didn’t give up and throw ourselves a big party.

    But just indulge me as to the kind of effect we may be causing and may be able to prevent…

    Man’s contribution to CO2 is generally set at 25%. Deniers will say this is a “tiny” contribution, but that is bizarre. Consider what happen when your body temperature goes up just a few degrees, or your blood pH changes by a point. The change can be fatal. Homeostatic systems develop in response to a natural range of variation, and even then have extremes at which they fail. They are not designed to handle a 25% increase beyond their maximum levels. An increase of 25% in body temperature would be:

    273 K – Freezing point of water
    273 + (5/9 * ( 98.6 – 32)) = 310 K – Normal body temperature
    310 K * .25 = 77.5 K – a 25% increase
    (310 + 77.5) – 273 = 114.5 Celsius – new body temperature
    9/5 * (114.5 C) + 32 = 238 F

    This might sound astonishing or even impossible, but it’s correct. What you think of 0 degrees is probably -32 degrees farenheit, which is actually still a very high temperature compared to the absence of atomic motion (O Kelvin, the absolute 0). A 25% increase in our absolute temperature would obviously be fatal in short order.

    In the same way, a 25% increase in the absolute level of CO2 is a very big deal in a homeostatic system, especially one in which the sink for CO2 (trees) has been drastically removed.

    Just to satisfy those who will not accept that calculation, if the Farenheit scale is (incorrectly) chosen,

    98.6 * .25 = 24.65 F
    98.6 + 24.65 = 123.25 F

    Still fatal.

    • Pete

      Just in case you find that discouraging, I want to point out that the right technology could remove, say, all the CO2 in the atmosphere in a matter of weeks or months, if that were a good idea (which it’s not). We theoretically have control, in fact, not just over our own contribution, but over the natural level as well. Which means we could prevent a natural ice age, if we had our ducks in a row. But these things take time and money to invent and model and such.

    • Pete

      Err, not -32 F, but just 0 F, which is 32 F (the freezing point of water) minus 32.

  • Pistol

    ok, thats cool, but i urge u to share your views on the eternal energy that comprises all things, (commonly referred to as god), as ur view may have a positive impact on others, encouraging them to look at things with an open and objective mind.. If your willing of course…
    whatever we have been doing ‘collectively’, certainly hasnt and will not produce the society in which we have always dreamed.
    global warming is not happening to us, its happening through us, because of us…. this is leading edge science, not religion…
    I understand there are some frightening issues at hand, that if not resolved, and soon, then life as we know it will come to a grinding halt.
    I believe that if we dont look at the metaphysical cause of things, and not the sympton (like failed modern medicine) then we miss the lesson.

    in the words of Neale Donald Walsch… this is for everyone…

    what you do to others, you do to yourself,
    what you fail to do for others, you fail to do for yourself.
    the pain of other your pain, and the joy of others, your joy.
    and when you disclaim any part of that, you disclaim a part of yourself.
    NOW is the time to reclaim yourself,
    NOW is the time to see yourself again as ‘who you really are’,
    thus, rendering yourself visible again.
    For when you, and your true relationship with yourself becomes visible, then we are indivisible, and NOTHING, will ever divide us again….

    Lets all put down our sticks and stones and join hands in celebration of life. In doing so, we will change this world before our very eyes….
    Love to all… P

    • Fluidly Unsure

      I wish what you say was true. But I have found those that urge us to “put down your sticks and stones” will then hurdle weapon that are even more damaging– aka words, thoughts, and ideas.

      Becoming “indivisible” via honestly stating your thoughts will not cure the wounds caused by fights triggered by differing conclusions on the same body of evidence. Here, I’ve been debating/battling someone whose conclusions are different than mine.

      Thoughts are more powerful than any WMD known to man and claiming open discourse will solve the problems of humanity is like saying that the existence of the A-bomb makes the world safer because people would be afraid to use it.

  • Pistol

    oh my…
    i think ur missing my point…and not buying into the truth is a shame..

    if you think ur vote or money means anthing, then you are seriously mistaken. presidents are not elected, they are selected.
    and all debates eventually return to a spiritual perspective as that is where it all begins..and ends….
    until people remember ‘who they really are’, then their attempts to change anything will be futile. Change comes from within, you can vote and throw money at whatever u like until u exhaust your funds and ballot paper. It wont be until people stop seeing themselves as separate from everything that these issues will be resolved..
    Global warming is a sympton of a dis-eased human race. When we see the truth and heal, natural solutions will flood in thick and fast.
    Research Dr. Hew Len and Ho’oponopono and you will soon realise that nothing happens on the outside that hasn’t first happened on the inside…
    Action is the last step in any process, vital, yes, but the last step. If the thought processes are not in alignment with the outcome you desire than you have zero chance of achieving a satifactory result..
    Free peoples minds Peter and you will stop global warming, violence, disease, famine, and all the other side-effects of a sick human race.
    Cheers, Love P

  • Pistol

    Listen precious,
    Its obvious u cant have a serious debate without getting emotional.
    For one, i dont take drugs, and assumptions are best left to ignorant people?? Secondly, you have no knowledge of my education or what i consider to be god.. i dont believe in a religious god or an angry vengeful god who punishes people. you are obviously very disconnected from the source if you believe that god is separate from ourselves, thus feels the need to punish us like some scorned, emotional human being, whose failed to obey.. pftt.

    Sorry, i dont have the ability to stop a bus with my thoughts, but that has nothing to do with the fact that our thoughts are creative, maybe not in the visible instance that ur suggesting, which by the way is completely absurd and ludicrous to take what i said that literally. Maybe u should ‘start’ taking drugs my brother.

    I realize that there are many sides to a story, in fact there are nearly 6.5billion versions of the truth. this is just mine. so when ur finished the failed feable attempts to drag others down into a sceptical, narrowminded view point then maybe we can get on with the real debate… I know its difficult at times, but there is nothing enlightened about making others feel bad, in order to make urself feel better… Let the ego go… it has no place in a debate.. Open ur mind to possibilities and stop listening to everything ur told my mainstream media, and what ur taught in government run schools.. your told only what they want u to know… not a lot of truth…

    There are many useful, green technologies that can replace fossil fuels and modern electricity, but they will not come to light until a brainwashed public demand a real solution… So, until certain ego maniacal, unconscious, global elites are brought to a peoples court, then how else are you going to allow these technologies to be made public. Centralisation of power is the problem.

    So, unless people are made aware of conspiracy ‘fact’ and the lies perpetrated against humanity, and the game being played, then the industrialists will continue their war on nature and you, whilst they fleece ur hard earned money with yet another tax (carbon tax). People cant fight a war that they are not even aware of…. So while u sit there at ur computer attempting to right off others for having a view different to yours i suggest you digest the following…. CONDEMNATION WITHOUT THOROUGH INVESTIGATION, IS THE HEIGHT OF IGNORANCE…

    • Pete

      You don’t know my background.

      I know a lot about the theory you’re trying to push, and I used to buy in to it. But it’s not the whole story, in my experience or my opinion. I’m not here to talk religion.

      What I was trying to say was, if you think we can fix this problem with our minds, and not our dollars and votes, that is too surreal and too ephemeral.

      And if you want to talk emotional, you don’t call a stranger “precious” if your emotions are in control.

      I am not making others feel bad to make myself feel better. I am trying to get people to drop their misguided objections to well-understood science. If it makes them feel bad, that’s not my responsibility. Arguing with people always makes me feel bad, not better. I wish there were a peaceful, pleasant way to tell someone to his or her face that the things they have believed for years are patently false from a better-educated perspective. 2+2 does not equal 5. I’ve tried and tried, but the situation is relatively drastic to keep trying soft tactics.

      • Pete

        Also, the post you’re responding to wasn’t a response specifically to you. It was intended to cover a range of religious viewpoints, including yours. If you don’t believe in a God as described in the first paragraph, then that paragraph isn’t the one intended for you. My own beliefs, I prefer to keep to myself.

        • Fluidly Unsure

          You failed!

          • Pete

            I guess since you say so, and are randomly casting doubt on my statements, with no argument or evidence to support your conclusion that I failed, you’re right. That’s how debate works, apparently.

  • Pete


    If you are someone who believes in God, you should remember that God helps those who helps themselves and punishes those who ignore the law for selfish reasons.

    If you are someone who does not, you should realize that science has a remarkable track record of being more and more right, ands that you are attempting to question your betters and derailing an attempt to respond to the real situation suggested by sophisticated models you could not even begin to analyze at your level of education in the subject, and even more so by science you should have learned in junior high. Hell, even common sense says the black smoke is going to mess up the planet.

    If you believe that the mind controls the physical universe, you should realize that your mind cannot stop an oncoming bus from smashing you flat. Quit taking so many drugs. There is more going on than that simple theory, as well.

    • Fluidly Unsure

      You really crack me up. Calling “green science” science is like calling “intelligent design” science.

      • Pete

        So you say, with no proof whatsoever or any other explanation of where CO2 is going.

        • Fluidly Unsure

          Isn’t CO2 a part of the cyclical process called nature and wouldn’t it be reused by such? Somebody above responded that we are dumping too much in too short a period of time. That makes sense to me and made my ears stand up to pay attention. So we should combat the problem, but those that claim it is the end of life as we know it put themselves in the same level as all other dooms day prophets.

          IIRC (I may be wrong here); as carbon looses its ionic charge and is no longer excited by an external source of kinetic energy it will break down into more basic elements.

          This is not my field of study so I’m not 100% sure, but this is my reasoning. Neither telling me to abandon my attempts at reason, or shaming or scaring me into compliance will get anywhere.

          Like I said, you may not agree with my reasoning but claiming no reasoning exists and using that line as a straw-man argument only weakens your line of reasoning in my eyes.

          • Pete

            But it IS the field of study of the people you’re claiming to correct! And they disagree with you! And you’re talking about elementary chemistry, and you’re wrong!

            CO2 is not a charged particle, and has no tendency to break down. Its natural sink is trees, and we’ve mowed down most of the rain forest already. Honestly, if you don’t know anything about basic climate science, why do you have such a strong opinion?

            It would seem NOTHING will get anywhere with you. I’ve already repeatedly explained the basic science, and you seem to have paid no attention at all.

          • Pete

            If there were a meteor headed toward the earth, and you could see it in the sky, and scientists were telling us we had to do something or it would crash into the earth with the force of 200 nuclear weapons and kill every living thing, would you scoff and call them doomsday prophets?

          • Fluidly Unsure

            Since you only responded to 1/3 of my post, can I assume you agree with the rest?

            As far as your question regarding the meteor. Yes I would scoff if I couldn’t see the meteor but recognized the possibility that those who warn us are misusing the trust we’ve given them to increase their influence in society and therefore their pocketbook?

            Your choice of scenarios is rather interesting since there are scientists who claim catastrophe is imminent and human-kind will soon be destroyed by an alien object as the were dinosaurs.

            I scoff at dino theorists too so don’t feel so alone.

          • Pete

            I responded to your entire post.

            The “we can see the meteor coming” correlates to “we can directly measure the CO2 level in the air.”

            I’ve never met a scientist who was hurting for money or had anything less than a nerdly and extra-pure attitude toward their research. The only ones you ever hear about who lie are industry scientists, and we are dealing here instead with tens of thousands of tenured professors who have nothing to gain by lying and being found out. Scientists check each other’s work. If there’s no work to be done, they teach. It pays the same.

            If CO2 did decompose at lower temperatures (and it doesn’t – things decompose at HIGHER temperatures), there would be no such thing as dry ice, which is solid, frozen CO2. When it sublimates, it turns right back to CO2 gas.

          • Fluidly Unsure

            Congratulations! You found a mistake on my post! But what of the other counter-claims you so cunningly ignore?

            The “we can see the meteor” looks to me more like “you can see a speck of light through the looking-glass only we own.” Even if you agree that the speck of light is moving, whether or not it is falling is still in question. Whether or not the looking-glass is trustworthy is yet another open question. Have you read the page the OP refers to (re: green-agenda)?

            I don’t think anyone questions the amount CO2 in the atmosphere so why are you harping on it. But it is no more than dishonest to claim you’ve answered questions that you have decided to dismiss. For example; anytime someone asks about CO2 being caused by human you respond that it ‘doesn’t matter one whit’ (IIRC). It seems as though a strawman is being setup.

            You already pointed out that I am incorrect in thinking in how CO2 would react (I’ll bow-down to your knowledge in this case), but stating it again is as useful as flogging a horse that you yourself killed.

            Yes I spend more time on my own work and hobbies than I do economics, philosophy, latin interpretation, biology, ethnic musicology, anthropology, geology, … Even though there are too many arenas for me to play in all doesn’t mean I should be banished from the ones I don’t regularly practice in.

            Our debate is starting to sound like MC 900 foot Jesus’s song “Tiptoe through inferno”. I don’t know what you think of old-school rap, but this is a good one.

          • Pete

            Again, you see it as a strawman because of your lack of understanding of the science involved.

            It doesn’t matter one whit because “whether or not” (as if there is any real scientific question about the huge release of CO2 by man, the decreased sink due to deforestation, or the corresponding greenhouse effect, which are all simple facts) man is a real contributor (in terms of, what, trillions of tons per year?) or the spike is “somehow” (despite the burning of hydrocarbons for two centuries and the deforestation) merely natural, the CO2 level is WAY UP, and every time this has happened, the temperature has gone WAY UP before plummeting into an ice age. “Whether we are causing it or not,” if we want to avoid extinction, we have to do something about it. This means DELAYING IT as much as possible by cutting our CO2 output, and developing a CO2 sink to replace the loss of trees.

            If you can admit that your questions arise, not from any meaningful countertheory or even any flaw in the model upheld by thousands of experiments conducted by people with PhD’s in this subject, but from your own ignorance on this topic, can you please stop claiming to have “real doubts and questions” and instead claim to be “ignorant of the science involved?”

          • Pete

            I’m harping on the CO2 level because CO2 levels and the greenhouse effect are the issue at hand. The science involved is simple, not some sort of guesswork but instead a common phenomenon that is easily demonstrated. You still continue to disagree out of, quite frankly, stubborness and lack of understanding. There’s nothing else at play besides the CO2 level, deforestation, and the greenhouse effect, but you still refuse to admit you’re “probably” wrong. So I continue to try to explain the basic science so you will stop “arguing” with me and I can get back to other things in my life.

            If you would like to post a list of questions I have missed (by accident; I have no hidden agenda, I am not secretly working for the huge don’t-kill-everyone conspiracy), I will respond to them.

      • Pete

        Intelligent design is an extra-scientific explanation of history drawn from a religious text. Climate science at the level we’re discussing it is about basic, well-known and easily demonstrated phenomena. It’s not a meaningful comparison. What you’re talking about is the room for “error” (on the order of percentage points) in mathematical modelling done at the highest levels of the science. It’s as if you’re claiming gravity doesn’t exist because string theory involves guesswork and assumptions by quantum theorists.

        • Fluidly Unsure

          Or maybe that I don’t know that I have the ability to affect a particle light-years away from me.

          Like religion, there seems to be a reality (?) to quantum mechanics that I can’t put my finger on. But I don’t think the public theories I’ve read have done so no matter how smart or how well educated the Cern staff is.

          Should I jump/react/believe to the claims that the LHC will destroy the earth?

          • Pete

            You ignored my point, which is that whatever you want to say about quantum science, the more basic Newtonian concept of gravity, and the observable phenomenon of gravity, is more elementary and is not open to realistic questioning.

            You’re jumping/reacting to claims made on anonymous websites that the scientific establishment is wrong about something that is easily proven. You’re the one backing the crazy horse.

          • Fluidly Unsure

            All I was doing was correcting your claims about my conclusions (“It’s as if you’re claiming gravity doesn’t exist because string theory involves guesswork and assumptions by quantum theorists”).

            What would Einstein or Hawking say about previous scientific theories (newtonian physics) not being open to questioning or qualifications?

            Aren’t most scientific ideas a qualification or improvement on previously established ideas? It is the current establishment that I am questioning, not science. At best the assertion of sacredness of established ideas and claims that they can’t be questioned fuels my questions.

            I don’t care if you think my horse has phsycological problems or not. If my understanding is that its ideas are superior to those from your horses mouth, then I’ll believe my own– no matter which orifice it comes out of.

            Do the observable actions of CO2 in small closed systems proves anything on a macro level? From most anti-evolutionists I will take it as a simple but misleading mistake. From someone as educated, I take it as intentionally misleading and an indication that external motivations may exist.

            I may not have enough evidence to disprove established ideas; but like I tell Xtian evangelists, the burden of proof that pink pixies exist is not on my shoulders.

          • Pete

            Quantum theory does not dispute or disprove the existence of gravity. It explains its behavior at extremes of observation. Gravity is an easily observed phenomenon.

            Quite frankly, you are making yourself sound stupid.

            If you had any relevant understanding of the basic physical sciences, you would understand that the box experiment DOES apply at the macro level. There is no sink for the CO2, it absorbs the IR light, the heat is trapped. That’s all. But you’re just SO SURE that your complete lack of knowledge in this area is adequate.

            Well, I say YOU CAN’T WRITE COMPUTER PROGRAMS AT ALL and that mine are better, even though I can’t program a computer.

          • Pete

            If the burden of proof is on science, then we have CO2 readings, we have an easily demonstrated model, we have everything we need to demonstrate the greenhouse effect. We have, quite frankly, elementary chemistry that is in fact a routine consideration effecting most lab uses of IR analytical equipment. We have a huge release of CO2, we have deforestation. Every possible fact. All we don’t have is a huge disaster. Is that what you’d need?

            All you have are spikes in a trend that are meaningless at a higher level of analysis, and random suspicion. You have no meaningful scientific theory. Do you question every single thing? Do you question the floor? The BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE FLOOR!

            No, the burden is on you. The burden to create an equally scientifically meaningful theory to replace the one you haven’t poked one hole in is on you. This is silly and a waste of my energy.

          • Pete

            You’re not so much “raising questions” as you are randomly disparaging something you don’t understand and forcing me to waste my time educating you about something you could easily learn in any college chemistry course. Your questions are at the “I don’t understand addition” level.

          • Pete

            I apologize for the angry tone. I don’t mean to imply that you ARE stupid. My impression is that you’re an intelligent person who only reads right wing conspiracy theory blogs and has a weak understanding of the physical sciences.

            I hope you will consider how you would feel and react if someone came into your office, told you you didn’t know how to program and tried to discredit your work, and then didn’t (and what’s more, wouldn’t) understand the concept behind an if-then statement or binary numbers or something equally basic.

          • Fluidly unsure

            I hope we are able to communicate better now.

            I didn’t mean to question your knowledge in these areas which is obviously more than mine. What I have, I remember from 30+ years ago the last time I hit the chemistry books and it is therefore subject to memory decay and “senior moments”. I doubt if I am going to hit those books again I have other work and hobby needs which take up my time like Computer Science, music theory, translating Hindi, etc.

            But when I am working with a businessman, if I expect them to act on my thoughts I need to communicate on their level and not mine. By using the computer logic that is so natural to me instead of translating it into business logic, there is a good chance the businessman won’t see the need and won’t pay me the money to do the work.

            In the same way, if you expect me to act according to your knowledge it has to be presented at my level.

            As an aside, this is the closest to a x-wing nut blog I go to. The only political blogs I read regularly are from these sites and BBC (not exactly a right-wing conspiracy site).

          • Pete

            It’s the sort of thing where I’ve already presented the science, you’ve already accepted it, but you don’t have enough of an understanding of the overall system to understand how important it is. It’s like you’re saying, “sure, I understand how an if-then statement works now, but SO WHAT? I doubt that will come up.”

  • Pistol

    I understand ur frustration, as some things are still beyond our comprehension. Planets are living organisms made of nothing but energy, the same as us and everything else you interpret with ur 5 senses. Science is only just touching the surface here… Its not the sun as its actually cooled recently, its not the CO2, as recordings have shown that CO2 levels have been higher than they are now and the planet was actually cooler then…

    The superwave theory suggests that huge explosions at the galactic core send out cosmic rays that warm and or cool entire solar systems and they occur in periodic cycles all based firmly in mathematics. All energy moves according to numbers, we just need to interpret it better. Another theory supported by Richard C Hoagland is that the energy/heat comes from hyperdimensional space. But we are still at cause. We alone have the power to change this world completely. This is why scientists conduct double and triple blind experiments.
    To remove the human influence over the results… This is now accepted as impossible, yet is still contraversial and is opening up new doors for the science community. nothing exists without it first being thought. When we are ready, upon mastering our own minds, we will simply choose the CO2 levels to subside. Not the answer ur looking for but its all i can offer at this stage. Thanks. love P

    • Pete

      All that aside, CO2 can be higher but be offset by other factors, and the temperature can be cooler at a given point. But the parallel between CO2 levels and temperature is as direct as direct can be. The graphs are literally nearly mirrors of each other. And even if we decide, based on silly superstition, not to trust those determinations, we can directly demonstrate the existence of the greenhouse effect and we can directly measure the levels of CO2 currently in the atmosphere; there is nothing else to figure out here.

      We need TIME to develop an adequate sink for the CO2. Individually and collectively, we have to buy in and do what we feel is reasonable to help the effort to slow the greenhouse effect, so that scientists can develop the tools we need.

      The spike may be both man-made and natural. Why does that matter, if we’re going to die? The underlying mechanism – the greenhouse effect – is easily understood and well-known. We can combat it with technology, both by slowing our own contribution to the effect and by removing CO2 manually or with more trees. So where’s the issue? Get’r’done!

  • Pete

    Many people seem to oppose this theory because it would require them to change their lives too much. First of all, that’s a terrible way to conduct science, even in your own head. Second, as most seasoned enviros will tell you, none of us are perfect. I recycle, and when I get a new car it will be a Ultra-Low Emissions Vehicle or a hybrid or something. I care about this issue and it effects who I vote for. But I still drive everywhere, because my life doesn’t include 2-3 extra hours a day to allow me to bike. I do what I can, and I am not being a stubborn fool about pretending it’s somehow “not happening,” like some kind of fool ostrich. It’s not about perfection, it’s about public perception.

    • Fluidly Unsure

      Or some don’t want to jump just because another says so. Boo! (Did you jump this time?)

      • Pete

        Simple stubborness when childrens’ and literally the entire planets’ lives are at stake. Throwing away all of human history’s march toward a better future because you don’t like being told that you’re wrong. That’s really hard to stomach.

        You have no superior explanation, but are casting doubt where there is none so that you won’t have to do something you don’t want to do – change your mind.

        • Fluidly Unsure

          When I see reason I will change my mind. Why are you so against reason? Oh yeah, you are one of those neo-scientists that want us to preemptively react before the reason is clear to us. BTW: just because it is clear in your mind doesn’t mean it is in mine.

          • Pete

            Reason: Hydrocarbons react with oxygen at high temperatures to produce free energy, carbon dioxide and water. Carbon dioxide is a stable, relatively inert gas that is normally emitted by animal-type organisms and inhaled by plant-type organisms. It has an effect, when released into the atmosphere, similar to a one-way mirror, and traps heat in the atmosphere. When large amounts of it are released by two sustained centuries of hydrocarbon use, and large quantities of the world’s trees are removed, a huge overabundance of CO2 increases this effect, causing the temperature to increase resolutely over time, even if year-to-year data makes this less than obvious. Have you ever seen a chart where the “upward” part of the graph had lots of little spikes in it? It doesn’t matter if this man-generated spike coincides with a natural spike. It probably does. That’s all the more reason to respond quickly and without a bunch of whining because you don’t understand the science involved. I’m not responsible for that.

            There’s your reasoning. You have no superior counter-reasoning. So please admit you’re wrong. This is seriously, seriously nothing beyond basic, high-school-level chemistry.

            As I said earlier, if you don’t believe me, get a box and do the experiment.

          • Pete

            I should add that I forgot a component of the experiment, an IR light source. The issue with greenhouse gasses is that they transmit (“pass”) UV-VIS light, but when the UV-VIS light “bounces out” of the biosphere as IR light (having had some of its energy used by plants and animals, it is now lower-energy and lower-frequency IR light), the IR light has wavelengths that are absorbed and then emitted by the greenhouse gasses. Many of these emissions will be back down, and the more greenhouse gas there is, the more of these “bounce downs” will occur and the more heat becomes trapped by this barrier. Probably if you had to pick one light to get the experiment to demonstrate what’s going on, it would be an IR light. My apologies.

  • Pete


    Seriously, a lot of conspiracy theories are just insane and/or dumb, and this is one of them.

    Others, like Bildabergers, JFK being shot by the CIA or the mafia or something, chemtrails? Sure, I’m with you, the evidence seems to support that.

    But here, you’re backing the wrong horse. Where is the CO2 going? Answer me that. Don’t say “naturally back to the earth,” because that’s not what I want. I want you to explain some biological mechanism that is removing CO2 from the atmosphere. Or are you saying that CO2 doesn’t cause a greenhouse effect? Because that is extremely well-understood and agreed upon. So WHERE’S THE ISSUE? You’re drinking anti-left koolaid brewed by “industry scientists” and schizophrenics.

    If you don’t agree that CO2 causes a greenhouse effect, then set up an airtight plexiglass box with a hose attached, crimp the hose with room air inside, set a UV-VIS light bulb over it and record the temperature for a week. Then get a bunch of CO2 bike tire chargers and pump the thing full of CO2, and see what happens the next week.

    • Pete

      See my post below; this would actually work better with an IR light source.

    • galactis

      Pete i don’t like your attitude. why do you insist on insulting people. i thank god we weren’t born during the Salem witch trials. because you’d be screaming witch

      • Pete

        I’m sorry, but that’s infantile. You’re the ones claiming some sort of supernatural occurrence. Where is the CO2 going? I’m trying to stand up for elementary science that’s easily proven and understood by anyone with a basic education, and that’s all.

        You don’t have to like my attitude. I think you’re dead wrong, I think you’re making a huge mistake, and I think it’s because you’re selfish and short sighted. Say whatever you want about me.

  • Pistol

    Hi Andrew,
    Unfortunately, the computer that I was using when i was conducting my research on Tesla and others was destroyed by water and was unable to retrieve all my data, years of work lost. Yes, i know i should have backed it up… Google Tesla and you will find many references to the man.

    Also search for info on the ‘Superwave Theory’, ‘Dark Mission’, ‘The Enterprise Mission’, ‘The Bilderberg Group’, ‘Alex Jones’, ‘Dr. Len Harowitz’, ‘David Icke’. the list goes on…. Check these out… Its all the same story being told from different angles… The universe is not the place we have been led to believe… Global warming is not being caused by any activities of man or even the sun.

    If this were the case, then planets like Pluto (made of ice) that are moving further out of our solar system and receive little to no energy from our sun is melting, so too is a moon around Jupiter that was once ice is now liquid seas…

    Jupiter displaces more than twice the energy it gets from the sun which defies institutional physics and the status quo. Its because energy & heat are coming in from somewhere unseen. Tesla knew this too along with secret socities operating in the background. Its part of the reason why pyrimads and other structures are built on vortex points and ley lines around the globe, on the moon and mars.
    We live in a Hyperdimensional universe, made of nothing but energy, vibrating at varying frequencies, existing trans-dimensionally on an infinite number of levels…you only need look inside our bodies to see that the universe lies within us. when we look out into the night sky, we can gauge the scale of distance between the atoms in our own bodies.

    The vastness and infinite nature of who/what we are is incomprehensible to the analytical mind. It wont be until we fully understand the nature of the universe/us that we will truly discover the cause of things such as global warming. The superwave theory has it close, if you need to blame something outside of us for the warming… I put this to the reader… You, and I and everyone else on this planet with the ability to think, is the real cause of anything. Cause and effect. I/You/we are the cause. Our thoughts define/create the circumstances and experiences we have in this illusory reality we call life on earth…

    The fat controllers know this, which is why we are told what to think, how to act, what to wear, what to believe etc. There is a war on for your mind, coz they know if they can tell you what to think, then as a co-creator, you will play a role in creating the outcome they want..the world they want… We can end all of the nonsense by simply working on our own internal issues.. If we heal the inside we heal the outside….this is law…. In other words, its not the planet that is sick and needs healing, its ourselves… if you want to stop global warming, then go within… coz if you dont, you go without…
    thanks. love P