Wednesday, November 18, 2009

Questions for AGW Hypothesis Supporters

Much of the argument both for and against the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) hypothesis contains too many graphs and too much math. Its enough to turn non science educated people blue in the face, I would imagine. Much of it is meaningless and presented to generate confusion with false assumptions underlying the data presented.

Question 1. Is CO2 a major greenhouse gas ? Many scientists are saying that is is not. My favorite source for information on AGW is an interview between Dr. Timothy Ball and Black Krishna, an activist from Toronto. Sometimes this link gets broken but you can search "Black Krishna Timothy Ball" and find it easily. In this interview Dr. Ball makes the direct and falsifiable (can be shown to be false if so) statement that CO2 is an insignificant greenhouse gas. Many others such as Michael Coffman show the same thing in his movie "Global warming or Global Governance", which is also available free on the web.

Question 2. Do you believe that the 32000 scientists (9000 PhD's, 300 PhD Climate Scientists) listed on are in cahoots with the oil companies to destroy the carbon cutting plans of our politicians to see the earth destroyed ?

Question 3. Have you given both sides of this argument equal consideration ? Are you afraid to give "the other side" a chance to present its evidence ? Did you know that many people change their opinions after watching "Global Warming or Global Governance"? Do you have to be knowledgeable and understanding of both sides of the AGW hypothesis argument to be of informed opinion ?

Question 4. Is it possible that the entire AGW hypothesis is to scare people into paying more tax and allowing certain special interest groups to collect billions of dollars in taxes ?

Question 5. Do you believe that scientists working for the government are free to speak their minds ? If so, why haven't more university and establishment employed engineers and architects spoken out about the obviously false government explanation surrounding 9/11 and in particular the building collapses ?

Question 6. Could it be that this whole carbon scam is to replace our existing fraudulent banking system with an equivalent fraud that only serves the ruling elite with carbon credits ?

Question 7. Is it possible that this whole AGW hypothesis was created to distract us from obviously more pressing issues such as economic collapse, corrupt money, unethical bailouts and all of the wars ?

The AGW issue is the issue of the day, we must re-activate on this. The carbon tax will soon be signed into law in the USA and there will be no turning back from this global agreement unless other countries who will be beneficiaries of some of this tax will let us out of it. Canada will do whatever the USA does and once its done, its done. Discussion groups on the web seem to be dominated by AGW hypothesis supporters.

Maybe more good and simple questions can be posed. When we ask questions we are "as_king" and take control of debates.


Magdelena said...

Hey Doug, even though I'm not a supporter can I chime in?

One hypothesis I have is that in its earlier days the 'environmental' movement was something which tended to cross most partisan boundaries. No one wanted contaminated water, land or air, it was a little more 'real' and seemed to be gaining headway. This worried a lot of great folks, who began to see liability claims and so forth on their horizons.

So, mules and dupes were planted, useful idiots if you will, to politicise and narrow the true agendas of many 'environmentalists'. Lots of manipulations. Their sacred cow is global warming. It allowed for ALL of the other REAL pollution to be ignored - instantly off the radar!

When was the last time you heard about a toxic site being cleaned up?

Anyway, IMO it was a grand derailment of something which had for a while united the vast majority of us, regardless of political leanings.

Did that make any sense at all??

Doug Plumb said...

I completely agree with what you said - the spectrum of the initial movement was much wider and more relevant - I got into the science of passive solar heating. How much of that do you see ? ..some but not nearly enough.

These questions are for AGW supporters to see the bad logic of their position.

I believe that the anti AGW movement is using too much math and numbers, they forget that CO2 is an insignificant greenhouse gas.

We can argue our position affectively without using complex science.

I'm always interested to hear what you think. You always see it a little differently than I do.

Doug Plumb said...

Passive solar heating = independence, which is why I suppose you don't see more of it.

Magdelena said...

Hey Doug,

I suspect you've heard about this already?

Doug Plumb said...

I wasn't aware of this Maggie- Thanks. I think it may be a trap. I read through some of those emails and the pro AGW camp may read them differently.

I think the falsifiable fact that CO2 isn't a significant greenhouse gas hasn't been emphasised enough. That factreally does expose the whole think and many skeptics are not aware of it, or choose not to mention it.

Doug Plumb said...

BTW I couldn't post on your cloud blog either.

Magdelena said...

I dunno what's up with that - I can post now!!

I threw up a bunch of the CRU links there - have a looksy.


Magdelena said...

I had one of these nutters tell me once that the axial tilt had nothing to do with the seasons...

she was a biologist.

Doug Plumb said...

I got a similar reaction when I posted some Rockefeller quotes - the university lecturer said I was misinterpreting them. I asked him how, he couldn't answer and proceeded with insults.

These peoples minds are being destroyed OR they think they are part of the ruling elite who must help decrease population. I wonder why they think they are needed. What happens to soldiers after a war ?

I think their minds have been destroyed after being forced to believe so many lies. This is well explained in that book I keep talking about, Political Ponerology.

Doug Plumb said...

I still can't post on your blog.


Magdelena said...

Huh, yeah I've often run into the same problem.
I'll check out that book, got a few to get through though, and lately I've been escaping through the likes of Jordan and Sanderson. (Fantasy/sci-fi sorta stuff)

I'm just getting so sick of it all, which is obvious with my lackluster blog these days.

As far as the comments goes, the problem cleared up for me when I dumped all my cookies and cleared all my histories.


Penny said...

hey maggie, that made alot of sense.

you are right the environmental movement has been hijacked by the global warming movement.

I was thinking about pop. You know soda.

It has co2 in it to carbonate it, so, is it going to be banned or very very expensive.

When you listen to Rivero talk he says this is a way to literally tax the air you breathe, I think he is correct.


"Passive solar heating = independence"

couldn't have the people being to independant now could we ;)

Doug Plumb said...

The average human exhales about 5.5 pounds of CO2 every day. Most of this will be oxygen but there will be a charge for this. We will have to pay Al Gore to breathe.

The carbon will have already been paid for - it comes from our food, but we will have to be taxed to put it back into the atmosphere to be reconverted to more food by the sun. Its a an indirect tax on the sun, and taxing the sun is not new to the British Empire.


About Me

My photo
Author of "Power Outage", available on Smashwords. I am a 50 year old free market libertarian who has had the time to read and consider the nature of globalism and the big machine that is surrounding us. I have participated in politics by running at the Fed level and debated Agenda 21 and 9-11 truth in front of large audiences. My background is in engineering and software creation. My business has provided me with significant time and freedom to learn the truth about the world around us. My goal is to expose Agenda 21 / Sustainable Development and Cultural Marxism.