I would like to begin by saying I don't expect serious and well thought out responses from the global warming supporters, however, if you do not respond at all (to those of you I know believe it) I will assume you are conceding to the professor, scientists not motivated by a political agenda, and ordinary citizens like myself who have looked at the "actual" data.

Considering the political implications of Global Warming, I feel this board is appropriate, and considering I was recently attacked for providing "biased" and "unreliable" sources, I figured I would simply start a new thread after coming across this gem.

Now, luckily for me, youtube has the video of a distinguished professor of science giving a lecture on Global Warming, and provides many of the graphs I have in my library. It saves me time on having to photocopy images and in delegating the process of explanation to someone far more expert than myself I waste even less time. He explains it far better than I ever could anyway.

Below each video you will find notes on what he discusses and what the graphs show, although I highly suggest watching all four videos. Below that, I will post a new release from NASA as well.

Part I
[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI[/YOUTUBE]

Notes:
"Science is not about consensus, it is about testing hypothesis."

The hypothesis in question is about dangerous human caused climate change.

Global temperature has been steady for last 10,000 years and warming since 16,000 BP.

Last 2,000 years, cooling at fast rate.

Last 700 years considered little ice age.

Last 8 years temp spike, than steady. This time period to short for accurate analysis and spikes like this are not abnormal.

Last 5,000 years there have been 5 periods of warming. The three previous to our current one had warmer temps than we currently have.

Between these warming periods are mini ice ages.

During these times of cooling, grainery crops are destroyed. Good chance we will be in one (cooling stage) in next 20-30 years.

Last warming period was 1 degree warmer than today and is called "Climate optimum," because it is a good place to be.

Part II
[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vN06JSi-SW8[/YOUTUBE]

Notes:
Over past 6 million years inter-glacial warming periods were much warmer than today.

Rapid climate change is normal. In fact, ice age temps fluctuated +/- 15 degrees per 100 years. Today we fluctuate +/- 2 degrees per 100 years.

1998- Largest peak in temp during El Nino. No change since. Yet their has been a 4% increase in CO2 in last 8 years.

The AU Parliament minority leader wrote a report and stated:
"Most of the public statements that promote the dangerous human warming scare are made from a position of ignorance - by political leaders, press commentators and celebrities who share characteristics of a lack of scientific training and a lack of an ability to differentiate between sound science and computer based scare mongering."

Part III

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCXDISLXTaY[/YOUTUBE]Notes:

A study was recently done on climate in the tropics monitoring climate change over week long periods and there were spikes in heating and cooling throughout these weeks. Study found that as heating starts, clouds form, trapping radiation which continues the warming trend. When the clouds move, there is a drastic cooling. Essentially, proof of Iris effect.
If this is taken into account on a 100 year scale, it accounts for 75% of warming predictions.

As a result of increased CO2, More water vapor causes more clouds. The clouds reflect the light back into space, in reality it causes cooling.

In other words, climate is self regulating and has natural checks and balances to control global temperatures in relation to CO2.

A U.K. study that predicted global warming trends through computer models admitted they did not take natural variations into account.

Part IV
[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpQQGFZHSno[/YOUTUBE]
Notes:
A study recently found (by NOAA) a lot of U.S. climate stations are in hot urban areas. Many are located on asphalt and/or below suggested monitoring height levels.

After Y2K, NASA restored the wrong weather data for many stations. When these errors were corrected it shows the hottest period in the last decade was in the 1930's.

84 stations have no data. 35 stations have been moved at least twice meaning the data is inaccurate.

The green agenda and empirical scientific data have no correlation.

Our climate is continuously changing.

CO2 is not a pollutant but a benefit to humans.

"Attempting to stop climate change is an expensive act of utter futility."

The only sensible thing to do, is prepare for the real problem which is most likely global cooling and the warming scam is taking focus away from those preparations.


Now, more on global cooling:

From NASA: April 1, 2009.

The sunspot cycle.

-We are currently in a deep solar minima. Since the 1950's solar activity has been high.

-Five of the last ten solar cycles have been the most intense in 50 years.

-1901 and 1913 were the last periods of solar minima; both before last rise in temperature.

Although they claim the increase in solar activity will not effect "global warming," they are government owned and have been in bed with Al Gore and the green movement for years now.

It is highly likely solar activity affects temperatures here on earth considering our climate is effected by solar patterns.

Also note: Most climate stations are owned by the government as well, in particular, the ones mentioned above that were found on asphalt, etc.

Also, here is a nice little chart and the graph regarding the amount of "greenhouse gases" in our atmosphere. Images provided by Mike Church.

Do you really believe political agendas should be implemented based on the theory of global warming? Carbon taxes in particular?
JaggedEdge Reviewed by JaggedEdge on . Global Warming: A Political Lie. I would like to begin by saying I don't expect serious and well thought out responses from the global warming supporters, however, if you do not respond at all (to those of you I know believe it) I will assume you are conceding to the professor, scientists not motivated by a political agenda, and ordinary citizens like myself who have looked at the "actual" data. Considering the political implications of Global Warming, I feel this board is appropriate, and considering I was recently Rating: 5