The Global Warming Conspiracy

[SpidermanTUba]

FACT: Politicians in the federal government have been conspiring with scientists for years to produce political unpopular theories.

FACT: Scientific journals only allow papers with certain conclusions to be published.

FACT: For profit corporations, like Exxon, and Phillip Morris, produce much more unbiased science than publicly funded science

FACT: Economists are more qualified to talk about the climate that climatologists.


All of these are true. I have no evidence. I just know its true. I think the freemasons, the mob, and the Knights of Columbus are in on this to. Apparently, the idea is to find an excuse to tax gasoline and put the oil companies out of business, because all the politicians are being paid huge bribes by environmental groups - massive compared to the bribes the measly oil companies could afford.

[Hagbard Celine]

You forgot the "libs." This is just one facet of their far-reaching, "Vast Liberal Conspiracy." Or "Operation VLC" as I like to call it.

[LiberalNation]

Don't forget the liberal education system. That teach global warming in school. I'm doing a power point on it or supposed to be right now.

[theHawk]

Don't forget the liberal education system. That teach global warming in school. I'm doing a power point on it or supposed to be right now.

Don't forget to include a graph of the average global temperatures for the last million years. Showing that we periodically go through natural global warming and cooling phases.

[LiberalNation]

Nah it only has 2 question on Global Warming. One a def, and the others what changes have occured as a result of it. The rest is supposed to be about atmosphere, ozone and such.

[LiberalNation]

Hey anybody wana do my homework for me. I'll let ya deny glabal warming and it's gona be presented to a class of highschool kids who are tought it as fact.

[glockmail]

What a thread.

[SpidermanTUba]

Don't forget to include a graph of the average global temperatures for the last million years. Showing that we periodically go through natural global warming and cooling phases.

Ahh! You appear to be using the 4th law of thermodynamics, the one the scientists don't want you to know about:

It's called Exxon's 4th Law of Thermodynamics:

"If the temperature of a system can be affected by natural means, it is physically impossible for it to be affected by artificial means."

The scientists have kept this law a secret for years now.


But that's not the half of it. There's more. Relativity, quantum mechanics, evolution - in fact all scientific theories developed since 1800 - are false. We developed them in order to subjugate the population. For example - did you know that faster than light speed really is possible? It is, and we scientists have been travelling at faster than light speed since 1905. That's right - since 1905, when Einstein came out with his Special Relativity, which says that its impossible to travel faster than light. Einstein and his co-conspirators concocted the theory as a mean to convince the masses that they couldn't travel faster than the speed of light, so that we evil scientists would have the one up on you.


Its all true. Darwin actually discovered scientific proof of God's existence. But he didn't think the ordinary people were worthy of such knowledge, so he concocted evolution as a means to distract them.

This is why scientists are always driving the fancy cars and stashing huge sums of money in offshore accounts, while oil company executive wear rags and are in perpetual debt to the bank.


Anyway, I would definitely point out Exxon's 4th Law of Thermodynamics to the kids.

[5stringJeff]

Ahh! You appear to be using the 4th law of thermodynamics, the one the scientists don't want you to know about:

It's called Exxon's 4th Law of Thermodynamics:

"If the temperature of a system can be affected by natural means, it is physically impossible for it to be affected by artificial means."

The scientists have kept this law a secret for years now.

And you appear to believe that, in a geologic blink of an eye, human activity can throw the 4-billion-year-old earth's climate out of whack.

[SpidermanTUba]

And you appear to believe that, in a geologic blink of an eye, human activity can throw the 4-billion-year-old earth's climate out of whack.

I don't think the phrase "4 billion year old" climate really has any meaning.

But we've successfully increased the atmospheric CO2 concentration by about 30-40% in a geologic "blink of an eye". So yes, I do believe we can influence the environment in a "geologic blink of an eye", because, we have.

[Psychoblues]

And you would be absolutely correct, ST, and all the others can do is wish it weren't so if they recognize it at all.

I don't think the phrase "4 billion year old" climate really has any meaning.

But we've successfully increased the atmospheric CO2 concentration by about 30-40% in a geologic "blink of an eye". So yes, I do believe we can influence the environment in a "geologic blink of an eye", because, we have.

The past 150 years has been brutal on the planet. It doesn't take a scientist or a priest to figure that out.

[glockmail]

…But we've successfully increased the atmospheric CO2 concentration by about 30-40% in a geologic "blink of an eye". So yes, I do believe we can influence the environment in a "geologic blink of an eye", because, we have.

Those pesky facts:

The Mauna Loa atmospheric CO2 measurements constitute the longest continuous record of atmospheric CO2 concentrations available in the world. The Mauna Loa site is considered one of the most favorable locations for measuring undisturbed air because possible local influences of vegetation or human activities on atmospheric CO2 concentrations are minimal and any influences from volcanic vents may be excluded from the records. The methods and equipment used to obtain these measurements have remained essentially unchanged during the 47-year monitoring program.
Because of the favorable site location, continuous monitoring, and careful selection and scrutiny of the data, the Mauna Loa record is considered to be a precise record and a reliable indicator of the regional trend in the concentrations of atmospheric CO2 in the middle layers of the troposphere. The Mauna Loa record shows a 19.4% increase in the mean annual concentration, from 315.98 parts per million by volume (ppmv) of dry air in 1959 to 377.38 ppmv in 2004. The 1997-1998 increase in the annual growth rate of 2.87 ppmv represets the largest single yearly jump since the Mauna Loa record began in 1958. This represents an average annual increase of 1.4 ppmv per year. This is smaller than the average annual increase at the other stations because of the longer record and inclusion of earlier (smaller) annual increases.

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/sio-mlo.htm

377 parts per million is less than 0.04%, so at these low concentrations it doesn't take much to come up with a significant percent change; a number that can be used by alarmists on an unsuspecting populace. Likewise, at these low percentages, these small increases are unlikely to have any significant atmospheric effect.

[SpidermanTUba]

Those pesky facts:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/sio-mlo.htm

377 parts per million is less than 0.04%, so at these low concentrations it doesn't take much to come up with a significant percent change; a number that can be used by alarmists on an unsuspecting populace. Likewise, at these low percentages, these small increases are unlikely to have any significant atmospheric effect.

Less than 0.04% of the entire atmosphere? So what? The major constituents of the atmosphere - oxygen and nitrogen - are not greenhouse gasses. What's your point? From what I can tell, you're making a meaningless comparison. Small quantities of one kind of gas mixed with another kind can cause huge changes in radiative absorptivity. This is basic scientific fact, you can't just declare it out of existence.

[glockmail]

..... Small quantities of one kind of gas mixed with another kind can cause huge changes in radiative absorptivity. This is basic scientific fact, you can't just declare it out of existence.

Prove it.

[SpidermanTUba]

Prove it.

How do you think the greenhouse effect works? You are aware that it would be about 70 degrees farenheit cooler on the Earth's surface if there were no greenhouse gasses?

And like I said before, the vast majority of gas in the atmosphere - O2 and N2 do not absorb in the infrared bands. Its the small amount of CO2, water vapor, methane, and other gasses that cause the entire greenhouse effect. CO2 causes about 12% of the total effect. This means without CO2, the Earth would be 0.12 * 70 = 8.4 degrees F cooler. So obviously - an increase or decrease of 35% in the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere can have an effect of a few degrees F.

http://www.ecolo.org/documents/docum...utions-GHG.htm
http://www.agu.org/journals/rg/v016/...i004p00465.pdf
http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?...W%3E2.0.CO%3B2