Geoengineering, Global Warming, HAARP
With the help of the mainstream media propaganda machine and payoffs to government funded climatologists, the globalist elites, led by Al Gore, have managed to psychologically brainwash the masses to believe the global warming deception, and that man's activities are creating it through the burning of fossil fuels. Nothing can be further from the truth. Weather modification has been going on since the 1950's and the globalists have literally been re-writing weather records to perpetuate the lie in order to create the need for another tax - a carbon tax - that supposedly help mitigate rising CO2 levels that allegedly are causing global warming. The problem with this assertion is that the entire theory is based on lies, deception, and manipulation. Wake up and listen to the actual science behind this fraud so that you understand how your opinion is being manipulated.
Human CO2 Emissions are Wholly Beneficial - Dr Moore
Do 97% of Climate Scientists Really Agree?
What They Haven't Told You about Climate Change
Dr. Roy Spencer debunks the 97% IPCC Climate Global Warming Consensus
The Global Warming Scientific Fraud
Let's use some simple logic against the ludicrous claim that CO2 (Carbon Dioxide) levels of 330 ppm (parts per million) can be a threat to the planet and a cause of global warming. As you can see from the chart below, taken from the Encyclopedia of the Earth website, Nitrogen makes up 78.084% of the earth's atmosphere, Oxygen 20.947%, Argon 0.934%, and the remaining trace gases the rest. As you can see, Carbon Dioxide represents only 0.033% of the total atmosphere or 3.3 one hundredths of a percent!
What climate change alarmists would have us believe is that increasing a trace gas, that represents only 330 ppm relative to the (N2/O2/AR) majority of 999,650 PPM, can have a massive impact on the temperature of the planet, and that if CO2 concentrations rise to 500 ppm, we could be past the tipping point of saving the earth from massive overheating! Use your heads and ask yourself a logical question:
"Assume you have a glass bottle that can hold one liter (1000 ml or 20,000 drops - see this calculator). Assume that the bottle contains 19,993 drops of white milk, and you add 0.33ml (equal to 6.6 drops or 330 ppm) of liquid chocolate. How much of the chocolate would you see or even taste? If you then added 33% more chocolate (0.0825 ml or 1.65 drops) to the mix, do you really think you would notice ANY difference in the taste of that bottle of milk? OF COURSE NOT! NO MEASUREABLE DIFFERENCE!"
The global warming alarmists who are unwitting pawns for the global cabal of international bankers seeking to TAX the air would have us believe that increasing the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere by a mere 170 ppm to a whopping 0.05% of the total atmospheric content (five one hundredths of a percent) will increase global temperatures by 2+ degrees Celsius and lead to massive destruction of coastlines, crops, etc. (Can you honestly tell the difference between a really hot summer day of 38C and another at 40C; we think not?) In fact, most thermometers can have a margin of error of 2C from one to the next.
Now just because CO2 on Venus (which has 96.5% CO2 by content) produces a greenhouse effect, it does not mean that ANY measureable greenhouse effect will occur on earth by increasing a trace gas that accounts for a mere fraction of one percent of the Earth's atmosphere. If you believe this scientific fraud, then you are dumber than a sheep!
WAKE THE FLOCK UP!
Lawrence Solomon: 97% cooked stats
The ‘scientific consensus’ about global warming turns out to have a lot more to do with manipulating the numbers
How do we know there’s a scientific consensus on climate change? Pundits and the press tell us so. And how do the pundits and the press know? Until recently, they typically pointed to the number 2,500 — that’s the number of scientists associated with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Those 2,500, the pundits and the press believed, had endorsed the IPCC position.
To their embarrassment, most of the pundits and press discovered they were mistaken — those 2,500 scientists hadn’t endorsed the IPCC’s conclusions, they had merely reviewed some part or other of the IPCC’s mammoth studies. To add to their embarrassment, many of those reviewers from within the IPCC establishment actually disagreed with the IPCC’s conclusions, sometimes vehemently.
“They’re the ones who study and publish on climate science,” Doran explained. “So I guess the take-home message is, the more you know about the field of climate science, the more you’re likely to believe in global warming and humankind’s contribution to it.”
Once all these cuts were made, 75 out of 77 scientists of unknown qualifications were left endorsing the global warming orthodoxy. The two researchers, the master’s student and her prof, were then satisfied with the findings of her master’s thesis. Are you?
Linked 3rd Party Articles