ADVERTISEMENT

New Reports: There Is No Global Warming

bigbadjohn45

All American
Jul 9, 2010
4,301
24
38
New Reports: There Is No Global Warming





Sunday, 29 Mar 2015 02:12 PM



The liberal media machine has spent decades bulldozing anyone who tells you global warming is a sham.

They even came up with a clever little title — “deniers.”

Every time a heat wave hits, every time a picture of a lone polar bear gets taken . . . the left pounds the table for environmental reform, more policy, more money to combat climate change. But how much has the world really warmed?

Their message is simple: Get on the man-made global warming bandwagon . . . or you’re just ignorant.

But how much has the world really warmed?

It’s an important question, considering the U.S. government spends $22 billion a year to fight the global warming crisis (twice as much as it spends protecting our border).

To put that in perspective, that is $41,856 every minute going to global warming initiatives.


But that's just the tip of a gargantuan iceberg.
According to Forbes columnist Larry Bell, the ripple effect of global warming initiatives actually costs Americans $1.75 trillion . . . every year.

That's three times larger than the entire U.S. federal budget deficit.

So, has anyone stopped to ask . . . how much has the globe actually warmed?

Well, we asked, and what we found was striking.

According to NASA’s own data via Remote Sensing Systems(RSS), the world has warmed a mere .36 degrees Fahrenheit over the last 35 years (they started measuring the data in 1979).

Hardly anything to panic about; however, that does mean the world is warmer, right?

The problem with that argument is that we experienced the bulk of that warming between 1979 and 1998 . . . since then, we’ve actually had temperatures DROPPING!

As can be seen in this chart, we haven’t seen any global warming for 17 years.

Weakening the global warming argument is data showing that the North Polar ice cap is increasing in size. Recent satellite images from NASA actually reflect an increase of 43% to 63%.

This is quite the opposite of what the global warming faction warned us.

In 2007, while accepting his Nobel Prize for his global warming initiative, Al Gore made this striking prediction, “The North Polar ice cap is falling off a cliff. It could be completely gone in summer in as little as seven years. Seven years from now.

Al Gore could not have been more wrong.

However, despite this clear evidence that the temperatures are not increasing, the global warming hysteria only seems to be increasing.

For example: President Obama himself tweeted on May 16, 2014: “97% of scientists agree: climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” John Kerry, Al Gore, and a host of others have championed this statistic.

Since then, it has become clear that this statistic was inaccurate.

The Wall Street Journal went as far as to say, “The assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction.” Forbes headlined “Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring ’97% Consensus’ Claims.”

Come to find out, the study President Obama was citing was botched from the start.

A host of other problems for the global warming crowd are emerging, such as . . .



Leaked emails from global warming scientists state that the Earth is not warming, such as this one from Kevin Trenberth that states, “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty we can’t.”Claude Allegre, the founding father of the man-made global warming ethos, recently renounced his position that man has caused warming.Proof is emerging that Al Gore and even President Obama have financially benefited from fueling the global warming hysteria (click here for an internal report on this).
It is becoming harder and harder for the global warming community to ignore some of the scientific data that show the Earth is not getting warmer . . . instead, the world is getting cooler.

Which makes one wonder — why are we still spending $22 billion a year on global warming initiatives, and where is the money going? (Click Here to Read a Controversial Report on This Topic.)

Suggested Reading for You: A former White House adviser and NASA consultant reveals startling proof that the global warming faction is hiding the truth . . . and gets attacked. Click Here.



© 2015 Newsmax Finance. All rights reserved.


This post was edited on 3/30 1:21 PM by bigbadjohn45
 
From the article (in pertinent part):

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

According to NASA's own data via Remote Sensing Systems(RSS), the world has warmed a mere .36 degrees Fahrenheit over the last 35 years (they started measuring the data in 1979).

Hardly anything to panic about; however, that does mean the world is warmer, right?

The problem with that argument is that we experienced the bulk of that warming between 1979 and 1998 . . . since then, we've actually had temperatures DROPPING!

As can be seen in this chart, we haven't seen any global warming for 17 years.

Weakening the global warming argument is data showing that the North Polar ice cap is increasing in size. Recent satellite images from NASA actually reflect an increase of 43% to 63%.


 
BBJ, I appreciate your concurrence on this issue. Despite evidence refuting global warming, the environmentalists still want to cling to the global warming myths. No doubt they will counter with a response supporting global warming. However, I just don't see any point in going back and forth on this issue because neither of us will concede our position. So forgive me for not wanting to respond any further. I just see it pointless at this juncture. I hope you will understand.
 
Originally posted by nashvillegoldenflash:
BBJ, I appreciate your concurrence on this issue. Despite evidence refuting global warming, the environmentalists still want to cling to the global warming myths. No doubt they will counter with a response supporting global warming. However, I just don't see any point in going back and forth on this issue because neither of us will concede our position. So forgive me for not wanting to respond any further. I just see it pointless at this juncture. I hope you will understand.
Flash, no problem, my friend. Isn't it peculiar, though, how presentation of factual information to liberals merely confuses them? They simply cannot process facts. In their warped way of thinking, it is only their intentions that are important as it relates to their perverted, Godless agenda.

At any rate, I agree, the facts speak for themselves.
 
Originally posted by bigbadjohn45:
They simply cannot process facts. In their warped way of thinking, it is only their intentions that are important as it relates to their perverted, Godless agenda.
That was uncalled for.
 
MidTnBlues, I realize the statement appears to be an overgeneralization but since BBJ didn't mention anyone by name, why take offense if it doesn't apply to you? I can only assume "they" means liberals and even I have made the argument that liberals cannot process facts. This may sound offensive but I provided an example to prove my point. With respect to the statement, "it is only their intentions that are important as it relates to their perverted, Godless agenda," I admit the word perverted sounds harsh and perhaps inappropriate but many liberals are self-admitted atheists. The part about "it is only their intentions that are important" comes right out of Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals when Alisky stated that the only thing that matters is one's end intention to do something good. And if you are not an atheist then the "Godless" part of the statement doesn't apply to you.

With the presidential election coming up, expect a heated exchange on this forum. There will probably be many statements made that you don't like but unless you are attacked personally, I wouldn't lose too much sleep over it if I were you. I realize that political discourse in the coming months will become aggressive and at times may resemble hand-to-hand combat, but unless it gets personal on this forum I don't believe posters should take offense regardless of whether the comments are perceived as an attack on liberal or conservative policies.
 
So, atheists are perverted? Come on man. You guys engage in personal attacks on here all the time. I've seen at least two today. Stop being pricks and debate.
 
BRF, I don't believe atheists are sexually perverted but if you look at how the word pervert is defined, I believe one can make the argument that liberals have perverted the Constitution by calling it a "living and breathing document" in an attempt to artificially bend the wording and meaning (see link).

Pervert

a : to cause to turn aside or away from what is good or true or morally right:[/B] corrupt

b :[/B] to cause to turn aside or away from what is generally done or accepted:[/B] misdirect

c :[/B] to divert to a wrong end or purpose :[/B] misuse

d :[/B] to twist the meaning or sense of :[/B] misinterpret

Examples of PERVERT


people who pervert[/I] their religion to support violence

They perverted[/I] the truth to help further their careers.

movies that pervert[/I] the minds of young people by glorifying violence

So in this context, one can say that liberals are perverted since by this definition they have perverted the meaning of the Constitution.Since most liberals claim to be atheists, then one could make the argument that atheists are perverted. Once again, I'm not suggesting that atheists are sexual perverts because I am not.

The Constitution as a “Living, Breathing Document"
 
As a follow-up, I want to state that laws as well as the Constitution should be followed and not interpreted. Judges should follow the law and justices should strictly follow the Constitution exactly how it is and not interpret laws or the Constitution according to how they want to.

In a law class I took a few years ago, I was adamant about following the law and not interpreting the law when arguing for or against the court's decision in copyright law cases.

It is amazing how many judges pervert the law and not uphold it because instead of following the law they make decisions in cases based on personal preference or what they think is right.
 
BBJ. I believe it's fair to say that we won't be receiving any Happy Easter pleasantries from MidTNBlues and BRF.
3dgrin.r191677.gif
 
Originally posted by nashvillegoldenflash:
BRF, I don't believe atheists are sexually perverted but if you look at how the word pervert is defined, I believe one can make the argument that liberals have perverted the Constitution by calling it a "living and breathing document" in an attempt to artificially bend the wording and meaning (see link).

Pervert

a : to cause to turn aside or away from what is good or true or morally right:[/B] corrupt

b :[/B] to cause to turn aside or away from what is generally done or accepted:[/B] misdirect

c :[/B] to divert to a wrong end or purpose :[/B] misuse

d :[/B] to twist the meaning or sense of :[/B] misinterpret

Examples of PERVERT




people who pervert[/I] their religion to support violence

They perverted[/I] the truth to help further their careers.

movies that pervert[/I] the minds of young people by glorifying violence

So in this context, one can say that liberals are perverted since by this definition they have perverted the meaning of the Constitution.Since most liberals claim to be atheists, then one could make the argument that atheists are perverted. Once again, I'm not suggesting that atheists are sexual perverts because I am not.
Flash, in the context of deviating from the truth of God's word, yes, I stand by my statement that liberalism is a perverted, Godless belief system. As mentioned below, Webster defines the word as "diverting from the true intent or purpose." Liberals, who claim to stand for "compassion" and "freedom of expression," seek to destroy anything and anyone who doesn't agree with their Godless agenda. Their support for abortion, homosexual marriage, etc., are two sad examples of their twisted, Godless beliefs. Any belief system that deviates from God's Word and teachings is, by definition, a perversion. (See article below which explains what the Bible means when referring to something as a perversion.)



Question: "What does the Bible mean when it refers to something as a perversion?"

Answer:
Webster's Dictionary defines perversion as "a diverting from the true intent or purpose; a change to something worse; a turning or applying to a wrong end or use." Anything can be perverted. Using opiates for non-medicinal purposes, for example, is a perversion of the poppy plant. In the Bible, the word translated "perversion" is used to define a deviation from righteousness in sexual behavior (Ecclesiastes 5:8). In each case, there are warnings against using for evil something that God created as good.

Satan twists things. Every good thing that God created, Satan works to pervert. God created sexuality and called it good (Galatians 5:19-21).

The book of Proverbs has a lot to say about perverted speech. Our mouths were created to praise God, Matthew 15:11, Jesus indicates that perversion is a matter of the heart: "What goes into someone's mouth does not defile them, but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them."

God also hates the perversion of justice, especially when it victimizes widows and orphans (Micah 6:8).

Satan cannot create; that power belongs to God alone. So he perverts what God has created. If he can entice God's most cherished creations to follow him in his twisted ideas, he succeeds in perverting the Galatians 5:1).
 
Originally posted by bigbadjohn45:
Flash, no problem, my friend. Isn't it peculiar, though, how presentation of factual information to liberals merely confuses them? They simply cannot process facts.

At any rate, I agree, the facts speak for themselves.
A few counterpoints.

1. I am not liberal. I am 0% liberal. However, I am a scientist.

2. I do not believe in getting science "facts" from Al Gore, Ted Cruze, Rush Limbaugh, or anyone else with a poltical slant.

3. You say the facts speaks for themselves. Then you find 1 or 2 studies that support your already pre-conceived ideas about globing warming and ignore the multiple peer reviewed studies that say man is contributing to climate change. Selectively choosing data points and ignoring the mass of a data set is poor science and poor fact finding.

4. I truly believe some people here would believe in Climate Change if Rush and Ted Cruze said it were so & Al Gore said it was made up. It has nothing to do with collective science, rather political ideology.

5. The condescending tone that is used to describe non-believers is uncalled for and, in my opinion, non-biblical. It does more to push non-believers away from Christianity and reminds me of self-righteous Pharisees. At the church I attend, we try not to belittle non-believers, insult them, and push them away.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT