Anthropogenic Global Warming is a fraud.

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Sahil Sasidharan on November 9, 2009 at 12:49pm

Here's a surprise reaction to this post by Nasheet Siddiqui of partial agreement. Instead of totally negating any claims to anthropogenic (human-induced) climate change, i would rather introduce you to the idea of there being no definite proof out there or any complete scientific backing to this global scaremongering which has led to nebulous economic intensity being directed to the entire green movement and greenhouse gas emission standards which may be disputable. Let me support my argument with three facts which can be researched online and offline as well.

1. Cost of Kyoto Protocol to the world: 155-300 billion dollars estimate by 2005 with a reduction of 0.2 degree Celsius temperature rise by 2100 (if same standards continued) and a reduction of 3 cms in sea level rise by the same 100 year period for probable predictions taking climate models from the IPCC reports. Do you realize how many lives could be bought with that, let me tell you. 200 billion dollars was the amount needed during 2005 to provide proper health and sanitation to all half the population on the globe which doesn't have access to it even today.
2. All green technologies have their flipside either in disposal, recycling or toxicity after use eg: CFL's are responsible for mercury leakage into groundwater which may end up costing you more than your incandescent bulb bills if you don't have a proper mechanism to dispose of them (which most countries don't). There is also a rumour and this can never have any proof so let me just introduce this as a thought (hunch more likely) that the entire climate change story is a hoax spread by few companies out of which a leading western name provides political and economic lobbying to create a state of fear in which their obsolete and highly inefficient green technologies can be sold, like a market driving strategy welcome to conventions of climate change , the new marketing hubs. And you may say that my rumour is baseless which i can say for the entire climate change theory of anthropogenic involvement as both lack proof.
3. The last ice age was not 10000 years ago but rather from the 13th century to the 19th century and was known as the little ice age with the north atlantics being frozen over and amazingly , it ended 150 years ago which is when industrialization was blamed for causing global warming within that period. Kind of convenient to have global temperatures rising after the end of an ice age and to blame humans for it, especially when we also have solar cycles and various other causes to look into.. but alas ghg's are easier to blame, at least carbon credits make you some money, while nature doesn't.

i would like to rest my case with one last addition about my stand, i am not on anyone's side except mother earth's and all that i state here is to make you realise that there is nothin wrong in going green as long as one goes green with awareness and sensibilities intact , not just rush into a movement blindfolded which is fueled by propaganda and economic focus which may hamper the actual growth of green and other necessary technologies with equitable allocation of time and money. Be sustainable for everything - including humanity..

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Nasheet Siddiqui on November 10, 2009 at 2:12am

Excellent post...I totally agree..I am in for green and sustainable..development...but not an irrational or rather criminal one...
According to AGW proponents...the Globe is warming....but in fact last 11 years its cooling!!! and Co2 levels are increasing....
That means that its not so simple...co2 has nothing to do with all this or any other human activity...

1.) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8299079.stm
2.) http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/16460

take a quiz about how much you know...about GW...

3.) http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/GlobWarmTest/start.html

and finally some interesting myth busters..
4.) http://www.ecoworld.com/climate/35-inconvenient-truths-the-errors-i...
5.)http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/environment/waterworld.html

N

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Sahil Sasidharan on November 10, 2009 at 3:42am

Interesting links which seem to fortify my statements but here i would like to add a paragraph on statistics and facts.

The problem with all climate change stats and facts are their credibility and their malleability. For example one may say the temperature has been rising for the last 30 years without mentioning that the 30 years before that temperatures were falling and the world was fearing something called global cooling in the 70's, which wasn't so well known due to the lack of information exchange with restrictive media technology and absence of the internet in those days.

My point being that any information whether in favour of or against climate change could be a partial fact manipulated to sound complete as this is the foremost tool employed by both sides to reinforce their stand. It is up to the reader to research and remain clear of tall claims and pinpoint the actual real ones.
Secondly i would like to mention that since the IPCC, a nobel prize winning organisation is being accused of producing false or incomplete facts to support their arguments, what guarantee does one have that all facts claimed by top notch government bodies having international repute are completely true. As a resident of India, all my fellow citizens would be well aware of our corrupt bureaucracy and its false claims due to their selfish economic interests. Let us apply this model to the world with climate change as the resultant economic focus and immediately our image of all those government goliaths which provide us facts and figures suddenly turns dismally gray.
There have been reports that NASA has been accused of firing scientists who have tried to publish work which refuted claims by climate change supporters. This could be the tip of an iceberg if truly researched.

Again i shall conclude with my personal view where i must say that i believe in most findings and facts which seem to be complete with reasoning and trend data but i always keep the option open in my head that the ground i stand on may not be as solid as believed. Thus the flexibility allows me to update as and when required without having to forgo my relationship with mother earth - of justice and sustainability.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Nasheet Siddiqui on November 10, 2009 at 3:57am

You are right in seventies same activists were campaigning for cooling,and not to forget the Y2K hype....as if the world's going to perish tomorrow.There is more threat to earth from such alarmists .
Science is based on facts and data.Science is not a religion which is based on faith or consensus.It takes only one scientist to prove the whole world wrong.So we shall all have a scientific temper and question everything and verify and cross check any information fed to us.
Without science AGW is all hot air. It has become a fad to be green...public opinion has caused politicians to be "AGW correct"...but that all will change soon ..ones this debate gets hotter.
The worst thing is people claiming that time for debate is over and that we have to act NOW!!I do not think so-lets give all this another 10 years,let the figures come in.No hell will break loose in another 1000 years.But yes people might die in poorer countries because they cannot afford cheap electricity which mainly comes from fossil fuel/coal..because of levies/taxes from developed world and such Global Nonsensical useless organizations as UN.

There is no need for anyone to sign any treaty,the earth is not interested.

N

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Sahil Sasidharan on November 11, 2009 at 2:14pm

Here's the latest update which is extremely interesting and has been verified by a friend of mine.

MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) Boston has published a report which has proved that the chief contributor to global warming is methane gas and industrial gases have no role ( or major role - has to be confirmed as i myself have to find this report).
The methane gas being discussed here is the one released by all forests, marshes, waterbodies etc on the planet , where anthropogenic methane is again negligible or minute. As always i hope you shall challenge this statement with relevant research and try and source the findings yourselves for conviction.

A small step for MIT, a massive step for mother nature..

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Nasheet Siddiqui on November 12, 2009 at 2:48am

can you post a link..on this...but again there are people who are cashing on this...se MOOTRAL..
http://www.mootral.com/
this is GROSS..

N

▶ Reply to This