Unveiling the Purpose of the Global Warming Hoax
Updated Dec 2022
Close to 32,000 scientists signed this petition stating that the Global warming storyline is questionable. Mass psychology clearly illustrates that if the masses believe in something, one should approach that topic cautiously. Translation; if the masses accept something like the Gospel, the odds state that the storyline will likely be flawed. The Global Warming Hoax is a scam perpetrated by the elite to rob the poor.
Dr Ivar Giaever, a Nobel Prize-Winner for physics in 1973, states that Global warming is a non-problem.
Debunking the Global Warming Hoax
Suppose scientists don’t believe in this hypothesis, and they have the credentials to understand the theory behind these claims. In that case, logic dictates that a rational individual should take the same route. The leading players here are corporations and politicians. Politicians are nothing but paid corporate prostitutes; therefore, the only time you can trust these two groups is when their lips are not moving. This Video reveals the depth of the Global Warming Hoax and the lengths governments will go to serve their higher masters: these masters lie in the shadows.
Debunking the Global Warming Theory: Insights from Leading Scientists
According to Dr. Richard Lindzen, a professor at MIT, the National Academy of Sciences is providing predetermined answers in favor of carbon control, regardless of evidence. Geological records show that changes in the 21st century are neither exceptional nor persistent, and there is extensive literature discussing the benefits of increased carbon dioxide levels in animals and plants. Real polling of climate scientists is rare, but a 2008 international survey revealed deep disagreement regarding two-thirds of professional views. The majority of scientists did not believe that climate models can predict extreme weather events, temperature values, or sea level rise for the next 50 years. Full Story
A balanced view: Global Warming: A Hoax or Not?
Questioning the Scientific Consensus
Global warming, often described as a gradual increase in Earth’s temperature due to human activities, has been a topic of significant debate in recent years. While some firmly believe that it is a genuine phenomenon, others claim that it is a hoax, or at least that its impact has been greatly exaggerated. This article will present the opposing view, questioning the prevailing scientific consensus and examining alternative explanations for observed temperature trends.
Flaws in Climate Models and Data
One of the primary arguments against global warming is that climate models are imperfect and, at times, unreliable. Critics argue that these models are based on assumptions and inputs that may be flawed or inaccurate, leading to potentially skewed projections. Moreover, some claim that historical temperature records have been manipulated or adjusted in ways that artificially inflate the apparent warming trend.
For instance, the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect, which occurs when urban areas experience higher temperatures due to human activity and infrastructure, can influence temperature readings. Critics argue that this effect may not be adequately accounted for in climate data, thus potentially overstating the extent of global warming.
The Role of Natural Climate Variability
Another argument against the notion of human-induced global warming is that observed temperature changes can be largely attributed to natural climate variability. The Earth’s climate has undergone numerous fluctuations throughout its history, including periods of warming and cooling without human influence. Proponents of this view assert that the current warming trend could result from natural processes, such as variations in solar activity or volcanic eruptions, rather than anthropogenic factors like greenhouse gas emissions.
Furthermore, some sceptics highlight the fact that Earth’s temperature has not risen consistently over the past century, with periods of both warming and cooling observed. This, they argue, suggests that the relationship between human activities and global temperature trends may not be as straightforward as proponents of global warming claim.
While the scientific consensus somewhat supports the reality of human-induced global warming, others argue that there are legitimate reasons to question this view. Concerns about the accuracy of climate models, the potential influence of natural climate variability, and potential flaws in historical temperature data contribute to the ongoing debate surrounding this issue.
Global Warming Hoax Game Plan
As a result of this push to prevent global warming, many sectors have taken it to the chin. Consequently, sectors such as coal could make great long-term investments due to the Global Warming Hoax ploy. Coal consumption will not drop; Asia will continue to embrace coal as cheap, and new coal plants will be almost as efficient as nuclear power stations. Contrarian investors can use the Global Warming Hoax to get into some energy stocks at rock-bottom prices.
Dr Ivar Giaever is a science advisor at the notorious far right Heartland Institute. This is the same organisation who worked with the tobacco company Philip Morris to deny the health risks of secondhand smoke and to lobby against smoking bans as they now do against climate change.
The link to that fake petition is thankfully dead like many of the fossils who supported it, along with “Drs. ‘Frank Burns’ ‘Honeycutt’ and ‘Pierce’ from the hit-show M*A*S*H and Spice Girls, a.k.a. Geraldine Halliwell, who was on the petition as ‘Dr. Geri Halliwel’ and again as simply ‘Dr. Halliwell.’ “
The unscrupulous politicians and minority of scientists who support this filthy industry are the real prostitutes.
Guy, climate change studies start with recognition from our own military dating back to the 40s’, please do try again.
You should dig deeper and understand the scope of the hoax. Climate change is a normal phenomenon and not the global warming hoax pushed by government. It’s due to changes in the earth;s magnetic field. Once upon a time the Sahara desert was a lush forest; are you going to say the garbage the government is pushing is what caused the Sahara to change. Hint there were no cars back then.
And our military has been involved in so many illegal attempts to overthrow democratically elected governments under the guise of fighting terrorism or some other nonsense so anyone with a grain of sense is not going to believe what this disingenuous institutions lays claim to. Independent scientists are the ones that provide the real data; the rest are just paid servants.
The video reveals a lot if you take the time to listen. However, we provided a second video and this guy is another educated scientists who provides simple common sense proof that Global Warming is nothing but rubbish.
The link issue has been fixed it was a minor glitch, additional characters were being added to the link so it was coming back as denied.
Again dig deeper stop buying the liberal rubbish that is being forced down your throat.
Lastly, we are not forcing anything down anyone’s throat, we are providing food for thought. Last time we checked this was still a free country, which means you have the option and right to disagree as do we
The other scientists are notorious backers of the leftist agenda who seek to charge humanity for everything. Where do you think the stupid idea of A carbon tax came from. Anything that is not part of mainstream is always classified as far right. He won a noble Laureate, those things don’t full on your lap unless you are Obama
It has always been easy enough to know that Global Warming was a hoax. All that is required is an understanding of human nature and a little bit of skepticism.
If global warming were really happening, there would be some negative results, but there would be positive ones too. Land that is now useless would become arable. Growing seasons would lengthen. Less resources would be required for winter heating.
But the Warmies never tell you any of that, do they? They paint the picture in the only negative terms and those in the most catastrophic way possible – and if you understand human nature, that should tell you something.
It tells you there is a place they want you to go – a conclusion they want you to reach – and they know if they tell you the whole story, you might not go there. Hoax.
And then we have the fraudulent data. They’ve been caught several times faking the “data” that they like to beat you over the head with. But each time they’re caught, they only insist even more stridently than before that their hoax is real.
If you learn anything from the great hoax, which is undoubtedly the most expensive con game in human history, learn this: scientists are no more immune to corruption, deceit, and coercion than any other group of people.
Finally, I’ll point out that the history of scientific advance is not a history of consensus – far from it. It would be more accurate to say that science is advanced by a few people working against the consensus – finding new things – and then eventually being accepted and adopted by the “scientific community.”
Any scientific finding that relies on “consensus” for its authority is very likely a hoax – or at least an error.
I have added those video links to my notepad ap to be shown to anyone that needs to be educated on the science and shown what intelligent debate of the scientific results does to completely destroy the global warming movement.
FYI – Skepticism (testing theory) = Science. Proving/Defending theory = ADVOCACY. Consensus = Herd Think. Argumentum ad hominem = a Liberal art form. Projection = Libt2rdism. Sorry, but there it is.
Do not fear. Liberals will not be influenced by this. It’s eyes wide shut all the way down.
Hex, climate has been changing without let up since Earth was a clog of swirling dust and gas dancing around a protostar. It has never stopped changing. It never will stop changing until stasis is achieved. Stasis is the end of time. Your love of “controlism,” however, is adorable. If you wish to learn something, start with a null hypothesis, construct and conduct a study, collect the data (ALL of it) and make a report. Listen to critique. Rinse and repeat. If you wish to prove a thing, start with your favorite conclusion and back-fill your chosen facts accordingly. Eyes wide shut always wins the day — easier, no?
Libs confront the world as a very very old man, mind closed and fly wide open. Give this fool’s errand up. He ain’t gonna get it. Capisce?
Doesn’t your premise begin with the idea of experimentation? Like the experimentation multiple organizations and thousands of scientists have been doing for decades regarding our climate? Your side is backed up by headlines, mine, my data. Try again though, but come stronger next time.
Goodness man. Its so sad to see good hard working people have the wool pulled so tightly over their eyes by corporations. Think of it this way and maybe something will click. Beijing is a city in China right? That city is polluted right? That city is a little eco-system influenced by pollution, that pollution gets trapped and causes the air to become poisonous and not suitable for life. Therefore they try and limit that pollution to make the air easier to breathe and more suitable for life. Think of the earth like a little city within the world of our solar system…theeerrreeee we go, the light bulbs are starting to come on I can feel it Tac! I can feel it!
Reading comprehension probably isn’t your strongest asset. My premise is that you seek control over knowledge. Please show me the data that Earth did not coalesce from a primordial cloud, that Earth has not cooled and warmed ceaselessly ever since, that frauds like Michael Mann did not hide data that did not PROVE his “theory,” that change will not stop however feverish your controllist wet dreams may be. Projection always becomes the Libt2rd – it’s you and your fake news that suck at the headline teat while you slavishly back fill to prove a theory. You are too lazy, apparently, to do a real study, so just grab the facts you like and fling them where you think they may influence your favorite low-information folk the most. Looking forward to your, uh, data.
Do you have a video of a scientist speaking (I think) at the Heritage Foundation about how (and I may remember it wrong) scientists don’t care for the publicity and are happiest being left alone with their projects and then goes on to tell about how the petition was sent around for original signatures of scientists all over the world? I watched this video once and loved that speech and then never could find it again.
No, I don’t have that one, but will look for it. Sounds interesting. Thanks!!