8

Global Warming – Carbon Disproved

We have two easy ways to disprove the central claim of global warming alarmists, who claim that there is a very strong correlation between CO2 and global temperature, and that CO2 has thus been the cause of the recent warming, and that the warming will thus begin increasing at an alarming degree starting in the year 2000.

Proof #1 – No correlation over 600 million years

As we can see in this 600 million year time line, there is no correlation between temperature and CO2. Also, we can see that the earth has usually been 18° F warmer than it is now, and that it has rarely been this cold and hasn’t been colder.

Proof #2 – Perfect correlation with solar activity

In 2015, someone finally got around to publishing a professional peer reviewed study correlating temperature with solar activity since 1880, and we see that temperature correlates perfectly with solar activity.

image_thumb4_thumb1

Jim
 

Click Here to Leave a Comment Below 8 comments
Anonymous - November 24, 2016

The evidence for Climate Change is right around you and denial of its existence is mere 'whistling in the dark'.
At the start of the Industrial Revolution, around three centuries ago, a prehistoric sun lit earth up, for the first time in millenia. This was not like our own, natural sun of today, however, – it is a turbocharged version of the original.
A simple thing like a Thermos vacuum flask is the best analogy I can think of for our planet Earth – no heat at all can escape by the only transmissive means we know – conduction, convection and radiation – so the temperature can only increase, the longer that second sun stays lit.
There have been alternative means available for at least half a century – efficient and essentially limitless – it is these means that are being suppressed by the globalists, in promoting fossil fuels and insisting their inhuman second sun stays lit, whatever the cost to the Earth.

Reply
Jim - November 24, 2016

Evasive.

Carbon dioxide has always been the official cause of global warming, but the evidence falsifies the carbon dioxide theory, so you call it climate change now and claim the heat is from light bulbs now.

The cause of warming is the sun. That's why all the models have been wrong. Glaciers and the ice caps have been melting for 150 years. The edges of the ice cap only recently (2005) became thin enough for it's surface area to grow and shrink rapidly, which is why it has grown in recent years. There has been no global warming for 19 years in spite of rising carbon dioxide levels and in direct contradiction to every model.

Reply
Anonymous - November 25, 2016

You can call the effect anything you like – the argument for or against warming or change or whatever is nowadays quite irrelevant.
I did not say it was light bulbs – what a silly idea – where did you find that one?
You haven't actually answered any of my three points I made.
Of course the heat has come from the Sun – where else?
Read my post and think about it.
The time for fossil fuels has long since passed. The reason, – pollution – means that these methods are outdated and dangerous in that they create lethal by-products (include nuclear fuel here, too).
The alternative means, available today, (though not made use of in a single country in the world today) would provide a useful and very necessary by-product, in contrast with those methods used now.
Both governments and globalists want the present outdated methods to be retained: the former because they can tax, the latter because they can profit, from it.

Reply
Jim - November 25, 2016

Still evasive:
1. You say that burning coal and oil (prehistoric sun?) to power man made inventions causes heat, and then you balk at the most obvious example, which is light bulbs?
2. This discussion is not about pollution, profit, or motives.
3. You keep talking about the alternative sources of energy that you recommend, but haven't named a single one yet.

Now let's address some of your errors:
1. The earth is not like a vacuum walled thermos unless you are a flat earther who believes there is a dome above us.
2. Governments and globalists do push the official global warming story, and they push it hard.
3. They will make more money if they both tax coal and oil and add carbon credits too, but it is not primarily about profit and rewarding cronies. There are other ways to make profits and reward cronies. Global warming is primarily about control. Global warming is the perfect hoax to justify global control.
4. Climate change is an even better hoax than warming because they can blame ANY weather that deviates from the mean; however, the weather is less variable than usual. The age of super storms never happened.

The sun is entering a 30 year minimum so there will continue to be no warming and we could easily have global cooling.

Reply
Anonymous - November 25, 2016

Yes I absolutely do "balk at the most obvious example, which is light bulbs?"
I'm holding a 100W light bulb – been holding it for ten minutes now – no gloves on, or anything: why is it not burning my hands…?
Oh, hold on a minute: doh! I forgot to switch it on!
So, the last time I checked GEC's company accounts, the man that owns that factory says the opposite – his lightbulbs are net consumers of heat he says, and he has the coal, oil and gas bills to prove it – coal or oil to fuse the glass for the envelope, gas to power the burners that seal it shut, more coal or oil to refine the iron into steel to make the cap, and so on.
Bulbs consume heat.
If I connect my bulb to my generator, maybe I'll get heat that way?
Nope, still no heat – wait a minute – don't I need petrol? Right, I've put a pint of gas in the jenny.
Yes, my bulb is producing heat just fine now – from a derivative (petroleum) of crude oil – a fossil fuel.
Depending on how efficient my jenny is, I might get 3 nights or so of light from the bulb with my petrol top up, before it's all burnt. Most of the heat will get wasted but some will be converted into mechanical motion by the piston driven by the expansion of the burning gas in the cylinder, to drive the alternator, that lights the lamp. It's a well proven and documented Law of Physics: The Law of Conservation of Energy – it's not a hypothesis, or even a theory, it's a Law. In simple terms, it's Natures way of telling us we can't get out of the system more that we put in, if we could, then we'd have perpetual motion machines, now wouldn't we?
Regarding not naming the alternative sources of energy (which would be Carbon neutral so those b**?**s would get NO tax off it LOL) – the answer to that is the Patent Office. Essentially, the car or auto, (name it depending on where you live) has been obsolete for 50+ years but the whole world economy, reserve currency, big corporations and big government depend on this fossil fuel system absolutely. Their system collapses in weeks or months if it's threatened by innovation.
Naturally, they do all they can to prevent the development of alternatives – which, unusually, the internal combustion (car) engine has remained unchanged for over a hundred years. Can you think of any other form of transport like this? Not ships, trains, aircraft only our own little privately owned cars have remained in suspended animation.
Eventually, the truth will out, and all the brilliant ideas (and they're there if you look) will be found locked away, Patents bought up by greedy fossil fuel corporations, avidly maintaining their monopoly.
As I said, the ideas are there if you look, but you'll find a bunch of lawsuits coming thick and fast, should you try to implement them.
Good luck with your crusade.

Reply
Jim - November 25, 2016

Still Evasive.

The first half of your rant is a form of evasiveness known as quibbling. Such a waste of time. Then you are saying that if we each invest thousands of hours to investigate secret patents, we will discover free and unlimited clean energy.

I have recently seen the liberty movement and other investigators targeted with empty promises of free energy. Such evasiveness and unsubstantiated claims seem like a direct parallel to the way we have been targeted by the Flat Earth Psyop. I think I will call this the Free Energy Psyop. Thanks for being the catalyst to complete the pattern for me.

Reply
Anonymous - November 26, 2016

"if we each invest thousands of hours to investigate secret patents, we will discover free and unlimited clean energy. "

"I challenge you to get out of your comfort zone and join me because, in the end, it will be the things you didn't do that you will regret the most."

Reply
Jim - November 26, 2016

Note that "Anonymous" has not yet provided a single link or even a patent name or ID, but assures us these secret patents exist. When I write about the Free Energy Psyop, as part of my due diligence, I will indeed spend one or two hours trying to find these secret patents, which I'm not supposed to be able to find. Apparently, that will be one or two hours more than "Anonymous" and others have spent trying to find them.

BTW, I recently watched a con man give a presentation at Brave New Books (a hub of the Liberty movement) on a free energy device. It was pretty easy to see through his con, but he had a lot of people fooled.

Not long after that, another con man was there trying to convince everyone that the earth was flat and that it was all one big conspiracy, but he was less skilled and couldn't convince anyone. I had already written my article "The Flat Earth Psyop" so I was able to pierce his BS right away. Note that one of the purposes of The Flat Earth Psyop is to waste time that could be used to investigate real conspiracies – like the USS Liberty, or Global Warming, or 9/11, all of which I have written about, or like the pedophile rings (i.e. Franklin Scandal, Penn State, Pizzagate) that involve the globalist elite all around the world, and which I have not yet written about.

Reply

Leave a Reply: