Debunking The Global Warming Hoax

February 13th, 2009

theUniverse.name does not believe in the global warming hoax.

when it comes to Antarctica, yes, some of it is warming (about 10%), but this is due to under-ocean volcanoes in the area. (in fact, there are over a million under-ocean volcanoes in the world, and this is often disregarded.) while the rest of Antarctica — 90% of the continent — is actually getting colder, with its thick ice shield rapidly growing.

when it comes to the Arctic, there is again a similar situation, the warm air and water systems hit the glaciers in different places at different times, causing some to melt while the rest 90% of glaciers are growing. there is no threat of a massive ice sheet breaking off and falling into the ocean, the only thing falling in the Arctic is the over-all temperatures.

of course the HARP project in Alaska is a weather-modification Tesla technology which is being used in selected areas for a long time now. The so-called chem-trails are, in this case, sorts of Barium salts, which are spread in the upper atmosphere to make the air more conductive and thus more effective for the HARP use. the chem-trails program is not limited to only weather-modifications but is also used for other nefarious activities.

HARP and similar projects are often responsible for various local weather anomalies, such as wild temperature fluctuations, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, and earthquakes.

the global temperatures are dropping steadily while ocean levels are actually falling world-wide and not rising as the pop media would like us to believe.

the solar activity is the key to global temperatures. while the sun activity was intensifying in the 1990s (lots of sun-spots), there was a bit of global warming. but in the last 3 years the sun-spots are all gone! this is why the whole earth has been freezing recently.

the earth is at the end of its 11th warm cycle, that we know about, and is over-due to enter another 80,000 years of the Ice Age, when the civilization is brought to its knees and to the equatorial belt, mainly on the African continent. This would explain continued genocide of the African population using debt, fear, fatigue, hunger, disease, and poisonous vaccination against phony “viruses” such as the HIV/AIDS or the West Nile “virus”.

in conclusion, theUniverse.name does not support global warming hysteria nor its proponents’ claims of rising global temperatures and the world’s ocean levels.

stay calm and carry on.

Alexander Braun

Idiosyntactix Strategic Arts & Sciences Alliance

the last high priest of the universe
theUniverse.name

Dmytri Kleiner at 9:38am February 13

I Don’t really have an opinion about Global Warming, but it is self-evident that poisoning our air, watter, and earth is a bad idea. As a technologist, I’m particularly concerned about etoxics. http://www.etoxics.org

Devon S Scott at 9:55am February 13

Its good more people are coming out of the woodwork and displaying some reason amongst the deluge of complete Junk science surrounding this topic. .

Bruce Becker at 10:49am February 13

if we can reduce the human population to under 5% of the current total things should work out ok

Dmytri Kleiner at 10:54am February 13

Na, all we need to do is remove the top 5% consumers. Accounting for all consumption by one’s property as well as personal.

Alexander Braun at 5:18pm February 15

the first law of sustainability is that the growth in population and consumption cannot be sustained. this said, it still does not make the earth warmer. the reasons of quality of human life are not the same reasons for the global climate change. one volcano can spew more carbon in the air than hundreds of years of human pollution.

Alexander Braun at 9:14pm February 15

…nonetheless, this article is about debunking global warming hysteria and not about rich/poor or humans making their lives more difficult than it already is, that always been the case and you are not going to solve anything by removing top 5% since the rest of 95% would kill to get on top no matter what and behave in absolutely the same senseless manner. absolute power corrupts absolutely. the question we are exploring in this article is simple, is the earth warming? and if yes, then by how many degrees has it wormed in what period of time? if you look for the answer to this question you will eventually realize that the average temperatures have fallen, not risen. that is all we need to know on the topic of global worming - there simply isn’t any. as for people not brushing their teeth, drinking fluoridated water, or not recycling, it has little to nothing do with unreasonable claims of global temperatures rising. no one here is advocating dumping toxic waste in our drinking water.

Dmytri Kleiner at 12:46am February 16

What is the utility of “debunking” global warming? Seems to me the primary utility is to justify polluting. Not being an environmental scientist, the purely scientific discussion is not something I care to comment on.

Alexander Braun at 3:08am February 16

i am not a climate scientist either, that is why i ask people who claim to know about this matter, and after considering pros and cons of the global warming issue i have reached a decision, that, as far as i am aware, there is no global worming. now, if lying about this would somehow help to stop pollution, war, depression, or any other illness, then perhaps we should rethink our quest for the truth and focus on what makes us feel better, and lies often do, not for long usually, its called state of denial, however, i think that avoiding the true cause and effect of a problem and blaming it on something not true, i.e. not real, prevents healing to take place and ability to resolve the real issue at hand - pollution, which effects quality of human life and our ecosystem, and not some fictitious global warming. instead of dumping millions of dollars preventing water from being wet and imposing carbon taxes on the developing nations already in limbo, it is better to address the real issues

Alexander Braun at 3:16am February 16

what is the utility of “debunking” global warming [theory]? is to of course find the truth, real problems, and provide real solutions. you can’t stop wind from blowing nor the Earth from spinning, neither climate from changing.

Dmytri Kleiner at 4:05am February 16

The “developing nations” will be subjected to exploitive regulations by the dominant nations whatever we think about climate change, since this is the means by which their subjugation is perpetuated. As for what is the “truth,” that is a scientific question, regarding which I have no opinion. I also do not believe that we can hold the powerful accountable to the truth, or impose our “solutions” on them. I do believe that less pollution is a good thing though, whatever its impact on global warming or cooling.

Devon S Scott at 9:12am February 16

perhaps the real question is. . . Is there much in the way of real science involved in the cult of global warming at all? concepts masquerading as social conciousness issues are as stated above a tool of subjugation. The additional issue is that since most of us are not scientifically inclined (with an offical PhD in our back pocket) equal amounts of rather musical sounding garbadge logic can be used on either side of an argumentitive equasion to dillude the judgment of the individual

Bruce Becker at 10:29am February 16

I don’t feel that i need to be a scientist in order to comprehend the pronouncements of “scientists” - in a sense, “science” is an open model which requires those who would advance it to reproduce the results of those ideas they wish to challenge or enhance. As such, the tools (i.e., concepts etc) are not hidden - and we all have presumably been educated or absorbed the fundamentals of logical reasoning, so we can model much of such issues as global warming in our own minds in order to critique them with a fair confidence that we can have at least some valid understanding.

To me, the issues are more that “science” has been used as a concept by people of power to intimidate and control; as such, there is nothing new here. We need to use our same abilities of logical reasoning to separate questions of the uses of science-as-hegemony from those of science-as-understanding, in order to create our own awareness of what we must think and do in order for us to come to terms with the world.

Dmytri Kleiner at 10:42am February 16

Bruce, I certainly agree with you about science in the general sense, in the specific case trying to figure out whether or not pollution is increasing, decreasing or having no-effect on global temperature is certainly a much more complex question than what to me is a more essential question: do I need to have an opinion on this in order to to believe that pollution is a bad thing and we should do less of it?

Devon S Scott at 11:38am February 16

agreed it is a complex issue. Given that pollution takes many forms. Economic pollution due to cost cutting and questionable business ethics, Bodily pollution due to questionable health standards in the foodstuffs & Pharmaceutical industry, Intellectual pollution due to such hegemony’s (as mentioned above in other posts) which of course leads to spiritual pollution. This form of pollution creating a cycle which in turn feeds the other forms of pollution and in general impedes social progress

Bruce Becker at 12:30pm February 16

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/16/opinion/16mon3.html?ref=opinion

Bruce Becker at 12:30pm February 16

it’s not necessarliy that complicated

Alexander Braun at 3:03pm February 16

i personally don’t get it how in the world the issue of global temperatures rising or falling has to do with pollution? by lying to ourselves about the real temperatures outside is not going to reduce our pollution nor is it the topic of the article. the topic is simple: is there or not global warming? Dima is suggesting that if we pretend that temperatures are rising this will miraculously save human civilization from drowning in its own shit. i say that human waste is a separate issue and has nothing to do with the temperatures outside. if people don’t take care of their waste they will have lots of it in due time regardless of the global temperatures. as far as carbon taxes, rich nations already buying from poor nations their carbon emission share and pollute as ever before while the poor nations got stuck unable to develop their infrastructure using basic resources such as coal and forced to use wood burning stoves and get sick from exhausts that creates. stop lying to yourselves.

Alexander Braun at 3:05pm February 16

the nyt article is pure fabricated propaganda and holds no water.

Bruce Becker at 3:30pm February 16

I will disagree - the nyt article is quite factual & conforms to much scientific observation from many research facilities. The reality is that many species are showing effects of various kinds which are readily interpreted to be a direct result of rising average temperatures.

It should also be noted that a rise in average temperatures has a profound effect on weather systems - it does not necessarily mean that any given place will necessarily be warmer. It *does* mean that 1. weather patterns are likely to shift; and 2. that the amplitudes of extremes will also necessarily increase.

For example, the mechanism which produces the Gulf Stream currents that brings warmth to northern Europe turns out to be quite differentially sensitive to small changes in average temperatures - there’s a real concern that it may cease to function entirely past a certain point, which would cause much hardship it that occurs …

Devon S Scott at 8:59pm February 16

But is there not equal climatological evidence to support the fact that Global warming and cooling patterns are a natural phenomenon that occurs over long periods of time? for example the Saharan desert was not to long ago (historically speaking) a rain forest. There were maps made by spanish cartographer Piri Risis of antartica with little to no snow on it in 1513.

Though Risis claimed that his maps were from older sources (a separate discussion entirely) It lends weight to the idea that global warming (perhaps even at its worst) Isn’t the civilization ending concept it is being sold as.

which returns us to the idea of questionable ethics in science be it for or against the real problem here is that we are wrestling with junk science on one side of this debate or the other. The real question to be asked is why

Devon S Scott at 9:08pm February 16

If indeed there is truth here (somewhere) it becomes self evident (in a sense) does truth require the ever growing religious cult of environmentalism? this cult being based on emotionalism over the seeking of a full understanding

before I get into trouble I do see the value in taking care of the planet and social responsibility in that sense, but not in the charismatic growingly militant idealogical sense
that I see taking shape as of late. A particular example is the culture here in Toronto. I’m sure there are abundant comparable variants to this elsewhere

Bruce Becker at 10:30pm February 16

i’m going to pass a law which requires fluoridation of bottled water

without this the seas will eventually boil so we must act now

please people, try to distinguish primate politics from species being

Dmytri Kleiner at 12:45am February 17

The careful reader will note I have never based any conclusion on the assumption “temperatures are rising,” (a scientific debate I lack interest in, particularly in it’s cranky margins) nor endorsed carbon taxes (as if powerful nations require my endorsement to subjugate poorer ones). I once again endorse http://www.etoxics.org, who appear to me to be doing good work

Alexander Braun at 2:47am February 17

i’ll check it out…thank you Dima.