Words of Wisdom ...or so it seems...

Blog Archive


Tuesday, 8 December 2009

Hi, I'm Pah Nur. I am a skeptic. Hi Pah Nuuuuuuurrrr....

I am writing this post, in response to Planet of the Monyets comment on my previous blog, "The Convenient Lie" which I appreciate very much, thank you (and also for the benefit or non benefit of my readers). I can't write all this in the comment box!!

I respect your view on the matter of global warming, and that you've attended most of the lectures on climatic issues. I was formally from the “boring” side too, (although I think skeptics are more regarded as “boring” since people would roll their eyeballs up their sockets in frustration, clearly bored, due to the inability to convince these skeptics to see their point of view) until something jilted me to research it myself and well, somehow I am quite convinced that this whole Global Warming Threat is a scam. Here’s why (let me bring you through my process of thinking).

Science is not about consensus, (we all are aware of the band wagon effects), I'm sure this is agreeable by many. Otherwise, people would still think the world is flat, and that the sun is rotating the earth, Samy Velu is not an act of God, and Badawi sleeps most of time of his Premiership because he was bitten by tse tse fly and not from just lack of stamina from the nocturnal activities from his new marriage.

What I understand from my research of earth's climatic change is that, we're actually in a period of what we call the Haloscene climatic optimum. Back then, they don’t have intense communication system whereby people sitting in the living room eating pop corn watching CNN in Batang Ai, knows that Houston Texas is snowing and Saudi Arabia experienced flood after a long time. In short, people back then carried on with life and adapting to the climate changes, quite oblivious to where it is going. What I’m trying to get at is, should we panic at changes in weather at this frame of time, and start carbon taxing people for instance, for something that may well be earth’s normal process anyway?

What is the actual issue here? The issue at hand is "Global Warming is a direct result from human activities, or termed as carbon foot print?" . Never mind the Carbon Tax soon to be implemented in continuation of the Kyoto Protocol are replaced with a more potent treaty now as we speak, at the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference 2009 .

It is correct to state that sufficient research have not been done to debunk the skeptics. But why is that? Why don’t the “alarmist” scientists give more chances to the "skeptics" to research or argue these "skeptic" allegations and debunk the facts, once and for all, and not to mention to give a broader broadcast for these debates? Why are there complaints from certain scientists that their views are being suppressed from being heard? I amongst many would have an open mind to accept facts if this case is debunked. After all, I don’t have any shares anywhere and I do not benefit from either global warming nor cooling. I hate cold weather, so I’d like to be prepared when it comes.

Perhaps these video may give us some light regarding why perhaps Global Warming is not a direct cause of human activities, is not given enough coverage, let alone chance of enough research done to debunk them:

Perhaps the lack of media coverage led "anti-climates" to hack into "alarmist" scientists emails and got them into sufficient trouble, well at least to delay the treaty currently ongoing in Copenhagen. (gee....rendezvous...that's what happens when mainstream media suppresses news and become biased...GE2008?). Enjoy these short videos;

Take note in the the video above that when asked whether will the emails circulating be a big blow to the environmental activists, the MP Peter Liley answered, "Very great and large is the amount of money invested in this, it will take even more than this exposure to derail it I fear". It's always about the money isn't it? Never mind the human integrity of doing something because it is the right thing to do.

Why have the authorities not explore other possibilities of the cause of global warming? Why concentrate on the impact of Carbon dioxide on global warming,and ignore the reasoning that this is not the case? Could it be that you cannot tax the sun for coming up with spots? Turned out, sun spots don't cause that much of global warming either.

Then what about studying the cosmic wind that is radiated by our sun, causing shielding of the cosmic rays from the dead supernova, in a galaxy far far away which is responsible for the ample cloud formation of the earth in order for the earth to be able to defend itself from the blazing heat of the sun? The decrease cloud formation of the earth due to the shielding of these cosmic rays will result in less cloud formation and in turn less deflection of the sun by this clouds hence will cause warming with detrimental consequences decrease cosmic rays. How come this finding by the Danish scientists sometime back in the 70s as a possibility of global warming has not been explored? Non taxable I reckon?

What is my problem one may ask? Well, Al Gore is going around portraying graphs that showed carbon dioxide causes temperature rise. What he did however, was to separate the two graphs, (probably to create some kind of an optical illusion), but if the graphs are overlapped, it is obvious that the temperature rise preceded the carbon dioxide, letting us to the conclusion that the carbon dioxide is in fact, following the change of temperature. THAT'S where my problem lies. That smells like a magician's trick and a bad one too. Why do they not stop Al Gore from going around, alarming people? Then comes the emails that instigated Climategate scandal ongoing now. That smells like conspiracy. I offer my deepest gratitude to these hackers for a job well done. By the way, speaking of Al Gore, it's ironic that the other recipient of Nobel Prize, along with him, John R. Christy declined the 2007 award, and HERE'S WHAT HE, JOHN R. CHRISTY HAD TO SAY IN WALL STREET JOURNAL.

Then I took a listen to these lectures by Dr Carter, another "skeptic" or branded as an anti climate. Funny, how THIS SKEPTIC makes sense.....

What we have here, in my view, is another example of Iraq. The false flag used in order to invade Iraq was weapon of mass destruction. First create a sense of emergency (many believe 9-11 is synthetic terror made in the USA) and after invading, no weapon of mass destruction was uncovered (except from the shoes of the journalist who deserve two tight slaps...for missing bloody Bush's head), and they justified the war as "oh hey, at least we've captured the vicious Saddam Hussain for the people of Iraq to be free and celebrate on their streets. So what we did not discover any WMD...all ended well right?". Of course no one will talk about "who" supplied the material and the expertise for the chemical war that Saddam had launched against Kurdish in Halabja.

In this global warming hoax, same technique applies. Cause an alarm with limited time to act, massive mainstream media propaganda, raise a false flag, in this case, a catastrophic scenario of global warming carbon dioxide produced by human activity, then set in the Carbon Tax, to generate capital to sponsor more war to make even more money (there are only a few rich people on this planet and they suck human blood in order to maintain their lifestyles, I'm talking about the oligarchies) and when suddenly global warming turned out to be say global cooling, they'd say something like,"oops...we have managed to reverse the carbon dioxide so well, we've launched the earth into global cooling" when global warming and cooling are supposed to happen anyways regardless of whether we all hold our farts to reduce carbon emission or otherwise.

Yes. I am a skeptic. But I have become one because of the evidence that lay before my eyes. Global warming caused by carbon dioxide did not make sense, until dots are connected. Almost always, it only makes sense when the dots comprises of greedy people, looting off science. Bad politics is like TB. You have to have a high index suspicion sometimes to be able to uncover that sneaky insidious devil.....

You and I, we are sincere to the knowledge of science. But science in the hands of wrong hands, greedy scientists, naive scientists and gullible public, may result in hoaxes of the century. Can anyone reverse back the huge amount of casualty from that "Oops i made a mistake with my scientific finding that gave Hitler the excuse for genocide"? I think let's leave the "Ooops I did it again" to Britney Spears shall we?...

Here's another video to connect the dots...this video everyone should take a listen.


Planet of the Monyets said...

1. Can't remember who said this "if two people agree on everything, one of them is redundant". I am glad that I won't be redundant.

2. Everyone of us is a skeptic of something. You are a skeptic of climate alarmists and I am a skeptic of the climate alarmist skeptics.... and am sure there are skeptics of the climate alarmist skeptics.

3. Samy Vellue IS an act of God. Pak Lah never slept on the job - it was all an illusion created by pihak pembangkang. And I am in love with Rosmah.

4. Although I did attempt to infuse humor in climate change arguements, some of my alarmist friends did not find it very funny (Climate change is good for you)

Planet of the Monyets said...

Hi.. forgot to add one more thing. I like climate skeptics. Prof. Antonino Zichichi, the brilliant Italian nuclear physist who runs the particle collider at CERN, whom I featured in my blog yesterday, is a climate skeptic. He is of the opinion that many of the GCMs are flawed.

you see.... I love the skeptics despite disagreeing on some (not all) issues.

PahNur said...

Actually,it is healthy to agree to disagree no doubt about it. Otherwise we may as well join UMNO where "if two parties agree on everything (said by their leaders), one of of them are redundant(the disciples)" is the strength of the party.

Yes...agreeing that Samy is an act of God is definitely the basis of "One Malaysia"...

Science is a good source of money for corrupted politician because they know what Hawking said is right,
"We run around in circles and suppose, when the truth sits in the middle and knows"