Do people actually believe the Al Gore/Rothschild/banker lie of global warming?

>>>The richest people on the planet who are responsible for 99.9 percent of damage-the majority coming from evil genetic modification, depleted uranium, PCB's, bisphonel a, heavy metals, corexit, oil the list goes on.

That's not really a full sentence, what about those people? Why should we even care about those issues, as this is the global warming section?

I find it a bit humorous that you said oil, are you against its consumption too?

>>>Trying to convince idiots that by handing over money in carbon funds they can perform the super human task of actually lowering the earths core temperature.

You're either being sarcastic or you have a serious misunderstanding on several issues. To go through a cursory list:

• Since the point is to try to communicate the problem to *everyone*, I would think a different modifier than "idiots" would be warranted, since "everyone" includes people like, well, you.
• "Handing over money in carbon funds" is a straw man, the actual dynamics would be a cost pass-down from companies that would be subject to cap and trade or a carbon tax; there are several ways that consumers can actually be protected from these price increases, such as a "green check" (the government puts cash back into your pocket from this program), or by subsidizing technology that will save people in the long run.

The unfortunate thing about most people is that they are terrible at two things when it comes to cost analysis: long term projection, and realizing externalized costs. The issue with inclement global warming due to our emissions is a great example for the first; the second could be seen in the cap and trade program suggested for sulfur emissions (proposed by Republicans, no less!) - the program resulted in a benefit-cost ratio of about 40:
http://www.epa.gov/capandtrade/documents...
most of which was due to offsetting *decreases* in costs in health services that would have otherwise been necessary due to those emissions. People became healthier, and saved money. But that's not a savings people normally apply to their analysis of paying for products subject to emission standards.
• Decreasing the Earth's core temperature would indeed be a phenomenal effort and would be a great waste of money. It is not, however, the core of the planet we are concerned about, it is the temperature increase of the surface and oceanic regions, the ones that are actually pertinent to the climatic system.
• We're not even focusing on decreasing global surface temperatures, that would require *reducing* CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere (or, increasing albedo artificially for example, but those are last-case options), not simply reducing emissions. We know that current CO2 levels will lead to more warming, even if the levels flatlined for several decades. I would recommend you learn about climate sensitivity, and the different between transient climate sensitivity and equilibrium climate sensitivity. Here is a good starting point:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data...

>>>Is it not funny how all these spokespeople have huge shares in carbon companies. The money going Straight into their bank accounts.

The cap and trade system is only one possible solution to reducing carbon emissions. A carbon tax would not go into anyone's pockets - you're focusing on a single issue without considering the broad range of alternatives, and in doing so you come to the false conclusion that this is all a fraud.

>>>Carbon dioxide is an essential building block.

Agreed, nobody wants to eliminate it. Like every other building block though, too much can be harmful.

>>> 3000 years ago it made up 30 percent of the earths gasses

Like THAT would be harmful. At 30% global average there would be virtually no large life on Earth, all animals would certainly die out and the thermal stress would be incredible on plant life. Oceanic life would suffer from a mass-extinction event due to acidification and thermal stress as well.

It's also not true that levels were so high only 3000 years ago. Here's Vostok for instance:
http://serc.carleton.edu/images/eslabs/c...
or a very useful animation showing past CO2, from modern times all the way to the end of EPICA Dome C (another ice core):
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/history.html

<<The richest people on the planet who are responsible for 99.9 percent of damage-the majority coming from evil genetic modification, depleted uranium, PCB's, bisphonel a, heavy metals, corexit, oil the list goes on. Trying to convince idiots that by handing over money in carbon funds they can perform the super human task of actually lowering the earths core temperature.>>

That's a completely new twist in the denial-o-sphere: now it's the RICH who want to convince us AGW is happening. Wow!

<<Is it not funny how all these spokespeople have huge shares in carbon companies.>>

What spokespeople? Have you been drinking?

<<Carbon dioxide is an essential building block. 3000 years ago it made up 30 percent of the earths gasses, now it makes up 0.03 percent. Without carbon dioxide we would not have oxygen.>>

If you believe 0.03 percent is not important as it is just a tiny fraction, how about you replace just 0.03 percent of your blood with black mamba poison?

What's funny is how uninformed you are! 30%! So no humans lived 3000 years ago? I think 3,000,000,000 years ago would be a more accurate number- before plants were formed.

Genetic modification, depleted uranium, PCB's, heavy metals... Have almost nothing to do with global warming. Throwing a bunch of big words together might make you look smarter to some people, but not anyone with even a minimal education.

Al Gore did not invent global warming as it seems you believe; he made others research a publicly discussed topic.

Lowering the earths core temperature? 30% co2 in the atmosphere? Where the hell are you getting this?

I think you are correct in that shifting carbon credits around does not help. The problems of deforestation, poisons being pumped into the air, and water systems, and the bigger problem of overpopulation seem to be overlooked.

People believe the scientifically gathered data. As the data doesn't conflict with the proven physics of heat and atmosphere NOT concluding that man made CO2 is a growing danger is simply avoiding objective reality. True, some people will make a pile of money by being the first to deal with the results of past events, but as that's the basis of the cult of capitalism. I can't see that taking advantage of an opportunity being considered a negative by those that are ardent supporters of the trans national corporations and crony capitalism. What's the problem? 'Al Gore' didn't personally burn all that coal and oil....someone else did. Taking advantage of a situation where money can be made is suppose to be a virtue...isn't it?

I don't know if the Rothschilds are involved in pushing man-made Global Warming or not. It wouldn't surprise me if they were. I've read enough about them to believe that they have been involved in a number of sinister plots to add to their wealth over the course of many decades.

Obviously Al Gore is a vigorous proponent of this hoax and he's made big money on it too. But nothing compared to the amounts he would make if the Cap and Trade laws would have passed. So far he's only made millions, but with Cap and Trade and a national Carbon Trade Exchange, he and his cronies would easily make BILLIONS. The Global Warming scam is all about the money and power, no doubt.

I think you got it wrong about CO2 levels ever being at 30%. I've heard scientist state that CO2 levels have been as much as 20 times higher than they are today. But even 20 times higher would only put the level at 0.6% concentration in the atmosphere.

If you haven't seen this video on Global Warming, you should watch it. It's very well made and fun to watch. It blows the Warmist away.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtevF4B4R...

30% of the Gas in the atmosphere 3000 years ago was CO2? With that level of CO2 we would have been whiped out as well as most of the life on the planet.

Your entire question is full of errors would you actually listen to a scientific answer? I doubt it.

Sadly it's an old saying but very true :- You CAN fool some of the people ALL of the time.
It isn't helped by the fact that these people also own the education system and the media.

No one, no matter how deeply they had chosen to bury their head in the sand, could get so much wrong in so few words.

You have to be a troll!

People are easily duped. I never bought it for a minute. Thats still doesnt mean we shouldnt take care of the Earth but dont make Al Gore- the hypocrite rich by buying his movie or books.