The American Denial Of Global Warming, and other environmental issues. Options

[Omega892R09]

Although I do realise that this denial is not totally restricted to Americans.

In this thread post #96:

'30000 scientists...'
Who were they? Nobody knows.
dMole wrote this rather unwarranted threat:

P.S. Omega- you might want to start your own thread soon- you might not like the way I title it if I do it for you...

after writing this:

Speaking of which, I just did a search of this ENTIRE forum, and guess who has never started their own thread? A: Omega892!

I have reasons for not starting such a thread and have expressed one of those more than once and indeed in post #2 I indicated my reservation again.

I try to avoid getting involved in such threads, being sensitive to its divisive nature, but cannot pass by without countering rampant BS.

I have also mentioned that the topic not being directly relevant to the core purpose of this forum has also been one of my reasons for not starting such a thread. However this seems to have passed you by, once again from post #96 in the above mentioned thread:

This is NOT an "environmentally"-focused forum. BTW- I was the one who initially asked for this "Global Perspectives" sub-forum and painter obliged- GEE THANKS PAINTER!

Now when it comes to this, again from #96:

Nope, just tired/WEARY of "broken record", circular blathering.

It seems to me that any circularity in argument is because we always come back to Sanders posting in this vein, at #94:

The crux of the "climate change" argument is that human intervention is causing the earth to warm. But for the last decade the earth has been cooling slightly, and the cooling trend (in historically recorded and expected trends) looks to continue in sync with sparse solar-activity.

Seems to me that the global warming argument is proven false by reality.

... and besides, given the tiny amount by percentage of greenhouse gas the human race has introduced into the atmosphere and the overwhelming evidence that it is the SUN that drives the world's climate (which has its own agenda), I tend to side with the global warming skeptics.

Also you claim there has been nothing new in the thread.

As I progressed with that thread I offered new links and cited sources to be explored. That is hardly nothing new.
If others chose to ignore all this and continue on posting stuff that originated from globalist propaganda machines then that is not exactly my fault.

Also in the title of the thread were the words 'Global Warming is a Fraud'. Now seeing as all my posts stayed on topic with global warming I fail to see the justification behind locking the thread because in your words, again from #96:

That said, in the interests of NOT having a circular UNFOCUSED, PRIMARILY OFF-TOPIC 99 page "post-o-rama" train-wreck, this thread will be closed shortly.

It should be noted that as well as reputable web based resources I also cited some published, printed works from scientists, full of foot notes and referrences not only on climate change but also oceanography. Oceanography is a wide field covering the physics, biology and chemistry of oceans, atmosphere and land and thus has much to contribute to study of this issue.

Sanders' repeated globalist cries wear a bit thin when one grasps where the true propaganda originates and to this end this video is worth a look, if you think you have got things right when you concur with Hannity, Glen Beck and Limbaugh etc., then maybe you should think again.

Note to Sanders:

As you are a smoker IIRC you may find the info' from about 42:10 of value in judging the way in which your concept framework is based upon the propaganda from those who exhibit the utmost mendacity. I was once a smoker and one who kidded himself that the science was uncertain about the role of smoking in a range of life threating conditions. So I have Frederick Seitz to thank for my delusion here which led to me having a myocardial infarction a few years back, as the result of which I am further seriously limited in my physical capability. Seitz moved to work for R.J.Reynolds after finishing his tenure with the Rockefeller University. Note the globalist role in this Sanders.

This is also explained in the video:

The American Denial of Global Warming

which is a must see.

As are these shorter clips:

The Big Swindle Movie

Birth of a Climate Crock

Creepy at the EPA

Now I have also stated, more than once, that I am dubious about the mechanisms of carbon taxes and especially carbon trading. There is the potential for scams. The FACT of APGW is no longer debated by the vast majority of scientists involved in work that provides data points for the science.

Sure, as with evolution, there is still discussion about the details especially with how much, where and how fast the effects will be felt. How can you doubt that changes are taking place. And yes some areas may cool, in the short term. That is variability - check it out.

[Sanders]

(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)


I know smoking will eventually kill me. I'm actually expecting that my drinking to get me there first. Oh how it would be nice if womanizing would kill me before any of that, but unfortunately death by sex is extremely rare.

I am completely aware of the consequences of my actions, yet chose to enjoy my vices.

Your global warming ranting will fall on deaf ears here I think, O, you should find a forum of less informed and less critical thinkers - you might find more supporters.

Sorry to be a bit acidic, but I actually think your line of thinking along these lines is extremely dangerous and destructive, and rebel against it.

Nothing personal, I quite like you, O, and somewhat enjoy our debates.

Cheers.

[Omega892R09]

Your global warming ranting will fall on deaf ears here I think, O, you should find a forum of less informed and less critical thinkers - you might find more supporters.

That is why I like it around here, because there are critical thinkers and I am baffled as to how some of these would rather fall in with Hannity, Glen Beck and Limbaugh on this one as well as the Cato, CEI, the Heartland Institute and as Naomi Oreskes explains in American Denial the Geroge C Marshall Institute.

Give those video clips a try - it really will explain much not only about the history of climate science but the denial industry too.

This post has been edited by Omega892R09: Oct 22 2009, 03:02 PM

[lunk]

I think it is more likely to be American acceptance of greater taxation
through silent acquiescence of future theoretical weather changes.

Years ago, they traded their gold for paper.

Now, they are trading their sovereignty,
for a future weather forecast prediction.

But everybody will be happy if these efforts
coincide with the sudden cooling of the planet.

Out in the cold and broke,
and not being allowed to have a fire perhaps,
...but so happy.

[Omega892R09]

I think it is more likely to be American acceptance of greater taxation
through silent acquiescence of future theoretical weather changes.

The climate is changing now and has been for some time. Nothing theoretical about it and besides weather is often variable as well as being local.

What is happening right now globally is something more than a change in the weather, or maybe you have not heard about the rapid loss of ice at the poles and from glaciers. A small amount of ice gain over the coming winter is, judging by the last 15 years trend, to return us to the position it was in 15 years ago even if the ice cover does make a gain. A gain not only in extent but thickness.

Yoiu should realise how much heat energy flow is required to make a phase change happen. Considerably more than a change of one degree centigrade in the temperature of water. And then there is the albedo factor.

[lunk]

...those poor polar bears stranded on the thinning ice.

(IMG:http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z60/palacepuppy/Cartoons-MARK%20WITH%20X%20WHEN%20USED/Bats2a.jpg)

[Omega892R09]

...those poor polar bears stranded on the thinning ice.

Ah! Another bear baiting needle eh!

The plight of the polar bears is no joking matter and if you had done a little sensible research you would know that.

It is becoming clear that the loss of Arctic sea ice is having a severe effect on the survival chances of new born bears as their hunting season shrinks and the longer distances having to be swum to gain hunting territory are causing adult bears to be malnourished and producing fewer and weaker cubs.

And before you chime in with polar bears being one of Gore's mistakes I suggest that you check out the true verdict of Justice on the case brought against 'An Inconvenient Truth' in the UK. Reality will show that it is the PR spinners who made stuff up on behalf of their clients and that Justice Burton was in favour of the main tenets of that film.

Justice Burton also compared the idea that 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' should be shown for balance was akin to showing a film about the moon being made of green cheese and stating explicitly that, 'the balanced approach does not involve equality'.

Further. It was latter demonstrated, on an episode of a Glenn Beck show, that Monckton was the abettor of the person who stumped up for costs of the court case on behalf of the ostensible plaintiff Stuart Dimmock (represented as a poor lorry driver). Monckton had called on friend Robert Durward, a gravel extraction magnate, to finance the legal challenge.

The Guardian in this:
Revealed: the man behind court attack on Gore film
had this to say:

The Observer has established that Dimmock's case was supported by a powerful network of business interests with close links to the fuel and mining lobbies. He was also supported by a Conservative councillor in Hampshire, Derek Tipp.

Durward had created the non-science based Scientific Alliance to promote anti-global warming business:
SCIENTIFIC ALLIANCE

Between 2004 and 2007, Robert Durward of Cloburn Quarry Ltd. donated nearly one million pounds to the Scientific Alliance to challenge claims about global warming. Also, the group co-authored a 2004 report debunking climate science with the ExxonMobil-funded George C. Marshall Institute. (Jamie Doward, "Revealed: the man behind the court attack on Gore film," Guardian, Oct. 14, 2007; http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/sto...2190770,00.html, accessed Oct. 16, 2007)

Now do you see who is funding the making up of stuff?
That cartoon was ironic under the circ's

But no you don't want to acknowledge that you have been hoodwinked by your national media, both national and local which has been well paid by the coaloil industries to promote anti-APGM Op Ed pieces.

Your links to a Canadian national paper in the Monckton thread provide classic proof that you have taken in the spin but on the Inconvenient Truth judgement as this article shows:

Convenient Untruths

Where this on polar bears can be found:

Impact of sea ice retreat on Polar bears As we presaged in August, summer Arctic sea ice shattered all records this year for the minimum extent. This was partially related to wind patterns favorable to ice export in the spring, but the long term trends are almost certainly related to the ongoing and dramatic warming in the Arctic. Polar bears do indeed depend on the sea ice to hunt for seals in the spring and summer, and so a disappearance of this ice is likely to impact them severely. The specific anecdote referred to in the movie came from observations of anomalous drownings of bears in 2004 and so was accurate. However, studying the regional populations of polar bears is not easy and assessing their prospects is tough. In the best observed populations such as in western Hudson Bay (Stirling and Parkinson, 2006), female polar bear weight is going down as the sea ice retreats over the last 25 years, and the FWS is considering an endangered species listing. However, it should be stated that in most of the discussions about polar bears, they are used as a representative species. Arctic ecosystems are changing on many different levels, but it is unsurprising that charismatic mega-fauna get more press than bivalves. In the end, it may be the smaller and less photogenic elements that have the biggest impact.

amongst other responses to the Monckton/Dimmock/Durward inspired charges.

EDIT: grammar.

This post has been edited by Omega892R09: Oct 27 2009, 01:27 PM

[lunk]

Polar bears can swim for miles, they thrive when the climate is warmer.

http://blog.puppetgov.com/2009/07/10/austr...l-warming-hoax/

Basically, the less ice, the more polar bears.

(edit added)

http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/watch/def...120&story=3

This post has been edited by lunk: Oct 27 2009, 09:13 PM

[Omega892R09]

Polar bears can swim for miles, they thrive when the climate is warmer.

lunk.

With all respect if you carried out some real research instead of plumping for the articles from the poisoned well of much media op ed disguised as journalism you would realize that your remarks about polar bears are crap, based on crap.

You have been hoodwinked. That is if you truly believe what you post and are not simply engaging in bear baiting.

This article about a recent Pew poll demonstrates how successful those who spread doubt and uncertainty, where there is none, have been:

New Pew Center Poll Confirms The Effects of Climate Confusion Campaign

now I strongly recommend this book:

(IMG:http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/blogimages/climate%20cover%20up_1.jpg)

Start by looking at this:

My Favorite Climate Cover Up Quote So Far

Which explains in some detail the scurrilous behaviour of those feeding the media with stories you like to cite.

By reading this book you will discover that it is the very people many here fear, i.e., those really behind attacks on your liberty, and your minds. Consider the vitriol recently spewed by Rush Limbaugh at Andy Revkin of the NY Times. You do know which side Limbaugh is on don't you?

Would you care for me to recount some of the details with regards to that awful Oregon Petition (30000 odd scientists) and its ilk, or of the machinations of S Fred Singer, McIntyre and Macitrick, prominent folk in Canadian media and PR, and our old friend Christopher Walters aka Lord Monckton? Their antics over the last twenty years have been positively Machiavellian, in a negative sense.

Monckton in particular stands revealed as the Emporer with no clothes and nothing but a supported mouthpiece of the coil lobby, a pretentious one at that considering his total lack of credentials for lecturing on the topic of Climate Change.

EDIT:

Here is a flavour of his lack of credibility:

Monckton “Apocalypse” to Contaminate Canada

Chosen from any number of similar entries at:

Monckton Catalogue of Horrors

This post has been edited by Omega892R09: Oct 28 2009, 12:29 PM

[Sanders]

Quit using the term "climate change", O. Please stick with "Global Warming", that's what you and your cohorts support, a theory that human intervention increases the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, resulting in a rise in global temperatures, hence, global warming.

BTW, Brrrr, its frikken cold outside for October. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[Omega892R09]

Quit using the term "climate change", O. You and your cohorts support a theory that human intervention increases the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, resulting in a rise in global temperatures, hence, global warming.

BTW, Brrrr, its frikken cold outside for October. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

Well that's odd, but isn't actually. Unusually mild over here.

I think your record is stuck.

Climate change, global warming I have informed you of the differentiation before.

Changes in ocean and atmospheric currents can make it warmer or colder than usual and various places. This is no surprise. Weather is like that.

If the trend is down in your patch and stays up in places such as the arctic then that would be climate change as the result of overall global warming.

Now do you understand?

[lunk]

Polar bears can swim for a hundred miles, at least!
They thrive during warmer times.

The true nature of the IPCC was not that of a science based body, but that of a political body to give scientific legitimacy to false alarmist predictions in order to meet a political self serving environmentalist agenda. Since its inception, the IPCC has used its position of authority to promote its agenda to the detriment of science and even more importantly to the detriment of the global population.

http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=4222

[Omega892R09]

Polar bears can swim for a hundred miles, at least!
They thrive during warmer times.

NO THEY DO NOT
The polar bear metabolism is tuned to ice and cold and they get stressed with the warming climate and change in albedo at the arctic, this has already been established by real scientists.

But then the natural world is not your strong point is it lunk.

The true nature of the IPCC was not that of a science based body, but that of a political body to give scientific legitimacy to false alarmist predictions in order to meet a political self serving environmentalist agenda. Since its inception, the IPCC has used its position of authority to promote its agenda to the detriment of science and even more importantly to the detriment of the global population.

http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=4222

That is a scurrilous travesty of the truth.

I'll ask again.

Do you really believe this shite or are you just engaging in bear baiting?

If the former then I strongly suggest that you inform yourself using reputable sources and not stuff spinning out of hard line conservative 'think' tanks such as AEI, CEI, CATO, Heartland, George C Marshall and a number of others, especially in Canada and Australia and one or two in the UK. Many of these have creationist links and also use similar methodology for spreading propaganda.

In other words please read from the sources that I have cited and LEARN!

EDIT.

Read this and reply titled Phlogiston: warning

New Pew Center Poll Confirms The Effects of Climate Confusion Campaign

I have cited that once already but lunk chose to ignore it.

Selective reading causes strange beliefs.

This post has been edited by Omega892R09: Oct 28 2009, 02:32 PM

[lunk]

PDF download on coming ice age.

http://www.gao.spb.ru/english/astrometr/abduss_nkj_2009.pdf

...i'm gon'a need a spear to ward off all omegas' polar bears.

[Sanders]

If the trend is down in your patch and stays up in places such as the arctic then that would be climate change as the result of overall global warming.

Now do you understand?

No I don't. Either the globe, on average, is cooling or its warming.

Practically the whole world went straight from summer (if they actually had one) to winter this year, and arctic AND antarctic ice is increasing, not melting.

The world has been in a cooling trend for the last 6 to 10 years. (Now it seems that atmospheric CO2 levels, in response, are actually going down!!! )

[Omega892R09]

No I don't. Either the globe, on average, is cooling or its warming.

Sanders please do a little serious research on climate sensitivity and variability and how regional variations in climate can occur as the result of overall warming.

It can work like this.

In a room with a radiator on full air rises dragging in cool air from under a door. I am sure that you have noticed this effect.

Similarly with the globe. Under normal circ's warm air rises along the equator ands drops in mid-latitudes forming a convection cell. Other cells work between mid-latitudes and the poles. Check out horse-latitudes.

Because of the differences in distribution of land masses the circulation patterns can be different between the southern and northern hemispheres. Also the ocean current follow different general paths in the Pacific to those in the Atlantic. And the circumpolar current around Antarctica further differentiates north from south.

Then there is the Coriolis effect, which because of the different surfaces north and south of the equator with more ocean to the south, and thus different frictional and blocking effects from mountain ranges - once again there is a difference between north and south as seen in the trade winds.

Now throw into that mix a massive influx of ice into arctic waters and you have a disturbance which will be felt unequally across the globe.

This is just for starters in explaining a complex system. Find a book on oceanography as that will help with many valuable concepts here.

Practically the whole world went straight from summer (if they actually had one) to winter this year, and arctic AND antarctic ice is increasing, not melting.

That is simply not true. Please cite a reliable, and I mean reliable, source for that information.

The world has been in a cooling trend for the last 6 to 10 years. (Now it seems that atmospheric CO2 levels, in response, are actually going down!!! )

Once again that is simply not true.

You and lunk persist in raising untruths that have been debunked again and again but which refuse to die as if they are vampires. Well I suppose it is Halloween!

Now please, please do some honest and diligent research on this topic for it is the pair of you that ensure that we continue to dance in circles.

Note that I have provided references enough to back the points that I make, although it is noticeable that most times you and lunk fail tom do likewise. If you cannot, or wont, go look them up and study them in as rational and reasonable manner as you have the events of 9/11 then we continue in this Danse Macabre.

Note that you and lunk are feeding from the poison spread by the very people who supported or abetted the 9/11 OCT.

Now if you do little else please find a copy of and read this book:

(IMG:http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/blogimages/climate%20cover%20up_1.jpg)

for in it you will discover how you and lunk have both been duped into denial.

Unless of course you are both arguing for arguments sake and lunk repeatedly avoids answering that question.

[GroundPounder]

a physics professor emeritus weighs in:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/arch...html#more-41453

[aerohead]

Global Warming has been exposed to infinity and beyond
for the NWO vehicle that it is.

Fall of the Republic.

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/VebOTc-7shU&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/VebOTc-7shU&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>


Link--------->Fall of the Republic

[lunk]

The hills were covered with a little snow this morning.
I suppose that's climate change.
Spring, earlier this year, ended abruptly, and summer was short, but hot,
when it wasn't overcast with trails from planes.
Perhaps that was global warming.
The lake was considerably colder than last year.
A better average indicator, of local cooling, maybe.


Global warming, climate change, global cooling.
None of these terms have anything to do, with the relative amount,
of scarce, carbon dioxide in the air, less than argon!

It's a coin toss, with the rule,
heads, i win, tails you lose.

The object of the exercise is to implement
a world tax on the production of carbon dioxide,
upon everybody.
The reason given could be anything,
and has been shown to be,
by the changing terminology.

...anything but the real reason,
why this contradicting, baffle gab,
is being pushed and sold to the public.

We have very real pollution problems
that are not being addressed.
Poisons in the plastics we use,
mercury in everything,
heavy metals from cheep imports,
toxic additives in gasoline...

CO2 is the only precursor to the very oxygen
we need to breath.

...sorry for the long hyper-vent

[Omega892R09]

a physics professor emeritus weighs in:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/arch...html#more-41453

I am glad that you have raised this name.

Howard Hayden is well known for his links with the coal/oil/transport funded think tanks that have clearly, the many statments denying global warming and climate change on here, succeeded in hoodwinking many in North America and elsewhere.

You really should explore this article:

Howard Hayden

and that about his associate Tim Ball:

Timothy F. Ball

and run down this list on Ball (you will find others on Hayden if you searched) for a further taste of his less than edifying behaviour:

Ball credentials for fame

It will then become clear who's interests they serve - basically their own.

Ball features in that book Climate Cover Up and he is not one who should be believed given his proven track record of overstating his credentials and then threatening to sue the pants of somebody who challenged his claims:

Ball Bails on Johnson Lawsuit

As you should have read this about Hayden:

Hayden is a retired professor of physics and has been published in peer-reviewed journals. However, according to a search of 22,000 academic journals, Hayden has not published any research in a peer-reviewed journal on the subject of human-induced climate change.

These examples are fairly typical of the champions you people chose to support your climate change denial, and yet you persist.

Is this because you have not yet detected that membrane of obfuscation that has been foisted on you or something more sinister?

In that Hayden letter which you cited there was this load of tosh:

It has been often said that the “science is settled” on the issue of CO2 and climate. Let me put this claim to rest with a simple one-letter proof that it is false.

The letter is s, the one that changes model into models. If the science were settled, there would be precisely one model, and it would be in agreement with measurements.

Alternatively, one may ask which one of the twenty-some models settled the science so that all the rest could be discarded along with the research funds that have kept those models alive.

We can take this further. Not a single climate model predicted the current cooling phase. If the science were settled, the model (singular) would have predicted it.

Hayden is either ignorant of the science and of the models he mentions or he is being underhand in his appraisal.

Now you can research the points about climate models and supposed current cooling phase at RealClimate.

Start here:

FAQ on climate models

A warming pause?

It really is a shame that you guys cannot arm yourselves with the FACTS before you post. It would save so much embarrassment.