IPBFacebook



POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

Al Gore: Climate Change Skeptics Are Flat Earthers, video

Quest
post Mar 30 2008, 02:31 PM
Post #1





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 2,419
Joined: 23-October 06
Member No.: 145



Listen to the part where Gore equates global warimg skeptics to flat-earthers and those that believe we didn't land on the moon (I too am one of the "moon skeptics"). This ought to be enough to tell anyone whose side Al Gore is on. Bless you Al Gore for so completely exposing yourself.

Al Gore: Climate Change Skeptics are Flat Earthers

http://www.infowars.com/?p=1140

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars
March 29, 2008

If you have problems with the United Nations’ scheme to frighten the rabbits and herd them into global warming ghettos, take heed in the words of Mr. Green, Al Gore.

On Sunday, Leslie Stahl will interview Gore on 60 Minutes, an interview that coincides with Gore’s “major advertising campaign to raise awareness of global warming,” according to David Edwards and Muriel Kane of Raw Story. In a teaser for the show (see video here), Gore compares those of us who have big problems with dismantling civilization — in other words, forcing millions to accept a New Stone Age lifestyle — with “the ones who still believe that the Moon landing was staged in a movie lot in Arizona and those who believe the world is flat.”

In fact, the enviro-crusaders, funded over the years by the Rockefeller foundation, are the flat-earthers, unable to accept alternative theories to their junk science. Instead of debating the opposition, followers of the climate change orthodoxy continue to slander and attempt to minimize them.

Somebody needs to question the “solutions” proffered to mend climate change proposed by the enviro-fascists. One such “solution” entails “geoengineering,” that is the deliberate change of the climate with sulfate aerosols, the same stuff that comes out volcanoes (see Can We Offset Global Warming By Geoengineering The Climate With Aerosols?). Such a harebrained scheme, even if possible, would increase “global dimming” and reduce the amount of light and solar energy that reaches the planet. Never mind the resultant acid rain and massive impact of agriculture. Starvation is an effective way to scale back carbon emissions, as there will be a lot less people breathing.

Another crazy idea is ocean iron fertilization, also known as the “Geritol solution,” and involves seeding the oceans with iron to increase phytoplankton populations. The thought here is that the iron will encourage phytoplankton growth and the phytoplankton will suck up the CO2 as part of photosynthesis. Nobody knows if this will work but why let that stop the eco-fascists from polluting the oceans with heavy metals?

“Other wacky ideas under consideration include artificial trees, giant space mirrors, painting city buildings / roads white, etc., etc.,” notes Global Warming Hoax. “Some of these ideas are scarier than others as some are easy to undo. However the earth warms over time and once we spend a trillion dollars on a space mirror and cool the earth 5°C it will take time to rewarm the oceans, it will also be so embarrassing that it could take decades to convince politicians to scrap such an expensive system. Painting all buildings and roads white would take far longer to undo. Ocean fertilization has unknown consequences and could trigger a chain of events that could go on for decades.”

It doesn’t help that Al Gore is allowed to go on television and scare little children and the dim-witted. Our rulers are determined to cull the population — considered by the elite to be useless eaters — by rolling back civilization and technology and eventually cramming us in Agenda 21 cities. Once stacked one upon another in our rabbit warrens, the scientific elite can begin the culling process through malnutrition, starvation, and disease.

I know… some probably think this is just another conspiracy theory, even though our rulers are mostly dedicated eugenicists and an unbiased reading of Agenda 21 — if you can cut through the turgid prose — states exactly that: we are to be moved off the land and into crowded cities. It will not happen tomorrow or next year. even with the best effort of Al Gore and a complaisant corporate media. It is a long term plan that needs to be incrementally implemented, as our rulers consider us a dangerous sleeping giant, capable of up-ending their globalist apple cart at any moment, and that’s why they are boiling us slowly like the frog in a sauce pan. It will be too late by the time we see hot water bubbles rising.

In the meantime, we will endure Al Gore, the new Tomás de Torquemada, the Grand Inquisitor. Naturally, CBS will offer no rebuttal, no counterpoints to Al’s propaganda, as the idea is sell you on poverty, starvation, disease, the culling of the herd, although it will not be billed as such.

John Coleman, the founder of the Weather Channel, wants to sue Al Gore because a courtroom may be the only place to get a hearing. “Since we can’t get a debate, I thought perhaps if we had a legal challenge and went into a court of law, where it was our scientists and their scientists, and all the legal proceedings with the discovery and all their documents from both sides and scientific testimony from both sides, we could finally get a good solid debate on the issue,” Coleman told Fox News. “I’m confident that the advocates of ‘no significant effect from carbon dioxide’ would win the case.”

Sorry, John. But this is not likely to happen. Even if it did the corporate media would twist and turn the outcome, as the corporate media is owned by our rulers and they have an agenda all ready for us.

Call if the Death Agenda, the eugenicist’s dream come true… if we let them realize it.

This post has been edited by Quest: Mar 30 2008, 07:55 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
5 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
bill
post Mar 30 2008, 03:12 PM
Post #2





Group: Guest
Posts: 1,922
Joined: 23-October 06
Member No.: 147



Good post, Quest

I think I may watch 60 propaganda minutes tonight
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Quest
post Mar 30 2008, 07:53 PM
Post #3





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 2,419
Joined: 23-October 06
Member No.: 145



QUOTE (bill @ Mar 30 2008, 08:12 PM) *
Good post, Quest

I think I may watch 60 propaganda minutes tonight


salute.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Mar 30 2008, 08:20 PM
Post #4



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,983
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



QUOTE (Quest @ Mar 30 2008, 11:31 AM) *
Listen to the part where Gore equates global warimg skeptics to flat-earthers and those that believe we didn't land on the moon (I too am one of the "moon skeptics"). This ought to be enough to tell anyone whose side Al Gore is on. Bless you Al Gore for so completely exposing yourself.

Al Gore: Climate Change Skeptics are Flat Earthers

http://www.infowars.com/?p=1140

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars
March 29, 2008

If you have problems with the United Nations’ scheme to frighten the rabbits and herd them into global warming ghettos, take heed in the words of Mr. Green, Al Gore.

On Sunday, Leslie Stahl will interview Gore on 60 Minutes, an interview that coincides with Gore’s “major advertising campaign to raise awareness of global warming,” according to David Edwards and Muriel Kane of Raw Story. In a teaser for the show (see video here), Gore compares those of us who have big problems with dismantling civilization — in other words, forcing millions to accept a New Stone Age lifestyle — with “the ones who still believe that the Moon landing was staged in a movie lot in Arizona and those who believe the world is flat.”

In fact, the enviro-crusaders, funded over the years by the Rockefeller foundation, are the flat-earthers, unable to accept alternative theories to their junk science. Instead of debating the opposition, followers of the climate change orthodoxy continue to slander and attempt to minimize them.

Somebody needs to question the “solutions” proffered to mend climate change proposed by the enviro-fascists. One such “solution” entails “geoengineering,” that is the deliberate change of the climate with sulfate aerosols, the same stuff that comes out volcanoes (see Can We Offset Global Warming By Geoengineering The Climate With Aerosols?). Such a harebrained scheme, even if possible, would increase “global dimming” and reduce the amount of light and solar energy that reaches the planet. Never mind the resultant acid rain and massive impact of agriculture. Starvation is an effective way to scale back carbon emissions, as there will be a lot less people breathing.

Another crazy idea is ocean iron fertilization, also known as the “Geritol solution,” and involves seeding the oceans with iron to increase phytoplankton populations. The thought here is that the iron will encourage phytoplankton growth and the phytoplankton will suck up the CO2 as part of photosynthesis. Nobody knows if this will work but why let that stop the eco-fascists from polluting the oceans with heavy metals?

“Other wacky ideas under consideration include artificial trees, giant space mirrors, painting city buildings / roads white, etc., etc.,” notes Global Warming Hoax. “Some of these ideas are scarier than others as some are easy to undo. However the earth warms over time and once we spend a trillion dollars on a space mirror and cool the earth 5°C it will take time to rewarm the oceans, it will also be so embarrassing that it could take decades to convince politicians to scrap such an expensive system. Painting all buildings and roads white would take far longer to undo. Ocean fertilization has unknown consequences and could trigger a chain of events that could go on for decades.”

It doesn’t help that Al Gore is allowed to go on television and scare little children and the dim-witted. Our rulers are determined to cull the population — considered by the elite to be useless eaters — by rolling back civilization and technology and eventually cramming us in Agenda 21 cities. Once stacked one upon another in our rabbit warrens, the scientific elite can begin the culling process through malnutrition, starvation, and disease.

I know… some probably think this is just another conspiracy theory, even though our rulers are mostly dedicated eugenicists and an unbiased reading of Agenda 21 — if you can cut through the turgid prose — states exactly that: we are to be moved off the land and into crowded cities. It will not happen tomorrow or next year. even with the best effort of Al Gore and a complaisant corporate media. It is a long term plan that needs to be incrementally implemented, as our rulers consider us a dangerous sleeping giant, capable of up-ending their globalist apple cart at any moment, and that’s why they are boiling us slowly like the frog in a sauce pan. It will be too late by the time we see hot water bubbles rising.

In the meantime, we will endure Al Gore, the new Tomás de Torquemada, the Grand Inquisitor. Naturally, CBS will offer no rebuttal, no counterpoints to Al’s propaganda, as the idea is sell you on poverty, starvation, disease, the culling of the herd, although it will not be billed as such.

John Coleman, the founder of the Weather Channel, wants to sue Al Gore because a courtroom may be the only place to get a hearing. “Since we can’t get a debate, I thought perhaps if we had a legal challenge and went into a court of law, where it was our scientists and their scientists, and all the legal proceedings with the discovery and all their documents from both sides and scientific testimony from both sides, we could finally get a good solid debate on the issue,” Coleman told Fox News. “I’m confident that the advocates of ‘no significant effect from carbon dioxide’ would win the case.”

Sorry, John. But this is not likely to happen. Even if it did the corporate media would twist and turn the outcome, as the corporate media is owned by our rulers and they have an agenda all ready for us.

Call if the Death Agenda, the eugenicist’s dream come true… if we let them realize it.


The Earth is not flat...
but it's getting flatter..
and bumpier, in places.

imo, lunk
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Quest
post Mar 30 2008, 08:32 PM
Post #5





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 2,419
Joined: 23-October 06
Member No.: 145



Oh, how rich is this! And the irony after Gore's equating global-warming skeptics to "moon landing deniers". The following short video contains within a segment in which an inventor of a free-enrgy device is aproached by Apollo astroNOT Edgar Mitchell to sell him the rights to the device which the inventor declined. Later, Mitchell threatens the inventor telling him if he ever tries to market the invention on his own, he "would get his head blown off". Is THIS what Al Gore supports? Is this what NASA stands for?

Free Energy - Pentagon Conspiracy to Cover up
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGRsQZx6zWA

This post has been edited by Quest: Mar 30 2008, 08:36 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Mar 30 2008, 08:56 PM
Post #6



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,983
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



Free energy!

It's been held captive long enough.

cheers, lunk
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lasthorseman
post Mar 30 2008, 09:47 PM
Post #7





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 848
Joined: 23-December 06
Member No.: 360



Posted to a left leaning venue.

Vitriolic hate speech aimed at the annointed pontiff of the left does not win popularity points. Would the world have been better had Al not been cheated out of the pResidency? Yes, to that I agree but also know my faith in people is a negative number.
So the world turns the lights off for an hour yet goes right back to sipping latte with a cell phone in one hand and the steering wheel of an SUV in the other. Only technology allows us to feed the number of people we do currently feed so taxing that means we feed those who can afford to get fed.

Yes, I am obscure, I am "way out there", I am even often completely incoherent yet I offer something contrary to the soundbytes you hear daily. We are 300 million out of six billion and globo-corp is after the resources you command each day without even thinking about it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Timothy Osman
post Mar 30 2008, 09:54 PM
Post #8





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 903
Joined: 18-October 06
Member No.: 107



QUOTE (Lasthorseman @ Mar 31 2008, 02:47 AM) *
Posted to a left leaning venue.

Vitriolic hate speech aimed at the annointed pontiff of the left does not win popularity points. Would the world have been better had Al not been cheated out of the pResidency? Yes, to that I agree but also know my faith in people is a negative number.
So the world turns the lights off for an hour yet goes right back to sipping latte with a cell phone in one hand and the steering wheel of an SUV in the other. Only technology allows us to feed the number of people we do currently feed so taxing that means we feed those who can afford to get fed.

Yes, I am obscure, I am "way out there", I am even often completely incoherent yet I offer something contrary to the soundbytes you hear daily. We are 300 million out of six billion and globo-corp is after the resources you command each day without even thinking about it.


You made perfect sense to me.

Oh and I meant that in a positive way for those who can't decipher Timglish. wink.gif

This post has been edited by Timothy Osman: Mar 30 2008, 09:58 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Quest
post Mar 30 2008, 09:57 PM
Post #9





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 2,419
Joined: 23-October 06
Member No.: 145



QUOTE (Lasthorseman @ Mar 31 2008, 02:47 AM) *
Posted to a left leaning venue.

Vitriolic hate speech aimed at the annointed pontiff of the left does not win popularity points. Would the world have been better had Al not been cheated out of the pResidency? Yes, to that I agree but also know my faith in people is a negative number.
So the world turns the lights off for an hour yet goes right back to sipping latte with a cell phone in one hand and the steering wheel of an SUV in the other. Only technology allows us to feed the number of people we do currently feed so taxing that means we feed those who can afford to get fed.

Yes, I am obscure, I am "way out there", I am even often completely incoherent yet I offer something contrary to the soundbytes you hear daily. We are 300 million out of six billion and globo-corp is after the resources you command each day without even thinking about it.


No problem LAsthorseman, I'm a "liberal" myself which is where my disgust comes from. I voted for Gore once and have learned so much since, especially after 911, how things REALLY work. Along the way, I learned Al Gore is one of THEM. What is the saying? "There's nothing more angry than a scorned conservative" I think that saying applies to scorned liberals doubly so. wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Quest
post Mar 30 2008, 10:01 PM
Post #10





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 2,419
Joined: 23-October 06
Member No.: 145



Relax, the planet is fine - The National Post - 4/21/2007

Money is partly to blame for the global warming hysteria, Professor Richard Lindzen says

http://www.lindafrum.com/NewsDetail.aspx?newsid=74

Linda Frum
National Post

Saturday, April 21, 2007

This Earth Day, Professor Richard Lindzen, an atmospheric physicist and the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT, wants you to calm down. The Earth, he says, is in good shape. "Forests are returning in Europe and the United States. Air quality has improved. Water quality has improved. We grow more food on less land. We've done a reasonably good job in much of the world in conquering hunger. And yet we're acting as though: "How can we stand any more of this?" A leading critic on the theory of man-made global warming, Professor Lindzen has developed a reputation as America's anti-doom-andgloom scientist. And he's not, he says, as lonely as you might think.

Q You don't dispute that the globe is warming?

A It has never been an issue of whether the Earth is warming -- because it's always warming or cooling. The issue is: What are the magnitudes involved? It's a big difference if it's warming a degree or two or 10, or if it's warming a few tenths of a degree.

Q And it's inconclusive how much it's warming?

A Sure it's inconclusive. It's a very hard thing to analyze because you have to average huge fluctuations over the whole Earth, and 70% of the Earth is oceans where you don't have weather stations. So you get different groups analyzing this. And they're pretty close. One group gets over the last century a warming of about .55 degrees centigrade. Another group says it's .75 degrees.

Q Is there any scenario in which global warming could be beneficial for the planet?

A Of course. Canada looks like it will benefit considerably if it were to happen. And it might very well happen -- but it won't be due to man.

Q You charge that the hysteria that's been created around global warming is an enormous financial scam. It's all about money?

A Well, how shall I put it? It's not all about money, but boy, there's a lot of money floating in it. I mean, emissions trading is going to be a multi-trillion dollar market. Emissions alone would keep small countries in business.

Q Are you suggesting that scientists manipulate their findings to get in on the gravy train?

A You have to differentiate the interests of different groups. In the scientific community, your interest is for your field to be recognized so that it will have priority in government funding.

Q So you are not accusing your scientific colleagues of corruption?

A No, I'm accusing them of behaving the way scientists always behave. In other words, some years ago, when Richard Nixon declared war on cancer, almost all the biological sciences then became cancer research. I mean, I don't call that corruption, I'm saying you orient your research so that it has a better chance to get resources.

Q And i thelps if your findings suggest something catastrophic is about to happen?

A In this case it certainly has helped. First of all, the funding increased so greatly that it exceeded the capacity of the existing field to absorb it. You'll notice that Working Group 2 of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change came up with lots of scary things, but everything was always preceded by could, might, may, all these qualifiers. And the reason it was is those studies start out assuming there's a lot of warming. They assume all the science is in, and then they say, 'Well, how will this impact my field of insect-borne diseases, or agriculture, or health?' So they are almost, by definition, going to generate catastrophic scenarios, but they will never be based on anything other than the hypothesis that this will already happen.

Q I read that you betone of your colleagues that the Earth will actually be colder 20 years from now?

A I haven't bet on it, but I figure the odds are about 50-50.

If you look at the temperature record for the globe over the last six years, it's gone no place. That's usually the way it behaves before it goes down. In fact, I suspect that's why you have this tsunami of exposure the last two years, with Gore's movie and so on. I think that this issue has been around long enough to generate a lot of agendas, and looking at the temperature records there must be a fear that if they don't get the agendas covered now, they may never get them.

Q Did you watch Al Gore ge this Academy Award?

A No! Bad enough I watched his movie.

Q He would appear to have the support of the majority of your scientific colleagues.

A Not really. This is an issue that has hundreds of aspects. The very thought that a large number of scientists all agree on everything is inconceivable. Among my colleagues, I would say, almost no one thinks that Gore's movie is reasonable. But there will be differences. Some believe it is possible that warming could be a serious problem. Others think it's very unlikely. People are all over the place.

Q Some suggest that Roger Revelle, Gore's scientific mentor, would not have agreed with the movie?

A Well, he's dead.

Q Yes. So that makes it harder for him to speak out.

A It's a horrible story. Before he died, Roger Revelle co-authored a popular paper saying, 'We know too little to take any action based on global warming. If we take any action it should be an action that we can justify completely without global warming.' And Gore's staffers tried to have his name posthumously removed from that paper claiming he had been senile. And one of the other authors took it to court and won. It's funny how little coverage that got.

Q How cynical do you think Gore is?

A It's hard for me to tell. I think he's either cynical or crazy. But he has certainly cashed in on something. And 'cash in' is the word. The movie has cleared $50-million. He charges $100,000-$150,000 a lecture. He's co-founder of Global Investment Management, which invests in solar and wind and so on. So he is literally shilling for his own companies. And he's on the on the board of Lehman Brothers who want to be the primary brokerage for emission permits.

Q That sounds more cynical, less crazy.

A I think his aim is not to be president. It's to be a billionaire.

Q What do you find to be the attitude among your MIT undergraduates on global warming?

A I find that they realize they don't know enough to reach judgments. They all realize that Gore's book was a sham. They appreciate that Michael Crichton at least included references.

Q That's encouraging. Because I find the indoctrination at schools to be pretty relentless. On a recent Grade 7 test my daughter was asked something to the effect of, "How are you going to educate your parents about global warming?"

A I know. It's straight out of Hitlerjugend.

Q Having said that, are there any behaviours we should be changing, as a society, in order to protect our planet?

A Yes. We should learn math and physics so we don't get fooled by this idiocy.

NATIONALPOST.COM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
paranoia
post Mar 31 2008, 02:07 AM
Post #11


dig deeper
Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 1,033
Joined: 16-October 06
From: dc
Member No.: 96



dont know if any of you caught it, but gore was on 60 minutes tonight (im sure it will be up on youtube soon enough), but not only did he liken climate change skeptics to "Flat Earthers", but he also put them in the same category as those "who think the moon landings were staged on a movie lot in Arizona somewhere". but the oddest twist was that Gore put Dick Cheney in that category! i will try and post the clip when i find it, but im sure his cheney statement is going to cause at least a mild stir, so keep an eye/ear out for it.

ETA: found it!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSh1WuN_dnc
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Nunyabiz
post Mar 31 2008, 09:35 AM
Post #12





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 233
Joined: 8-February 08
Member No.: 2,727



I always cringe when I read these Global Warming threads it makes me sad to see how seemingly intelligent individuals that have seen through the complete Reich wing neofascist BS that is 9/11 only to be completely taken in hook line & shill by the very same culprits about GW.

Richard Lindzen for instance is a very well known Oil & Coal company shill and has been since the early 90s this has been common knowledge in Scientific circles.
He is connected to at least 4 well known Exxonmobil funded organizations TCSF, George C Marshall Inst, Cato Inst, The Annapolis Center.



To all the Round Earth deniers here try researching BOTH sides for awhile instead of just trying as hard as you possibly can to accept the Reich wing propaganda.
Exxonmobil is funding the majority of this BS, now if you have decided you are going to believe Exxonmobil and far Reich wing think tanks like the PNAC, AEI, CEI, Marshall Inst, Cato Inst, etc. no matter what the evidence shows then so be it but don't pretend you have a clue what you are talking about.

Expose Exxon

Exxon Secrets


Al Gore is correct.

This post has been edited by Nunyabiz: Mar 31 2008, 09:57 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bill
post Mar 31 2008, 10:22 AM
Post #13





Group: Guest
Posts: 1,922
Joined: 23-October 06
Member No.: 147



Nuny

Explain how 'carbon credits' with solve this supposed problem

you need to understand how these memes work

Problem: We are going to all die (starve to death, drown etc) because of Global warming that we are causing because of the CO2 we are pumping into the atmosphere


Reaction: OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG !!!!! We have TO DO SOMETHING !!!!


Solution: Let's tax the rich wasteful countries like the US and Europe and give it to the poor countries




think of the money the big banks can make trading derivatives in carbon credits, it will be huge !!

Talk about big money

I recently read that there are bill boards warning of global warming in New York that rent for 700,000 a month


BTW I watched a PBS show 17 years ago that outlined exactly how they were going to do this "carbon credit " scam


We were just getting over the "we are going into another ice age" scare from the 80's

Just sit there in front of your TV, Nuny, and swallow the propaganda the MSM is puking into your open mouth


yum yum yum

I Believe it, I believe it, I BELIEVE it

This post has been edited by bill: Mar 31 2008, 10:25 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Nunyabiz
post Mar 31 2008, 12:52 PM
Post #14





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 233
Joined: 8-February 08
Member No.: 2,727



"Explain how 'carbon credits' with solve this supposed problem"

They wont, all this will do is give permission to large global conglomerates to pollute at will as long as they buy up some one else credits. Basically is serves no purpose except to create a commodity that can be sold but this has nothing to do with the real data that shows humans are having an affect on GW.
This is just the usual those that have all the money trying to curb their bets creating a supply & demand scenario where they hold all the cards, which is exactly what they have right now with OIL. This is never going to change no matter what the insanely rich will always make money this way.
I understand perfectly how these memes work thank you.

I don't sit in front of my TV swallowing anything, I talk to some of the worlds leading climatologist (friends and colleagues) and view their data along with their interpretations of it.

Yes the filthy rich are going to make money off of EVERYTHING doesn't make a damn bit of difference what it is that is what you need to get through that thick skull of yours, if it wasn't GW then it would be something else take your pick whatever the demand is they are going to supply it period.

That has nothing to do with the FACTS however.

What you Flat Earthers have a problem getting past is that the global elite are going to make money off it, so name ONE god damn thing they don't make money off of?

So I guess you fully agree with all your buddies like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, the PNAC, AEI, and all the other far Reich wing lunatics which are all GW deniers then right?

Think about that for a second, you fully agree with known neofascist lunatics & the oil companies that support them...Hmmmm, DOH!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bill
post Mar 31 2008, 01:17 PM
Post #15





Group: Guest
Posts: 1,922
Joined: 23-October 06
Member No.: 147



The old saying is 'follow the money......'


When and where did you get your 'science' education ?


When and where did you learn that correlation equals causation ?

There is nothing scientific about this what so ever

It is not even good enough to be called junk science

What is the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere ?

As far as the connection to Limbaugh et al ---do you need any more proof of a divide and conquer agenda

Again you are more influenced by the boob toob than you realize

Liberal - Conservative
Republican - Democrat
Christian - Atheist
Jew - Muslim

You are accepting the MSM's framing of the subject and the debate


ask your 'science friends' where their grant money comes from


Then ask them how much grant money they would get if their project was to prove that Global climate change was caused by fluctuations in solar output not atmospheric 'greenhouse gases'

Why are the other planets heating up also ?

What is the single most important green house gas by a huge margin ?


ETA

Another professor of physics, Howard Hayden from University of Connecticut, also opposes the idea of man-made global warming. He is reported as, “speaking out after a visit to New York where he learned that scaremongering billboards about the long-term effects of global warming were being purchased at a cost of $700,000 a month.” -prisonplanet.com Says Mr. Hayden in disgust, ”Someone is willing to spend a huge amount of money to scare us about global warming…Big money is behind the global-warming propaganda.”

http://doingmypart.wordpress.com/2008/03/1...more-reasoning/

This post has been edited by bill: Mar 31 2008, 01:27 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Nunyabiz
post Mar 31 2008, 11:56 PM
Post #16





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 233
Joined: 8-February 08
Member No.: 2,727



"When and where did you get your 'science' education ?"

Stanford, early 80s

"You are accepting the MSM's framing of the subject and the debate"

I don't believe a word I hear in the MSM and what they say about it is meaningless to me.


"ask your 'science friends' where their grant money comes from"

Same place mine used to come from, Colleges, Universities, National Science Foundation, various foundations. Grants come from any number of sources.


You have the gall to ask where the grant money comes from concerning the those whom agenda is merely to know the facts and what you present is Howard Hayden which is on the board of advisors for Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow which gets larges chunks of its grant money from Exxonmobile & Richard Mellon Scaife. LOL
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bill
post Apr 1 2008, 10:42 AM
Post #17





Group: Guest
Posts: 1,922
Joined: 23-October 06
Member No.: 147



Can't you form a more interesting argument than an ad hominem attack ?

you ignore the important items

like 'who has $700,000 a month to spend on global warming billboards ?'



Ok you attended Stanford, then

In what course at Stanford, ( statistics, logic or other science course) did you learn that a correlation proves a causation ?

I always had repect for Stanford-- maybe the state of our Universities has slipped more than I feared.

Lets look at some correlations:

Over the last 200 years the average age of the population of the world has increased dramatically

Over the last 200 years the concentration of CO2 has gone up

ergo

CO2 increases the lifespan of people


Here's another one

Over the last 200 years the mean temperature has gone up,

Over the last 200 years the concentration of CO2 has gone up

Ergo

CO2 is causing the temperature to go up

Neither of these statements are proof, because a correlation DOES NOT PROVE CAUSATION

EVER !

The most important 'greenhouse gas' is water vapor.

Water vapor contributes to keeping the planet warm much more the the trivial .3 Parts Per Million of CO2. Hell, Argon is . 4 parts per million --always shows up on my mass spectrometers at m/z 40 when there is an air leak, larger than the 44 m/z CO2. I don't hear any hysterics about Argon.

Water vapor as a green house gas dwarfs any CO2 effect

You can prove this to yourself

go out on a cloudy night -- not very cold

now go out on a cloudless night ---pretty cold

Why ? because the IR is radiated out into space pretty freely with out water vapor (clouds)

ever wonder why the desert areas have very cold nights even when daytime temperatures are very hot

now you know

deserts typically have few clouds


There is an experimental plot in the far north of Wisconsin Near Rhinelander operated by the USDA.(one of my customers)They are experimenting with the effect of CO2 on the growth of trees (why I am not sure but I bet they got a grant for it). They have set up an array pipes in the air about 80 feet and are pumping literally tons of CO2 into the local atmosphere. If I remember correctly they go through 2 semi trailer tank trucks of pure CO2 a day. It is and interesting set up, they switch the feed of the CO2 to the up wind side of the plot -- quite a sophisticated run by computer, and monitored in real time.

They increase the local area's CO2 concentration to several PERCENT that is thousands of PPM

They are finding minimal effects on the growth of the trees and no decernable effect on the temperature of the surrounding areas (about 10 acres)

If CO2 was such an effective 'greenhouse gas' you would expect to dramatic temperature extremes.

no statistically significant temperature effects have been observed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
painter
post Apr 1 2008, 11:54 AM
Post #18


∞* M E R C U R I A L *∞


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 5,870
Joined: 25-August 06
From: SFO
Member No.: 16



Interesting, isn't it.

When it comes to 9/11, although I don't claim to know the full truth of the matter, I do claim to know enough to say without a shadow of doubt that it was an "inside job" in the sense that it was not at all what we've been told. I know this for a variety of well founded and, to me, obvious reasons -- such as the rate at which three sky scrapers fell. I'm not a scientist but I'm a reasonably intelligent person and I can understand the fundamental principal involved. A structure can not fall through itself at anywhere near the same rate it would fall through nothing but air -- unless there is an enormous amount of energy removing the structural integrity of the building beneath the falling portion. I don't need any "scientific opinion" to educate me about this, it is simply obvious. Even if I don't know how it was done or who did it, it is clear that the buildings didn't just "collapse" for whatever reason. That this clearly obvious fact is being covered up and danced around is all the proof I need that 9/11 was an "inside job" in some sense of the word. Terrorists didn't wire those buildings for demolition.

UNFORTUNATELY when it comes to Global Warming or Climate Change things aren't so clear. I mean, it seems to me there is no argument among people in this forum that Climate Change is real -- that the polar ice-caps are receding, for example. So far as I can tell, everyone has seen sufficient evidence through photographs and reports that they accept as valid, so everyone agrees that the Earth's climate is changing.

The question is WHY is the climate changing? This is where it gets difficult. I don't know why. I see that some scientists are saying that the cause is human activity and I see that other scientists disagree. I also see that most everyone concerned, pro and con, have a vested interest if not an agenda.

Here is my question: HOW MANY OF THE SCIENTISTS WHO TOUT GLOBAL WARMING PRO AND CON HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY ABOUT THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF THREE STEEL STRUCTURES COLLAPSING AT FREE FALL SPEED ON THE SAME DAY IN 2001?

You want my attention, you want me to give you as a scientist "credit," you want me to "believe" you?? All you have to do is be willing to point out the obvious.

Who is doing that?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Apr 1 2008, 12:10 PM
Post #19



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,983
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



If it is a fact, that CO2 is NOT a greenhouse gas,
and the Earth, for whatever reason, starts to cool off,
then pumping the atmosphere full of CO2 in an attempt
to WARM back up the planet would be useless and foolhardy.

You see,

"If it turns out that the FACTS are not true,
with all the reasons for the things that we do,
doesn't that leave just me and you...
without a paddle...
or canoe?"

When the foundations of our knowledge are deliberately falsified,
then the decisions based on these, made toward our future,
will be the wrong ones, to the detriment of all.

That includes the shadowy puppet masters.

imo, lunk
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
painter
post Apr 1 2008, 12:40 PM
Post #20


∞* M E R C U R I A L *∞


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 5,870
Joined: 25-August 06
From: SFO
Member No.: 16



QUOTE (lunk @ Apr 1 2008, 09:10 AM) *
. . .
When the foundations of our knowledge are deliberately falsified,
then the decisions based on these, made toward our future,
will be the wrong ones, to the detriment of all.

That includes the shadowy puppet masters.
. . .


I understand what you're saying and it seems a reasonable argument. The more accurate your map, the more likely you'll get where you want to go without accidentally falling over a cliff. But do you assume that the puppet masters are operating from the same map that you and I are? I don't know that we can assume that. Quite the contrary.

Still, the map isn't the territory and some of the more interesting sites may not be on the map at all.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

5 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 18th November 2019 - 07:00 AM