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 )

5 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Al Gore: Climate Change Skeptics Are Flat Earthers, video

maturin42
post Apr 1 2008, 01:24 PM
Post #21





Group: Core Member
Posts: 607
Joined: 18-February 07
From: Maryland, USA
Member No.: 633



I have moved from the position that global warming due to C02 concentration was right up there with evolution in terms of credibility to a more agnostic stance. One factor in my shift has to do with the reluctance of public figures, media, and politicians to discuss the peak oil issue. There is no shortage of people willing to assert the danger of global warming, but the number of those figures willing to discuss publicly the dangers inherent in the peaking of oil production without a viable mitigation strategy is about on a par with those willing to discuss the 9/11 fraud publicly. It has occurred to me that an attempt to mitigate the brutal onset of massive shortages of oil might take the form of a world-wide movement to reduce the use of oil that could be justified by global warming dangers without having to face or identify publicly the brutal consequences of a global oil shortage that will kill by starvation millions of people in the third world while we cap and trade and continue to guzzle gas. That is a conspiracy theory in spades, but you do whatever mental gymnastics are necessary to try to make sense of the headlines (or the absence of them). It seems pretty clear to me that the resource wars are motivated by the proximity of peak oil, (Mike Ruppert identified peak oil as a prime motive, and it makes a great deal of sense, when you look at what the U. S. is DOING as opposed to what is being said). While I cannot ridicule those who refuse to accept the anthropogenic nature of global warming, I have no such compunction about those who say oil is inexhaustible. To say that is to believe in an infinite resource, of which we have no examples in our experience (unless you count the endless supply of cant supplied by those who stand to make a buck off selling a diminishing resource).

I am in complete agreement with Painter in challenging those who would apply science selectively, carefully avoiding the questions raised by 9/11 and the dire implications for our politics, while sounding the alarm about a much less certain danger to our environment caused by warming. It appears to me that the signs of a fascist takeover on a global scale that owes its advances to 9/11 are much more certain and unambiguous than the signs of global climate change. There is no reason we can't fight both by application of science and clear thinking, but the human race is going to have to do a lot of growing up to do either, and I see very few signs of that happening.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
painter
post Apr 1 2008, 01:57 PM
Post #22


∞* 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 (maturin42 @ Apr 1 2008, 10:24 AM) *
. . .
While I cannot ridicule those who refuse to accept the anthropogenic nature of global warming, I have no such compunction about those who say oil is inexhaustible. To say that is to believe in an infinite resource, of which we have no examples in our experience
. . .


I agree with everything you've said except the above. To say that oil is abiotic in origin isn't to presume that it is inexhaustible or infinite -- that is absurd. Even water, which is plentiful (and abiotic), is finite. The Earth is a resource and mineral rich planet and most of these resources and minerals are not biological in origin. However, none of them are infinite. I don't claim to know -- again, I have to rely on the truthfulness and accurateness of others. But, you know, science is replete with revolutions in thinking. There was a time when the Earth was flat and the center of the universe. Everyone thought about it and talked about it in that light and anyone who thought otherwise was just dumb or a 'kook' or worse.

Frankly I've never been quite able to wrap my head around biological origins of oil. It just seems so unlikely to me. I mean, HOW MUCH oil are we burning EVERY DAY?? But maybe I'm the flat Earther in this instance. I just have no idea. However, we DO know that hydrocarbons can be forged absent biological sources -- and that alone should give us pause, wouldn't you think? We all know that the bottom line is CONTROL OF THE MARKET. Doesn't matter what it is but the closer to NECESSITY the better, right? Jesus what would happen if it were "discovered" that hydrocarbon energy sources existed in deeper pockets than we were here-to-fore led to believe; that any nation with the right technology could exploit this resource without having to use petrodollar or any other currency; that they had access to their own abundant energy sources? Bye bye World Bank, bye bye control of the global petrochemical energy markets.

Again, I don't claim to know. Just sayin' I don't trust ANYONE any more. Why should I?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Rickysa
post Apr 1 2008, 02:10 PM
Post #23





Group: Contributor
Posts: 289
Joined: 18-February 08
From: USA: N.C.
Member No.: 2,762



As an admitted weather geek, I've copied this from a site frequented by professional meteorologists and other weather enthusiasts that have discussed this quite thoroughly: http://www.easternuswx.com/bb/index.php?showforum=36

Quote:

Climate panel on the hot seat
By H. Sterling Burnett

March 14, 2008
More than 20 years ago, climate scientists began to raise alarms over the possibility global temperatures were rising due to human activities, such as deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels.

To better understand this potential threat, the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations created the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988 to provide a "comprehensive, objective, scientific, technical and socioeconomic assessment of human-caused climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation."

IPCC reports have predicted average world temperatures will increase dramatically, leading to the spread of tropical diseases, severe drought, the rapid melting of the world's glaciers and ice caps, and rising sea levels. However, several assessments of the IPCC's work have shown the techniques and methods used to derive its climate predictions are fundamentally flawed.

In a 2001 report, the IPCC published an image commonly referred to as the "hockey stick." This graph showed relatively stable temperatures from A.D. 1000 to 1900, with temperatures rising steeply from 1900 to 2000. The IPCC and public figures, such as former Vice President Al Gore, have used the hockey stick to support the conclusion that human energy use over the last 100 years has caused unprecedented rise global warming.

However, several studies cast doubt on the accuracy of the hockey stick, and in 2006 Congress requested an independent analysis of it. A panel of statisticians chaired by Edward J. Wegman, of George Mason University, found significant problems with the methods of statistical analysis used by the researchers and with the IPCC's peer review process. For example, the researchers who created the hockey stick used the wrong time scale to establish the mean temperature to compare with recorded temperatures of the last century. Because the mean temperature was low, the recent temperature rise seemed unusual and dramatic. This error was not discovered in part because statisticians were never consulted.

Furthermore, the community of specialists in ancient climates from which the peer reviewers were drawn was small and many of them had ties to the original authors — 43 paleoclimatologists had previously coauthored papers with the lead researcher who constructed the hockey stick.

These problems led Mr. Wegman's team to conclude that the idea that the planet is experiencing unprecedented global warming "cannot be supported."

The IPCC published its Fourth Assessment Report in 2007 predicting global warming will lead to widespread catastrophe if not mitigated, yet failed to provide the most basic requirement for effective climate policy: accurate temperature statistics. A number of weaknesses in the measurements include the fact temperatures aren't recorded from large areas of the Earth's surface and many weather stations once in undeveloped areas are now surrounded by buildings, parking lots and other heat-trapping structures resulting in an urban-heat-island effect.

Even using accurate temperature data, sound forecasting methods are required to predict climate change. Over time, forecasting researchers have compiled 140 principles that can be applied to a broad range of disciplines, including science, sociology, economics and politics.

In a recent NCPA study, Kesten Green and J. Scott Armstrong used these principles to audit the climate forecasts in the Fourth Assessment Report. Messrs. Green and Armstrong found the IPCC clearly violated 60 of the 127 principles relevant in assessing the IPCC predictions. Indeed, it could only be clearly established that the IPCC followed 17 of the more than 127 forecasting principles critical to making sound predictions.

A good example of a principle clearly violated is "Make sure forecasts are independent of politics." Politics shapes the IPCC from beginning to end. Legislators, policymakers and/or diplomatic appointees select (or approve) the scientists — at least the lead scientists — who make up the IPCC. In addition, the summary and the final draft of the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report was written in collaboration with political appointees and subject to their approval.

Sadly, Mr. Green and Mr. Armstrong found no evidence the IPCC was even aware of the vast literature on scientific forecasting methods, much less applied the principles.

The IPCC and its defenders often argue that critics who are not climate scientists are unqualified to judge the validity of their work. However, climate predictions rely on methods, data and evidence from other fields of expertise, including statistical analysis and forecasting. Thus, the work of the IPCC is open to analysis and criticism from other disciplines.

The IPCC's policy recommendations are based on flawed statistical analyses and procedures that violate general forecasting principles. Policymakers should take this into account before enacting laws to counter global warming — which economists point out would have severe economic consequences.

H. Sterling Burnett is a senior fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis, a nonpartisan, nonprofit research institute in Dallas.

End quote

This post has been edited by Rickysa: Apr 1 2008, 02:11 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sanders
post Apr 1 2008, 02:13 PM
Post #24



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 7,990
Joined: 13-September 06
Member No.: 49



QUOTE (Quest @ Apr 3 2008, 08:01 PM) *
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.


laugh.gif


QUOTE
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.


Indeed, things aren't clear. Yes, it is true that there has been a warming trend over the past century, but mean temperatures appear to have plateaued or possibly even cooled slightly in this new milenium. Argos, which is a large network of ocean temperature sensors that was employed in 2003, has recorded a slight reduction over these past 5 years. I read something else recently by a scientist who believes we could be heading into a cooling trend. He based his conclusion on the time length of previous warm periods (as opposed to ice ages), and on solar activity. I can't enumerate the details, the solar stuff was over my head. Richard Lindzen, in the National Post article Quest posted above also suggests a possible cooling future (he quantifies himself giving a cooling scenario a 50-50 chance, like a true scientist) ... citing the plateau I mentioned.
QUOTE
"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."


I'm completely behind efforts to reign in the way the human race uses the planet as a toilet. I know that somewhere around 25% of the animal species which were around a century ago are now extinct. I lived through the 80's in LA before they cleaned up the air. Jeeze that was miserable, you couldn't see the Hollywood sign from Hollywood. But I don't trust these wantabe "world managers" (duh) that are promoting this climate change propoganda ... Gore is just a poster boy for them of course. A quick google search into the WWF (no, not wrestling! lol) - the infamous Rothschild family is quite involved with this group. World Wildlife Fund - (somewhat connected with the 1001 Club, a secretive organization similar to the Pilgrims Society, full of kings, queens, bankers and wealthy drug runners and arms dealers.) The WWF purchases (using the word loosely) and sets aside tracts of land for ecological purposes, wildlife reserves and the like, mostly in Africa. Coincidentally, the lands they snatch up usually happen to be either strategic from a military standpoint or are promising from a precious metal mining standpoint. I have no doubt that Teddy Roosevelt, who was the first bonafide whore for the globalists to assume the US presidency, didn't set aside all of those Federal park lands just to preserve the scenery. Although, it was probably a noble thing to do - at least it would if the American people really owned them. But then we're back to the same old thing - America has sold itself out - (indeed, the price of liberty is eternal vigilance). Global managers think they have the right and the insight to plan our future ... and I believe they probably think they are doing us a service (while they count their commissions on carbon credit sales, or watch their biometric stocks go through the roof) - omg, I'm watching BBC News right now, and parents in Belfast are putting biometric wrist bands on their kindergarden kids "to keep them safe". Just before that segment was a "commercial", one I have been seeing alot lately, where an ice skater is practicing on a frozen pond and, after performing a perfect triple, falls through the melting ice - then the usual public service blurb about saving the planet. Nobody is "selling anything", so who is paying for this prime air-time? The fact is, they are indeed selling something. Now there's a money trail that would be interesting to track down. rolleyes.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Apr 1 2008, 02:34 PM
Post #25



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



OK, so "the globe is warming! The globe is warming!"- GREAT!

OK, so "the globe is cooling!"- GREAT!

My still unanswered questions are "OK, so what are WE individually and collectively going to do about the 'man made' portion of it? WHEN are we going to start?"

If the warming/cooling is due to solar or "catastrophic" events (meteor strike, volcanoes, etc.), then there's not a damn thing we can do about it, so what is the point in having a debate? Did the dinosaurs die from an "ice age?" Did volcanic gases like hydrogen sulfide "Zyklon B" the dinosaurs? Were the "experts" around to take objective, empirical data and know for certain???

Also, can we merge/move all these "global climate change" threads into a sub-forum under Debate, or possibly a sub-forum under Research (I still consider both GW/GC as "theories" at this point)?

I still say that "Occidental Petroleum Money" Al Gore is definitely full of $#@&, however. wink.gif

EDIT: Please conspicuously note that I'm NOT asking here for UN, NAU, EU, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, "carbon tax," corporate, or other "governmental help" in this matter. I personally think that agencies and career politicians like those are a big part of the problem rather than the solution.

This post has been edited by dMole: Apr 1 2008, 07:52 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
maturin42
post Apr 1 2008, 03:31 PM
Post #26





Group: Core Member
Posts: 607
Joined: 18-February 07
From: Maryland, USA
Member No.: 633



QUOTE (painter @ Mar 30 2008, 03:57 PM) *
I agree with everything you've said except the above. To say that oil is abiotic in origin isn't to presume that it is inexhaustible or infinite -- that is absurd. Even water, which is plentiful (and abiotic), is finite. The Earth is a resource and mineral rich planet and most of these resources and minerals are not biological in origin. However, none of them are infinite. I don't claim to know -- again, I have to rely on the truthfulness and accurateness of others. ...


I think we are in violent agreement. There are those who glide easily from an assertion of abiotic origin of oil to inexhaustible supply, but I am not in that number, and consider both to be right up there with the magic bullet in Dallas theory. I have talked about abiotic origin of oil before in other threads - and don't consider it likely, but I think I have said that it matters little, since it isn't being produced fast enough from whatever mechanism to save us from a depletion scenario - Hubbert's peak still looms over us and unless there is a gigantic global conspiracy to falsify discovery data, we are very near (in our immediate past or future) the peak. I think I did say in another thread that if it were abiotic, and being produced that way, given the geological time scale, (assuming the abiotic oil process didn't just start within the last couple of centuries) it stands to reason that oil should be approaching the ubiquity of water. And since it is not, it is likely being produced so slowly as to be irrelevant to our problem.

We have pretty much used up the easy-to-get oil in my lifetime.
Reason for edit: Correcting an overreach..
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Nunyabiz
post Apr 1 2008, 07:17 PM
Post #27





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



Yet again.

H. Sterling Burnett is a senior fellow at the "National Center for Policy Analysis" which gets large sums of grant money from Exxonmobile.

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=55

You people need to try and vet the oil shills a bit better and stop looking for every syllable you can find to support the anti Global Warming agenda which is 99.9% funded by Exxonmobile. Unless of course you have decided you are going to believe oil companies and their paid shills above 1000s of non bias research scientist. If that is the case then so be it, you put yourselves in the same company as Reich wing lunatics which I find rather odd for 9/11 truthers.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
painter
post Apr 1 2008, 07:38 PM
Post #28


∞* 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 (Nunyabiz @ Apr 1 2008, 04:17 PM) *
. . .
You people
. . .


Are you addressing someone specific or everyone on this thread? If the former, it would be helpful to know to whom you are addressing your comment. If the later, I have not referenced Burnett.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Rickysa
post Apr 1 2008, 08:00 PM
Post #29





Group: Contributor
Posts: 289
Joined: 18-February 08
From: USA: N.C.
Member No.: 2,762



QUOTE (painter @ Apr 1 2008, 07:38 PM) *
Are you addressing someone specific or everyone on this thread? If the former, it would be helpful to know to whom you are addressing your comment. If the later, I have not referenced Burnett.


No, that would be me
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Quest
post Apr 1 2008, 08:55 PM
Post #30





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



QUOTE (Nunyabiz @ Apr 2 2008, 12:17 AM) *
Yet again.

H. Sterling Burnett is a senior fellow at the "National Center for Policy Analysis" which gets large sums of grant money from Exxonmobile.

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=55

You people need to try and vet the oil shills a bit better and stop looking for every syllable you can find to support the anti Global Warming agenda which is 99.9% funded by Exxonmobile. Unless of course you have decided you are going to believe oil companies and their paid shills above 1000s of non bias research scientist. If that is the case then so be it, you put yourselves in the same company as Reich wing lunatics which I find rather odd for 9/11 truthers.


Really? Anti global warming funded 99.9% by Exxonmobile? How do reconcile that with the FACT that JP Morgan, Deutche Bank (911 insider trading) and other investment banks are behind $700,00 a month global-warming billboards in NYC? Could it be because TAXES will be raised to fund bogus programs while "carbon credits" are sold/traded on Wall Street? Is it possible the 911 perps are playing both sides of the fence and that gloabl warming is merely another money grabing scare-scam to help finance more wars in a march to one world governemnt? Bet on it.

The Alex Jones Show-Dr.Howard Hayden: Global Warming Hoax

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march...60308Hayden.htm

Youtube
Sunday, March 16, 2008

Howard C. Hayden, emeritus professor of physics from the University of Connecticut, told a Pueblo West audience that he was prompted to speak 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.

"Someone is willing to spend a huge amount of money to scare us about global warming," Hayden said. "Big money is behind the global-warming propaganda."

One last point here....

I agree 100% that we need to protect the enviroment and conserve resources. I also don't think I'm going out on a limb to suggest that there are viable alternative energy solutions as many of us in the truth business I am sure have witnessed. That being said, there is NO WAY that we will be allowed to go to a free-energy resource to run internal combustion engines on because that would take away the 911 perps 2 most important tools in which to justify wars....peak oil and revenue. Peak oil is the arm twist - them or us. Oil is the Pentagon's biggest money maker. Alternative energy takes away the excuses needed to genocide people that don't look, talk or dress like you. ALternative energy is the answer but again the 911 perps know that and that's why they ignore, threaten or kill those that research alternatives energy sources and technology.

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

This post has been edited by Quest: Apr 1 2008, 11:38 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Nunyabiz
post Apr 1 2008, 10:46 PM
Post #31





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



Howard Hayden is on the board of advisors of "Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow" large donations from Exxonmobile and Richard Mellon Scaife.

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/wiki/index.php...uctive_Tomorrow

You need to get the "carbon Credit" crap out of your head, yeah so what the top 2% are going to be making billions off of a made up commodity, so whats new? They will always do this regardless of what the demand is they are going supply it. Carbon credits, Oil, you name it if its going to be a global commodity they are going to be in on it making Billions get over it because nothing is ever going to change that. That is why these people are worth trillions.
It has NOTHING to do with the facts about Global Warming however.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Quest
post Apr 1 2008, 11:41 PM
Post #32





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



QUOTE (Nunyabiz @ Apr 2 2008, 02:46 AM) *
Howard Hayden is on the board of advisors of "Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow" large donations from Exxonmobile and Richard Mellon Scaife.

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/wiki/index.php...uctive_Tomorrow

You need to get the "carbon Credit" crap out of your head, yeah so what the top 2% are going to be making billions off of a made up commodity, so whats new? They will always do this regardless of what the demand is they are going supply it. Carbon credits, Oil, you name it if its going to be a global commodity they are going to be in on it making Billions get over it because nothing is ever going to change that. That is why these people are worth trillions.
It has NOTHING to do with the facts about Global Warming however.

And JP Moragn and Wall Street are pushing global warming. Sounds like a contradication to me, no? As I said, the 911 perps are playing BOTH SIDES OF THE FENCE. Can I make that any more clear? Big oil, bankers and the Pentagon are 3 heads on the same beast. I also stated ealier that the Pentagon, meaning the US government, will NEVER, unless forced, give up on oil as the fuel of choice for it's population because it serves other purposes than greasing the military machine; it generates income in the billions to fund it's wars and provides a ready made excuse to go to war, as in "peak oil". ALternative energy and technology take away the 911 perps most important tools but it's the answer to many issues.

Yet another reason the 911 perps may want to push global warming is an additional arm twist to go along with "peak oil". What better way to scare the US population into bombing/repressing developing countries, "Why, if they develop they will pollute the earth further still!" It's quite possible the Pentagon figures, "Well, we can't turn everyone on to free-energy sources and technology because then the world's populations will know that the US and it's elite NATO friends have been scamming them for decades, and besides, there's no money in free-energy. No can do that! Better to bomb them back into the stone ages."

Water car
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6yRn4IAsrU

Water car inventor killed
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8stApCmxYEM...feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h75_TGiwg78...feature=related

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

This post has been edited by Quest: Apr 2 2008, 09:26 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mrodway
post Apr 2 2008, 04:30 AM
Post #33





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 283
Joined: 5-August 07
From: Australia
Member No.: 1,609



I agree that both sides are being played.

Scientists are usually skeptical about anyone who claims to be able to generate "free energy" without coming up with a really good reason as to why. However we don't need to discover any new "magical" energy sources.

There are already plenty of alternatives to oil that involve nothing more that textbook science.

For example, "Hot Rocks" (Geothermal)

http://geothermal.id.doe.gov/what-is.shtml

Plants of this kind are already in operation, we just need to build more of them.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Timothy Osman
post Apr 2 2008, 05:05 AM
Post #34





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





This post has been edited by Timothy Osman: Apr 2 2008, 05:23 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bill
post Apr 2 2008, 09:00 AM
Post #35





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



To better understand this potential threat, the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations created the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988 to provide a "comprehensive, objective, scientific, technical and socioeconomic assessment of human-caused climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation."


People that buy into the man caused global warming myth remind me of others that, when they see video of the WTC collapsing at near free fall speed think

"Yeah the burning jet fuel was just too hot and the steel melted and they just pancaked in on themselves"

They have beeen brainwashed by hearing it so often that they believe it and they are scared of accepting any other explaination because it is just too scary for their belief system.

Look at the above quote (emphasis mine)

The IPCC had a FOREGONE conclusion the the problem was man-made.

It is just like the bush administration when they "fixed the facts around the policy" as was said in the Downing street memo.



Nuny you never try to refute the fact that correlations do not prove causation...



The life span of people has dramatically increased over the last 200 years

All people breathe air

CO2 has increased in the air over the last 200 years

Therefore CO2 is helping humans to live longer.

By nuny's standards this logically is proof that CO2 has increased the life span of humans
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Nunyabiz
post Apr 2 2008, 09:44 AM
Post #36





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



People that don't think that 6+ Billion human beings, burning billions of barrels of oil, burning forest, and all around raping the planet in every conceivable way in the last 100+ years have zero effect on the thin layer of air that surrounds this planet are ignorant beyond belief.

Your post are not worth responding to is why I don't bother, this shall be my last.

you are basically like a Young Earth Creationist, no amount of evidence from anywhere will ever make any difference to you, your mind is made up and you will ignore/deny any and all evidence that proves you wrong. I don't have time for nut bag creationist anymore.

/ignore
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bill
post Apr 2 2008, 10:29 AM
Post #37





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



"People that don't think that 6+ Billion human beings, burning billions of barrels of oil, burning forest, and all around raping the planet in every conceivable way in the last 100+ years have zero effect on the thin layer of air that surrounds this planet are ignorant beyond belief."'

I have never said this

nor do I believe this

I have been stomping around on this earth a bit longer than you

I can attest that the air quality is orders of magnitude better than the late 60's early 70's when you couldn't see the Chicago skyline from 5 miles out on the Eisenhower Expressway

I can now see the skyline most days from 50 miles out in the 170-- Huge increase in air quality

I applaud this, I think we can and should improve it more

The Congress of the US just had a chance to mandate increased car fleet mileage and they failed

"we just can't improve mileage" moans Detroit

Hogwash

You can buy a Ford in England comparable to a Taurus that gets 65 mpg (and the diesels get even better)

And they can do 160K's on the autobahn just fine, too

But 'carbon credits' aren't the answer --- especially if we ignore China and give them a free ride

The middle class of the US is being gutted and you want to help by giving them a bigger knife with global warming carbon credits

You are a traitor to the country


People that call themselves 'scientists' that think correlations are proof of causation are worse than ignorant

Even a Stanford 'education' can't fix stupid.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Quest
post Apr 2 2008, 11:00 PM
Post #38





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



Here's a blast from the past....

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...,944914,00.html

Another Ice Age?
Monday, Jun. 24, 1974

In Africa, drought continues for the sixth consecutive year, adding terribly to the toll of famine victims. During 1972 record rains in parts of the U.S., Pakistan and Japan caused some of the worst flooding in centuries. In Canada's wheat belt, a particularly chilly and rainy spring has delayed planting and may well bring a disappointingly small harvest. Rainy Britain, on the other hand, has suffered from uncharacteristic dry spells the past few springs. A series of unusually cold winters has gripped the American Far West, while New England and northern Europe have recently experienced the mildest winters within anyone's recollection.

As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval. However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.

Telltale signs are everywhere —from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the Midwest.Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7° F. Although that figure is at best an estimate, it is supported by other convincing data. When Climatologist George J. Kukla of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory and his wife Helena analyzed satellite weather data for the Northern Hemisphere, they found that the area of the ice and snow cover had suddenly increased by 12% in 1971 and the increase has persisted ever since. Areas of Baffin Island in the Canadian Arctic, for example, were once totally free of any snow in summer; now they are covered year round.

Scientists have found other indications of global cooling. For one thing there has been a noticeable expansion of the great belt of dry, high-altitude polar winds —the so-called circumpolar vortex—that sweep from west to east around the top and bottom of the world. Indeed it is the widening of this cap of cold air that is the immediate cause of Africa's drought. By blocking moisture-bearing equatorial winds and preventing them from bringing rainfall to the parched sub-Sahara region, as well as other drought-ridden areas stretching all the way from Central America to the Middle East and India, the polar winds have in effect caused the Sahara and other deserts to reach farther to the south. Paradoxically, the same vortex has created quite different weather quirks in the U.S. and other temperate zones. As the winds swirl around the globe, their southerly portions undulate like the bottom of a skirt. Cold air is pulled down across the Western U.S. and warm air is swept up to the Northeast. The collision of air masses of widely differing temperatures and humidity can create violent storms—the Midwest's recent rash of disastrous tornadoes, for example.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
André
post Apr 3 2008, 12:32 AM
Post #39





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,702
Joined: 22-October 06
From: Montreal
Member No.: 133



The World Bank's Climate Profiteering

The World Bank's long-running identity crisis is proving hard to shake. When efforts to rebrand itself as a "knowledge bank" didn't work, it devised a new identity as a "Green Bank." Really? Yes, it's true. Sure, the Bank continues to finance fossil fuel projects globally, but never mind. The World Bank has seized upon the immense challenges climate change poses to humanity and is now front and center in the complicated, international world of carbon finance. It can turn the dirtiest carbon credits into gold.

How exactly, does this work, you ask? ... http://www.alternet.org/
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Apr 3 2008, 12:43 AM
Post #40



Group Icon

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



It's not the map,
it's the compass
we're given, and
told to rely upon,
that's wrong.

from my perspective, lunk
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

5 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > » 
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: 17th October 2019 - 06:35 AM