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 )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Greenpeace Co-founder No-scientific Proof Humans Are Dominant Cause Warming, Patrick Moore sells soul, joins the MIC

JimMac
post Feb 26 2014, 10:52 PM
Post #1





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 600
Joined: 13-May 09
From: West coaster now in Ontario
Member No.: 4,315



Greenpeace co-founder no-scientific proof humans are dominant cause warming

Right, the poles are melting, and the planet's in the 6th great extinction event but that's just natural. Check those temp records Patrick for the day after 9/11

What an idiot.. sold out to big oil.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
EJT
post Feb 26 2014, 11:38 PM
Post #2





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 14
Joined: 6-August 07
Member No.: 1,622



So, let's see here.

As stated priorly, back before the beginning of the 'Industrial Age,' there was far more CO2 being emitted into the atmosphere than even now, what with all the automobiles, coal-fired power generation plants, what have you.

You may enquire 'How so?' to which I shall reply: Because all day, every day of the year, there were people all over the Earth burning coal, wood, and dung for cooking, and heating, whereas these days, almost all cooking, and heating is either by electrical (includes microwave), or natural gas means. So, there is far, far less CO2 being emitted by humans, even with all those dread 'automobiles, etc.,' inasmuch as those dread automobiles, etc., aren't being driven/flown/propelled 24/7/365.

Yet, with all that CO2 being generated back then, the Little Ice Age happened which severely limited the crop growing seasons, and large swaths of the Earth's populations died from starvation as a result.

"Western Europe experienced a general cooling of the climate between the years 1150 and 1460 and a very cold climate between 1560 and 1850 ..."
http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/lia/little_ice_age.html

And, as an adjunct to that, consider too, that before, during, and after the Medieval Warming period (800-1400 AD), that same situation of burning wood, coal, and dung existed; so if CO2 causes warming, then the Little Ice Age should never happened. And, if the people living back then used ~even more~ fuel during the Little Ice Age in order to keep warm, then the Little Ice Age should have been stifled altogether.

See also: http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/lia/vi...during_mwp.html

Finally, if CO2 is supposed to be linked to cooling, then how was it that there occurred the Medieval Warm Period with all that wood, coal, and dung burning going on just ~PRIOR~ to that epoch? One simply can't have it both ways, i.e., the same agent of cause simply CANNOT produce diametrically opposite effects.

The obvious answer is just this: CO2 has ZERO deleterious effect on climate temperatures, and certainly ~no~ aspect of <ahem> 'Climate Change.' And as the Brits are wont to declare: The proof is in the pudding!

The Vostok, Antartica ice core samples don't lie. The levels of CO2 in them are gas trapped in the ice when that ice formed, way back then. Those levels have been ascertained repeatedly, without fail. In fact. they were far, far higher than now, and there were BOTH glaciers, AND later, NO polar ice sheets with the very same level of CO2, then your hypothesis doesn't hold up. As before: The same agent of cause simply CANNOT produce diametrically opposite effects.

Of course, if you're going to ignore the obvious, then you'll be guilty of cutting off your nose to spite your face! Your choice. cleanup.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TampaDave
post Feb 27 2014, 12:56 AM
Post #3





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 16
Joined: 10-June 12
From: Tampa, Florida USA
Member No.: 6,889



Yes, there have been numerous periods with atmospheric CO2 at higher levels (for whatever reason), without the "greenhouse" effect being displayed (no corresponding rise in temperature).

Not only that, but it appears ALL the planets in our solar system are experiencing warmer temperatures! The sun's magnetic field is fluctuating wildly (as is the earth's). We don't know enough about the sun to understand what is happening, but it is clearly extremely unlikely we CAUSED it.

We can't solve a problem by ideologically looking the wrong way. I am personally glad a person with a "geen" reputation is speaking out, though some would say it hurts his cause. The "green" cause is to make the planet more habitable, and we want to turn our energies to ways that will work, not dead-end streets.










Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JimMac
post Feb 27 2014, 01:22 AM
Post #4





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 600
Joined: 13-May 09
From: West coaster now in Ontario
Member No.: 4,315



QUOTE (EJT @ Feb 26 2014, 11:38 PM) *
The obvious answer is just this: CO2 has ZERO deleterious effect on climate temperatures, and certainly ~no~ aspect of <ahem> 'Climate Change.' And as the Brits are wont to declare: The proof is in the pudding!


I understand, we live in a world where white is black, and black is white.

Its easy to argue any proposition when you ignore half the facts, and distort the remainder. The population on the planet then was _____________?

The number of trees on the planet then was _____________?

I'm sure you also believe the arctic ice is actually increasing, that the glaciers aren't receding, and that Australia is actually cooling.

I'm guessing you've been reading too much Michael Crichton and possibly never heard of the arctic methane expulsion.

Jim
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JimMac
post Feb 27 2014, 01:37 AM
Post #5





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 600
Joined: 13-May 09
From: West coaster now in Ontario
Member No.: 4,315



QUOTE (TampaDave @ Feb 27 2014, 12:56 AM) *
We can't solve a problem by ideologically looking the wrong way. I am personally glad a person with a "geen" reputation is speaking out, though some would say it hurts his cause. The "green" cause is to make the planet more habitable, and we want to turn our energies to ways that will work, not dead-end streets.


The entire 'Green' movement is political and serves big business, just ask their hero Al Gore. As for Moore, he's just another businessman trying to make a buck. I think back to the first time i heard him shouting thru a bullhorn on Kitsilano beach when he stood for something important, back in the day when you could actually go out and catch a salmon.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Alan H.
post Feb 27 2014, 02:34 AM
Post #6





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 71
Joined: 24-November 07
Member No.: 2,508



QUOTE (EJT @ Feb 25 2014, 01:38 AM) *
So, let's see here.

As stated priorly, back before the beginning of the 'Industrial Age,' there was far more CO2 being emitted into the atmosphere than even now, what with all the automobiles, coal-fired power generation plants, what have you.

You may enquire 'How so?' to which I shall reply: Because all day, every day of the year, there were people all over the Earth burning coal, wood, and dung for cooking, and heating, whereas these days, almost all cooking, and heating is either by electrical (includes microwave), or natural gas means. So, there is far, far less CO2 being emitted by humans, even with all those dread 'automobiles, etc.,' inasmuch as those dread automobiles, etc., aren't being driven/flown/propelled 24/7/365.

Yet, with all that CO2 being generated back then, the Little Ice Age happened which severely limited the crop growing seasons, and large swaths of the Earth's populations died from starvation as a result.

"Western Europe experienced a general cooling of the climate between the years 1150 and 1460 and a very cold climate between 1560 and 1850 ..."
http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/lia/little_ice_age.html

And, as an adjunct to that, consider too, that before, during, and after the Medieval Warming period (800-1400 AD), that same situation of burning wood, coal, and dung existed; so if CO2 causes warming, then the Little Ice Age should never happened. And, if the people living back then used ~even more~ fuel during the Little Ice Age in order to keep warm, then the Little Ice Age should have been stifled altogether.

See also: http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/lia/vi...during_mwp.html

Finally, if CO2 is supposed to be linked to cooling, then how was it that there occurred the Medieval Warm Period with all that wood, coal, and dung burning going on just ~PRIOR~ to that epoch? One simply can't have it both ways, i.e., the same agent of cause simply CANNOT produce diametrically opposite effects.

The obvious answer is just this: CO2 has ZERO deleterious effect on climate temperatures, and certainly ~no~ aspect of <ahem> 'Climate Change.' And as the Brits are wont to declare: The proof is in the pudding!

The Vostok, Antartica ice core samples don't lie. The levels of CO2 in them are gas trapped in the ice when that ice formed, way back then. Those levels have been ascertained repeatedly, without fail. In fact. they were far, far higher than now, and there were BOTH glaciers, AND later, NO polar ice sheets with the very same level of CO2, then your hypothesis doesn't hold up. As before: The same agent of cause simply CANNOT produce diametrically opposite effects.

Of course, if you're going to ignore the obvious, then you'll be guilty of cutting off your nose to spite your face! Your choice. cleanup.gif


What you have failed to take into account is the enormous factor that population growth plays into this idea about
there being more CO2 being used before the I.R. It may be true that more people were generally using more carbon-
intensive products, but there were FAR fewer people on the planet then and so in general there was far, far less CO2
emission, as well as all of the other pollutants.
In the 250 years from the beginning of the Industrial Revolution until now, the world population has increased from
700 million people to 6.5 billion people! And even with a modest growth rate of 2% per year, that's a doubling every
35 years! Which means that in 2050 the population would be near 14 billion. Of course, that simply can't happen.
The U.S. represents about 5% of the world's population, but we use up about 1/4 of the world's energy resources. And
now we have China & India wanting to try to replicate this unsustainable model w/their enormous populations!

I'm not saying that global warming is the only or even necessarily the biggest contributor. There may indeed be other
factors at play in the warming of our planet, but I think it would be highly unlikely that all the crap we're putting into
the air every day--80 million barrels of oil per day, w/ shitloads of it spilled into our oceans over the years--isn't
having an effect on our atmosphere & weather.
That's like thinking smoking a pack of cigarettes every day for 20 years isn't going to affect your lungs. Of
course it is. But it may or may not give you cancer or be the cause of your death, and it's not the only bad crap you're
breathing in.

The reason many scientists have tried to have the term "global warming" changed to "global climate change" is because
of the very fact that a global increase in temperature can indeed cause crazy fluctuations in weather that may seem
"diametrically opposed." Warming the climate doesn't just cause everything to always just be warmer. This warming
has upset a delicate balance & this translates n@ a lot of different phenomenon, like increasingly powerful hurricanes,
droughts & deluges, etc.

Personally, I think we're definitely affecting the climate, and that it's heating-up. We may not be the only factor in-
volved in this, but since we can only change what we do affect, we should probably do something about it. Fossil fuels
cause far more problems than just global warming.
Unfortunately, oil is an incredibly cheap & efficient source of energy.
Indeed, it is oil, thru agribusiness, that this huge population explosion was fostered. 1 gallon of gas will offset 250 hours of
manual labor. If something isn't found--like cold fusion, or effective solar cells (and it may have been found already)
and put into place before the end of oil, then a lot of people are going to starve when it becomes too expensive to ship
food around the world. There's also the fact that oil is used in the actual production of so many things, too.
If we'd been wiser as a human race, instead of over-populating the planet so, this fuel could've lasted us far longer,
and could've been burned at a pace with which the Earth could deal & recover.
This is what happens when elites run the world like a corporation.
There is also a real danger that if the methane--far worse a greenhouse gas than C02--in the oceans' floors
starts melting, this will set-off an irreversible & exponentially-expanding event that will mean we're probably going 2B
part of this 6th great extinction, too.
It could already be happening, and that's why we're seeing the geo-engineering taking place. IDK. It's a scary thought.
It's like with any subject today, though--there are a thousand theories. I mean, it really is good to be skeptical, & 1
needs to follow the money. As far as I've seen, the only real scientists denying global warming are a handful that have
connections to the fossil fuel industry.
There's more disinformation being generated now than at any other time in history, as the
PTB battle against the power of the internet. And they've pretty much succeeded, clouding even uncontroversial issues.
So, anything can be "proven" 1 way or another. I mean, they "proved" that WTC7 collapsed thru itself at free-fall
acceleration because of fire, or um, "thermal expansion," so I think debating these issues is pointless. People believe
what they want to believe.
Belief itself IS the problem. It does no good, only clouds the mind to other possibilities & results in confirmation bias.
I'm simply offering my opinion & some other facts to consider.
I also think everyone who doesn't understand the relationship between steady % growth & the exponential function
should watch the YT video, "The Most Important Video You'll Ever See," the real title to which is Arithmetic, Population,
& Energy, a lecture by physics emeritus of University of Colorado, Albert Bartlett. It's amazing how quickly a resource
can be depleted, and w/oil we're facing a supply that's exponentially decreasing as the population & demand
exponentially increases. Obviously, the fact that we're using Tar-Sands oil shows most of the good oil is gone, & no
longer accessible, same w/natural gas, that's why we're fracking, the same w/coal, that's why we're doing mountain-
top removal. It's crazy.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
N2264J
post Feb 27 2014, 10:10 AM
Post #7





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 13
Joined: 5-July 13
Member No.: 7,439



QUOTE (EJT @ Feb 26 2014, 10:38 PM) *
The obvious answer is just this: CO2 has ZERO deleterious effect on climate temperatures, and certainly ~no~ aspect of <ahem> 'Climate Change.'


I'm not a climate scientist so you'll excuse me if I throw down with 98% of them who say (some details may vary):

- it's happening
- we're doing it
- it's going to be bad

By the way, do you fly for a fossil fuel corporation?

This post has been edited by N2264J: Feb 27 2014, 10:14 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tamborine man
post Feb 27 2014, 09:40 PM
Post #8





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 951
Joined: 1-July 07
From: Australia
Member No.: 1,315



QUOTE (N2264J @ Feb 25 2014, 01:10 PM) *
I'm not a climate scientist so you'll excuse me if I throw down with 98% of them who say (some details may vary):

- it's happening
- we're doing it
- it's going to be bad

By the way, do you fly for a fossil fuel corporation?


Actually EJT is in fact correct.

The questions everybody should ask themselves is this:

What happens to molecules when they become depolarized
and hence loose their vitality?

What happens to the particles that form the molecules that
form the matter or the gasses that becomes depolarized?

Hope you all will find the answers through your own effort!

Cheers
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
N2264J
post Feb 28 2014, 11:50 AM
Post #9





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 13
Joined: 5-July 13
Member No.: 7,439



QUOTE (Tamborine man @ Feb 27 2014, 08:40 PM) *
Actually EJT is in fact correct.


Do you fly for a fossil fuel corporation? Are you a lawyer for the tobacco industry?

Look, the jig is up. We're the last country in the world who thinks there is still a "debate" about it.

Pick nits about the details of global warming with someone who still believes there is no link between cigarette smoking and lung cancer and you'll marginalize yourselves right out of the conversation.

Meanwhile, I'll defer to the science.

This post has been edited by N2264J: Feb 28 2014, 11:52 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tamborine man
post Feb 28 2014, 02:45 PM
Post #10





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 951
Joined: 1-July 07
From: Australia
Member No.: 1,315



QUOTE (N2264J @ Feb 26 2014, 02:50 PM) *
Do you fly for a fossil fuel corporation? Are you a lawyer for the tobacco industry?

Look, the jig is up. We're the last country in the world who thinks there is still a "debate" about it.

Pick nits about the details of global warming with someone who still believes there is no link between cigarette smoking and lung cancer and you'll marginalize yourselves right out of the conversation.

Meanwhile, I'll defer to the science.


Actually there's no link between tobacco and cancer.

Go to post #923 here:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...0&start=920

You have been duped!

Cheers
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JimMac
post Mar 1 2014, 03:03 AM
Post #11





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 600
Joined: 13-May 09
From: West coaster now in Ontario
Member No.: 4,315



QUOTE (Tamborine man @ Feb 27 2014, 09:40 PM) *
Actually EJT is in fact correct.

The questions everybody should ask themselves is this:

What happens to molecules when they become depolarized
and hence loose their vitality?

What happens to the particles that form the molecules that
form the matter or the gasses that becomes depolarized?

Hope you all will find the answers through your own effort!

Cheers

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

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: 15th July 2019 - 02:39 PM