N
newbieb
why would the government make something up then do just the opposite of what they should do
-
ICMag with help from Landrace Warden and The Vault is running a NEW contest in November! You can check it here. Prizes are seeds & forum premium access. Come join in!
Global WARMING ....a message.
- Thread starter Blunt_69
- Start date
what all the information you ladies and gentlemen are discussing actually does, is create tension and fear in the atmosphere, it then reacts accordingly.
we are part of the weather, be mindful.
paz.
we are part of the weather, be mindful.
paz.
G
Guest
the tension is already in the air...we know we are the fuck ups of the planet
G
Guest
Didn't read the whole thread so I don't know if this has been mentioned.
How fucked up is this?
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1176828,00.html
"Earlier this year, James Hansen, NASA's chief climate scientist, made headlines when he accused the administration of muzzling him when he tried to speak out about global warming. Hansen, director of the space agency's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, was one of the earliest researchers to sound the climate change alarm. He alleges that White House appointees in NASA limited his access to the press and ordered him to remove web postingss that contradicted the President's positions. The White House took a PR bruising when the charges went public and Hansen's profile has since been higher than ever. He recently spoke to TIME about both the science and the politics of the global warming crisis."
Continued in the link above...
How fucked up is this?
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1176828,00.html
"Earlier this year, James Hansen, NASA's chief climate scientist, made headlines when he accused the administration of muzzling him when he tried to speak out about global warming. Hansen, director of the space agency's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, was one of the earliest researchers to sound the climate change alarm. He alleges that White House appointees in NASA limited his access to the press and ordered him to remove web postingss that contradicted the President's positions. The White House took a PR bruising when the charges went public and Hansen's profile has since been higher than ever. He recently spoke to TIME about both the science and the politics of the global warming crisis."
Continued in the link above...
N
newbieb
bass.... it happened many times
SunBursT said:
Yes, livestock farming does put out a huge amount of greenhouse gasses.
SunBursT said:
Well, actually there were massive bans on ozone depleting CFC's in America as well as other countries and after a couple decades, the hole in the ozone has been replensihed for the most part. Though there are still higher skin cancer rates now than before the ozone hole problem.
SunBursT said:
We wouldn't really have an issue with stopping rice farming if we stopped meat production at the same time since we can divert the grain used for meat farming and use it to feed people. After all, an average of 2.6 pounds of grain is used to produce a pound of beef.
SunBursT said:
They actually say in 'recorded history'. I don't see what's mind boggling about that. Although we can't predict the weather for the future with 100% accuracy, we CAN look at written recordings of weather from the past quite easily. I don't get why that's a problem for you?
G
Guest
They also throw the word ever around alot. The planet had a much worse warming period in the 13-1600s which scientest dont mention becase it dont jive with man causing Global warming.
Most of the FREOH which was banned still hasent made it to the atmosphere yet it takes about 50 years to be broken down.
Many scientest dissagree whith the Global warming scare but are afraid to say anything because the will be attaqcked or loose funding.
A 2003 poll of 530 climatologists in 27 countries showed 34.7 percent of interviewees endorsed the notion that a substantial part of the current global warming trend – which might see temperatures rise by a degree or two, on average, by century’s end – is caused by man’s industrial activities: driving cars and the like.
More than a fifth – 20.5 percent – rejected this "anthropogenic hypothesis." The rest (two-thirds) were undecided.
The skeptics now include the 85 climate experts who signed the 1995 Leipzig Declaration; the 4,000 scientists from around the world (including 70 Nobel laureates) who signed the Heidelberg Appeal, and the 17,000 American scientists who signed the Oregon Petition. (Find these all through Sepp.org or Globalwarminghysteria.com.)
Danish statistician Bjørn Lomborg, who bought the sky-is-falling scenario until he bothered to check some of the numbers, which led him to do his own research, at which point he wrote the book "The Skeptical Environmentalist" and became the Man The Greens Love to Hate, reminded the folks at Techcentralstation.com last Nov. 30 that most economists believe the projected level of warming would either have no effect or be beneficial.
Cold weather kills people, Lomborg reminded us. "It is estimated that climate change by about 2050 will mean about 800,000 fewer deaths." And that’s before we even get around to increased food production. (If you want a real climate catastrophe, let’s talk about the next Ice Age, which is due relatively soon.)
What’s more, scientists at Ohio State University announced Feb. 12 that Antarctic "temperatures during the late 20th century did not climb as had been predicted by many global climate models." In fact, they went down.
So why would one get the sense from the daily barrage of electronic news that "all experts now agree" the earth is heating catastrophically, and that mankind’s use of fossil fuels is at fault?
First, pay attention to the wording. Just as many who want American taxpayers to provide welfare schooling and welfare health care for everyone who can walk here from Mexico and points south blithely lie and say their opponents "oppose immigration" – rather than acknowledging the debate is about "illegal immigration" – so are those who aim to cripple the industrial economies of the Western world careful to ridicule those who "deny global warming," instead of acknowledging that most skeptics agree there is indeed some minor warming going on, only objecting to the notion that this is a crisis and that mankind’s activities are primarily "at fault" – along with the corollary nutty prescription that destroying every power plant and automobile in America and Western Europe would make much difference.
As demonstrated in the book "Unstoppable Global Warming – Every 1,500 Years," by S. Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery, based on the climate cycle discovered by Dansgaar, Oeschger, and Lorius (who received the Tyler Prize – the "environmental Nobel" – in 1996), those who attribute the bulk of the warming cycle to man’s modern technology willfully ignore the similar fluctuations known to history as the medieval warming period (when Greenland supported Viking farms), the Roman warming period, and the Holocene Climatic Optimum, when SUVs and coal-fired electric plants were notably thin on the ground.
But the second reason a casual viewer could conclude the skeptics have disappeared is that "Spreading the global warming gospel with unified voice are 12,000 environmental groups controlling about $20 billion in assets," the Tucson-based Doctors for Disaster Preparedness reported last month. In comparison, "Truth seekers have at most a few million, lack the support of the press or Hollywood, and are generally shut out of government-funded schools and universities."
Which is where the foulest and most inexcusable abuses occur, of course.
In direct contravention of the First Amendment guarantee that our tax dollars will never be spent to impose any "establishment of religion," our children are in fact being spoon-fed the Green doctrine of global warming – memory bytes in doggerel and song – when they’re far too young to bring any critical faculties to bear on this hypothesis.
And some critical perspective sure is needed.
Spiralling energy costs fueled by green hysteria "have caused the loss of 100,000 jobs in the UK over 18 months," report Doctors for Disaster Preparedness, again citing techcentralstation.com. Al Gore’s anti-global warming plan would leave the average person 30 percent poorer by 2100, according to the Jan. 18 Wall Street Journal.
The Singer & Avery book points out that scrapping every car, truck and SUV in America would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by only about 2 percent. Meantime, merely extinguishing all the coal deposit fires that continue to burn unchecked around the world would reduce those emissions by 2 to 3 percent. Which is a more sensible thing to try?
Clearly, those who want to cripple our industrial economy have some other motive. And maybe that explains how shrill they can get in their attempt to silence the hated "climate deniers," who they now liken to "Holocaust deniers."
According to U.S. Sen. Olympia Snowe’s own Web site, she and Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-West Virginia, sent a letter to ExxonMobil chairman Rex Tillerson in October of last year, demanding the firm stop funding "a small cadre of scientists" who question global warming dogma, instead insisting the heavily regulated oil company "publicly acknowledge both the reality of climate change and the role of humans in causing or exacerbating it."
ExxonMobil, whose executives presumably know where gas taxes and offshore oil leases come from, cut off its funding for the Competitive Enterprise Institute last year.
The Viscount Monckton, a former advisor to Margaret Thatcher, in a Dec. 11 letter to the senators protested this heavy-handed attempt to silence critics, lauding the courage of the "free-thinking scientists who continue to research climate change independently – despite the likelihood of refusal of publication in journals that have taken a preconceived position; the hate mail and vilification from ignorant environmentalists; and the threat of loss of tenure in institutions of learning which no longer make any pretense to uphold or cherish academic freedom."
But when it comes to intimidating the opposition, the senators are pikers. The British foreign secretary "has said that skeptics should be treated like advocates of Islamic terror and denied access to the media," Doctors for Disaster Preparedness report in their January newsletter. George Monbiot wrote in England’s "Guardian" that "Every time someone drowns as a result of floods in Bangladesh, an airline executive should be dragged out of his office and drowned."
Grist magazine has called for Nuremberg-style war crimes trials for those who deny the internal combustion engine is about to cause a global climate disaster. Heidi Cullen, host of the weekly global warming TV show "Climate Code," has called for the American Meteorological Society to strip its certification from any weatherman (or gal) who publicly questions anthropogenic global warming.
Meantime, European Union Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas tells the BBC that people should view the battle against climate change as a war – accepting the privations of a wartime economy and expecting millions of casualties.
And we were wondering why we only seem to hear one side of the story, these days? Isn’t that kind of like asking why no one ever stood up in church in early 16th century Europe and started explaining how unlikely it was that these witches were really flying around at night, causing other people’s cows to go dry?
It is dangerous to be right, Voltaire warned us, when those in power are so very wrong.
Most of the FREOH which was banned still hasent made it to the atmosphere yet it takes about 50 years to be broken down.
Many scientest dissagree whith the Global warming scare but are afraid to say anything because the will be attaqcked or loose funding.
A 2003 poll of 530 climatologists in 27 countries showed 34.7 percent of interviewees endorsed the notion that a substantial part of the current global warming trend – which might see temperatures rise by a degree or two, on average, by century’s end – is caused by man’s industrial activities: driving cars and the like.
More than a fifth – 20.5 percent – rejected this "anthropogenic hypothesis." The rest (two-thirds) were undecided.
The skeptics now include the 85 climate experts who signed the 1995 Leipzig Declaration; the 4,000 scientists from around the world (including 70 Nobel laureates) who signed the Heidelberg Appeal, and the 17,000 American scientists who signed the Oregon Petition. (Find these all through Sepp.org or Globalwarminghysteria.com.)
Danish statistician Bjørn Lomborg, who bought the sky-is-falling scenario until he bothered to check some of the numbers, which led him to do his own research, at which point he wrote the book "The Skeptical Environmentalist" and became the Man The Greens Love to Hate, reminded the folks at Techcentralstation.com last Nov. 30 that most economists believe the projected level of warming would either have no effect or be beneficial.
Cold weather kills people, Lomborg reminded us. "It is estimated that climate change by about 2050 will mean about 800,000 fewer deaths." And that’s before we even get around to increased food production. (If you want a real climate catastrophe, let’s talk about the next Ice Age, which is due relatively soon.)
What’s more, scientists at Ohio State University announced Feb. 12 that Antarctic "temperatures during the late 20th century did not climb as had been predicted by many global climate models." In fact, they went down.
So why would one get the sense from the daily barrage of electronic news that "all experts now agree" the earth is heating catastrophically, and that mankind’s use of fossil fuels is at fault?
First, pay attention to the wording. Just as many who want American taxpayers to provide welfare schooling and welfare health care for everyone who can walk here from Mexico and points south blithely lie and say their opponents "oppose immigration" – rather than acknowledging the debate is about "illegal immigration" – so are those who aim to cripple the industrial economies of the Western world careful to ridicule those who "deny global warming," instead of acknowledging that most skeptics agree there is indeed some minor warming going on, only objecting to the notion that this is a crisis and that mankind’s activities are primarily "at fault" – along with the corollary nutty prescription that destroying every power plant and automobile in America and Western Europe would make much difference.
As demonstrated in the book "Unstoppable Global Warming – Every 1,500 Years," by S. Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery, based on the climate cycle discovered by Dansgaar, Oeschger, and Lorius (who received the Tyler Prize – the "environmental Nobel" – in 1996), those who attribute the bulk of the warming cycle to man’s modern technology willfully ignore the similar fluctuations known to history as the medieval warming period (when Greenland supported Viking farms), the Roman warming period, and the Holocene Climatic Optimum, when SUVs and coal-fired electric plants were notably thin on the ground.
But the second reason a casual viewer could conclude the skeptics have disappeared is that "Spreading the global warming gospel with unified voice are 12,000 environmental groups controlling about $20 billion in assets," the Tucson-based Doctors for Disaster Preparedness reported last month. In comparison, "Truth seekers have at most a few million, lack the support of the press or Hollywood, and are generally shut out of government-funded schools and universities."
Which is where the foulest and most inexcusable abuses occur, of course.
In direct contravention of the First Amendment guarantee that our tax dollars will never be spent to impose any "establishment of religion," our children are in fact being spoon-fed the Green doctrine of global warming – memory bytes in doggerel and song – when they’re far too young to bring any critical faculties to bear on this hypothesis.
And some critical perspective sure is needed.
Spiralling energy costs fueled by green hysteria "have caused the loss of 100,000 jobs in the UK over 18 months," report Doctors for Disaster Preparedness, again citing techcentralstation.com. Al Gore’s anti-global warming plan would leave the average person 30 percent poorer by 2100, according to the Jan. 18 Wall Street Journal.
The Singer & Avery book points out that scrapping every car, truck and SUV in America would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by only about 2 percent. Meantime, merely extinguishing all the coal deposit fires that continue to burn unchecked around the world would reduce those emissions by 2 to 3 percent. Which is a more sensible thing to try?
Clearly, those who want to cripple our industrial economy have some other motive. And maybe that explains how shrill they can get in their attempt to silence the hated "climate deniers," who they now liken to "Holocaust deniers."
According to U.S. Sen. Olympia Snowe’s own Web site, she and Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-West Virginia, sent a letter to ExxonMobil chairman Rex Tillerson in October of last year, demanding the firm stop funding "a small cadre of scientists" who question global warming dogma, instead insisting the heavily regulated oil company "publicly acknowledge both the reality of climate change and the role of humans in causing or exacerbating it."
ExxonMobil, whose executives presumably know where gas taxes and offshore oil leases come from, cut off its funding for the Competitive Enterprise Institute last year.
The Viscount Monckton, a former advisor to Margaret Thatcher, in a Dec. 11 letter to the senators protested this heavy-handed attempt to silence critics, lauding the courage of the "free-thinking scientists who continue to research climate change independently – despite the likelihood of refusal of publication in journals that have taken a preconceived position; the hate mail and vilification from ignorant environmentalists; and the threat of loss of tenure in institutions of learning which no longer make any pretense to uphold or cherish academic freedom."
But when it comes to intimidating the opposition, the senators are pikers. The British foreign secretary "has said that skeptics should be treated like advocates of Islamic terror and denied access to the media," Doctors for Disaster Preparedness report in their January newsletter. George Monbiot wrote in England’s "Guardian" that "Every time someone drowns as a result of floods in Bangladesh, an airline executive should be dragged out of his office and drowned."
Grist magazine has called for Nuremberg-style war crimes trials for those who deny the internal combustion engine is about to cause a global climate disaster. Heidi Cullen, host of the weekly global warming TV show "Climate Code," has called for the American Meteorological Society to strip its certification from any weatherman (or gal) who publicly questions anthropogenic global warming.
Meantime, European Union Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas tells the BBC that people should view the battle against climate change as a war – accepting the privations of a wartime economy and expecting millions of casualties.
And we were wondering why we only seem to hear one side of the story, these days? Isn’t that kind of like asking why no one ever stood up in church in early 16th century Europe and started explaining how unlikely it was that these witches were really flying around at night, causing other people’s cows to go dry?
It is dangerous to be right, Voltaire warned us, when those in power are so very wrong.
roflmao
the green conspiracy... oh the sham of wanting to breathe cleaner air.
who the hell is talking of eliminating all cars?
the green conspiracy... oh the sham of wanting to breathe cleaner air.
who the hell is talking of eliminating all cars?
SunBursT said:
No one is disputing pre-industrial revolution warming periods. The earth goes through warming and cooling periods. The cause of previous warming periods, however, was not caused by greenhouse gasses placed in the atmosphere by humans.
SunBursT said:
????
Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) were invented by Thomas Midgeley in the 1920's. They were used in air conditioning/cooling units, as aerosol spray propellants prior to the 1980s, and in the cleaning processes of delicate electronic equipment . They also occur as by-products of some chemical processes. No significant natural sources have ever been identified for these compounds — their presence in the atmosphere is due almost entirely to human manufacture. As mentioned in the ozone cycle overview above, when such ozone-depleting chemicals reach the stratosphere, they are dissociated by ultraviolet light to release chlorine atoms. The chlorine atoms act as a catalyst, and each can break down tens of thousands of ozone molecules before being removed from the stratosphere. Given the longevity of CFC molecules, recovery times are measured in decades. It is calculated that a CFC molecule takes an average of 15 years to go from the ground level up to the upper atmosphere, and it can stay there for about a century, destroying up to one hundred thousand ozone molecules during that time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion#CFCs_in_the_atmosphere
SunBursT said:
Scientific work on Global Warming is actually being edited/silenced by our government to dampen the impact and wording that is put into the reports.
I would be very wary of scientists who tell you that they are unsure if man is causing any global warming whatsoever. What do you suppose happens when you introduce a mass amount of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gasses into a closed environment?
http://www.abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=1555183
http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=32921
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/17/60minutes/main1415985.shtml
etc
etc
SunBursT said:
I would imagine the only economist who would see benefit to this sort of phenomena would also be an air condition salesman on the side. Or maybe delve into scuba gear sales.
SunBursT said:
How does climate change by 2050 mean 800,000 fewer deaths? What is the need for increased food production? We pay farmers to not grow food now. A very large amount of food that we grow in this country is left to spoil.
In 2006 Russian solar physicist Khabibullo Abdusamatov predicted that Global Cooling, similar to the Little Ice Age, will begin around 2012-2015 and reach its peak between 2055-2060.[24][25] This view is based on a belief of a 200 year cycle regarding solar activity[26][27] and has not gathered wide support.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling)
A small ice age is survivable by most. It means more snow, colder temps, etc. It doesn't mean mass extinction of animals due to habitat loss, it doesn't mean your house is underwater because Greenland couldn't get its shit together and stop itself from melting
SunBursT said:
Can you link this?
SunBursT said:
Common sense?
SunBursT said:
So, becoming a carbon neutral planet as far as human activities, you don't see that as making any difference in the rate of global warming?
SunBursT said:
SunBursT said:
Ok let's see here... envrionmentalists have $20 billion in assets, but can't seem to get any lobby through to government whatsoever...
"Truth seekers" have at most a few million..... not as though oil, car, airline and other industries don't have any money for lobbyists, scientists, reports, public policy sway, etc...
Where are you pulling 12,000 from?
SunBursT said:
This sounds like the same argument fundies have regarding teaching evolution. Teaching kids to be green isnt establishing a new religion.
Please link this as I am unable to find it on that site. You're aware that energy costs are not tied in to 'green hysteria', right? It's not because people think the earth is heating up that we're paying ridiculous prices at the pump. How do energy costs cost 100,000 jobs?
How so? Since WSJ wants me to give them $5/article to look this up, I'd have to ask you to quote some statistic there.
Your numbers are way off....
While cars account for a tenth of greenhouse gas emissions around the world, American cars are responsible for 20% of US energy-related emissions. The Environmental Defence report found: "The amount of CO2 emitted from oil used for transportation in the United States is similar to the amount from coal used to generate electricity." General Motors, the biggest US car manufacturer, is responsible for nearly a third of those emissions, more than the biggest US power company, American Electric Power. GM and other car companies did not comment directly on the report, but noted that they were seeking to improve the energy efficiency and reduce the emissions of their fleets.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1808314,00.html
Um, didn't you just give a motive?
Do you think that the main goal of people who are looking out for our environment is to cripple our industrial economy?
The reason people liken 'cliemate deniers' to 'holocaust deniers' is because in both cases it's RIGHT THERE IN FRONT OF YOU
Americans declare war on everything from illiteracy to poverty. Not really that big of a stretch here...
Probably the same reason that people go to Church now and think that gays are evil while divorce isn't a big deal. People are sheep that believe what they are told by the higher powers.
It's dangerous to think you're right when so much information is pointing to the fact that you're dead wrong. Those in power are telling us that nothing out of the ordinary is happening...everything is going along as it should.
G
Guest
I can no longer find the original source for the artical I pasted. Well Im sure i could but its not the point anyway. The point is about An Inconvient Truth. The facts are not all true and people should know that and look into it for themselves.
The 100,00 jobs in UK I thought was a bit of a stretch also. Not my #'s
When I hear of politicans wanting to punish people for opposing views That worries me more than Global warming.
On the FREON, when I recieved my HVACR licences in 1994 50 years was the amount of time we were instructed it took to get freons into the atmosphere. This I believe was the # quoted at the Montreal Accords. If its 15 its 15.
Again when you here there is no disagrement thats not true, There is disagreement.
To not think that humans are not contribuiting to the earths pollotion would be foolish but to not question some of the things we hear about global warming would also.
Like I said to start with when Al Gore believes it Ill believe it.
You can find many such arguements here http://www.skepticism.net/ and No I dont trust anything they say either.
The 100,00 jobs in UK I thought was a bit of a stretch also. Not my #'s
When I hear of politicans wanting to punish people for opposing views That worries me more than Global warming.
On the FREON, when I recieved my HVACR licences in 1994 50 years was the amount of time we were instructed it took to get freons into the atmosphere. This I believe was the # quoted at the Montreal Accords. If its 15 its 15.
Again when you here there is no disagrement thats not true, There is disagreement.
To not think that humans are not contribuiting to the earths pollotion would be foolish but to not question some of the things we hear about global warming would also.
Like I said to start with when Al Gore believes it Ill believe it.
You can find many such arguements here http://www.skepticism.net/ and No I dont trust anything they say either.
Last edited:
Kailua Kid
Active member
The Global Warming Industry
The Global Warming Industry
And the science that doesn't support the propaganda.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8f8v5du5_ag
The Global Warming Industry
And the science that doesn't support the propaganda.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8f8v5du5_ag
Global Warming is a pathetic scam, and Al Gore is a big fat phoney. It seems like a lot of people were simply too stoned and/or not paying attention in High School science classes to actually remember what they were being taught....... 
Global Warming Archive
Furthermore.......it's interesting that the editor of Newsweek states that his magazine's coverage of "Global Warming" to be " fundamentally misleading".....
Read here for yourself......
Newsweek Editor Slams Magazine's Own Global Warming Coverage As "Fundamentally Misleading"
Global Warming Archive
Furthermore.......it's interesting that the editor of Newsweek states that his magazine's coverage of "Global Warming" to be " fundamentally misleading".....
Read here for yourself......
Newsweek Editor Slams Magazine's Own Global Warming Coverage As "Fundamentally Misleading"
Last edited:
N
newbieb
Do you know about the greenhouse effect?
Kailua Kid
Active member
newbieb said:
Would that be what sets in when you spend too much time with Arjan?
