Hackers dug up some pretty revealing emails recently which should blow the doors off the climate scam world "leaders" had in the works.
Sit back as we all now watch the downfall of the inbred Illuminati together.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ydo2Mwnwpac&feature=player_embedded
*tips hat to all good hackers everywhere*
Regards...
Global warming is now a scientific fact. The data is not hidden, so there's nothing to hack. Contact an objective climatologists to obtain such data.
Paul
Here is an excerpt from one of the leaked emails, where the falsifying of temperature related data is being plotted...
" From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@xxxxxxxxx,mhughes@xxxxxxx, mhughes@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline. "
http://www.corbettreport.com/articles/20091120_cru_hacked.htm
" A 62 megabyte zip file, containing around 160 megabytes of emails, pdfs and other documents, has been confirmed as genuine by the head of the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit, Dr Phil Jones. "
Well...I guess it doesn't get much plainer than that.
Next question should be...what other scams have been and are presently being perpetrated by those who essentially have shown themselves to be global conspirators.
There will be no one held accountable as usual with this gang...its high time we took out the trash and retake control of our future.
These criminals will need to be removed from office.
This latest revelation is a clear indicator of what our political system is made up of. All one has to do is watch how they conduct themselves in their various parliaments and legislatures.
That is the level of intellectual maturity one would expect in junior high...and what we trust to make "rational and logical" decisions on our behalf ???
Regards...
Al gore gave back his Nobel , and admitted that cars are not responsible for the warming .
Here in canada Harper before getting elected , told Canadian that global warming was a fraud .
Its really hard to believe since we have been brain washed since birth .
Melting of the glaciers has been documented by the media for a long time. Even Huell Howser's "California Gold" TV show has documented it with old videos compared to new videos.
It's a shame to see all of the glaciers around the world slowly vanish, even in California.
Personally I think humanity is a major cause of global warming, but who cares at this point. We should not take a chance.
Paul
Yes Paul the microwaved the poles , while testing h.a.a.r.p. , plus ozone layer got damaged by nuke testing and the 1959 Antarctic war , and the weather at the south pole is hotter each year ever since.
Hi Mk1,
Also, the melting of glaciers is global, not just the poles. You probably know where California, USA is. It's known as the Sunshine state, far far far away from the poles. There are various places that have glaciers, even in California. Exp, there are 7 major glaciers on Mount Shasta, Ca.
H.A.A.R.P. = Melting Ice
Wow, if harp is melting the glaciers in Mount Shasta from radio waves, which BTW is located in Siskiyou County, and yes, a lot of people live in Siskiyou County, then those poor people must live in hell with terrible radio reception. I wonder how they even get TV reception. ;)
H.A.A,R.P. = Huge Microwave Oven "Gun"
wikipedia says HAARP transmits between 2.8 and 10 MHz. That's far from microwaves.
Paul,
the poles use to regulate earth temperature , they have been under huge stress , it caused the shift in weather patterns , and going back to normal may not be a plausible in the future .
But earth temperature has been on the rise for thousands of years .
You know paul i think you are quite funny ...
Hi Mk1,
Maybe you did not see my post,
QuoteMelting of the glaciers has been documented by the media for a long time. Even Huell Howser's "California Gold" TV show has documented it with old videos compared to new videos.
Also, the melting of glaciers is global, not just the poles. You probably know where California, USA is. It's known as the Sunshine state, far far far away from the poles. There are various places that have glaciers, even in California. Exp, there are 7 major glaciers on Mount Shasta, Ca.
Such evidence is found in countless commercial & public video & photo footage. I'm sorry if people want to continue to ignore the facts & keep wanting society to burn gasoline & all the modern luxuries, but it is a fact that all of a sudden over the past
decades (not thousands of years) the glaciers have been melting at an alarming rate. It is a sudden effect.
Paul
http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/344.html
GP
without comment!
Paul,
It may be a good idea to read the subject matter presented at the opening of the thread.
By simply posting up links to reflect an apparently position you appear rigid and to be spamming.
Please read material related to climate records, and address the evidence presented in support of the thread topic.
Thanks
This needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Its only one group. Plus the hacker themselves may have changed some of it. It all needs to be looked at what they did. But to say its a huge bombshell and all global warming data is a scam is nothing but sensationalism. You have already tried and convicted them without a trial.
A much bigger concern for me is natural resources and the population explosion. In the future dont discount genocide by those country's in control of the resources.
And the same to you...read "ALL" of the presented material...or are you a purposly cherry picking ?
There are many pegs on the hatstand...
Regards...
While climate change is real. The real question is it man made? What the hackers exposed is evidence that this group of "scientist" where altering data for there purpose. Whichever side of the issue you are on you should be Infuriated that a group of "professionals" posted fraud onto the world and are getting away with it.
Actually, the correct term is "Man Caused Global Warming" and this does not exist. Over 35,000 climate scientists signed a petition saying just this. The earth has had heating and cooling periods through out it's history. Funny that the real data shows a cooling since the industrial revolution of some 1.01 degrees. Also, CO2 is not a poison gas as the US EPA now says it is. Al Gore's, and others, "documentaries" showing the glaciers calving as evidence of global warming. Funny thing about this is that glaciers do calve BUT only when they are advancing due to a cooling trend as in a coming ice age. Glaciers do NOT calve when they melt, they just melt. This is simple earth science that anyone who can read can find out for themselves.
Also, Polar Bears do not drown, they can swim for over 80 miles so that bear in the water in Al's video did not drown.
A video documentary team was aboard a cruise ship last week on a cruise down in the south pacific waters to document the terrors of global warming. Well, that cruise ship got stuck in the frozen sea and, they said it will take about a week or more for icebreakers to set them free again. Also note that this is the summer time down there. Gee, I hate that for them.
We do need the truth and all you have to do is read a little bit on your own to see that this is nothing more than a world wide scam in a very large power grab.
I am glad those hackers published what they have found.
By the way, the "scientists" have already confirmed that those e-mails as published are accurate representations of what they had written so, the hackers did not doctor them.
Bill
Quote from: Pirate88179 on November 25, 2009, 04:48:36 AM
"Also, Polar Bears do not drown, they can swim for over 80 miles so that bear in the water in Al's video did not drown."
The photo in question was actually taken on a warm day in August.
http://newsbusters.org/node/11879
H.A.A.R.P = Man creating the appearance of global warming.
And I do not need to rely a "court of law"(fixed system of dirty lawyers and judges) to 'convict these fraudsters.
To me, the court of common sense, past behavior, and correlating evidence from individuals qualifies as proof of their guilt.
Thanks for that additional info Bill.
Regards...
Quote from: Cap-Z-ro on November 24, 2009, 08:06:51 PM
By simply posting up links to reflect an apparently position you appear rigid and to be spamming.
There must be a lot of spammers here then given the discussion. ;) People don't appreciate being called a spammer when it's clearly not. Do people have to only talk about the "scam" aspect of this thread? That's being silly given the the thread title is also about global warming.
Quote from: Pirate88179 on November 25, 2009, 04:48:36 AM
Actually, the correct term is "Man Caused Global Warming" and this does not exist. Over 35,000 climate scientists signed a petition saying just this. The earth has had heating and cooling periods through out it's history. Funny that the real data shows a cooling since the industrial revolution of some 1.01 degrees. Also, CO2 is not a poison gas as the US EPA now says it is. Al Gore's, and others, "documentaries" showing the glaciers calving as evidence of global warming. Funny thing about this is that glaciers do calve BUT only when they are advancing due to a cooling trend as in a coming ice age. Glaciers do NOT calve when they melt, they just melt. This is simple earth science that anyone who can read can find out for themselves.
Also, Polar Bears do not drown, they can swim for over 80 miles so that bear in the water in Al's video did not drown.
A video documentary team was aboard a cruise ship last week on a cruise down in the south pacific waters to document the terrors of global warming. Well, that cruise ship got stuck in the frozen sea and, they said it will take about a week or more for icebreakers to set them free again. Also note that this is the summer time down there. Gee, I hate that for them.
We do need the truth and all you have to do is read a little bit on your own to see that this is nothing more than a world wide scam in a very large power grab.
I am glad those hackers published what they have found.
By the way, the "scientists" have already confirmed that those e-mails as published are accurate representations of what they had written so, the hackers did not doctor them.
Bill
You've made *claims* without references. I'll address all of those issues in another thread. Although we can agree that humanity should at least take action to prevent the air pollution caused by humanity, and stop destroying the natural environment.
Paul
I've started another thread because IMO nearly everything Bill wrote in his post is incorrect -->
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8356.0
Your game is tiring paul...I suspect that is the intent...it seems to have worked on gadget.
Don't bother responding...I not playing that game.
Quote from: Cap-Z-ro on November 25, 2009, 05:27:30 PM
Your game is tiring paul...I suspect that is the intent...it seems to have worked on gadget.
Don't bother responding...I not playing that game.
How dare you accuse me of playing games when I'm the one posting the references, which btw is being scientific. Sometimes the truth hurts.
You started this thread by saying,
QuoteHackers dug up some pretty revealing emails recently which should blow the doors off the climate scam world "leaders" had in the works.
That seems a bit biased. Hang before trial? Did it occur to you that the email thing is not about questioning global warming, but about what's causing it. And how do emails from a scientist suddenly blow the doors of the hard work from thousands of scientists?
Paul
Stefan, what does this guy mean by, "it seems to have worked on gadget." Is he insinuating that I've done something bad to gadget? Maybe he thinks asking for experimental data is bad.
Quote from: Cap-Z-ro on November 25, 2009, 06:35:16 AM
And I do not need to rely a "court of law"(fixed system of dirty lawyers and judges) to 'convict these fraudsters.
To me, the court of common sense, past behavior, and correlating evidence from individuals qualifies as proof of their guilt.
Wow, what country do you live in where people are guilty without trial?
You write, "dirty lawyers and judges." LOL, that's just so wrong.
Paul
Paul , we live in the same world you live in , we all watch tv the news and read the journal...
So we are aware of the situation.
Global warming or not , we are required to respect earth .
But even after all that ,we chose to see reality differently .
The world is trying to convince us , what makes you think you will ?
we got 13 years of email , exposing the fraud , and on top of it they admitted that those emails are real...
And we get almost ignored by most tv networks.
Quote from: PaulLowrance on November 25, 2009, 05:57:13 PM
Did it occur to you that the email thing is not about questioning global warming, but about what's causing it. And how do emails from a scientist suddenly blow the doors of the hard work from thousands of scientists?
Paul
Geeze Paul can't you read? Those emails are all over the place now and they were fudging the numbers (data) to make it look like it has been warming when IN FACT it has been cooling. So, this is probably why it did not occur to him. They have admitted to doing it, now that the cat is out of the bag, so what is not to believe then about this? The UN based ALL of their findings on this falsified data. Enough said.
This has been a scam since day one and now everyone that can read should know. The 39,000 scientists that signed that petition was already enough proof for me but this should confirm it for even the most dense people out there who are desperately clinging to a failed hoax, which was never science from day one.
Bill
Name a catastrophe that the vultures that be haven't capitalized on. Real or imagined.
Regarding the massive changes in earth's weather systems and associative causes...
Some are citing "time lapse" photos of the north star as "proof" that all is right with the world, despite the lack of critical information such as WHEN the photo was taken and the duration of the "time lapse".
Also, I have seen some sharing the erroneous conclusion that amateur "Go to" telescopes would be off if the earth were wobbling. As most of these scopes rely upon finding reference stars from which to aim, instead of an earthly point of reference, such a conclusion is faulty.
There appears to be two "camps" developing, in reference to these phenomena. Those who blindly trust "data" from other sources, regardless of date gathered or techniques of interpretation of said data....and those who prefer to research things more judiciously, and make verification with their own eyes.
Of course, something could be said regarding that ever present 3rd camp.....whose agenda becomes more obvious as our Late Hour winds to a close.
Those of you who have researched the observations of myself and the increasing number of others regarding our present Earth wobble and the "shaken heavens", can see for yourselves that the numbers, at least the numbers BEFORE our present world situation, don't mesh with what is occurring.
Remember, University websites and texts reveal the old moon orbit data, which shows how the moon's orbit sways 5 degrees per lunar month. Moving both above and below the "ecliptic plane" (the plane of earth's orbit around the sun).
One can, with one's own eyes, observe how the moon rises in the south east, tracking low across the southern sky, and in a period of two weeks, has moved northward to rise in the northeast and track high across the sky, slightly to the north of most locations in the continental U.S.
Covering a swath of sky MUCH, MUCH greater than 5 degrees in two week's time.
http://www.psrd.hawaii.edu/WebImg/earmoon.gif
The following chart, which is hosted at the University of Arkansas clearly demonstrates the OLD LIMITS OF THE MOON'S DECLINATION for a period of ONE YEAR. I live at 41 degrees N. Latitude and can watch it rise and track north of me, once a month!
http://nfo.edu/limits.jpg
Dear reader, I ask you, how many degrees of latitude would you say the moon is covering every two weeks, much less per YEAR?
Also, get a good look at sun rise and set in late december of this year....what some are believing to be, or trying to pass off as, normal is not the "old normal"....it's the quite temporary "new normal".
http://www.isuma.tv/lo/en/inuit-knowledge-and-climate-change-project/earth-has-shifted
http://divulgence.net/Sun%20angle.html
http://www.michaelmandeville.com/earthmonitor/polarmotion/2006_wobble_anomaly.htm
http://www.zetatalk.com/index/earthrv9.htm
http://axischange.wordpress.com/2007/08/09/earth
http://www.eh2r.com
Of course, one is always free to believe whatever, whomever, and whenever they wish to, but I would ask one to be not too fearful to trust one's own eyes.
I post this information for the SOLE purpose of inspiring HOPE and education in God's Faithful, those who might yet become so, and those who might return to being about our Father's business at this late hour. The harvest is Great, but the laborers are few.
As for me and mine, we believe and follow Yeshua, Jesus Christ
Blessings, all, in Christ Yeshua
Quote from: Pirate88179 on November 25, 2009, 06:33:03 PM
Geeze Paul can't you read? Those emails are all over the place now and they were fudging the numbers (data) to make it look like it has been warming when IN FACT it has been cooling.
You make claims without any references. You use words such as "they." Are you accusing all climatologist of fudging their data? How about the data over the decades shown on video taken by documentary shows? Did they go back and use SGI to edit the videos? Decades of video footage of glaciers shown on countless TV documentary shows has proven the glaciers are retreating, thinning, and disappearing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Satellite_Temperatures.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Satellite_Temperatures.png)
Quote from: Pirate88179 on November 25, 2009, 06:33:03 PM
So, this is probably why it did not occur to him. They have admitted to doing it, now that the cat is out of the bag, so what is not to believe then about this? The UN based ALL of their findings on this falsified data. Enough said.
This has been a scam since day one and now everyone that can read should know. The 39,000 scientists that signed that petition was already enough proof for me but this should confirm it for even the most dense people out there who are desperately clinging to a failed hoax, which was never science from day one.
More claims. FYI, first you wrote that it was 35,000. Now you write 39,000.
Paul
http://globalfreeenergy.info/2009/11/25/motives-to-hush-global-warming/ (http://globalfreeenergy.info/2009/11/25/motives-to-hush-global-warming/)
Ummm Paul...More are signing every day so, would it not make sense that the number goes up? You know...simple addition? Hello? That number is expected to be over 50,000 by the end of the year. But, if you read you would know this.
My information is factual so I need not post websites that have an agenda like you are doing. The facts are out there, either look for them, or don't I don't really care.
And yes, all of the climatologists involved in the Anglia reports did fudge the numbers as evidenced by the emails that are now published...umm..let's see...everywhere. So, even you can read them if you so choose. But, it does not fit your agenda so you won't, and that's just fine with me.
Bill
Quote from: Pirate88179 on November 25, 2009, 08:02:24 PM
Ummm Paul...More are signing every day so, would it not make sense that the number goes up? You know...simple addition? Hello? That number is expected to be over 50,000 by the end of the year.
Once again you make claims without a single reference. The fact that wrote 35,000, then 39,000, followed by the excuse
"simple addition? Hello?
" speaks for itself.
Can you show a reference that states 35,000 or 39,000 or 50,000 climatologist have signed something? And what did they sign? Can you show that Bill? You know, a peer reviewed reference?
You keep throwing around this number that the temperature has actually increased. I know better. It is a fact that glaciers are melting around the world, not only at the poles. I've provided the references in other posts. Once again, I'll ask you to show your references?
Quote from: Pirate88179 on November 25, 2009, 08:02:24 PM
But, if you read you would know this.
I know, I know, you read this on the Internet. Is that where you get your "factual" data from, Bill, the Internet? ;)
Quote from: Pirate88179 on November 25, 2009, 08:02:24 PM
My information is factual so I need not post websites that have an agenda like you are doing. The facts are out there, either look for them, or don't I don't really care.
It so happens to be so "factual" that you can't post it, right? And what "agenda" might you be accusing me of? Trying to help save the natural environment and countless animal lives and other species? Yes, I'm guilty of trying to do that.
Quote from: Pirate88179 on November 25, 2009, 08:02:24 PM
And yes, all of the climatologists involved in the Anglia reports did fudge the numbers as evidenced by the emails that are now published...umm..let's see...everywhere. So, even you can read them if you so choose. But, it does not fit your agenda so you won't, and that's just fine with me.
And how many climatologists might that be, Bill? Please, provide something besides claims.
Paul
Quote from: Pirate88179 on November 25, 2009, 06:33:03 PM
This has been a scam since day one and now everyone that can read should know. The 39,000 scientists that signed that petition was already enough proof for me but this should confirm it for even the most dense people out there who are desperately clinging to a failed hoax, which was never science from day one.
Bill
Golly Bill. You believe 39,000 scientists without question? How can you do that without building a model of the earth and testing it yourself? (Don't flame me, it's sarcasm).
You know, when I read your quoted paragraph above, I chuckled and I couldn't help but see how aptly it applies to Gadget and his GJT, only in that case, you're NOT listening to the scientists.
.99
This fraud could very well be the lynch pin to blowing the lid off this global take over scheme.
This 'FOIA' person who leaked the 'smoking gun' emails is likely just the first of others to follow suit.
Regards...
I was curious and had to check out this topic and followed the links from the youtube video to the following link I post, which finally put my mind at ease.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/20/mikes-nature-trick/
In summary, the leaked emails don't reveal anything suspicious, the suspicion comes about from ignorant folks and taking information OUT OF CONTEXT. These are scientists that model trends and use series, curve fitting, etc.. and you can see their responses when confronted about the email they wrote.
EM
The anticipated spin has begun..."I don't recall" the lawyers lie will be front and center as per usual.
" Jones told TGIF he had no idea what he meant by using the words “hide the declineâ€. "
Someone opined that " If Jones had written “address the divergence problem†instead of “hide the decline†would we be talking about that email at all? "
But he didnt' and thats why the yogurt hit the fan.
His use of the term " real data " can mean only one thing...the existence and usage of 'faked data'
This whole thing stinks.
Our climate has peaks and valleys, as does most of our reality.
And our planet has thieves, liars, and murders trying to dominate it.
Regards...
If global warming is a scam does that mean we get to cut down every mountain in virginia and burn their 30 billion tons of coal they got laying there ?
What are you trying to achieve by using the cru exposed data make oil and coal a bigger partner of our lives ?Yes science become a bigot when you mix it with politic , you need to make it shine brighter thus why the hockey stick was used ...
There still remain the point of interest , does burning millions of year of evolution in a single century a good idea in the end or simply put if you beleive the big bang theory where the earth was a magma pool filled with sulfur and al. then slowly came into creation you have to ask yourself do we want to go back to this state of earth by using up all the carbon deposit in the world.
I'm quite tired of the debate about wether it will happens or not since we all know it will by using "real data" it will happen unless you do not beleive in alchemy and think oil is the philosopher's stone of our time.
Just for the record, with known physics laws as they are, we can't "use it all up". Nothing gets used up, it just gets converted. We have the same amount of everything on this planet we had when it was born, some of it is just in different forms now. We can covert it back if we so choose.
Bill
Not so sure that it's a constant.
30,000 metric tons of cosmic dust adds to the mass of the earth every year.
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Space+dust+may+rain+destruction+on+Earth.-a020629998
.99
Quote from: Pirate88179 on November 26, 2009, 08:47:47 PM
Just for the record, with known physics laws as they are, we can't "use it all up". Nothing gets used up, it just gets converted. We have the same amount of everything on this planet we had when it was born, some of it is just in different forms now. We can covert it back if we so choose.
Bill
It's the same dilemnia we have with overunity ..if we could simply retransform co2 to oil wouldnt we simply stop drilling and plug back our exhaust into our intake ?
The fact remain oil is not cheap energy ... it's the same as a battery and right now we are burning the battery without thinking about refilling it.Everything we have on earth is the same you are right but the amount of time it took to settle it down is a lot longer than the time it take to "use it all up " and we're gonna need a whole lot of solar cell and wind tower to catch the bus.
Quote from: poynt99 on November 26, 2009, 08:53:38 PM
Not so sure that it's a constant.
30,000 metric tons of cosmic dust adds to the mass of the earth every year.
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Space+dust+may+rain+destruction+on+Earth.-a020629998 (http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Space+dust+may+rain+destruction+on+Earth.-a020629998)
.99
I agree. Good point. I actually meant the universe but based upon what I typed you are correct.
myrmex:
I don't disagree with your point either. Those things you mentioned will happen, when it is cost-effective for them to happen. Unless those other sources of energy are cheaper, either by oil going up or alternative energy going down, there is no reason to change. This is all market driven and to think that any other forces will change that is not realistic in my opinion. If we ran out of oil (or ran low) and the price was $2,000/barrel, suddenly you would see a market shift to other methods. Atomic energy is the cheapest, cleanest energy in the world and while France gets 70% of their energy from nuclear, and many other European countries exceed 50%, we here in the US get only 30% from nuclear. If they let us build more power plants, we would need a whole lot less oil...but...they won't. We have not built a new plant in over 30 years and, even if we started on a bunch of them today, they are about 15 years out from going on line. Time to start now if you ask me.
Bill
This is what irks me about this we all know how economy works the more you produce of something the cheaper it gets over the time .. similar to plasma tv market where 10 year ago a 32 inch was costing 5000 $ and now are running at 300$..
Solar energy wind energy even nuclear energy follow the same trends as this but oil is volatile ,it is dictated by greedy people who decide and manipulate price as they see fit... Time to act was 100 year ago ;D
Something i find very interesting for the future are Dr. Klauss Lackner artificial tree using limelight to suck up co2 from air and Rod Vera plasma recycler ( http://www.plasma-wr.com/process.html ) wich could theorically reverse the level of carbon in our wastes.
Has anyone thought about the fact that 200 to 300 years may not be long enough to measure something like global warming?
And yes, I realize that for the last 100 years or so, our means to measure the data has improved.
Using the severity of natural disaster to prove global warming is conjecture. Natural disasters have been occurring since the beginning. In the span of what we know as clinically proven science, we have yet to fully document and observe a global one..
We can easily say that one disaster is greater than another - but it's usually measured in lost lives. ..and if one happens which is in a non-populous region, is it payed much attention to? ( tunguska? )
Postulating the we are witnessing one on the basis of our limited history ( and by this I mean to say that the accuracy of our historical observations falls off dramatically the further we look back ) is a missense of natural trends which lends credibility to a short term claim; the idea then becomes credulous.
If one has neither the patience nor inclination to wade into the book below, then consider scrolling down to page 144 and read with an eye to the 2004 Tsunami which claimed over 250,000 lives, and the various Tsunami and increasing earthquakes which have taken place since that time....
http://www.habtheory.com/3/thebook.htm
And further, with an eye toward what has been occurring since that time:
http://www.isuma.tv/lo/en/inuit-knowledge-and-climate-change-project/earth-has-shifted
http://divulgence.net/Sun%20angle.html
http://www.thetreeofliberty.com/vb/showthread.php?t=80886&page=10
http://www.michaelmandeville.com/earthmonitor/polarmotion/2006_wobble_anomaly.htm
http://www.zetatalk.com/index/earthrv9.htm
http://axischange.wordpress.com/2007/08/09/earth
http://www.eh2r.com
TS
Quote from: EMdevices on November 26, 2009, 01:14:45 AM
I was curious and had to check out this topic and followed the links from the youtube video to the following link I post, which finally put my mind at ease.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/20/mikes-nature-trick/ (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/20/mikes-nature-trick/)
In summary, the leaked emails don't reveal anything suspicious, the suspicion comes about from ignorant folks and taking information OUT OF CONTEXT. These are scientists that model trends and use series, curve fitting, etc.. and you can see their responses when confronted about the email they wrote.
EM
That is so true. An unbiased source from
NASA just made a statement that clarifies the situation -->
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8356.msg211280#msg211280 (http://index.php?topic=8356.msg211280#msg211280)
Paul
The whole story can be found here:
http://www.iceagenow.com/Hacked_files_expose_massive_global_warming_con.htm
Along with additional links for documentation.
What part of "They fabricated the data" is taken out of context? Also known as "cooking the books", "fudging the results", altering reality" and more simply..."lying".
When someone lies and you quote them, you are NOT taking them out of context.
Bill
Quote from: TechStuf on November 27, 2009, 01:33:29 PM
. . .
Disasters happen in fits and bouts. AS do their reports.
@Bill,
I think that they may counterclaim with "no they [the hackers] cooked the books, not us". Reciprocating the whole affair. They [climatologist-researchers] need to be audited financially and factually.
My 'beliefs' change as the facts come in.
I have no emotional ties to any concepts.
That makes it much easier to discard them when they are no longer able to stand up under their own weight.
Regards...
the people wont believe until their under military law.
(Quote) " I personally know James Inhofe, and I interviewed Dr. John Christy, lead author of the 2001 IPCC report, one of the country's leading climatologists, who told me - and I have all this on film - that he was one of the ones who put together data of the global temperatures and said, "We didn't see any warming" The IPCC doctored his report to say there was warming, and then was given the Nobel Peace Prize next to Gore in 2007." (Quoted from director Shayne Edwards- "An Inconsistent Truth")
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXRmITwUyZE&feature=subtivity (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXRmITwUyZE&feature=subtivity)
Bill
So does this mean we're going to Copenhagen for a scheduled-in Hockey convention? All at once we feel urge to conveign and shake our sticks at the skies.
@pirate
QuoteAtomic energy is the cheapest, cleanest energy in the world ?
Did you research this at all, or just repeating some bad information.
Nuclear fuel as we use it today is a more limited resource than oil!
If that's not bad enough, the end game CO2 emissions are only about as good as natural gas and 80% of all the easy to refine uranium is gone!
There may be some new technologies coming that may help, but at present, the current outlook is bleak for nuclear power!
If we all used nuclear power instead of coal it would only run us about 10 years.
Quote from: lumen on November 27, 2009, 09:10:02 PM
@pirate
Did you research this at all, or just repeating some bad information.
Nuclear fuel as we use it today is a more limited resource than oil!
If that's not bad enough, the end game CO2 emissions are only about as good as natural gas and 80% of all the easy to refine uranium is gone!
There may be some new technologies coming that may help, but at present, the current outlook is bleak for nuclear power!
If we all used nuclear power instead of coal it would only run us about 10 years.
Nuclear also uses a ton of water. Not mentioned very often. Do a search on French nuclear accidents, another thing we never hear about in the US. They definitely do happen. In fact, there's one or two in the news right now (google news) which are casting doubts on the entire French nuclear program.
In all the debate, truth, reasons, and common sense are diluted. No, CO2 doesn't heat up the earth all by itself. Bad science to say so. But YES, the conditions where humans mine and eventually emit CO2 (combustion of fossils fuels, any kind of it, are detrimental for the health of this planet, and all its inhabitants.
FOSSIL FUELS IN GENERAL need to be take out of the global equasion at the very higest rate possible, for COMMON SENSE reasons. It can by no means though, to justify unrelated polical and financial reforms.
We have technology, from unfunded research, that can and MUST be utilized to reduce fossil fuel use, right now. This new technology, and the research for more, can easily replace the sector now involved in POLLUTING and PARACITING the earth, be it effecting clamates, or not. All realiablee proof seems to tell us the climate is not part of the equasion.
I propose a law, where alternative fuel that emits less toxic waste (CO2 being far less interesting than the other components) than contemporary fossil fuel units (let's say, showroom quality petrol cars) will NOT be taxed. In my country, The Netherlands, car owners as an example are taxed:
- per litre of fuel, we pay around $2 per litre, close eighbours pay half
- per month, for the size of our car (road tax, with which I can agree)
- soon : by use, through distance taxes (to some degree fair, is roads are needlessly stressed in rush hour)
- per car : when we buy a car, the taxes involved ensure we pay LOADS more than neighbouring countries.
If we get 100% water powered cars, road tax may need to be increased. Look at the state of roads in countries that do not have road tax (per vehicle allowed on the roads). Appaling roads, huge traffic accident and death rates.
Is clean energy a threat to human kind, or merely a long overdue challenge for the energy industry? Money can still be made. In a big way, by saving costs. Imagine an overunity facility that is basically a huge HHO cell, at several hundred per cent efficiency. It sells electric energy for people's conveneince (those who don't want a noisy generation in their kitchen), and fails to spend money on fossil fuels.
The oil corps can cancel most of their mining activities, and focus on suppluing water derivates on the streets. Purchsing costs : near zero. What would I pay for a full tank of water when I'd run out, or live too far away from where my car is parked? Probably more than the gas stations make in nett profit today. They mostly live of their mini markets anyway. Those are not taxed, just crazy lucrative through overpricing in return for convenience. One stop shop.
We should be too understanding for the rich bankers. We better declare their practices illegal, and let them retire. Their families will not linger away in poverty. They don't really need social support, let alone from 7 billion others.
When all the money (gold) in the world is recounted, they'll end up being the richest anyway. Goldfingers plan might not be as crazy after all, if it was done for the better of the non-bankers on this world, about 7 billion of them.
Marc Morano
Climate Depot
Saturday, Nov 28th, 2009
A UN scientist is declaring that his three fellow UN climate panel colleagues “should be barred from the IPCC process.†In a November 26, 2009 message on his website, UN IPCC contributing author Dr. Eduardo Zorita writes: “CRU files: Why I think that Michael Mann, Phil Jones and Stefan Rahmstorf should be barred from the IPCC process.â€
Short answer: “Because the scientific assessments in which they may take part are not credible anymore.â€
http://www.prisonplanet.com/un-scientists-turn-on-each-other-un-scientist-declares-climategate-colleagues-mann-jones-and-rahmstorf-should-be-barred-from-the-ipcc-process-they-are-not-credible-any-more.html
Regards...
Quote from: Pirate88179 on November 27, 2009, 08:54:02 PM
(Quote) " I personally know James Inhofe, and I interviewed Dr. John Christy, lead author of the 2001 IPCC report, one of the country's leading climatologists, who told me - and I have all this on film - that he was one of the ones who put together data of the global temperatures and said, "We didn't see any warming" The IPCC doctored his report to say there was warming, and then was given the Nobel Peace Prize next to Gore in 2007." (Quoted from director Shayne Edwards- "An Inconsistent Truth")
Hi Bill,
What's dangerous about that, scientifically speaking, is that this scientist can't just say there was no global warming found in the data. A scientist presents *data* to back up his or her claim. So this scientist needs to present data to back up his claim.
Furthermore, if this scientist did say that, then we don't know what data he was talking about. It could have been recent data for the past few years, which alone is meaningless. Remember, there will always be temperature fluctuations from year to year. The global temperature is not going to increase at some fixed temperature every year. The problem at hand is that the fluctuations are far greater than the steady rise in temperature each year. So we *cannot* consider a few years. We must consider long term measurements -->
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Satellite_Temperatures.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Satellite_Temperatures.png)
I would advice people to take a look at that plot, and take special notice to the fluctuations, please. It's really bad science to even suggest that it means something if global warming is down even for 5 years in a row. Take a look at that graph again, and you'll see relatively long streaks of global cooling, but then take a look at the entire graph going back 35 years and the pattern begins to become clear. Any scientist who has the nerve to suggest there's no global warming because of the past two years is not being objective.
As you can see in the graph, it takes decades to see the global warming pattern.
So I'll side with the NASA guy on this. The email hacks offer no proof what so ever that global warming is not real.
Regards,
Paul
Now the smell of raw date being cooked is also wafting from 'kiwiland'.
Yep...sure looks like its global alright.
' The New Zealand Government’s chief climate advisory unit NIWA is under fire for allegedly massaging raw climate data to show a global warming trend that wasn’t there.
The scandal breaks as fears grow worldwide that corruption of climate science is not confined to just Britain’s CRU climate research centre.
In New Zealand’s case, the figures published on NIWA’s [the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric research] website suggest a strong warming trend in New Zealand over the past century.
But analysis of the raw climate data from the same temperature stations has just turned up a very different result. '
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/25/uh-oh-raw-data-in-new-zealand-tells-a-different-story-than-the-official-one/
Regards...
There has been no increase in yearly temperatures in the short term, or the long term studies done by the legitimate climatologists, in fact, just the opposite. The credible scientists still believe, as they did in the 70's, that we are headed for another naturally occurring ice age, sometime in the next 50 years or so.
This is what the data from around the world shows. Now yes, the doctored data shows a temperature increase that is not and has not been there.
The planet does not "have a fever" to quote that idiot Al Gore.
It is sad that millions of people had to die from this scam before it was exposed. And now some, go on as if it has not been exposed for the fraud it has been.
This hacker story is only the recent event. This scam was being exposed, or attempted to anyway, back in the early 90's. The hackers just caused a tipping point is all.
Oh, and PS for those that think we will "run out of water" because of nuke cooling towers, check your science and you will see water does not go anywhere. You can't use up water, only convert it.
Bill
WATER CONSUMPTION--CONVENTIONAL POWER PLANTS
Technology
gallons/kWh
liters/kWh
Nuclear 0.62 2.30
Coal 0.49 1.90
Oil 0.43 1.60
Combined Cycle 0.25 0.95
Small amounts of water are used to clean wind turbine rotor blades in arid climates (where rainfall does not keep the blades clean). The purpose of blade cleaning is to eliminate dust and insect buildup, which otherwise deforms the shape of the airfoil and degrades performance.
Similarly, small amounts of water are used to clean photovoltaics panels.
Water use numbers for these two technologies are as follows:
WATER CONSUMPTION--WIND AND SOLAR
Technology
gallons/kWh
liters/kWh
Wind [1] 0.001 0.004
PV [2] 0.030 0.110
=============================
From Wikipedia:
"In the 1970s there was increasing awareness that estimates of global temperatures showed cooling since 1945. Of those scientific papers considering climate trends over the 21st century, only 10% inclined towards future cooling, while most papers predicted future warming."
Cheers
There is no such thing as warm summer nights...anymore.
Regards...
What's odd is how people are saying the data shows a global cooling, but they can't show this data.
Credible research scientists such as Gavin Schmidt with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies are saying these emails have nothing to do with disproving global warming, quote, "There's nothing in the e-mails that shows that global warming is a hoax"
Paul
more anti global warming lies
http://globalfreeenergy.info/2009/11/28/more-anti-global-warming-lies/
And now the 'data gremlins' have been outed in Canada...apparently clickish canuck scientists substituted the 'hockey stick' graph for the much broader 'goalie stick' graph.
It turns our manipulating data is running gag among government funded scientists...who knew ?
So its entirely understandable that everyone wood think they were intentionally being dishonest when they really 'punking' us all...and at the last minute they were going to let everybody in on the gag.
But somebody spoiled the joke on them and leaked emails where the script was being discussed.
According to an unnamed source, breach was the work of a jealous colleague who's 'Global Jurassic Fog' gag was rejected.
More later.
Regards...
Quote from: PaulLowrance on November 28, 2009, 10:23:15 PM
What's odd is how people are saying the data shows a global cooling, but they can't show this data.
Credible research scientists such as Gavin Schmidt with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies are saying these emails have nothing to do with disproving global warming, quote, "There's nothing in the e-mails that shows that global warming is a hoax"
Paul
more anti global warming lies
http://globalfreeenergy.info/2009/11/28/more-anti-global-warming-lies/
And they think the massive amount of peer reviewed data is all an attempt to defraud the public, while simultaneously potentially destroying the careers of all scientists involved. Of course, the explanation probably goes something like 'they've all been paid off.' Uh huh sure they have.
Repeat
AS Chicken-licken was going one day to the wood, whack! an acorn fell from a tree
on to his head.
"Gracious goodness me!" said Chicken-licken, "the sky must have fallen; I must go
and tell the King."
So Chicken-licken turned back, and met Hen-len. "Well, Hen-len, where are you
going ?" said he. "I'm going to the wood," said she.
"Oh, Hen-len, don't go!" said he, "for as I was going the sky fell on to my head, and
I'm going to tell the King."
So Hen-len turned back with Chicken-licken, and met Cock-lock.
"I'm going to the wood," said he.
Then Hen-len said:' "Oh Cock-lock, don't go, for I was going, and I met Chicken-licken, and Chicken-licken had been at the wood, and the sky had fallen on to his head, and we are going to tell the King."
So Cock-lock turned back, and they met Duck-luck. "
Well, Duck-luck, where are you going?"
And Duck-luck said: "I'm going to the wood."
Then Cock-lock said: "Oh! Duck-luck, don't go, for I was going, and I met Hen-len,
and Hen-len met Chicken-licken, and Chicken-licken had been at the wood, and the
sky had fallen on to his head, and we are going to tell the King." So Duck-luck turned
back,and met Drake-lake.
"Well, Drake-lake, where are you going?"
And Drake-lake said: "I'm going to the wood."
Then Duck-luck said: "Oh! Drake-lake, don't go, for I was going, and I met Cock-lock, and Cock-lock met Hen-len, and Hen-len met Chicken-licken, and Chicken-licken
had been at the wood, and the sky had fallen on to his head, and, we are going to tell
the King."
So Drake-lake turned back, and met Goose-loose. "Well, Goose-loose, where are
you going?" And Goose-loose said: "I'm going to the wood."
Then Drake-lake said: "Oh, Goose-loose, don't go, for I was going, and I met Duck-
luck, and Duck-luck met Cock-lock, and Cock-lock met Hen-len, and Hen-len met
Chicken-licken, and Chicken-licken had been at the wood, and the sky had fallen on to
his head, and we are going to tell the King." So Goose-loose turned back, and met
Gander-lander.
"Well, Gander-lander, where are you going ?"
And Gander-lander said: "I'm going to the wood."
Then Goose-loose said: "Oh! Gander-lander, don't go, for I was going, and I met
Drake-lake, and Drake-lake met Duck-luck, and Duck-luck met Cock-lock, and Cock-
lock met Hen-len, and Hen-len met Chicken-licken, and Chicken-licken had been at the
wood, and the sky had fallen on to his head, and we are going to tell the King."
So Gander-lander turned back, and met Turkey-lurkey.
"Well, Turkey-lurkey, where are you going?"
And Turkey-lurkey said: "I'm going to the wood."
Then Gander-dander said: "Oh! Turkey-lurkey, don't go, for I was going, and I met
Goose-loose, and Goose-loose met Drake-lake, and Drake-lake met Duck-luck, and
Duck-luck met Cock-lock, and Cock-lock met Hen-len, and Hen-len met Chicken-licken,
and Chicken-licken had been at the wood, and the sky had fallen on to his head, and
we are going to tell the King."
So Turkey-lurkey turned back, and walked wiith Gander-lander, Goose-loose, Drake-
lake, Duck-luck, Cock-lock, Hen-len, and Chicken-licken. And as they were going along, they met Fox-lox. And Fox-lox said:
"Where are you going ?"
And they said: "Chicken-licken went to the wood, and the sky fell on to his head, and
we are going to tell the King."
And Fox-lox said: "Come along with me, and I will show you the way." But Fox-lox took them into the fox's hole, and he and his young ones soon ate up poor Chicken-licken, Hen-len, Cock-lock, Duck-luck, Drake-lake, Goose-loose,' Ganderdander, and Turkey-lurkey; and they never saw the King to tell him that the sky had fallen.
It would seem everybody is getting into the act.
...
Greenpeace Confesses to Ice Cap Melting Exaggeration:
On July 15th, Greenpeace said in a press release calling for urgent action: “As permanent ice decreases, we are looking at ice-free summers in the Arctic as early as 2030,†but in an interview with BBC, Greenpeace leader Gerd Leipold said that might not exactly be the case. See the video below:
Emotionalizing or scare tactics? The problem with fear-mongering is that it’s a double-edged sword. Chicken Little scenarios allow you to convince someone to do something they may not have otherwise done or they can make you look very foolish.
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/08/19/greenpeace-confesses-to-ice-cap-melting-exagerration/
Regards...
Could someone please clarify what the anti global warming people have against those who believe? Is it because you do not want to spend $ on going green?
My brother is an anti global warmest. He's a Republican, a conservative. Recently he said that he "hates" people who drive those "green" vehicles. You know, the people who are *trying* to help our world become a cleaner & better place. It appears he thinks these people are trying to destroy this nation! Would you believe that. What nerve of these people!! Yes, I am guilty of having a heart, compassion for *all* life on this beautiful planet!!!
What blows me away is what anti global warmest say. It's as if they are on a mission now, a mission of war, and anything goes, including lies & making up stuff. I can't believe the things my brother says. When asked to show the data, ... I hear nothing but silence! How sad.
Paul
Quote from: PaulLowrance on November 29, 2009, 09:53:37 AM
Could someone please clarify what the anti global warming people have against those who believe? Is it because you do not want to spend $ on going green?
My brother is an anti global warmest. He's a Republican, a conservative. Recently he said that he "hates" people who drive those "green" vehicles. You know, the people who are *trying* to help our world become a cleaner & better place. It appears he thinks these people are trying to destroy this nation! Would you believe that. What nerve of these people!! Yes, I am guilty of having a heart, compassion for *all* life on this beautiful planet!!!
What blows me away is what anti global warmest say. It's as if they are on a mission now, a mission of war, and anything goes, including lies & making up stuff. I can't believe the things my brother says. When asked to show the data, ... I hear nothing but silence! How sad.
Paul
Paul:
I think I can sum that up, or I will at least try. It is the unintended consequences of attempting to fix a problem that does not exist, and thereby create much more serious problems. Some examples would be the use of methanol in vehicles (mandatory now) which has used up a large part of the grain production which now makes food very scare in other countries that we used to supply with it. Now those folks over there are starving so some of us here can feel good about "saving the planet" by burning just a little less fossil fuels. I too dislike the folks that get sucked in by hybrids like Prius, etc. It is their ignorance and short-sightedness that bothers me. They pay an additional $8,000 to get a vehicle that gets less mpg than a VW rabbit diesel did in 1980. The new VW diesels (not allowed into the US, of course) get over 75 mpg as tested by Popular Mechanics. Now in about 3-4 years, no one is really sure, those batteries on the Prius and the like will no longer hold a charge, just like cellphones and cordless phone batteries. So, they go to the landfill and the owner must now cough up another $5,000 for the new battery...so...what is being saved here really?
Myself, and I think most of the folks here, are interested in other energy sources or we would not be here. I am in it for reducing costs and working on viable renewable energy sources, not to save the planet (the planet needs no saving) but to make energy cheaper and cleaner. I don't litter and I don't pollute so I guess some might say I am a "green" person but I dislike that term because, it automatically assumes I buy into the whole global warming scam, as well as a few others and, I guess most folks know by now that I do not.
California mandated that 40% of their cars have to be electric in a few years and will no longer register gas engine cars above that remaining amount. Good idea? Sounds like one right? No, if electric vehicles were viable, folk would be lining up to buy them already. They are not. The Gov. should not force an artificial demand on the people like this. And, this is the best part, California now buys most of it's electricity from out of state because they will not allow power plants in the state. they already have roving blackouts on a regular basis. what happen when 40% of the cars plug into their homes to recharge? Boom, major blackout. Someone should have thought about where the power was going to come from before mandating this.
Anyway, just my thoughts.
BTW Paul, nice work on your b-cap testing. It is much needed and I think you are doing a great job of it.
Bill
@Paul,
This video will reveal what is really behind the global warming agenda.
make sure you watch/listen to part 2.
Lord Christopher Monckton on Alex Jones Tv:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1Qhm6YRdJE&feature=related
What is revealed is truely chilling.
Masterplaster:
Yes, I believe that is the interview I just listened to the other day. He had a lot of good information. I just could not remember his name. (Lord Monckton)
Bill
And Alex Jones is a trustworthy source ? That CIA agitator ?
If you wanna know the truth on any issue , you must think the exact opposite of whatever Alex Jones , Jeff Rense and Cap-Z-ro .
They say hate Obama , you must love Obama .
They say Global warming is a scam , you must believe in global warming .
They say vaccines are bad , get vaccinated
etc...etc ...
Quote
If you wanna know the truth on any issue , you must think the exact opposite of whatever Alex Jones , Jeff Rense and Cap-Z-error .
They say hate Obama , you must love Obama .
They say Global warming is a scam , you must believe in global warming .
They say vaccines are bad , get vaccinated
Wrong.
Want the truth? Do the research and decide for yourself. ::)
Hi Bill,
You raised two points.
1. That biofuel vehicles use food that people need. You can read about this at,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_vs._fuel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_vs._fuel)
There you can see both sides of food vs. fuel. Can biofuels succeed? Brazil says yes. "Brazil has been considered to have the world's first sustainable biofuels economy[17][18][19] and its government claims Brazil's sugar cane based ethanol industry has not contributed to the 2008 food crisis."
Biofuels in the not the only option, as it is only one of many options. So I can't see this as valid reason for anti global warmest to hate environmentalist.
2. That global warming is a scam. I definitely disagree. So far the only valid peer review data I've seen clearly shows global warming.
Are there any other reasons. So far the only valid reason I see is that a lot of people place the economy ($) over the environment. That would be sad, but not to many people would want to admit that.
Paul
For those who may have missed the opening link posted.
The yet to be convicted "scientists" had also set up their own "peer review process" among themselves, to lend the appearance of credibility to their fraudulent data.
Regards...
And now a Whitehouse "scientist" is implicated in 'Climategate'
Which begs the question, how many more of these types in trust positions do we have to see before we catch on to the likelihood that they are all like that ??
Wait til you read this guy's resume/pedigree...its hard to make stuff like this up...here's a sample...
" He co-authored a 1977 book, “Ecoscience: Population Resources, Environment,†advocating compulsory abortion for purposes of population control, mass sterilization, "
More here...
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/climategate_holdren_email/2009/11/27/291545.html
Regards...
Cap:
Holy Crap!
Thanks for the info.
Bill
The air quality has not gotten any better with all the emissions that we give off and all the trees we ha slain while algae is responsible for 1/3 or whatever of all of the oxygen in this world the trees amongst other things still produce the other 2/3 ...
Population control should be instated at some point and time while I am unsure if it is needed at this point I chose not to father a child and this is one of my reasons.
Finally global warming may be from a number of things and carbon emissions I do not think are the only cause but they must surely have some contributing effect...
Anyhow this world does need to learn how to conserve its natural resources and replenish them as well if we do not we will some day suffer or make our future generations suffer. So weather they make up a crisis to bring this fact to life or not we must understand the urgency and importance of this.
Free energy is the holy grail! With it we will unmask the improbable and make the impossible seem possible. There will be no need for population control because we can then begin to create. Imagine 20 story greenhouses all lit by free energy so enormous because we can afford to produce precious metals from the earth at no energy cost all lit with lights that contain no mercury because we are no longer depend on low power lights to balance the use imagine computers built so vast and powered servers to figure out age old problems like protein folding in a fraction of the time imagine this because the silicone created one of the most abundant resources could finally be harnessed and likewise the fields of solar panels to power our planet! Imagine how easily and cheaply we could recycle everything. The list goes on my friend.
The problem you talk of still is here its up to you to ignore the true problem or ignore it.
Enjoy!
-infringer-
The emissions you speak of is CO2, or at least that is what the warming folks now call a poison gas. CO2 helps the trees, plants and gardens grow better, faster and healthier as that is what they breathe in, and what we exhale....isn't nature great?
By the way, some confuse smog with CO2. Smog is not CO2. But I do agree we should not pollute. This is why my electric bill is under $30 most months. (8 out of 12)
Bill
don't forget the mighty ocean is the main filter of CO2, they also found out that shellfish filter this CO2 from the Ocean and use it to make their shells.
when scientist realized that the ocean filters CO2 they went looking for high quantities of it, to their amazement it was not even nearly what they expected then they discovered that shellfish were the culprit behind the missing CO2.
Oyster any one!?
Quote from: infringer on November 29, 2009, 11:35:24 PM
The air quality has not gotten any better with all the emissions that we give off and all the trees we ha slain while algae is responsible for 1/3 or whatever of all of the oxygen in this world the trees amongst other things still produce the other 2/3 ...
I agree, the slaughter of forests is nothing less than a crime. Large buildings are made of steel, which is better than wood. It's stronger. It does not burn down and support any potential fire. Ah, but it cost more $$$, which is probably the reason for not using steel structures for homes. How sad, economy over our beautiful planet.
Quote from: infringer on November 29, 2009, 11:35:24 PMPopulation control should be instated at some point and time while I am unsure if it is needed at this point I chose not to father a child and this is one of my reasons.
Wow, I want to kiss you in great thanks, and I'm a straight man! Thank you Sir so much!!! I too have taken the same vow. If one wants a child, then please adopt, and give those children a great home, as they need it.
Quote from: infringer on November 29, 2009, 11:35:24 PMFinally global warming may be from a number of things and carbon emissions I do not think are the only cause but they must surely have some contributing effect...
It's great to see a logical person here. Too much "hate" & emotions. :) Yes, carbon emissions definitively contribute. There are a lot of gases that contribute to global warming. The famous TV show, "Mythbusters," proved that CO2 does contribute to global warming. Yes, it's a natural gas, but nature produces a certain %. Too much of any natural gas can be bad.
Quote from: infringer on November 29, 2009, 11:35:24 PMAnyhow this world does need to learn how to conserve its natural resources and replenish them as well if we do not we will some day suffer or make our future generations suffer. So weather they make up a crisis to bring this fact to life or not we must understand the urgency and importance of this.
Free energy is the holy grail! With it we will unmask the improbable and make the impossible seem possible. There will be no need for population control because we can then begin to create. Imagine 20 story greenhouses all lit by free energy so enormous because we can afford to produce precious metals from the earth at no energy cost all lit with lights that contain no mercury because we are no longer depend on low power lights to balance the use imagine computers built so vast and powered servers to figure out age old problems like protein folding in a fraction of the time imagine this because the silicone created one of the most abundant resources could finally be harnessed and likewise the fields of solar panels to power our planet! Imagine how easily and cheaply we could recycle everything. The list goes on my friend.
Lets hope the haters can at least help us by trying to undo humanities destruction. We need everyones help! :)
Regards,
Paul
I thought I heard in an interview on CNN today that the British government is seriously thinking of throwing away the last 30 years of climate data and starting anew. Can anyone verify?
sorry about the last post. This is what i heard
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece?liars
I look forward to the day when the only warming these crooks will be concerned with is 'cell block warming' and a warm "reception" from Bubba in the jailhouse shower.
Regards...
Thats total crap. There is huge amounts of uranium ore to be extracted. I know of mines which have not been opened since breeder reactors were invented that have mega tons of uranium ore in them.
Quote from: lumen on November 27, 2009, 09:10:02 PM
If we all used nuclear power instead of coal it would only run us about 10 years.