The following is continued from another thread to focus on the topic of 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
Quote from: Pirate88179 on November 25, 2009, 04:48:36 AMThe 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.
The funny thing is that anyone can make a claim on a forum, but fortunately WikiPedia requires valid references for claims, and according the WikiPedia there is a clear global warming trend,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Satellite_Temperatures.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Satellite_Temperatures.png)
and the above page graph is also shown in the WikiPedia main page on "Global Warming" -->
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming)
I'll address your other *claims* in further posts.
Paul
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.
That's misrepresenting the truth. The video clearly shows a *baby* polar bear being left by the mother due to the melting.
Can you please clearly state the glaciers in totality are not melting?
Paul
Quote from: Pirate88179 on November 25, 2009, 04:48:36 AMAlso, CO2 is not a poison gas as the US EPA now says it is.
Please show a valid reference as WikiPedia requires for the sake of being scientific.
Paul
Quote from: Pirate88179 on November 25, 2009, 04:48:36 AMAl 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.
Are you trying to say that glaciers are not retreating and thinning? That is simply not true. Quote from WikiPedia,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Glacier_Mass_Balance.png
"This figure shows the average rate of thickness change in mountain glaciers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/glacier) around the world. This information, known as the glaciological mass balance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/glaciological_mass_balance), is found by measuring the annual snow (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/snow) accumulation and subtracting surface ablation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ablation) driven by melting, sublimation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/sublimation), or wind erosion. These measurements do not account for thinning associated with iceberg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/iceberg) calving, flow related thinning, or subglacial erosion. All values are corrected for variations in snow and firn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/firn) density and expressed in meters of water (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/water) equivalent (Dyurgerov 2002).
Measurements are shown as both the annual average thickness change and the accumulated change during the fifty years of measurements presented. Years with a net increase in glacier thickness are plotted upwards and in red; years with a net decrease in glacier thickness (i.e. positive thinning) are plotted downward and in blue. Only three years in the last 50 have experienced thickening in the average.
Systematic measurements of glacier thinning began in the 1940s, but fewer than 15 sites had been measured each year until the late 1950s. Since then more than 100 sites have contributed to the average in some years (Dyurgerov 2002, Dyurgerov and Meier 2005). Error bars indicate the standard error (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/standard_error) in the mean.
Other observations, based on glacier length records, suggest that glacier retreat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/glacier_retreat) has occurred nearly continuously since the early 1800s and the end of the little ice age (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/little_ice_age), but variations in rate have occurred,
including a significant acceleration during the twentieth century that is believed to have been a response to global warming (Oerlemans 2005).Data
These measurements are described in Dyurgerov (2002), updated in Dyurgerov and Meier (2005), and archived at the World Glacier Monitoring Service (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Glacier_Monitoring_Service) at the National Snow and Ice Data Center (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Snow_and_Ice_Data_Center). [1] (http://nsidc.org/data/docs/noaa/g10002_instarr_glacier_mass_balance_regime/index.html)
[2] (ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/pub/DATASETS/NOAA/G10002/)"
Quote from: Pirate88179 on November 25, 2009, 04:48:36 AM
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.
You've made a lot of false claims that would never stand at WikiPedia due to the strict WikiPedia policy of requiring facts & valid references. Sir, I believe you have it backwards. The motive is to hush the facts about Global Warming for the sake of the economy, and that it is a sick act. To actually place ones wallet ($$$) & luxuries over all of the other beautiful species & life on this planet is very sad.
Paul
Quote from: Pirate88179 on November 25, 2009, 04:48:36 AM
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.
No reply necessary since you made no claim. Your humor on their misfortune is noted.
Paul
I've seen two moderators at this forum, both appear to be opposed too Global Warming. Therefore I cannot trust that my posts here will remain unedited, and therefore people can refer to the following blog page,
http://globalfreeenergy.info/2009/11/25/motives-to-hush-global-warming/
Regards,
Paul
For me, global warming is equal to global mercury poisoning.
One major source of air mercury is the emission from the fossil fuel.
The atmospheric warming effects also stimulate release of mercury vapor from the ocean, the oil fields and the mining areas.
Both China and Indonesia are well known for their contribution to mercury pollution. Ironically, both countries have been plagued by devasting natural disasters.
Yes, they are all man made.
@paul
Please see
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8342.msg210577#msg210577
Also
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dt2arDi7K8
Also all of the beach water out here in Los Angeles county contains levels of mercury. Those poor people who live off the fish caught on the piers!
We can do better than this! Looks like China & USA made some good headway with recent talks! :)
Paul
Quote from: MasterPlaster on November 25, 2009, 02:46:44 PM
@paul
Please see
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8342.msg210577#msg210577 (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8342.msg210577#msg210577)
Also
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dt2arDi7K8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dt2arDi7K8)
I replied in that thread already,
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8342.msg210872#msg210872 (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8342.msg210872#msg210872)
This recent contraversy is not about if global warming is real. We all know it's real. It's about how much of it's caused by humanity.
The media has been filming glaciers all around the world for decades. It's a fact they are thinning and retreating, and disappearing. Like I said, even TV documentary shows such as Huell Howser's TV show "California Gold" have shown before and after video footage of glariers in *California* disappearing. That is a fact. The park rangers took Huel to some California glaciers and the rangers clearly said they are vanishing. Huel Howser took video footage of these places ages ago, and then he took recent footage. It is shocking at how fast these glaciers are vanishing! What's more shocking this massive movement to try and hide this truth. Why? One word, "Economy!" How sad for humanity to bully around the other weaker species and the entire natural environment on the planet for $$$ & luxury.
Paul
Huell Howser does a show on places in California. So he's done TV shows various glaciers in California such as Conness Glacier. Quote from WikiPedia, "In 2004, a study found that since 1900, Conness Glacier had lost half its surface area-- reference: Basagic, Hassan; Andrew G. Fountain. "Glaciers and Glacier Change in the Sierra Nevada, California" (pdf). U.S. Geological Survey. http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/mtnclim/talks/pdf/basagic_fountain_poster_mtnclim2006.pdf. (http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/mtnclim/talks/pdf/basagic_fountain_poster_mtnclim2006.pdf.) Retrieved 2007-01-23."
I and millions of people who watch Huell on TV can testify that this is correct. The before & after video footage is devastatingly sad. At this point who cares about the email war about if the data suggests a lot of global warming is due to humanity or not. Something's causing global warming. Lets not take a chance. Go green!
Paul
Money is the king. The following documents detail which institutions have been paid by ExxonMobil to lie to the scientific community:
http://www.environmentaldefense.org/documents/3860_GlobalClimateSciencePlanMemo.pdf
http://www.environmentaldefense.org/documents/5910_2003.giving_report.pdf
http://research.greenpeaceusa.org/?a=download&d=4380
http://74.125.153.132/search?q=cache:mBYKqnsQlFEJ:www.campaignmoney.com/exxon_mobil.asp+Exxon%27s+2005+contributions&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk
According to Exxon's website, most of their decade-long political contributions were made to the Republican party only. This means they are not really dear to the democratic party:
http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/about_issues_political.aspx
The unexpected election of obama seems like a political punch to them.
It would be nice if everyone in the world was unbiased, but the hacked email incident is spreading such false information. Gavin Schmidt, a research scientist with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, who is unbiased about this topic, says the e-mails offer no damning indictment of climate researchers, and that bloggers are reading information in them out of context. Gavin just made a public statement,
Quote from Gavin Schmidt, a research scientist with
NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies:
Quote"There's nothing in the e-mails that shows that global warming is a hoax," he told Threat Level. "There's no funding by nefarious groups. There's no politics in any of these things; nobody from the [United Nations] telling people what to do. There's nothing hidden, no manipulation. "It's just scientists talking about science, and they're talking relatively openly as people in private e-mails generally are freer with their thoughts than they would be in a public forum. The few quotes that are being pulled out [are out] of context. People are using language used in science and interpreting it in a completely different way."
There are signs aside from global mean temperatures, including melting of arctic sea ice, rising sea levels, and a lot of other indicators.
Paul
Have you noticed that no one has not been discussing polution and destruction of the environment for many many years and all the spot light has instead been turned on global warming?
Why is no one addressing the issue of chemtrails? is it because our betters have decided for us already what we should think?
Actually efforts to ellimate pollution has increased significantly over the years. China was pushed to reduce air pollution, and in fact China has been taking significant steps to reduce environmental pollution since the 2008 Olympics, which brought to light the poor air quality of the country.
Paul
Quote from: PaulLowrance on November 27, 2009, 02:17:05 PM
There are signs aside from global mean temperatures, including melting of arctic sea ice, rising sea levels, and a lot of other indicators.
Paul
Here in Hong Kong, the maximum temperature that I measured during the hottest day in the last summer was around 38 C. But according to Hong Kong Observatory, the temperature on that day was around 30 ~ 31 C. I believe the global mean temperature has been understated.
Regarding HAARP, I think the technology has something to do with stopping hurricanes:
Check out this patent:
US 20080011500
My understanding is that temperature measuring setup is very critical. The level of shading the sensor gets throughout the season, the ventilation, etc. can often make huge differences in the measured temperature. I'm sure they have a standard for setting up the equipment.
Paul
Some glaciers melt, some grow. I can hardly imagine it ever to have been differently.
Melting of glaciers though, is absorbtion of heat, not to be confused with spreading it. The melting water in fact cool the environment everywhere it flows, until it has reached ambient temperature.
It only needs to be warm in one location to have a melting glacier, yet the water could be too cold to swim in, over much larger surface of the globe because of it.
What people forget is that the mass in the atmosphere is insignificant relative to that of the earth. And, that the earth has heat energy within, which it radiates out. Else we'd be needed moonsuits over here. Outer space is COLD, even in the sunlight. Earth keeps us nice and warm. More energy stored within than the sun could add to it.
A warming climate is a great thing to believe in. And a great thing to let the people fo the world bleed over. Financially, for the better of the greater powers. The masterminds just underestimated the intellect of the people. Being 7 billion of them, as many as some types of insect, doesn't make every individual a drown. Smart ones are out there, which can educate the others.
So, global warming became a political brand. An excuse for all. However, the evidence was disappointing, and required fraud.
We're heading into the next ice age. THese come and go. No amount of CO2 will ever (make a start to) prevent that. Carbon tax is childishly dumb. So many other things to tax. My coutry is ace at coming up with taxes. But they're not based on lies. We pay road tax, to be able to use your car for molibity. In return, we have ace road networks. which are safe to boot.
Quote from: Cloxxki on November 28, 2009, 11:27:02 AMSome glaciers melt, some grow.
That's interesting. Can you name some glaciers that have grown over the past 35 years? I not aware of any.
Quote from: Cloxxki on November 28, 2009, 11:27:02 AMWe're heading into the next ice age.
I agree. Ice ages follow global warming,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age#Glacials_and_interglacials (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age#Glacials_and_interglacials)
We're in for a whopper this time, compliments of humanity who's added a little extra boots. ;)
Paul
I just googled it.
http://minnesotansforglobalwarming.com/m4gw/2009/11/himalayan-glaciers-are-growing-and-confounding-global-warming-alarmists.html#more
Really, glaciers are built in ice ages, and melt all the way to the next. How much ice do we really need in the mountains? And isn't Antarctica doing fine? Wasn't Greenland GREEN at some point? Climate changes, and back. Putting out unnecessay fossil pollution is a crime against Mother Earth though, IMO.
Understand me well. I just discovered myself as a cross-country skier. I would really like permanent -3C. My body feels good in it, no allergies, great lung food.
I'm just not a rabid warmer anymore. I cannot deny logic, as no religion of any kind ever worked out for me. I need to see, not to believe what the others have established for me.
Cloxxki said:
Quote
Really, glaciers are built in ice ages, and melt all the way to the next. How much ice do we really need in the mountains?
Enough to fill rivers and lakes, I imagine. The water vapor from lakes and rivers is more than insignificant. El Nino is caused by excess water vapor from a warmer than normal Eastern Pacific off Peru.
Quote
And isn't Antarctica doing fine? Wasn't Greenland GREEN at some point? Climate changes, and back. Putting out unnecessay fossil pollution is a crime against Mother Earth though, IMO.
Yes and no. Low altitude glaciers are melting quickly; high altitude ones are
adding mass.
Quote
I need to see, not to believe what the others have established for me.
I did see on a documentary(American Public TV) that eyewitnesses told the interviewer that glaciers have moved back a lot in a few years to 20 years time. The witness saw it happen and gave firsthand knowledge.
--Lee
Quote from: Cloxxki on November 28, 2009, 05:25:33 PM
I just googled it.
http://minnesotansforglobalwarming.com/m4gw/2009/11/himalayan-glaciers-are-growing-and-confounding-global-warming-alarmists.html#more (http://minnesotansforglobalwarming.com/m4gw/2009/11/himalayan-glaciers-are-growing-and-confounding-global-warming-alarmists.html#more)
Hi,
That website would never qualify as a peer review. The opposite is happening to,
Quote from WikiPedia on the
Himalayan Mountains,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Himalayan_Mountains#Glaciers_and_river_systems (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Himalayan_Mountains#Glaciers_and_river_systems)
"In recent years scientists have monitored a
notable increase in the rate of glacier
retreat across the region as a result of global climate change (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change).
[5] Although the effect of this won't be known for many years it potentially could mean disaster for the hundreds of millions of people who rely on the glaciers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glacier) to feed the rivers of northern India (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India) during the dry seasons.
[6] ""According to a UN climate report, the Himalayan glaciers that are the sources of Asia's biggest rivers could disappear by 2035 as temperatures rise and India (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India), Tibet, Pakistan, Bangladesh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangladesh), Nepal and Myanmar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myanmar) could experience floods followed by droughts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drought) in coming decades.
[7]"Quote from WikiPedia,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Himalayan_Mountains#Impact_on_climate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Himalayan_Mountains#Impact_on_climate)
"To complicate matters, temperatures are rising more rapidly here than the global average.
In Nepal the temperature has risen with 0.6 degree over the last decade, whereas the global warming has been around 0.7 over the last hundred years.[8]"Vanishing Himalayan Glaciers Threaten a Billion
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/42387/story.htm (http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/42387/story.htm)
Glaciers melting at alarming speed (The Tibetan and Xinjiang glaciers)
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001/90781/90879/6222327.html (http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001/90781/90879/6222327.html)
Regards,
Paul
Quote from: PaulLowrance on November 28, 2009, 10:04:47 PM
Hi,
That website would never qualify as a peer review. The opposite is happening to,
Quote from WikiPedia on the Himalayan Mountains,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Himalayan_Mountains#Glaciers_and_river_systems (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Himalayan_Mountains#Glaciers_and_river_systems)
"In recent years scientists have monitored a notable increase in the rate of glacier retreat across the region as a result of global climate change (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change).[5] Although the effect of this won't be known for many years it potentially could mean disaster for the hundreds of millions of people who rely on the glaciers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glacier) to feed the rivers of northern India (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India) during the dry seasons.[6] ""According to a UN climate report, the Himalayan glaciers that are the sources of Asia's biggest rivers could disappear by 2035 as temperatures rise and India (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India), Tibet, Pakistan, Bangladesh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangladesh), Nepal and Myanmar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myanmar) could experience floods followed by droughts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drought) in coming decades.[7]"
Quote from WikiPedia,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Himalayan_Mountains#Impact_on_climate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Himalayan_Mountains#Impact_on_climate)
"To complicate matters, temperatures are rising more rapidly here than the global average. In Nepal the temperature has risen with 0.6 degree over the last decade, whereas the global warming has been around 0.7 over the last hundred years.[8]"
Vanishing Himalayan Glaciers Threaten a Billion
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/42387/story.htm (http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/42387/story.htm)
Glaciers melting at alarming speed (The Tibetan and Xinjiang glaciers)
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001/90781/90879/6222327.html (http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001/90781/90879/6222327.html)
Regards,
Paul
Is that so? consider the following:
Experts question theory on global warming
(Himalayan glaciers not shrinking)
New Delhi - 11 Feb 07 - Some glacial experts have questioned the alarmists theory on global warming leading to shrinkage of Himalayan glaciers. VK Raina, a leading glaciologist and former ADG of GSI is one among them.
He feels that the research on Indian glaciers is negligible. Nothing but the remote sensing data forms the basis of these alarmists observations and not on-the-spot research.
Raina told the Hindustan Times that out of 9,575 glaciers in India, research has been conducted only on about 50. Nearly 200 years data has shown that nothing abnormal has occurred in any of these glaciers.
The issue of glacial retreat is being sensationalised by a few individuals, the septuagenarian Raina claimed.
However, Dr RK Pachouri, Chairman, Inter-Governmental Panel of Climatic Change said it’s recently released fourth assessment report has recorded increased glacier retreat since the 1980s.
But Raina, who has been associated with the research and data collection in over 25 glaciers in India and abroad, debunked the theory that Gangotri glacier is retreating alarmingly.
Maintaining that the glaciers are undergoing natural changes witnessed periodically, he said recent studies in the Gangotri and Zanskar areas (Drung- Drung, Kagriz glaciers) have not shown any evidence of major retreat.
"Claims of global warming causing glacial melt in the Himalayas are based on wrong assumptions," said Raina, a trained mountaineer and skiing expert.
There are only about a dozen scientists working on glaciers in India under the aegis of the Geological Society of India. How can one talk about the state of glaciers when not much research is being done on the ground, he wondered.
In fact, it is difficult to ascertain the exact state of Himalayan glaciers as these are very dusty as compared to the ones in Alaska and the Alps. The present presumptions are based on the cosmatic study of the glacier surfaces.
Nobody knows what is happening. Whatever is being flaunted about the under surface activity of the glaciers is merely presumptions, he claimed.
His views were echoed by Dr RK Ganjoo, Director, Regional Centre for Field Operations and Research on Himalayan Glaciology, who is supervising study of glaciers in Ladakh region including one in the Siachen area. He also maintained that nothing abnormal has been found in any of the Himalyan glaciers studied so far by him.
Another leading geologist MN Koul of Jammu University, who is actively engaged in studying glacier dynamics in J&K and Himachal holds similar views. Referring to his research on Kol glacier ( Paddar, J&K) and Naradu (HP), he said both the glaciers have not changed much in the past two decades.
See full article by Anil Anand at:
http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1925164,0008.htm
Thanks to Jack Holland for this link
Here's a (partial) list of the
specific glaciers that are growing:
* NORWAY
Ã...lfotbreen Glacier
Briksdalsbreen Glacier
Nigardsbreen Glacier
Hardangerjøkulen Glacier
Hansebreen Glacier
Jostefonn Glacier
Engabreen glacier (The Engabreen glacier
is the second largest glacier in Norway. It is a
part (a glacial tongue) of the Svartisen glacier,
which has steadily increased in mass since the
1960s when heavier winter precipitation set in.)
* Norway's glaciers growing at record pace. The face of the Briksdal glacier,
an off-shoot of the largest glacier in Norway and mainland Europe, is growing by an
average 7.2 inches (18 cm) per day. (From the Norwegian daily Bergens Tidende.)
Click here to see mass balance of Norwegian glaciers:
http://www.nve.no/
Choose "English" (at top of the page), choose "Water,"
then "Hydrology," then "Glaciers and Snow" from the menu.
You'll see a list of all significant glaciers in Norway.
(Thanks to Leif-K. Hansen for this info.)
* CANADA
Helm Glacier
Place Glacier
Glaciers growing on Canada’s tallest mountain
17 Nov 08 â€" The ice-covered peak of Yukon's soaring Mount Logan
may be due for an official re-measurement after readings that suggest
this country's superlative summit has experienced a growth spurt.
See Glaciers growing on Canada’s tallest mountain
* France
Mt. Blanc
* ECUADOR
Antizana 15 Alpha Glacier
* Italy
Winter snows did not all melt on Italy’s Presena Glacier this summer
10 Nov 09 - 'Their massive base depth last season meant it didn’t all melt
over the summer so they have nearly a metre and a half of snow on the glacier
ski area already." (The second story of this kind in two years.)
See Winter snows did not all melt on Italy’s Presena Glacier this summer
* SWITZERLAND
Silvretta Glacier
* KIRGHIZTAN
Abramov
* RUSSIA
Maali Glacier (This glacier is surging. See below)
> More info below
* GREENLAND See Greenland Icecap Growing Thicker
Greenland glacier advancing 7.2 miles per year! The BBC recently ran
a documentary, The Big Chill, saying that we could be on the verge of an ice
age. Britain could be heading towards an Alaskan-type climate within a decade,
say scientists, because the Gulf Stream is being gradually cut off. The Gulf
Stream keeps temperatures unusually high for such a northerly latitude.
One of Greenland’s largest glaciers has already doubled its rate of advance,
moving forward at the rate of 12 kilometers (7.2 miles) per year. To see a
transcript of the documentary,
go to http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2003/bigchilltrans.shtml
Greenland Ice Sheet Growing Thicker
4 Nov 05 - After gathering data for more than ten years, a team of
Norwegian-led scientists has found that the Greenland Ice Sheet is
actually growing thicker at its interior.
See Greenland Ice Sheet Growing Thicker
.
.
* NEW ZEALAND
All 48 glaciers in the Southern Alps have grown during the past year.
The growth is at the head of the glaciers, high in the mountains, where they
gained more ice than they lost. Noticeable growth should be seen at the
foot of the Fox and Franz Josef glaciers within two to three years.(27 May 2003)
Fox, Franz Josef glaciers defy trend - New Zealand's two best-known
glaciers are still on the march - 31 Jan 07 - See Franz Josef Glacier
* SOUTH AMERICA
- Argentina's Perito Moreno Glacier (the largest glacier in Patagonia)
is advancing at the rate of 7 feet per day. The 250 km² ice formation,
30 km long, is one of 48 glaciers fed by the Southern Patagonian Ice
Field. This ice field, located in the Andes system shared with Chile,
is the world's third largest reserve of fresh water.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perito_Moreno_Glacier
- Chile's Pio XI Glacier (the largest glacier in the southern hemisphere)
is also growing.
* UNITED STATES
- Colorado (scroll down to see AP article)
- Washington (Mount St. Helens, Mt. Rainier* and Mt. Shuksan
- California (Mount Shasta - scroll down for info)
- Montana (scroll down for info)
- Glacier Peak, WA (scroll down for info
- Alaska (Mt. McKinley and Hubbard).
*
Antarctic ice grows to record levels
13 Sep 07 - While the Antarctic Peninsula area has warmed
in recent years and ice near it diminished during the Southern
Hemisphere summer, the interior of Antarctica has been colder
and ice elsewhere has been more extensive and longer lasting,
See Antarctic ice grows to record levels
Oops - West Antarctic Ice Sheet
not losing ice as fast as we thought
20 Oct 09 â€" New measurements by
GPS Network suggest the rate of ice
loss of the West Antarctic ice sheet
has been slightly overestimated.
See Oops - West Antarctic Ice Sheet not losing ice as fast as we thought
.
*
Antarctica's Filchner-Ronne Ice Shelf is growing
7 Dec 05 â€" Scientists Joughin and Bamber re-evaluated the mass balances
of the ice in Antarctica. "It is clear from the results of this study that the
Filchner-Ronne Ice Shelf is not rapidly, or even slowly, wasting away.
Quite to the contrary, it is growing."
See Antarctica's Filchner-Ronne Ice Shelf growing
*
Global Warming? New Data Shows Ice Is Back
19 Feb 08 - A Feb. 18 report in the London Daily Express showed that there is nearly
a third more ice in Antarctica than usual, challenging the global warming crusaders and
buttressing arguments of skeptics who deny that the world is undergoing global warming.
See Most snow cover since 1966
.
.
*
Mount St. Helens’ Crater Glacier Advancing Three Feet Per Day
25 Jun 07 - See Crater Glacier
*
Against odds, glacier grows in cauldron of Mt. St. Helens
15 May 08 â€" See Glacier grows in cauldron of Mt. St. Helens
*
Mount St. Helens glacier (Crater Glacier) growing 50 feet per year
September 20, 2004 - See Mount St. Helens
*
Glaciers growing on California's Mount Shasta!
12 Oct 03 - See Mount Shasta Glaciers Growing
9 Jul 08 - See also California Glaciers Growing
*
Geologists Unexpectedly Find 100 Glaciers in Colorado
7 Oct 01 See Colorado Glaciers Growing
* Washington's Nisqually Glacier is Growing
See Nisqually Glacier
*
Glaciers in Montana's Glacier Park on the verge of growing
5 Oct 2002. See Glacier Park
* Antarctic Ice Sheet is growing thicker
See Antarctic Icecap Growing Thicker
See Construction crane buried in the Antarctic Ice Sheet
* * *
Alaska's Hubbard Glacier advancing 7 feet per day!
10 May 09 â€" This from climatologist Cliff Harris of the Coeur d’Alene Press.
It's possible that the glacier could close the fjord by later this summer if the
current rate speeds up, says Harris.
See Alaska's Hubbard Glacier advancing 7 feet per day!
Glaciers growing on Glacier Peak, WA
16 Oct 08 â€" Email from reader
Before I moved to CO in 2005 it was obvious that the glaciers and snow
had receded and rock was visible in areas all the way to the peak. The glaciers
and snow are back now ... completely covered in white from top to bottom,
and this is after the "warm" summer months here in the PNW.
See Glaciers growing on Glacier Peak, WA
.
Glaciers in Norway Growing Again
Scandinavian nation reverses trend, mirrors
results in Alaska, elsewhere, reports the Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Directorate.
See Glaciers in Norway Growing Again
Glaciers in western Himalayas thickening and expanding
Arctic ice cover above it’s 30-year average
23 Nov 08 - A study published by the American Meteorological Society
found that glaciers are only shrinking in the eastern Himalayas. Further
west, in the Hindu Kush and the Karakoram, glaciers are "thickening
and expanding".
See Glaciers in western Himalayas thickening and expanding
.
.
Alaskan Glaciers Grow for First Time in 250 years
16 Oct 08 - High snowfall and cold weather to blame leading
to the increase in glacial mass.
See Alaskan Glaciers Grow for First Time in 250 years
.
.
Growing Alaskan glaciers the start of a new Little Ice Age?
14 Oct 08 â€" “Never before in the history of a research project dating back
to 1946 had the Juneau Icefield witnessed the kind of snow buildup that
came this year. It was similar on a lot of other glaciers too.
See Growing Alaskan glaciers the start of a new Little Ice Age?
.
.
Himalayan Glaciers Not Shrinking
Glacial Experts Question Theory of Global Warming
15 Feb 07 - See Himalayan Glaciers Not Shrinking
.
.
Many people have asked why some glaciers in South America are melting.
I think it is perfectly understandable. Remember, we have had two of the
strongest El Ninos on record during the past 21 years. During an El Nino,
a narrow band of the Pacific Ocean warms by as much as 14 degrees. This
band of warm water travels east essentially along the equator until it slams
into South America.
It seems logical that the increased rainfall caused by El Nino, plus the
warmer winds blowing across the warmer water, could hasten glacial melt.
But let me say it again. I do not believe that this is caused by humans, I think
it is caused by the El Nino phenomenon, which is caused by underwater
volcanism, which is increasing due to the ice-age cycle.
With this said, let me point out many glaciers in South America remain
stable, and some - including the Pio XI Glacier and the Perito Moreno
Glacier - are growing. The Pio XI Glacier is the largest glacier in the
southern hemisphere. The Moreno Glacier is the largest glacier in Patagonia.
I find it curious that news reports do not mention these two glaciers.
* * *
Contrary to previous reports, Arctic ice did not thin during the 1990s, say
researchers at the Department of Oceanography at Göteborg University in
Göteborg, Sweden. http://www.envirotruth.org/images/ice-in-90s.pdf
.
.
Alaska Glacier Surges -17 Mar 06
See McGinnis Glacier
silverfish,
I saw that Mount Shasta is in your list, which I am well familiar with, so I went to WikiPedia to get the full picture. Please read,
Quote from WikiPedia on the Mount Shasta's glaciers:
"In 2002, scientists made the first detailed survey of Mount Shasta's glaciers in 50 years. They found that seven of the glaciers have grown over the period 1951-2002, with the Hotlum and Wintun Glaciers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wintun_Glacier) nearly doubling, the Bolam Glacier (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolam_Glacier) increasing by half, and the Whitney and Konwakiton Glaciers growing by a third.[6] The study concluded that though there has been a two to three degree Celsius temperature rise in the region, there has also been a corresponding increase in the amount of snowfall. Increased temperatures have tapped Pacific Ocean (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Ocean) moisture, leading to snowfalls that supply the accumulation zone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accumulation_zone) of the glacier with 40 percent more snowfall than is melted in the ablation zone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ablation_zone)."
As you can the issues at hand are far more complex. Do you actually question that the temperatures have increased 2 - 3 degrees C? Such data is recorded constantly throughout the United States,
Mount Shasta live temperature,
http://weather.yahoo.com/united-states/california/mount-shasta-2455436/ (http://weather.yahoo.com/united-states/california/mount-shasta-2455436/)
Such data is stored. They know what the average temperatures are from any given time period. The problem occurs when people try to take the temperature average from just a few years. Temperatures over the years fluctuate a great deal. One needs to take long term averages, as in decades.
Paul
Quote from: PaulLowrance on November 29, 2009, 03:24:30 PMMount Shasta live temperature,
http://weather.yahoo.com/united-states/california/mount-shasta-2455436/ (http://weather.yahoo.com/united-states/california/mount-shasta-2455436/)
BTW, if you click on "
Records and Averages" you will see there are records going back to 1949, which means this Mount Shasta database alone goes back to at least 1949. Yes, such temperatures have been recorded for a long time. They know the average
*long term* temperatures. Global warming is real.
Paul
Global warming = a government full of crooks trying to find ways to tax its already over taxed people ....
Here is a thought if the Glaciers are ICE , then that means it was water BEFORE it was ice ..So it once was all melted ..
If all the ice on the planet melts tomorrow there nothing anybody can do about it ......Just like if the sun just stopped burning we would all be ice and there would be not one thing we could to about ....
If an asteroid hits the planet and kills everything theres nothing nobody can do about it ..
Its just a bunch propaganda BS for crooks to get money ...
If it warms up ,it warms up ...OH WELL ....
Ha ha, anyone seeing a pattern at this forum. It appears that "OU Movement" = Anti Global Warming = Pro Oil Movement. Maybe this is the secret behind the truck load of faked OU claims, and their truck load of supporters. ;) That would make a nice investigation, no? Maybe Rush Limbaugh is behind this secret movement. ;D
Who cares about a pattern? We should seek the truth first.
Quote from: MasterPlaster on November 30, 2009, 12:44:50 PM
Who cares about a pattern? We should seek the truth first.
Hi,
Patterns detected from data analysis is part of science (seeking the truth), and is referred to as statistics,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistics)
I'd like to obtain the USA temperature database for each city. That's Climatology 101, but it's a start. I believe such long term data shows a clear incline of USA temperature. After that we can obtain data from say the UK.
Regards,
Paul
Quote from: PaulLowrance on November 29, 2009, 03:24:30 PM
silverfish,
I saw that Mount Shasta is in your list, which I am well familiar with, so I went to WikiPedia to get the full picture. Please read,
Quote from WikiPedia on the Mount Shasta's glaciers:
"In 2002, scientists made the first detailed survey of Mount Shasta's glaciers in 50 years. They found that seven of the glaciers have grown over the period 1951-2002, with the Hotlum and Wintun Glaciers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wintun_Glacier) nearly doubling, the Bolam Glacier (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolam_Glacier) increasing by half, and the Whitney and Konwakiton Glaciers growing by a third.[6] The study concluded that though there has been a two to three degree Celsius temperature rise in the region, there has also been a corresponding increase in the amount of snowfall. Increased temperatures have tapped Pacific Ocean (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Ocean) moisture, leading to snowfalls that supply the accumulation zone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accumulation_zone) of the glacier with 40 percent more snowfall than is melted in the ablation zone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ablation_zone)."
As you can the issues at hand are far more complex. Do you actually question that the temperatures have increased 2 - 3 degrees C? Such data is recorded constantly throughout the United States,
Mount Shasta live temperature,
http://weather.yahoo.com/united-states/california/mount-shasta-2455436/ (http://weather.yahoo.com/united-states/california/mount-shasta-2455436/)
Such data is stored. They know what the average temperatures are from any given time period. The problem occurs when people try to take the temperature average from just a few years. Temperatures over the years fluctuate a great deal. One needs to take long term averages, as in decades.
Paul
First of all, I don't depend on Wikipedia, a notoriously manipulated source, for my information - and secondly, the planet is in a cooling phase, 90% or more glaciers are increasing,
precipitation is increasing here in the UK, we have had virtually monsoon conditions for the past 2 weeks - there have been record cold spells in the US,
sunspots have been at an all-time low, which generally heralds planetary cooling, if not a mini-ice age; in terms of major planetary cycles, we are due for both 'mini' and 'maxi'. If you want to stick to the global warming orthodoxy, after -admitted- emails exposed by hackers have exposed it as a complete fraud for the purpose of extorting a global carbon tax from the population, then by all means, go ahead and believe what you like. Al Gore's personal 'carbon footprint' is 100 times the average person's, his carbon trading company stands to reap billions in profits on the basis of questionable science, to say the very least - So I agree with Lord Monckton that it's high time this unbelievable fraudulant manipulation of data, and the peer pressure that goes along with it, is exposed. If you think the current cycle of cooling is just part of global warming, then please go ahead and prepare to roast while the rest of us
'poor uninformed souls' are going to be freezing our t*ts off.
Sorry silverfish, but so far you have been unable to show *any* peer reviewed data that backs up your *claims.* All of the data you've posted that I've looked at were the opposite of what the *references* at WikiPedia show.
If by chance you find a legit reference, then post it at WikiPedia. There are a lot of scientists that maintain WikiPedia, and they will not tolerate politically based science such as stating there's global cooling because the temperature has dropped over the past year. Again, the fluctuation noise is far to high to take a few years average.
You may not like WikiPedia, perhaps because they require peer reviewed references.
Paul
@paul,
If you publically provide the accurate temperature readings for the years 1700 to 1800 I will send you a cheque for $1000.
I love polar bears as much as the next man but I don't like being lied to.
in the mean while, as much as I respect your scientific stance, I think this global warming issue is more like a religion to you.
These are some quotes from the people who started all this.
"We are moving toward a New World Order, the world of communism. We shall never turn off that road." -- Mikhail Gorbachev (1987)
"The threat of environmental crisis will be the 'international disaster key' that will unlock the New World Order." -- Mikhail Gorbachev (Monetary & Economic Review, 1996, p. 5)
"My hope is that this charter will be a kind of Ten Commandments." -- Mikhail Gorbachev (Regarding 1992 Earth Summit in Rio)
"The real goal of the Earth Charter is that it will in fact become like the Ten Commandments." -- Maurice Strong
"The social experiment in China under Chairman Mao's leadership is one of the most important and successful in human history." -- David Rockefeller (NY Times, Aug. 10, 1973)
"A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal." -- Ted Turner (1996)
"There is no greater advocate of perestroika than the president of the United States." -- President George Bush [Sr.] (November 22, 1989)
"The essence of perestroika lies in the fact that it unites socialism with democracy and revives the Leninist concept of socialist construction both in theory and in practice." -- Mikhail Gorbachev (Perestroika; 1988)
You can read more here:
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Video:Environ-Mentalism:_A_New_Religion_for_a_New_Age
Quote from: PaulLowrance on November 25, 2009, 09:07:23 AM
Are you trying to say that glaciers are not retreating and thinning? That is simply not true. Quote from WikiPedia,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Glacier_Mass_Balance.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Glacier_Mass_Balance.png)
"This figure shows the average rate of thickness change in mountain glaciers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/glacier) around the world. This information, known as the glaciological mass balance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/glaciological_mass_balance), is found by measuring the annual snow (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/snow) accumulation and subtracting surface ablation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ablation) driven by melting, sublimation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/sublimation), or wind erosion. These measurements do not account for thinning associated with iceberg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/iceberg) calving, flow related thinning, or subglacial erosion. All values are corrected for variations in snow and firn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/firn) density and expressed in meters of water (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/water) equivalent (Dyurgerov 2002).
Measurements are shown as both the annual average thickness change and the accumulated change during the fifty years of measurements presented. Years with a net increase in glacier thickness are plotted upwards and in red; years with a net decrease in glacier thickness (i.e. positive thinning) are plotted downward and in blue. Only three years in the last 50 have experienced thickening in the average.
Systematic measurements of glacier thinning began in the 1940s, but fewer than 15 sites had been measured each year until the late 1950s. Since then more than 100 sites have contributed to the average in some years (Dyurgerov 2002, Dyurgerov and Meier 2005). Error bars indicate the standard error (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/standard_error) in the mean.
Other observations, based on glacier length records, suggest that glacier retreat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/glacier_retreat) has occurred nearly continuously since the early 1800s and the end of the little ice age (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/little_ice_age), but variations in rate have occurred, including a significant acceleration during the twentieth century that is believed to have been a response to global warming (Oerlemans 2005).
Data
These measurements are described in Dyurgerov (2002), updated in Dyurgerov and Meier (2005), and archived at the World Glacier Monitoring Service (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Glacier_Monitoring_Service) at the National Snow and Ice Data Center (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Snow_and_Ice_Data_Center). [1] (http://nsidc.org/data/docs/noaa/g10002_instarr_glacier_mass_balance_regime/index.html)
[2] (ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/pub/DATASETS/NOAA/G10002/ (ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/pub/DATASETS/NOAA/G10002/))"
Come on, Wikipedia is not a valid source for any information. It can be edited by anyone and credentials are not checked when edited.
The news today was that they discovered the source code used by the east Anglia university's Global warming model was rigged also. The whole thing is a fraud. England is going to pursue fraud charges against these people. They destroyed all of their original data once the FOIA requests began to come in. their reason? they said they needed more room on their hard drives. What kind of scientist destroys ANY original data prior to a peer review? These guys were not scientist but simply scammers that, thankfully, have now been caught.
If you need me to post sources for the above, I will go look them up and edit this later. It was all over the radio today on about 6 different shows and news programs.
Bill
Quote from: PaulLowrance on November 30, 2009, 08:29:48 AM
Ha ha, anyone seeing a pattern at this forum. It appears that "OU Movement" = Anti Global Warming = Pro Oil Movement. Maybe this is the secret behind the truck load of faked OU claims, and their truck load of supporters. ;) That would make a nice investigation, no? Maybe Rush Limbaugh is behind this secret movement. ;D
[/quotPaul:
Paul:
With all due respect, the truth is not a secret movement. We have been lied to about this for many years now and a lot of so-called scientist are going to wish they did not fake these numbers. They might be credentialed but they let politics and money over rule the scientific method. I doubt any of them will be able to get a job teaching grammar school science classes after this.
Bill
Quote from: PaulLowrance on November 27, 2009, 02:17:05 PM
It would be nice if everyone in the world was unbiased, but the hacked email incident is spreading such false information. Gavin Schmidt, a research scientist with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, who is unbiased about this topic, says the e-mails offer no damning indictment of climate researchers, and that bloggers are reading information in them out of context. Gavin just made a public statement,
Quote from Gavin Schmidt, a research scientist with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies:
There are signs aside from global mean temperatures, including melting of arctic sea ice, rising sea levels, and a lot of other indicators.
Paul
Sorry for the repeated posts but, since you quoted me so many times from another topic, I feel the need to correct your posts as I read them.
The e-mail was not hacked. That is totally incorrect. That is not even the right term for it if that was what happened but it was not. It was an inside job done by a disgruntled person working there. So, no need to crack the system (the correct term) as they had a password and full legal access. My source is not WIKI (no one I know quotes WIKI as a source, they all know better) but an interview with employees speaking for themselves on the radio. They were there, the folks writing the WIKI stuff were not.
Also, why did Al Gore and company suddenly change the term "global warming" to "climate change" after numerous reports came in to show the planet had been cooling for quite some time now? If the planet were indeed warming and if they actually had the science to back it up, why the sudden name change? "Climate change" pretty much covers everything heating and cooling so, they could be right no matter what happens. They would not do this if global warming were real.
You are correct in that I have not been posting enough sources for my info. That is because I listen to the radio and hear it right from the people themselves in interviews. But here are some:
Scientists dump data: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece
Climategate. This is the worst scientific scandal of our generation: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html
We pay a high price for misinterpreting evidence about climate change: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/letters/6693394/We-pay-a-high-price-for-misinterpreting-evidence-about-climate-change.html
Global warming fraud and the future of science: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/global_warming_fraud_and_the_f.html
Global warming fraud. Somebody needs to go to jail: http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/17187
Documenting the global warming fraud: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/01/documenting_the_global_warming_1.html
Climategate exposes the global warming hoax: http://english.pravda.ru/science/earth/30-11-2009/110832-climategate-0
Record lows dispel global warming myth: http://www.newsmax.com/brennan/gore_global_warming/2009/08/04/243871.html
Bill
Quote from: Pirate88179 on December 01, 2009, 03:08:25 AM
Come on, Wikipedia is not a valid source for any information. It can be edited by anyone and credentials are not checked when edited.
I've worked with wikipedia for a long time. People who abuse wikipedia are banned. Wikipedia does not need "credentials" from posters since they are not prejudice, but what wikipedia requires is peer reviewed references. If there are none, then the information will be removed from the wikipedia page, or a notice next to the statement will be placed. That is science! Not a bunch of claims to support ones own belief system.
Wikipedia provides peer reviewed references. No offense, but that's something you people could learn to do. Every person in at this forum that is making *claims* against global warming have not provided peer review references.
Quote from: Pirate88179 on December 01, 2009, 03:08:25 AM
The news today was that they discovered the source code used by the east Anglia university's Global warming model was rigged also. The whole thing is a fraud. England is going to pursue fraud charges against these people. They destroyed all of their original data once the FOIA requests began to come in. their reason? they said they needed more room on their hard drives. What kind of scientist destroys ANY original data prior to a peer review? These guys were not scientist but simply scammers that, thankfully, have now been caught.
You make it appear as if it's all of the scientists in the world. It was only a few. Also, you make it appear as if these people control all of the global warming data in the world. Nothing could be farther from the truth, as the data has been backed up and spread all around the world. Even Yahoo & many other companies have live weather data records.
Quote from: Pirate88179 on December 01, 2009, 03:08:25 AM
If you need me to post sources for the above, I will go look them up and edit this later. It was all over the radio today on about 6 different shows and news programs.
Bill, I guess you have mod rights in this area. If so, then I know you will not go back and edit *old* posts because that would be abusing your mod rights. What you probably meant was that you would make *new* posts showing the data, as that way people will see the data. Please, by all means post the data, but it *must* be from peer reviewed data.
Paul
Quote from: MasterPlaster on November 30, 2009, 07:19:40 PM
@paul,
in the mean while, as much as I respect your scientific stance, I think this global warming issue is more like a religion to you.
That's odd since I'm the only one who's posting scientific data.
So far, those who oppose global warming are making claims, or have posted links to non-peer reviewed websites. Hmm, and you say I'm the one who's religious? LOL
Paul
Quote from: Pirate88179 on December 01, 2009, 03:11:28 AM
Paul:
With all due respect, the truth is not a secret movement. We have been lied to about this for many years now and a lot of so-called scientist are going to wish they did not fake these numbers. They might be credentialed but they let politics and money over rule the scientific method. I doubt any of them will be able to get a job teaching grammar school science classes after this.
Bill
Bill, what you are doing is allowing a few scientists to fulfill your beliefs. That is wrong brother! There are countless videos from the media over the decades that have filmed the glaciers melting. Live weather data has been available and spread to countless companies for decades, which shows a pattern of heating.
Paul
Quote from: Pirate88179 on December 01, 2009, 03:19:57 AM
Sorry for the repeated posts but, since you quoted me so many times from another topic, I feel the need to correct your posts as I read them.
The e-mail was not hacked. That is totally incorrect. That is not even the right term for it if that was what happened but it was not. It was an inside job done by a disgruntled person working there. So, no need to crack the system (the correct term) as they had a password and full legal access. My source is not WIKI (no one I know quotes WIKI as a source, they all know better) but an interview with employees speaking for themselves on the radio. They were there, the folks writing the WIKI stuff were not.
Also, why did Al Gore and company suddenly change the term "global warming" to "climate change" after numerous reports came in to show the planet had been cooling for quite some time now? If the planet were indeed warming and if they actually had the science to back it up, why the sudden name change? "Climate change" pretty much covers everything heating and cooling so, they could be right no matter what happens. They would not do this if global warming were real.
You are correct in that I have not been posting enough sources for my info. That is because I listen to the radio and hear it right from the people themselves in interviews. But here are some:
Scientists dump data: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece)
Climategate. This is the worst scientific scandal of our generation: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html)
We pay a high price for misinterpreting evidence about climate change: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/letters/6693394/We-pay-a-high-price-for-misinterpreting-evidence-about-climate-change.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/letters/6693394/We-pay-a-high-price-for-misinterpreting-evidence-about-climate-change.html)
Global warming fraud and the future of science: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/global_warming_fraud_and_the_f.html (http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/global_warming_fraud_and_the_f.html)
Global warming fraud. Somebody needs to go to jail: http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/17187 (http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/17187)
Documenting the global warming fraud: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/01/documenting_the_global_warming_1.html (http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/01/documenting_the_global_warming_1.html)
Climategate exposes the global warming hoax: http://english.pravda.ru/science/earth/30-11-2009/110832-climategate-0 (http://english.pravda.ru/science/earth/30-11-2009/110832-climategate-0)
Record lows dispel global warming myth: http://www.newsmax.com/brennan/gore_global_warming/2009/08/04/243871.html (http://www.newsmax.com/brennan/gore_global_warming/2009/08/04/243871.html)
I just looked at all of your links, and I don't see anything resemblying peer review. A bunch of claims. In all fairness, there was one web page in your links that showed some data,
http://www.newsmax.com/brennan/gore_global_warming/2009/08/04/243871.html (http://www.newsmax.com/brennan/gore_global_warming/2009/08/04/243871.html)
but the problem is, once again it's claims. So lets just *assume* the numbers taken from their claims are correct. That is, they listed a few places that were cold. Here's an example of one of their quotes, "Coolest July on record for Peoria and Lincoln in central Illinois." Bill, man that's not science! First of all that's a *peak*, not an average. Second of all, their list amounts to a speck on the entire global. Global warming is just that, the entire global warming up.
Paul
BTW, yesterday I voiced interest in obtaining some weather data from an unbiased source, perhaps yahoo. We can start off small, perhaps a few cities in the US to see if we can see a slow gradual warming over the fluctuations.
And not one single person replied back with interest. Where's the truth seeking here? Lets hope people do not seek to strengthen their beliefs, but who seek the truth.
Paul
Quote from: PaulLowrance on November 25, 2009, 09:26:18 AM
I've seen two moderators at this forum, both appear to be opposed too Global Warming. Therefore I cannot trust that my posts here will remain unedited, and therefore people can refer to the following blog page,
http://globalfreeenergy.info/2009/11/25/motives-to-hush-global-warming/ (http://globalfreeenergy.info/2009/11/25/motives-to-hush-global-warming/)
Regards,
Paul
Paul:
You have no basis in fact for making a post like this. I find this very unscientific of you, seriously. I know you are an intelligent guy but why would you make such an accusation with no facts to back it up? I find this seriously insulting.
Here is a fact for you that you can easily verify here on this site. (OU.com) In the Joule Thief topic are where I am a moderator (and ONLY in that area) as of a few minutes ago we have recorded there 11,354 posts. Do you know how many posts I have removed since my time as moderator? Care to guess?
I have removed 5 posts. That is 5 posts out of 11,354. I keep very close track because I believe it is a serious thing to remove someone's post. I have never done it without a prior warning and, in most cases like 4 prior warnings. I have never removed a post because "someone did not agree with the moderator". I removed posts that were making personal insults to other forum members...very nasty insults too I might add. They also did not contribute anything to the discussion at hand, only insults and misinformation to boot.
That is it....5.
Surprised? I thought you might be. This is why you should check the facts first before making a serious accusation like that. I am not a moderator in this topic area which hosts this topic of yours.
If you were not referring to me, then I am sorry. If you were not, then maybe you could name the other moderator you were thinking of when making this statement?
You and I can disagree on global warming all day long and it would never cause me to hate you, or anyone. I do not hate any one. It is probably pretty pointless to continue to argue and debate about it because you have your deep seeded beliefs which you apparently have no intention of changing, and so do I.
So, we can leave it at that. I just wanted to set the record straight about my removing posts as a moderator, if indeed you were referring to me. If you were not, then please accept my apology.
Bill
Quote from: Pirate88179 on December 01, 2009, 12:07:48 PM
Paul:
You have no basis in fact for making a post like this. I find this very unscientific of you, seriously. I know you are an intelligent guy but why would you make such an accusation with no facts to back it up? I find this seriously insulting.
Hi,
Because I've had terrible experience with forums. Numerous times the mod or someone (possibly a hacker) has edited my posts at Steorn. I've seen this happen several times. Over here at overunity.com someone keeps looking at my personal messages. For instance, just recently someone sent me a PM, which of course the server emailed to me. So I read my PM via email, rather than via web browser. So at the top of the overunity.com web page it kept saying that I have 1 unread PM. I did not bother clicking on it. Later on in the day the message went away. Somebody read my PM! Some may think, "Well, maybe the server has a time period, and if you do not read your PM's after a certain period then the server will remove the message at the top of the screen." I tested that theory when Stefan sent me a PM days ago, but I did not read it. The message at the top of the screen stayed their for days until I finally clicked on it.
Sorry if you thought I was referring to you. I simply can't trust any of this stuff, for now.
Paul
Paul and Bill,
Forming an opinion on any subject should remain somewhat dynamic, subject to change pending the introduction of new information.
Untoward 'evangelism', either pro or con, simply feeds a bias and limits the recognition of pertinent information when it -does- become available.
Evangelism isn't limited to the proletariat, scientists are every bit as susceptible to personal leanings as everyone else, here are some opinions expressed by the very climatologists around which this matter revolves:
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/
As for providing actual datasets, I doubt you could accurately infer anything more from them than has already been established, especially as there exists such disagreement between lettered members of the profession.
Be that as it may, you might start here:
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/General/temperature.html
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/
I take it you can use a database, perform queries and statistically model the data.
Barring that, you should definitely bypass Wikipedia and instead read the papers published by those climatologists that are directly involved, you'll find links to many of these publications by following the first link in this post.
Tony
The only thing we have to go on is that they faked the data...and destroyed the original date...meaning there is no comparative documenta available.
Period !!!
Except for the newly surfaced information which indicates that 'Climate scam' was in the works since 1961.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvcuylMrkXk
When people lie once, that makes them untrustworthy and means the opposite of what they say is likely closer to the truth.
And...I do not delete text unless it is abusive, destructive, or a distraction.
Obvious outlandish claims are left to stand...unless the author realizes same and removes them.
Regards...
Wishful thinking. They do not have the original data. All of the countless scientists around the world who went to the arctics, glaciers, etc. have the original data.
The title of this thread should be, "Economy over the environment battle."
Paul
[ countless "scientists" ] = guffaw
Emails stolen from UEA, which serves as a repository for climate data, ostensibly show that the scientists are ignoring data that question whether global warming is real and that they have conspired to disparage those who question their work (this, according to James Inhofe, R-Oklahoma).
The actual data that exists at UEA is just part of a dataset maintained at IPCC and mirrored at NOAA and NASA's GISS site, all data is publicly available.
QUOTE: From USA Today, 11/30/09
"The East Anglia temperature records aren't the core problem," says climatologist Patrick Michaels of the Cato Institute in Washington, D.C., which advocates for limited regulation.
Michaels, a skeptic of the worst implications of a warming climate, comes under criticism in the e-mails for a 2007 Journal of Geophysical Research paper he co-wrote. The paper said that industry and urban heat explain half of the temperature rise seen over land. "Attempts to influence editors not to publish papers you don't like: That's the real issue," Michaels says.
END QUOTE
It would appear that (at least in this example), rather than this being a case of 'faked data', it's more involved with personal disagreement between climatologists and attempts to suppress publication. There is simply too much data to be correlated and from too many (redundant) sources for any one climatological team to manifestly 'fake' any raw-data and get away with it.
This is not to say that 'opinions' reflected in the resulting publications submitted for peer-review haven't been subject to suppression attempts, but the data itself remains as-is.
You might also notice that the target of the above suppression attempt is an individual who has blamed industry and urban heat for half of the cause of warming, but that's beside the point.
Tony
.
For any who are interested, this is an archive of everything taken from UEA:
QUOTE: wikileaks.org 11/21/09
This archive presents over 120Mb of emails, documents, computer code and models from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, written between 1996 and 2009.
This archive includes unreleased global temperature analysis computer source code that has been the subject of Freedom of Information Act requests.
END QUOTE
http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_emails%2C_data%2C_models%2C_1996-2009
Tony
Quote
BTW, yesterday I voiced interest in obtaining some weather data from an unbiased source, perhaps yahoo.
Where does Yahoo! get its weather data from?
weather.com
Where does weather.com get its weather data from?
National Climatic Data Center
QUOTE:
The National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) is the largest and most diverse environmental data center in the world containing more than 90 percent of NOAAs data. Data archives at NCDC hold a treasure trove of meteorological/ climatological information, environmental satellite data, and NEXRAD weather radar data. These data are a cornerstone for the prediction of future events which affect the world's environment and economy. The data have become critical to the scientific community and policy makers in regard to global climate variability and trends.
In many regards, this collection represents this nation's heritage in that it contains the history of meteorological observations since the 1700s. The collection is so extensive that it has been estimated that the large majority of all meteorological records ever taken in the United States are available in some form in NCDC's archives.
NCDC's data are available in both digital and non-digital form...
END QUOTE
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/climatedata.html
Quote
We can start off small, perhaps a few cities in the US to see if we can see a slow gradual warming over the fluctuations.
Paul, there's much more to it than air-temperature and I think you realize that localized results over a short time-period are at the very least, misleading if not entirely meaningless.
If you seriously intend to mount an independent assessment of climatological data, you would most probably want to average the findings over as many years as you could find data for. In that case you have few choices other than to use archived data from various national (and/or international) sources.
You might do well to download the archive of stolen emails/program code/data-models I posted earlier to get an idea of what's involved (and also see what was slated for redaction).
If you are only interested in temperatures, there are: vapor-temps, air-temps, surface-temps, ocean-temps to reconcile into something approaching valid results - some data from legacy (older) data will be missing several of these components, in which case you will have to choose giving the missing components a weight-value or excluding the component from the entirety of your data altogether - the validity of your result will depend on how you choose to deal with this.
To extrapolate for missing data in past records, it's often useful to model various factors in a 'what-if' manner in order to back-engineer for results that contribute to present conditions. I see you have some programming experience so you may want to develop algorithms that would allow programmatic insertion of data automatically until present known conditions result from past factors, this would speed the insertion of missing data.
You could actually do this manually with a spreadsheet for small datasets, however, for anything of significant size, programmatic insertion would be required.
Have you considered that all this attention towards carbon-footprint (or not) may be a mechanism to turn our focus away from investigating a more serious and perhaps intentional manipulation?
It may be more useful to develop a database of 'markers' such as plankton die-off, dead-water, species depletion, etc. and attempt to find common-cause other than to concentrate solely on temperature rise/fall.
Tony
Quote from: ATT on December 02, 2009, 01:56:16 PM
Paul, there's much more to it than air-temperature and I think you realize that localized results over a short time-period are at the very least, misleading if not entirely meaningless.
As stated, the interest is in obtaining the database, which is a long term database.
Quote from: ATT on December 02, 2009, 01:56:16 PMIf you are only interested in temperatures, there are: vapor-temps, air-temps, surface-temps, ocean-temps to reconcile into something approaching valid results - some data from legacy (older) data will be missing several of these components, in which case you will have to choose giving the missing components a weight-value or excluding the component from the entirety of your data altogether - the validity of your result will depend on how you choose to deal with this.
I don't believe that their could be a long term global air warming and a global ground cooling trend at the same time in the same location. So I analyzing air temperature is fine.
Quote from: ATT on December 02, 2009, 01:56:16 PMHave you considered that all this attention towards carbon-footprint (or not) may be a mechanism to turn our focus away from investigating a more serious and perhaps intentional manipulation?
No, I think there is a huge anti global warming movement. I think companies that could be harmed by the green movement & global warming movement have incentives to do away with such movements. What's interesting is the # of anti-global warming people at this forum who are "supposedly" interested in legit global clean free energy research. IMO that's a contradiction. If I was a filthy rich scumbag in the oil industry, I'd pay people under the table to post here under countless different user names to distract anyone from legit research, and that's being serious. That is exactly what an intelligent scumbag should do. That in itself could make an interesting investigation. ;)
There could never be enough focus on carbon-footprint.
Quote from: ATT on December 02, 2009, 01:56:16 PMIt may be more useful to develop a database of 'markers' such as plankton die-off, dead-water, species depletion, etc. and attempt to find common-cause other than just temperature rise/fall.
LOL, sorry, I cannot be talked out of analyzing temperature changes!
Paul
You better take a look a the Copenhagen treaty and see what the true advocates of global warming and climate change are after.
By the way did you know Rothschild is going to buy all the UK roads?
The charlatans are all lining up to fleece the public even more.
Lets look past all the fraud, intimidation, and career destroying tactics of criminal conspirators; and instead focus on looking into a "problem" these liars simply made up.
Does that make any sense at all to anyone ???
Regards...
Cap:
All I do know is that we are sitting here and are letting this happen. Why do we do this? (as a people, I mean, no one specific)
Bill
Ran across this blog, it's an example of why those who otherwise support environmental issues have a problem with the direction the global-warming subject is taking:
http://dissidentvoice.org/2009/11/copenhagen-treaty-premises-and-motivations/
Tony
Why...thats a puzzler Bill.
All we can do is spread the truth and hope for the best.
It is encouraging that good people within the corrupt system are now sabotaging the plot.
This latest "leak" is starting to open up a lot of eyes.
Regards...
I know I posted this in another thread. This same argument was already dealt with and it is happening here all over again. I don't care to rehash, but here is a link to a senate minority report that was posted last year, and updated this year in March:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=83947f5d-d84a-4a84-ad5d-6e2d71db52d9
There is no "consensus", there are plenty of scientists that disagree with the religion of global-warming, and even though it is a PDF file there are links you can put into your browser that give routes to "peer-reviewed" papers.
The problem is that global-warming is being used by Al Gore and his minions as an excuse to scare the public, cause a frenzy of fear through a made-up crisis, and use it to implement sweeping governmental controls. Of course the goal is control. Control of our lives.
Thanks for your efforts Bill and Cap.
So far nobody has posted any references to peer reviewed data that shows global warming is not true.
I agree with the science community that global warming is real. Over the decades I've seen the video footage of various glaciers, as they slowly retreat and thin over the decades.
The green movement helps reduce global warming. Spending money on the green movement produces jobs, and for a great cause. IMO the only legit reason to oppose global warming is for the betterment of the oil companies. Ah, very interesting.
IMO the anti global warming movement is more classified as a religion. What's interesting is the high % of anti global warming people in the over unity community. Very interesting, and one day I'll get to the bottom of this. I'd like to find out who these people are in general, are they associated with a club or group or company, etc. If there's an insider out there, please contact me. Even a clue would be greatly appreciated. Maybe it's the rush limbaugh society. ;)
Paul
i think with the slightest bit of reserch it will show this is not only an earthly thing ..
i may show this is a cosmic event ...
it may be the reason for the myian calander .. ya think? lol
so whats cause in it ... ? likely a number of things ... mainly ac grid in my opinion...
HENCE WHY IT IS PUBLIC COMMON KNOWALAGE .. now my work ..
the earth has lay lines and natural engery exchange points about its design ... many are disrupted ... from the grid ... so the grid wires emitt plh power line harmonics thease interfear with NATURE ... and the sclar and many other feilds that are in constant exchange with earth keeping all sound and running ...
look at it like this ... IT IS A FINLLY TUNED CLOCK .. and you blew a bearing ... and weekened many springs ....
silly humans ...
why is there a hotel ... in my star map ... why is it at a location quite a ways from earth ... why if i fail to fix earth will people be move to the temp hotel...? well i bet there is a GATE at the hotel ...
just incase ... like i said ... 12 lower are closed .. maybe they remain closed ... to prevent furthur destruction from occouring ..
best solution ... GET AND START FIXING THE PROBLEMS NOW ... THERE IS STILL TIME ..
Well I'll tell you what, gents, I went out and got the raw-data, did the plots and overlayed the graphs and it sure looks to me like there's a direct correlation between population growth, carbon emissions and global temperature rise starting around 150 years ago when we were in the throws of the Industrial Revolution.
Unless some real forward-thinking guy hatched this scheme way back in 1860, I'd say the data holds up to scrutiny, it's pretty hard to fake data that's been around for 150 years, too many have laid eyes on it for too long.
Starting with the latter part of the Industrial Revolution, the global temperature has risen as the population has grown and carbon emissions have increased. There is a direct correlation between all three components.
Data sources:
U.S. population data:
http://www.census.gov/population/www/censusdata/hiscendata.html
Global temp data:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/gtc2008.csv
Global carbon emissions data:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp006/ndp006.pdf
http://www.eia.doe.gov/iea/carbon.html
The population and temperature plots were taken from year-interval data and reduced to decade-interval data then plotted from Excel.
The Carbon plot was overlayed from a year-interval IPCC graph, however, for any who'd like to take the time to plot this as a 10-year interval the complete datasets are contained in the two carbon-sources listed above.
For reference, the carbon-data begins in 1850 and ends in 2000.
i do not dispute this at all .. this is a huge problem ... not cuz the people .. but there handlers ... and there handlers greed!
and laque of love for life .. so this is where it is at ...
hho is age old ... tesla age old ... advanced things many ages old ... earth ... whoooooa really old ...
the cosmos ... yikes .. my brain aint that good yet ... lol
ist!
Hi ATT,
You need to add the solar activity plots over that period of time. The largest contributor to the temperature of the earth is the sun, by far. More than anything else.
The earth would absolutely NOT be warming up without the sun.
RR2
I wonder if you could also incorporrate the solar cycle in that graph.
i agree i have heated things up ... you can plainly see that ...
you need to adress this ... this is why i made the heat!
it is better me doing it on earth than out in space ...
lets work to a solution ... ok !
sun#5
Also, there is a lag between solar activity and temperature change on the earth. I am very restricted on where I can surf the net from work, so it will be a day or so before I can find a reference to this. I don't recall, off the top of my head, what the delay period is. I am thinking it was a couple of decades or so, I just don't have that information in front of me right now.
Quote from: ResinRat2 on December 03, 2009, 12:47:54 PM
You need to add the solar activity plots over that period of time. The largest contributor to the temperature of the earth is the sun...
Excellent point, solar activity should, indeed, be an included component.
Tony
Quote from: ResinRat2 on December 03, 2009, 01:03:17 PM
Also, there is a lag between solar activity and temperature change...will be a day or so before I can find a reference
It may be that ARRL has data and references, propagation/DX are significantly affected by solar cycles.
Tony
Wait, I looked at the temperature change in your graph.
So you are saying over this period of time that the total change in the temperture of the earth was 1.1°C
Am I reading this right? 1.1 degrees Celsius?
When you are looking at the graph I fully understand you are looking at the slope of the line to show the acceleration in temperature changes within the last five decades or so. You also need to see how warm the sun was several decades before this and see if there is any correlation.
This is an important variable in the whole picture.
perhaps were aproching a harmonic....
maybe things ringggg
in your soul....
ist!
i told ya you wont be the same agin ... may be this is how this creation is designed ... maybe ... maybe not ...
call it your ALARM CLOCK...
Quote from: ResinRat2 on December 03, 2009, 01:14:03 PM
Am I reading this right? 1.1 degrees Celsius?
The temperature change over the period shown is 0.9 degrees Celsius. I overlayed two separate graphs and manually moved the 'anomaly' graduations from the left to the right side, this probably introduced an error.
What I'm looking for, however, is a correlation between the components, the 'slope', 'trend', 'influences' that show up over the time period in question.
I'll re-plot all data on the same graph in the next set rather than put separate graphs together as i did here.
Tony
Quote from: ATT on December 03, 2009, 12:23:56 PM
Well I'll tell you what, gents, I went out and got the raw-data, did the plots and overlayed the graphs and it sure looks to me like there's a direct correlation between population growth, carbon emissions and global temperature rise starting around 150 years ago when we were in the throws of the Industrial Revolution.
Unless some real forward-thinking guy hatched this scheme way back in 1860, I'd say the data holds up to scrutiny, it's pretty hard to fake data that's been around for 150 years, too many have laid eyes on it for too long.
Starting with the latter part of the Industrial Revolution, the global temperature has risen as the population has grown and carbon emissions have increased. There is a direct correlation between all three components.
Data sources:
U.S. population data:
http://www.census.gov/population/www/censusdata/hiscendata.html (http://www.census.gov/population/www/censusdata/hiscendata.html)
Global temp data:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/gtc2008.csv (http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/gtc2008.csv)
Global carbon emissions data:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp006/ndp006.pdf (http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp006/ndp006.pdf)
http://www.eia.doe.gov/iea/carbon.html (http://www.eia.doe.gov/iea/carbon.html)
The population and temperature plots were taken from year-interval data and reduced to decade-interval data then plotted from Excel.
The Carbon plot was overlayed from a year-interval IPCC graph, however, for any who'd like to take the time to plot this as a 10-year interval the complete datasets are contained in the two carbon-sources listed above.
For reference, the carbon-data begins in 1850 and ends in 2000.
Hi ATT,
I give you an A++. I agree with your results, and I would encourage everyone who question the numbers to do their own number crunching. Nobody would blame the skeptics to question your number crunching. If your results conflicted with what I believe, I would question it as well. In this case, I agree with your end result-- a warming trend.
I would also agree that humanity is not the only source to global warming, but the data that supports global warming is so overwhelming. The question is, how much is due to humanity, and all of the numbers I've seen say a *noticeable* amount is due to humanity.
Regardless folks, we can *not* afford to take a chance with this rare and beautiful planet filled with life!!! I commend everyone who puts forth at least some effort into being green. That is, use efficient light bulbs, try to minimize the number of lights that are on, minimize water usage, recycle, recycle, recycle. :)
Regards,
Paul
Quote from: PaulLowrance on December 03, 2009, 02:29:25 PM
The question is, how much is due to humanity, and all of the numbers I've seen say a *noticeable* amount is due to humanity.
Well, Paul, that's the object of the discussion, to try and see (in our own admittedly naive way) what the major influences are by introducing what we believe to be important data into the mix.
I thought adding population might show a trend in that manufacturing relates to population needs, along with your requirements for carbon and temperature, they correlated.
RR2 suggests solar data should be included since it has the most dramatic effect on global temperature, I agree, although in accessing the NOAA, I find I don't know enough about it to even choose the right dataset, I'll need some help in that regard, here's the choices:
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/SOLAR/getdata.html
# Solar Chromosphere Data in Calcium Wavelength
# Solar Corona
# Solar Filaments
# Solar Flares in H-alpha and X-rays
# Solar Irradiance
# Solar UV
# Solar White Light Faculae
# Stratospheric Warmings
# Sudden Commencements
# Sudden Ionospheric Disturbances
# Sun-as-a-Star Index
# Sunspot Numbers
# Sunspot Photometry
# Sunspot Regions
If someone more knowledgeable than myself about this would have a look at the available data on the site and recommend what should be plotted, it would be helpful.
As always, the only way to get anywhere with debated issues is to throw all the data down in one place and see what we have, but everything has to be considered or all we'll still have will just be 'opinions'.
Tony
Quote from: ATT on December 03, 2009, 03:21:00 PM
although in accessing the NOAA, I find I don't know enough about it to even choose the right dataset, I'll need some help in that regard, here's the choices:
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/SOLAR/getdata.html (http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/SOLAR/getdata.html)
# Solar Chromosphere Data in Calcium Wavelength
# Solar Corona
# Solar Filaments
# Solar Flares in H-alpha and X-rays
# Solar Irradiance
# Solar UV
# Solar White Light Faculae
# Stratospheric Warmings
# Sudden Commencements
# Sudden Ionospheric Disturbances
# Sun-as-a-Star Index
# Sunspot Numbers
# Sunspot Photometry
# Sunspot Regions
If someone more knowledgeable than myself about this would have a look at the available data on the site and recommend what should be plotted, it would be helpful.
Off the top of my head it seems you would want total solar irradiance.
Paul
Total solar irradiance, often written as just solar irradiance, is in watt/m^2, which is what you want. Here's an example going back to 1975. You can see in the graph the ~ 11 year solar cycle where the sun gets hotter. I don't see much of a general heating trend in the sun over the past 35 years. So would that indicate that most of the recent global warming is due to humanity, not the sun?
Paul
Regarding the graph in my previous post, to be honest, I see a possible pattern of the total solar irradiance decreasing, not increasing. What do you think?
Hey, the next peak is in 2012. :)
Paul
Here's a total Solar irradiance going back to 1900. As you can see, it's slowly rising,
but then begins to decline just a bit after 1960, and then began to decline at a
much faster rate starting at 2000.
I don't know, if one analyzes all of the data, it may or may not be difficult to say what is the main cause of global warming.
Paul
Here's another good solar irradiance graph going back to 1874 till about 2006. It shows the change at around 1960. Note, this graph does not go far enough to show the low point beyond 2006, as it will continue to go lower.
Paul
There will have to be many more considerations taken into account when trying to pin down any perceived warming on one particular thing.
In this case the 'warming' seems to be being attributed to man's 'carbon footprint' on the planet.
I believe it was ResinRat who astutely pointed out the sun activity factor.
Add to that the reduction of timberland, rain forests, geothermal activity, and the increase in black top roads and parking areas...to name just a few.
If the earths air exchange systems were not being dismantled by greedy people who care nothing the damage they do for profit, we would be talking about other things.
And it is only reasonable to conclude that any serious research done on any subject from here on, cannot be based on government figures, simply because they have repeatedly shown that they are not trustworthy.
And finally, the earth's temperature naturally follows a pattern of peaks and valleys.
Now, can we please get back on topic...that being the fact that we are being herded into a slaughterhouse that not enough see up ahead.
This deal was supposed to usher in broad government "environmental" controls, stifling industry in the primitive energy world they fashioned by sabotaging all alternate energy projects.
Regards...
Quote from: PaulLowrance on December 03, 2009, 04:16:15 PM
I don't know, if one analyzes all of the data, it may or may not be difficult to say what is the main cause of global warming.
Yeah Paul, there's always a lot more to it than grabbing a couple of values, huh? Everything affects something else to one degree or another.
Anyway, I looked at the stuff on NOAA, here's what I'm coming up with:
The current composite data is available (in monthly form) from 1978 to present.
Archival data is available from 1902 to 1954.
This leaves a 24 year 'hole' in irradiance availability, as far as I can determine.
Since this data is in monthly-intervals and the graph display over that long of a period (150 years) is best viewed in decadel-intervals, I'll have to write a C program to parse the data, average the values over 10-year increments and re-write the file suitable for inclusion as a CSV listing in a spreadsheet.
I'd like to be -sure- that 'irradiance' is what we need visa vi solar-data before starting the process, I'd appreciate a consensus from RR2 (wish I knew his 'name', I hate using 'handles' to refer to people I talk to...) so I don't go into a high speed runaway in the wrong direction.
Btw, where in the L.A. area are you? I'm a couple hours east of you in the high-desert north of Palm Springs (I grew up in Venice, but that was a loooong time ago...).
Tony
ATT,
I'm reading that there are numerous observatories that have been tracking TSI (total solar irradiance) for a long time. One observatory has been tracking TSI since 1874. Some observatories have not been tracking it non-stop, as you point out, but it seems there's non-stop data when considering all of the observatories.
BTW, in a moment I'll post a graph that overlays your data over the TSI.
You live out here as well? I'm near LAX.
Paul
Quote from: PaulLowrance on December 03, 2009, 04:46:07 PM
but it seems there's non-stop data when considering all of the observatories.
Cool, just have to sniff it out.
Quote from: PaulLowrance on December 03, 2009, 04:46:07 PM
You live out here as well? I'm near LAX.
I used to live just down the hill on Marco Place off Lincoln Blvd.
Tony
The attached image consists of two graphs overlaid, ATT's graph and a graph on TSI (total solar irradiance). ATT's graph is the gray line. The TSI graph are the blue lines. Take special notice to the TSI graph because it's greatly amplified where the bottom of graph is in the low 1360 W/m^2. What's interesting is the period from 1900 to 1850 where the TSI is high (blue lines), but there's no reflection from this in the temperature graph (gray line).
Paul
It might be a difficult task to find a strong correlation between solar energy and global warming. There must be some correlation, but it might be a weaker effect. ATT found a most striking correlation between global warming & the industrial age. Go green people, ***please***. Better safe than sorry.
Quote from: PaulLowrance on December 03, 2009, 05:05:58 PM
It might be a difficult task to find a strong correlation between solar energy and global warming.
OK Paul (that saved a lot of work, btw...nicely done), now RR2 said something about a 'delayed' response to initial solar activity, you have any idea what that could be?
It kind of makes sense, heating is a process that is cumulative over time, so the heat we measure 'now' would be the result of the application of heat earlier-on.
Is there some accepted constant as regards this that you know of?
Tony
Cool, here's a graph where I overlaid global warming (thick black line) and solar irradiance (blue line). What do you think? I don't think they match that well. For instance, there's a long period from 1600 to the mind 1700's where solar irradiance (blue line) is considerably low, but the global warming trend over that time period is slowly rising. Another instance is that global warming is relatively stable until the dawn of the industrial age, but the solar irradiance is not.
On the other hand, there is one huge correlation, not shown in this graph, but in your graph, and that's between global warming and the start of the industrial age. In this graph you can see the start of the industrial age by the massive upward wall.
Paul
I found it!! Awsome!
Here is a fantastic short talk by Dr. Noah Robinson that was given in 2007. It gives a clear and through analysis of the Global Warming Claims and the actual data as it correlates with solar activity, temperature rise, atmospheric CO2 levels, hurricane frequencies, Antarctic ice core records, sea water levels, plant growth rates, and human energy usage.
http://www.discovery.org/v/30
Linked to this is a peer-reviewed paper that was written by Dr. Aurther Robinson that gives an excellent analysis of all these trends. It is also linked to a petition that he asks scientists to sign to show their solidarity against the lie of global warming. Tens of thousands of scientists have signed so far:
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm
After seeing this short talk and reading through the paper it was clear to me that global warming is a lie. It's only purpose is the control of our lives. This debate is not over. It has only begun, and we will continue to fight the lies at every turn. As our numbers grow the other side will become desperate and try to speed legislation through before the general public becomes fully aware of the lies. They do this by spreading FEAR!
Watch the presentation, read the paper, then join us and sign the Petition. It is the only way we will save our country, and world from this planned tyranny.
For some strange reason the information provided at the opening of the thread showing the fluctuations down through the centuries keeps falling off the discussion table.
Nevertheless, off we go...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4mljwchq5E&feature=player_embedded
Regards...
Quote from: ResinRat2 on December 03, 2009, 06:30:15 PM
I found it!! Awsome!
Here is a fantastic short talk by Dr. Noah Robinson that was given in 2007. It gives a clear and through analysis of the Global Warming Claims and the actual data as it correlates with solar activity, temperature rise, atmospheric CO2 levels, hurricane frequencies, Antarctic ice core records, sea water levels, plant growth rates, and human energy usage.
http://www.discovery.org/v/30 (http://www.discovery.org/v/30)
Linked to this is a peer-reviewed paper that was written by Dr. Aurther Robinson that gives an excellent analysis of all these trends. It is also linked to a petition that he asks scientists to sign to show their solidarity against the lie of global warming. Tens of thousands of scientists have signed so far:
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm (http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm)
After seeing this short talk and reading through the paper it was clear to me that global warming is a lie. It's only purpose is the control of our lives. This debate is not over. It has only begun, and we will continue to fight the lies at every turn. As our numbers grow the other side will become desperate and try to speed legislation through before the general public becomes fully aware of the lies. They do this by spreading FEAR!
Watch the presentation, read the paper, then join us and sign the Petition. It is the only way we will save our country, and world from this planned tyranny.
I can't imagine why you would say that. Noah E. Robinson is on the faculty of OISM, which circulated the Oregon Petition, a petition" against global warming. OISM is headed by Dr. Arthur B. Robinson who lectures on global warming skepticism at the Heartland Institute,
a conservative/libertarian free-market think tank that often funds global warming-skeptical research and is funded in part by ExxonMobil, a petroleum company.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine)
It goes on the say, "31,000 American scientists opposed, on scientific grounds, to the hypothesis of "human-caused global warming" Key word is "Human-caused." This is not about if global warming is real. The data is overwhelming that global warming is real. The temperatures are increasing. This is about what's causing it.
It's getting interesting in here folks. Big oil.
Paul
I would suggest objective people read what this anti global warming petition is,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming_Petition_Project (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming_Petition_Project)
Pretty sad how far on a limb these anti global warming people will go.
Paul
A lot of people at this forum are telling out right lies. The following WikiPedia page is shocking, and yes, this wikipedia page has references up the yin yang.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_consensus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_consensus)
Starts right off with, "The majority of climate scientists agree that global warming is primarily caused by human activities such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation. Environmental organizations, many governmental reports, and the non-U.S. media agree on this virtually unanimous agreement in the scientific community in support of human-caused global warming, although there is less agreement on the specific consequences of this warming."
Here are some of the references for only the above statement,
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_consensus#cite_ref-4) "Global Warning (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/04/AR2007020400953.html) ". Washington Post. 5 February 2007. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/04/AR2007020400953.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/04/AR2007020400953.html) . Retrieved 2007-04-12.
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_consensus#cite_ref-5) Barker, Scott (October 25, 2003). "Scientists agree on climatic change, differ on severity (http://www.csm.ornl.gov/PR/NS-10-25-03.html) ". Knoxville News Sentinel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knoxville_News_Sentinel). http://www.csm.ornl.gov/PR/NS-10-25-03.html (http://www.csm.ornl.gov/PR/NS-10-25-03.html) . Retrieved 2007-04-12.
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_consensus#cite_ref-6) "A guide to facts and fictions about climate change (http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/downloaddoc.asp?id=1630) ". Royal Society (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Society). March 2005. http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/downloaddoc.asp?id=1630 (http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/downloaddoc.asp?id=1630) . Retrieved 2007-11-18. ""However, the overwhelming majority of scientists who work on climate change agree on the main points""
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_consensus#cite_ref-7) "Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686) ". Science Magazine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_Magazine). December 2004. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686) . Retrieved 2008-01-04.
Wow, the more I dive into this, the more "oil" pops into the picture. I'll never buy gas from Exxon again. Here are a few quotes from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial)
Quotes, the numbers in [] are the wikipedia references,
"A survey carried out by the Royal Society (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Society) found that in 2005 ExxonMobil distributed $2.9m to 39 groups that the society said "misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence".[30]"
"Cooney reportedly removed an entire section on climate in one report, whereupon an oil lobbyist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_lobby) sent him a fax saying "You are doing a great job."[5]"
"Some denials and disinformation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disinformation) campaigns have been promoted by individuals or groups that are funded by special interest groups (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_interest_groups) with a financial interest in misrepresenting the scientific consensus on climate change (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change)[1], particularly those with ties to companies like ExxonMobil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil) or the energy lobby (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_lobby).[2][3][4] "
"Then-Vice President Dick Cheney (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Cheney)'s connections to the Energy Lobby (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Lobby), and to ExxonMobil in particular, have fueled speculation that his characterization of climate change science is linked to the "denial industry."[37] In 2000, Cheney’s Energy Task Force (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Task_Force), officially known as the National Energy Policy Development Group, invited the executives of various major oil companies, including Exxon, Conoco (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conoco_Inc.), BP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BP), and Royal Dutch Shell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Dutch_Shell), to consult with the White House regarding the development of a national energy policy, although this was initially denied by the participating companies.[38] An Exxon lobbyist - among others - was thanked by the U.S. Undersecretary of Global Affairs for Exxon's role in convincing President Bush to reject the Kyoto accords. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_of_Concerned_Scientists): In her talking points for a 2001 meeting with a group that included ExxonMobil lobbyist Randy Randol (uncove#ff9999 through a Freedom of Information Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Information_Act) request), U.S. Undersecretary for Global Affairs Paula Dobriansky thanked the group for their input on global warming policy, noting, ‘POTUS [the president of the United States] rejected Kyoto (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol), in part, based on input from you.�Global Climate Coalition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Climate_Coalition), according to a leaked 1991 "strategy memo," set out not to gather data and test explanations, but to influence public perception of climate change science and "reposition global warming as theory rather than fact."[14] The strategy was criticized as misrepresenting science in a 2006 Royal Society (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Society) letter to ExxonMobil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil) expressing disappointment that a recent industry publication "leaves readers with such an inaccurate and misleading impression of the evidence on the causes of climate change ... documented in the scientific literature."[15]"
"The United Kingdom identified the issue of climate change denial as a major topic on its agenda while chair of the G8 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G8) group of wealthy countries in 2005.[11]"
"Several think tanks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_tank) funded by Exxon or, later, ExxonMobil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil), to contest climate change have also reputedly received funding from Philip Morris such as the Competitive Enterprise Institute (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competitive_Enterprise_Institute), the Cato Institute (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_Institute), the Heritage Foundation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritage_Foundation), the Hudson Institute (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudson_Institute), the Frontiers of Freedom Institute, the Reason Foundation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason_Foundation), George Mason University (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Mason_University)'s Law and Economics Center, and the Independent Institute (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_Institute).[27]"
"Cooney announced his resignation two days after the story of his tampering with scientific reports broke.[34] A few days later it was announced that Cooney would take up a position with ExxonMobil.[35]"
"The British Royal Society (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Society) conducted a survey that found ExxonMobil had given US$ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US$) 2.9 million to American groups that "misinformed the public about climate change," 39 of which "misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence".[3][42] In 2006, the British Royal Society issued a demand that ExxonMobil withdraw funding for climate change denial. The letter, which was leaked to the media, drew criticism, notably from Timothy Ball (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Ball) and others, who argued the society attempted to "politicize the private funding of science and to censor scientific debate."[43]"
Quote
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm
At first, it seemed like a reasonable page with a guy making the case for what he thought until I started running into stuff like this every couple of paragraphs:
Quote
Our industrial and technological civilization depends upon abundant, low-cost energy. This civilization has already brought unprecedented prosperity to the people of the more developed nations. Billions of people in the less developed nations are now lifting themselves from poverty by adopting this technology.
And this (notice the copious use of the word 'prosperity' throughout (old copywriter trick):
Quote
Hydrocarbons are essential sources of energy to sustain and extend prosperity. This is especially true of the developing nations, where available capital and technology are insufficient to meet rapidly increasing energy needs without extensive use of hydrocarbon fuels. If, through misunderstanding of the underlying science and through misguided public fear and hysteria, mankind significantly rations and restricts the use of hydrocarbons, the worldwide increase in prosperity will stop. The result would be vast human suffering and the loss of hundreds of millions of human lives. Moreover, the prosperity of those in the developed countries would be greatly reduced.
This kinda got my goat, he's saying the data is too complex for a computer model to handle...does that mean we revert to manually collating terabytes of data? Or do we just fogetaboutit.
Quote
The computer climate models upon which "human-caused global warming" is based have substantial uncertainties and are markedly unreliable. This is not surprising, since the climate is a coupled, non-linear dynamical system. It is very complex. Figure 19 illustrates the difficulties by comparing the radiative CO2 greenhouse effect with correction factors and uncertainties in some of the parameters in the computer climate calculations. Other factors, too, such as the chemical and climatic influence of volcanoes, cannot now be reliably computer modeled.
The reason for the failure...who decided it was a failure? Don't answer that, I think I know...
Quote
The reasons for this failure of the computer climate models are subjects of scientific debate (87). For example, water vapor is the largest contributor to the overall greenhouse effect (88). It has been suggested that the climate models treat feedbacks from clouds, water vapor, and related hydrology incorrectly (85,89-92).
And then we pitch Big Oil again (...don't forget 'wealth' and 'prosperity').
Quote
The single most important human component in the preservation of the Earth's environment is energy. Industrial conversion of energy into forms that are useful for human activities is the most important aspect of technology. Abundant inexpensive energy is required for the prosperous maintenance of human life and the continued advance of life-enriching technology. People who are prosperous have the wealth required to protect and enhance their natural environment.
This reads more like an ad campaign (it's even all on one page, like the hucksters you run into selling stuff on the web), an ad campaign for big Oil...
If this guy would have just stuck to making his case without interjecting the Oil-hype, he would have been perceived in a better light, at least by me. As it is, it seems the Oil-agenda is driving his assertions and that pretty much tears it for me.
If we listen to both sides, we have Big Oil on one side and Big Oil on the other side (along with Globalist political control agendanistas, which means they're on both sides too).
Me? I'm gonna 'follow the money', because any interest group that would mount such an effort to convince the public that climate change was absolutely bogus, that Globalists were getting ready to take over the world and tout Big Oil as the savior of mankind, all in the same breath, is just so obviously 'in the pocket' that it leaves me no other rational choice.
To be kind, it would be naive to think that 'big oil' would sit back and allow a bunch of rival crooks steal their turf out from under them without trying to counter the move.
In case it gets overlooked, it wasn't 'big oil' that was exposed as criminal fraudsters in those emails.
Regards...
I am all for 100% energy independence for the US. And, the more I learn about things, I am all for 100% energy independence for each American as well. Produce the energy where it is used, not in central power plants. That is what I am working towards for myself and I hope others do this as well. My electric bill runs about $30/month and my goal is to make it 0. Of course, I have already checked and the electric company told me there is a minimum billing of $25/month no matter how little I use. What a waste.
Bill
Quote from: Cap-Z-ro on December 03, 2009, 09:18:07 PM
In case it gets overlooked, it wasn't 'big oil' that was exposed as criminal fraudsters in those emails.
Yes Cap, I know, I know...of course. Since there was criminality, I suppose I should at least wait for the indictments before making any rash decisions.
Quote from: Pirate88179 on December 03, 2009, 09:27:57 PM
My electric bill runs about $30/month and my goal is to make it 0.
How do you manage that, Bill? The best I've done lately is about 120/mo (on a good month).
Of course I'm pumping my own water but have R-38 in the ceiling, double panes everywhere, wood heat, still can't squeak below the 120 mark (4 person household).
ATT:
In a number of ways. First and foremost, I live in a small apartment...about 900 sq. ft. And I live alone...well except for my cat. That makes it somewhat easier. when I moved in, the electric company gave me a 1 year history on the billings for this apartment and they averaged about $100/month.
First thing I did was to lower my water heater thermostats from 165 (yes, they were set that high) to 110F. I test the water at the spigot and do not rely on the numbers on the 2 thermostats.
Second, I have used no Edison based bulbs in here since I moved in 8 years ago.
Third, I lowered (or raised?) my refrigerator thermostat to 2. It has settings from 1-9, 9 being the coldest.
It is now 23 degrees F outside and I only have two large windows and both of them have heavy blankets draped over them, and sealed to the edges. I use an oil lamp burning kerosene to supplement my heat pump. I have 5 of them if I need them but usually only use 1. This increases the inside temp about 5 degrees f on average. My cost for kerosene in the dead of winter is about $5/month, but will lower my electric bill by over $10.00 and I get a lot of light as well.
I also use many JT circuit lights I have built and I run those on free "dead" batteries I acquire at no cost to me. Many of these are bright enough to read by, and I do. I can also run these on rechargeable batteries which I recharge for free from my earth battery set-up outside, also free.
My outside Christmas lights, some 400 leds and counting, will all be powered again, like last year, from my earth battery (Actually an EER) a JT circuit and a 650F boost capacitor. Again, all free.
Last month, my bill was $28 and this includes a $5 recycling fee (mandatory) and my next door neighbor's bill was $70.00.
Anyway, that's about it. I am still trying to make small improvements here and there but I think I have most of the major stuff covered.
Bill PS when I moved here from my 1,600 sq.ft. house, my bills were running about $60/month in the house. That was about as low as I could get them there. Your numbers sound good, especially in a house and living with 4 people in it.
You've done an incredible job of maximizing electrical (whole-envelope) efficiency. What amazes me even more is that you're using a heat-pump and getting that kind of efficiency.
When I built this house (years ago), I roughed-in for a heat pump but never installed it because I felt the utility bills would be too high. I've been burning wood, exclusively, since 1986 and it's proved to be a good move since in rural areas like mine, there are more power-outages than in more urban areas.
In any case, you're doing a tremendous job, your knowledge is definitely paying dividends.
Tony
Thanks Tony, I appreciate that. I wish they would allow wood stoves here in the apartments, I had one in every other house I have owned, I love them.
Bill
@loner
You know, the advice I got when I was framing-up was to load up on overhead insulation, that turned out to be a good call, I stuck two bats of R-19 up there, one on top of the other (at joist-level).
Here's what I notice: with the R-38, the attic loads up with solar heat during the day (if there's sunlight, which out here in the desert, there's a lot of). It takes about 8-10 hours before the heat contained in the attic makes it's way through the insulation and heats the overhead drywall, after which it radiates down into the living areas.
So you end up with some heat-gain when you most need it, in the evening (I'm at about 3000 ft, so it gets nippy).
Have you considered furring-out the walls that need insulation (interior furring)? DF 2x4s are only about 1.60 ea, drywall is cheap, shoot-down the sill just inside your existing walls after you frame the wall and stand it up, then throw some R-11 in there, cover it with 5/8 board, tape, mud, paint, you're stylin'. Together with the existing walls, the combined R-factor will run about R-19 or better when you're all done. You'll amortize the cost well before your next winter season is over from fuel savings (bring any wall-plugs out to the new finish-wall, not a big deal).
Tony
@Paul
OK, before I derailed, I was going to comment on the last graph you put up. What it looks like to me is that TSI was a significant factor in the warming ramp-up between 1870 and 1980, after which it seems to have leveled off while global temps continued to rise.
So taking it all together (warming, population, carbon, TSI) it almost looks like a sort of 'perfect storm' sort of situation, at least for the 110 years mentioned above.
This was a good call on RR2's part, in reading further, some say that TSI was left out of the original models. Although that sounds unlikely, I have to admit -I- did exactly the same thing, but then, I'm not a climatologist.
So that would leave, roughly, the last 30 years to reconcile, if we were so inclined.
Tony
glad your so on the ball and no dissrespect by that ...
how about this ... if your polution caused from burning bad fuel gets to close to the sun ... it has a potencial to go boom ...
same kinda thing if you charge caps useing my ring designs .. caps can go boom! stephan even cracked a smile on that one .... lol
as you all just found out ... they flew round the planet almost like raindeer .....
ist!
this needs extream study... not just the odd glance ....
" I suppose I should at least wait for the indictments before making any rash decisions. "
When clear evidence of fraud is before my eyes, with no denials from the accused...I do not need for anyone else to come along and confirm and anoint the evidence, before I draw my conclusion.
The earth is and has been quite able to adjust to all sun and man related activity.
In case many are not aware, civilizations have risen and fallen numerous times on the planet...and somehow the earth still stands.
Now, if we can get back to the crime, criminals, corruption, and their global dominance plans.
Instead of scrounging for validation of the claims made by the fraudsters, it would be much more productive to look into the motive and the opportunists themselves.
Regards...
Quote from: ATT on December 04, 2009, 01:02:15 AM
@Paul
OK, before I derailed, I was going to comment on the last graph you put up. What it looks like to me is that TSI was a significant factor in the warming ramp-up between 1870 and 1980, after which it seems to have leveled off while global temps continued to rise.
So taking it all together (warming, population, carbon, TSI) it almost looks like a sort of 'perfect storm' sort of situation, at least for the 110 years mentioned above.
This was a good call on RR2's part, in reading further, some say that TSI was left out of the original models. Although that sounds unlikely, I have to admit -I- did exactly the same thing, but then, I'm not a climatologist.
So that would leave, roughly, the last 30 years to reconcile, if we were so inclined.
Tony
ATT,
For now, the problem I'm having with accepting TSI as a *main* effect for global warming is that from 1600 to mid 1700's TSI takes a massive nosedive, but global warming does not respond.
BTW, could you clarify on one of your recent statements where it appeared as if you said both sides are siding with Big Oil? I do not see the environmentalist (global warmest) siding with Big Oil. In fact, it's the opposite, as they are opposed to Big Oil. Could you please clarify.
Paul
Quote from: Cap-Z-ro on December 03, 2009, 09:18:07 PM
To be kind, it would be naive to think that 'big oil' would sit back and allow a bunch of rival crooks steal their turf out from under them without trying to counter the move.
In case it gets overlooked, it wasn't 'big oil' that was exposed as criminal fraudsters in those emails.
Again, lets be clear that these are only but a few scientists whose actions are not a reflection on other scientists.
Paul
i have yet to see 1 prove my work wrong ...
just 1 ... find me one so i can reporogram his small brain....
just like my time travel ... tests .. perfectaly suited for tests ... no one can prove it wrong ..
it is possible it is not 100 % correct ... im just 1 kid ... and there is a world of ee's and sicentists ... and they ALL SUCK ... as they have a flawed understanding of how creation operates ...
so ill keep inventing things ... as i do ... 1 day maybe they wake up ...
so what ever .. your only destroying your world ... not mine ...
think bout that ...
ist the 5th sun .... that rocked the world ...
Did anyone read Pual's comments on page 10 where he contradicted himself?
Quote from: Azorus on December 04, 2009, 09:15:22 AM
Did anyone read Pual's comments on page 10 where he contradicted himself?
There's no contradiction. What's interesting is how you find the need to post something like this without even showing my quote.
Paul
I can't imagine why you would say that. Noah E. Robinson is on the faculty of OISM, which circulated the Oregon Petition, a petition" against global warming. OISM is headed by Dr. Arthur B. Robinson who lectures on global warming skepticism at the Heartland Institute, a conservative/libertarian free-market think tank that often funds global warming-skeptical research and is funded in part by ExxonMobil
, a petroleum company.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine
It goes on the say, "31,000 American scientists opposed, on scientific grounds, to the hypothesis of "human-caused global warming" Key word is "Human-caused." This is not about if global warming is real. The data is overwhelming that global warming is real. The temperatures are increasing. This is about what's causing it.
It's getting interesting in here folks. Big oil.
Paul
Here is your quote.
Quote from: Azorus on December 04, 2009, 09:23:59 AM
I can't imagine why you would say that. Noah E. Robinson is on the faculty of OISM, which circulated the Oregon Petition, a petition" against global warming. OISM is headed by Dr. Arthur B. Robinson who lectures on global warming skepticism at the Heartland Institute, a conservative/libertarian free-market think tank that often funds global warming-skeptical research and is funded in part by ExxonMobil
, a petroleum company.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine)
It goes on the say, "31,000 American scientists opposed, on scientific grounds, to the hypothesis of "human-caused global warming" Key word is "Human-caused." This is not about if global warming is real. The data is overwhelming that global warming is real. The temperatures are increasing. This is about what's causing it.
It's getting interesting in here folks. Big oil.
Paul
Here is your quote.
And where's the contradiction?
So you don't see the whole last paragraph you wrote there huh? Anyone else see it?
Hi Paul,
I read your link, and it does give plenty of articles to link to after that. I knew this guy would be thoroughly hated and attacked, as well as the Petition attacked as well.
RR2
Quote from: Azorus on December 04, 2009, 09:45:25 AM
So you don't see the whole last paragraph you wrote there huh? Anyone else see it?
Yes. What about it? First you make a claim about me without a single quote. When I call you out on it, it appears as if you grab a random quote and post it. And you can't even state the contradiction?
Paul
Pual,
"31,000 American scientists opposed, on scientific grounds, to the hypothesis of "human-caused global warming" Key word is "Human-caused." This is not about if global warming is real. The data is overwhelming that global warming is real. The temperatures are increasing. This is about what's causing it.
The first line says that 31000 american scientists oppose human-cuased global warming. Then you go on to write that the dabate is about what causes global warming, because you support human-cuased global warming. How can you present facts for the other side and say you are not contradicting yourself?
Quote from: ResinRat2 on December 04, 2009, 09:48:06 AM
Hi Paul,
I read your link, and it does give plenty of articles to link to after that. I knew this guy would be thoroughly hated and attacked, as well as the Petition attacked as well.
Hi,
The scientists are only attacking his claims, and for good reasons. One problem is the petition is everything but scientific. The wikipedia article details all of it. The amount of names claimed on the petition is greatly exaggerated. A high % of the people on the petition have changed their mind. The petition made *no* reference to global warming itself not being real, but questions if humans are the main cause. The organization has been funded by Big Oil. On and on and on. It's all in the wiki with references.
Paul
We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.
straight from the petition. So still no mention of global warming?
Did you actually read the pition or just assume what it meant?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition
Quote from: Azorus on December 04, 2009, 10:01:22 AM
Pual,
"31,000 American scientists opposed, on scientific grounds, to the hypothesis of "human-caused global warming" Key word is "Human-caused." This is not about if global warming is real. The data is overwhelming that global warming is real. The temperatures are increasing. This is about what's causing it.
The first line says that 31000 american scientists oppose human-cuased global warming. Then you go on to write that the dabate is about what causes global warming, because you support human-cuased global warming. How can you present facts for the other side and say you are not contradicting yourself?
How is presenting facts contradicting myself? First of all, you should really read because the 31,000 signatures is one of the worst petitions ever that has been exposed by the science community. You can throw away that petition. The were no 31,000 scientists. It's duplicate names. The question asked in the petition is not what the organization claimed on their home page, etc. etc.
Paul
Quote from: Azorus on December 04, 2009, 10:07:43 AM
We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.
straight from the petition. So still no mention of global warming?
Sorry, but are you on drugs or something? What's your point? You have found no contradiction. As stated the petition in question is about human-caused global warming.
Paul
Okay so now if we can just throw it away why where you presenting it as a fact in your original post?
Quote from: Azorus on December 04, 2009, 10:14:43 AM
Okay so now if we can just throw it away why where you presenting it as a fact in your original post?
You're wrong again. I was quoting, and never said the petition was correct. Hello? The petition is garbage. Did you even read the wiki article? The wiki article shreds that petition as it goes into the details.
Paul
Pual,
I think the way you presented the information seemed it more like quoting facts to me, rather than showing your oppissition to. I see your point a little better now after arguing with you on the forum, but global warming is still not human cuased in my point of view. And no I don't work for Big Oil.
P.S. I do see your point on the petition. Lets throw it away and just look at the facts though.
Agreed that we should look at the facts. The science community in totality can only present it's interpretation based on data, and there's still debates on *how much* of GW is caused by humanity, but according to the references most of the science community believes the main cause of global warming is humanity. Obviously some of it is. I mean, they can measure an alarming rise in temperatures from just an increase in car traffic alone. If I ever come across that data again I'll post the reference. Also Mythbuster verified that CO2 does cause a warming.
Paul
Pual,
All greenhouse gases cuase global warming. No arguement there. Yes I agree we are cuasing some of the problem, how much I don't know. I think it is stupid for humans to say we are the main cuase of global warming without the facts to back it up. I want to keep looking at the facts and see if we are. I also want to look for a greener future too. Still at current we cannot say we are cuasing the increase in temps. The true factor will be with the solar cycle that is taking place right now. We are currently experiencing a solar min for the last two years. If the previous data charts can show us anything it is a trend, if the trend is right and the sun is the main mover of our climate, then we should see cooling in the next decade or so. If not and we still haven't gotten off our lazy butts to change our currently dirty habits to a more greener, than we are in for trouble to say the least.
Paul:
I think you have really hit upon the million dollar question here. I think this is where the real debate should be, although it does get side tracked by both sides.
The question: Is any temperature change (up or down) man caused? If so, how much?
Because, as many scientists have said, IF (unknown at this time) we did not cause it (man) then we can not change it.
If there is going to be another pole reversal as we have experienced on the planet, well man was probably not here at those times, the planet has experienced several that we know of, people can hold meetings...debate all they want, ban certain products, etc. but we can not stop it from happening. It, by definition, is a natural event.
So, IF there is proven to be a link between any climate change and mankind, then, possibly we can alter behavior and slow it down or stop it. But, if the real data shows no involvement or effect by man, then I do not see how we think we can change something we did not cause. It would then be considered part of the earth's natural cycles to which we can either adapt, or perish.
Anyway, I think that is the real debate.
Bill
@Paul
Quote
...the problem I'm having with accepting TSI as a *main* effect for global warming is that from 1600 to mid 1700's TSI takes a massive nosedive, but global warming does not respond.
Graphically, TSI's effect correlates with the years from 1870 to 1980 with at least the same correspondence as carbon-emissions, population and temperature-rise. As to the degree of influence, quantification of several factors admittedly beyond my scope would have to be calculated.
Quote
BTW, could you clarify on one of your recent statements where it appeared as if you said both sides are siding with Big Oil? I do not see the environmentalist (global warmest) siding with Big Oil. In fact, it's the opposite, as they are opposed to Big Oil. Could you please clarify.
Sure, what I was getting at is that each side accuses the other of being duped by special interests and that, ultimately, the special interests (or erstwhile governments) deliniated by each side end up being controlled by Big Oil or it's ilk ( Rothchilds, World Bank, Bilderburgers, etc.).
@cap
Quote
When clear evidence of fraud is before my eyes, with no denials from the accused...I do not need for anyone else to come along and confirm and anoint the evidence, before I draw my conclusion.
The key here is one's interpretation of 'clear evidence', that requires research and some degree of collaboration to insure we don't introduce personal bias into the outcome, otherwise the opinion has no more value than that of tabloid innuendo.
Quote
Now, if we can get back to the crime, criminals, corruption, and their global dominance plans.
You bet! Bring your best evidence to the table and throw it down with the rest of us, maybe together we'll sort it out and get to the bottom of all this (or at least have some fun trying...).
Tony
Just curious, what about all of those chem trails? I've heard on radio talk shows (no good references) the chem trail analysis shows molecules that reflect solar radiation. That might be the wrong way to go because it could cause more serious effects, or perhaps cause an ice age.
Good ways that can't hurt are to try and live a greener life. Cut down on all waste. Cut ones carbon footprint. Has anyone ever flown over a major city during the summer day? Here in Los Angeles we don't need to do that. Just drive to one of the Hollywood Hill mountains, and presto, nice dark thick brown soupy air. :'(
Paul
yuck!
and we wonder where all this illness comes from ...
not good!
i could go on and on ..
you WILL CRY .. so i wont!
lets just get on fixing it ... ok !
thats the BEST PLAN!
w815!
Quote from: ATT on December 04, 2009, 10:53:08 AM
Graphically, TSI's effect correlates with the years from 1870 to 1980 [snip]
Yes if you consider that time frame while ignore back to 1600. Again, you do agree that it does not correlate from 1600 to mid 1700's, right? It seems to me that it should correlate all of the time.
Paul
Hi IST!
You'll love these photos. I used to hike in the Santa Monica mountains, and during a good summer day one could see the thick smog. These photo are nothing! It gets a lot worse when you're at a higher mountain. Sometimes it's like looking down at a thick brown pancake. Yummy.
Paul
Some 'pro' stuff regarding the email scandal (we've already seen plenty of 'con' stuff):
http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2009/12/denialist-induced-train-wreck-continues.ars
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/4338343.html
http://www.nature.com/news/2009/091202/full/462551a.html
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7273/full/462545a.html
Tony
Quote from: PaulLowrance on December 04, 2009, 12:53:04 PM
Yes if you consider that time frame while ignore back to 1600. Again, you do agree that it does not correlate from 1600 to mid 1700's, right?
Absolutely! That's why I used the term 'perfect storm' in my post. To look at the entirety of the data, global temps and TSI seem to be all over the place...it's just that everything tracks together within the last 150 years or so.
Possibly, the increased introduction of human-generated byproducts within just this time-period may have had a catalytic effect of some sort, other ages don't seem to respond the same way to TSI, judging from what I've seen.
EDIT:
I'll add that there may be more to it than carbon alone. I'd be interested to see how the magnetosphere may have changed over time, I understand the earths field is diminishing and that could have an effect on radiation admissibility, several things to consider.
Tony
you know we live in a co concoussness creation ... day night inside outside .. up down know what i mean ..
so if your thoughts affect someones eles's actions ..and such .. this is quantum entanglement..
just to break you in and by the way u speek i know you know what im sayin..
its like a bounceing ball it is all verry wild ..
and defenitally hard to explain by any means ..
none the less if we dont fix things ... they only get worse .. and i might add i like the aproch you took to gain and osberve your data ..
as this world gets more orgoniazed as do we all ..
BE THE CHANGE YOU WANT TO SEE..
and wear a smile ... i never wanted the big money .. i just wanted to share in the sand box
agin i do agree ... so if things have become week ... might this be how you passed the ioniosphere ...
cuz i think if the feilds were proper ... you would never pass through unless you knew what david hammel knew .. and others .. and that knowalage base came from the egyptians .. i see it no other place ... but perhaps there parents and perhaps there parents ...
and when the moon landing took place .. what was the strength of the feilds ... i bet a lot stronger than now ..
hummmmmmmmmmmm
IST!
co-creations...one could say 'binary', night/day cold/hot inside/out questions/answers
Questions that lead to answers that lead to questions that lead to answers...
Place that node anywhere along the continuum, the results will be consistent with the binary rule.
Entanglement? Maybe more than that. Maybe a projection of a thought, the firing of a synapse, the codification of being that only appears within the mind of the observer...and the binary rule...how many observers are there...really?
A positive feedback loop.
IST!
Actually, your statement about a person's thoughts affecting others actions is pretty profound.
In most of the things I've observed, it's a 'leverage' sort of thing. Small things making big differences.
It doesn't get much less massive than a 'thought' and it seems that thoughts make the biggest difference in our existence.
Tony
I believe in the "Collective Unconscious", all of my best designs and ideas have come from there. As they say, like a bolt of lightning.
Bill
well we are all here to learn ...
and i can plainly tell .. much about you from how you speek..
thank you your doing a great .. job ill leave you to it
i hope we can find a easy simple cheep solution .. that could employ the WORLD....
we live in the best times and bairly know it .. but the planet is stressed ...
she is #1 with out earth what we got ? not much eh...
TIME TO HEAL THE PLANET!
W
@ bill im prety sure .. your on 1 of the next trips ... we will see who returns .. you will know who has ... as there a$$ will be lit! lol meaning ... they will be cutting some rugg.. as i understand this will go on for some time ...
Darn Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming#Believe_global_warming_is_primarily_caused_by_natural_processes
I feel in good company.
RR2
Quote from: PaulLowrance on December 03, 2009, 07:03:19 PM
I can't imagine why you would say that. Noah E. Robinson is on the faculty of OISM, which circulated the Oregon Petition, a petition" against global warming. OISM is headed by Dr. Arthur B. Robinson who lectures on global warming skepticism at the Heartland Institute, a conservative/libertarian free-market think tank that often funds global warming-skeptical research and is funded in part by ExxonMobil, a petroleum company.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine)
It goes on the say, "31,000 American scientists opposed, on scientific grounds, to the hypothesis of "human-caused global warming" Key word is "Human-caused." This is not about if global warming is real. The data is overwhelming that global warming is real. The temperatures are increasing. This is about what's causing it.
It's getting interesting in here folks. Big oil.
Paul
Interesting. So how do we explain emails in which CRU scientists, the body that provides much of the foundational global warming data for the UN IPCC, discuss how they conducted meetings with Shell Oil in order to enlist them as a “strategic partner†while getting them to bankroll pro-man made global warming research.
The emails reveal that the CRU was also trying to get money from oil giants British Petroleum and Exxon-Mobil, under its former identity as Esso.
A “Copenhagen Communiqué†put out by leaders of over 500 global corporations in advance of the summit calls for a global carbon tax to be implemented via a carbon trading system. Al Gore will personally benefit from this to the tune of billions, while the call to 'de-carbonise the economies of
developed countries' could destroy living standards and lead to high levels of unemployment.
It also calls for carbon emissions to be cut by 50-80 per cent, that could directly impact living standards - I'd say drastically.
Exxon Mobil Chief Rex Tillerson has called for a direct tax on carbon emissions.
"It is easier and more politically expedient to support a cap-and-trade approach, because the public will never figure out where it is hitting them,†he said. “They will just know they hurt somewhere in their pocketbook,†he added, pointing out that he disagreed with this convoluted method of introducing a carbon tax, arguing instead that it would be more successful to openly propose a straight carbon tax.
Paul, I admire your work, which is very interesting. But I respectfully disagree with your view that global temperatures are increasing. If they are increasing, why did the CRU scientists delete their data, prevent public access to it, and bemoan the fact that temperatures are dropping and that they could do nothing about it? Not only is there evidence of peer pressure and fraud here, but also deliberate efforts to manipulate computer code in their favour - and there are also conversations which discuss soliciting funding from the very Big Oil which you claim is behind the so-called 'anti-global warmists'.
Carbon tax just sounds like another way for me to get stuck with the bill, so ya it will prolly pass. I mean seriously it is just another way to scuffle money around so the average consumer can get it up the butt more.
Quote from: ResinRat2 on December 07, 2009, 01:02:53 PM
Darn Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming#Believe_global_warming_is_primarily_caused_by_natural_processes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming#Believe_global_warming_is_primarily_caused_by_natural_processes)
I feel in good company.
RR2
But in the minority nonetheless. I've already provided the wikipedia link and references that states 75% of scientists believe the main cause of global warming is due to humanity.
Paul
Quote from: silverfish on December 07, 2009, 02:10:48 PM
Interesting. So how do we explain emails in which CRU scientists, the body that provides much of the foundational global warming data for the UN IPCC, discuss how they conducted meetings with Shell Oil in order to enlist them as a “strategic partner†while getting them to bankroll pro-man made global warming research.
The emails reveal that the CRU was also trying to get money from oil giants British Petroleum and Exxon-Mobil, under its former identity as Esso.
A “Copenhagen Communiqué†put out by leaders of over 500 global corporations in advance of the summit calls for a global carbon tax to be implemented via a carbon trading system. Al Gore will personally benefit from this to the tune of billions, while the call to 'de-carbonise the economies of
developed countries' could destroy living standards and lead to high levels of unemployment.
It also calls for carbon emissions to be cut by 50-80 per cent, that could directly impact living standards - I'd say drastically.
Exxon Mobil Chief Rex Tillerson has called for a direct tax on carbon emissions.
"It is easier and more politically expedient to support a cap-and-trade approach, because the public will never figure out where it is hitting them,†he said. “They will just know they hurt somewhere in their pocketbook,†he added, pointing out that he disagreed with this convoluted method of introducing a carbon tax, arguing instead that it would be more successful to openly propose a straight carbon tax.
Paul, I admire your work, which is very interesting. But I respectfully disagree with your view that global temperatures are increasing. If they are increasing, why did the CRU scientists delete their data, prevent public access to it, and bemoan the fact that temperatures are dropping and that they could do nothing about it? Not only is there evidence of peer pressure and fraud here, but also deliberate efforts to manipulate computer code in their favour - and there are also conversations which discuss soliciting funding from the very Big Oil which you claim is behind the so-called 'anti-global warmists'.
I can't reply to your claims because it's nothing but claims. Post the valid references. I've already chased many of your recent posts to only discover that you've provided incorrect information, a one sided point of view, and an unscientific one at that.
Paul
Quote from: PaulLowrance on December 07, 2009, 03:28:50 PM
But in the minority nonetheless. I've already provided the wikipedia link and references that states 75% of scientists believe the main cause of global warming is due to humanity.
Paul
Never the less, there are plenty of good scientists that are not convinced on man-caused global warming. Science is looking for the truth; there is enough doubt to continue questioning the validity of the man-causation argument. It wasn't until last year that the opposing side finally got its act together and started posting the other point of view.
From my point of view I see too many globalists jumping on this bandwagon. They know with certainty that man-caused global warming hysteria will lead to greater loss of national sovereignty for nations and a consolidation of global power into international entities. This you cannot deny. It will also cause a greater drive to redistribute wealth among nations in such a way that again the globalists will ultimately control it. This means YOU will have little or no say in the matter.
This is an engine of the New World Order. This is their big chance to further consolidate power and cause the average person to lose more freedoms and personal choices. This may not bother you at all, but it does I.
Being the majority doesn't mean you are right. The majority of the people present condemned Jesus to death. In truth it was an injustice and the mob was wrong. In reality, God's plan was fulfilled by human injustice; turned on its head to save those who choose to be saved.
Taking actions to help lesson global warming such as encouraging people to lower their carbon foot print is a positive action. It's Big Oil that's trying to stop this. This has nothing to do with some new world order.
Green technology is bringing a lot of new great jobs.
Paul
It is a waste of time to discuss with any followers of r0n paul. I believe he has received more than enough money from the oil cartels. He is against not only theories of climate disrruption, but also any OU technology that would replace fossil oil. Perhaps, this is probably what the oil cartels want. According to his disclosure, he doesn't accept unofficial 911 theories:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihCP3cfS88E
If my understanding is correct, there are many versions of new world order in the english speaking world. To be honest, I have never heard of any thing so called "new world order" in other languages. The one I heard of from a fundamental christian in the US says new technologies are the product of the new world order. Some other religious fundamentalists says china is a new world order. During the clinton era, clinton has been labeled as a new world order. By the way, I have not seen any finger pointing towards the one who invaded iraq in the name of liberating iraq.
Thousands of scientists, common sense, and the clear evidence of a criminal conspiracy is conclusive enough for me to conclude that man is not a significant factor in the earth's climate.
I actually used to believe the carbon footprint story too...but since I wasn't married to the belief, it wasn't hard to part company with that belief, when I learned different.
Regards...
Same here Cap.
I heard one wise man say that unless you can believe in the Conspiracy, what is happening doesn't quite make sense. Once you open your mind to the possibility, research what is going on and how it relates to the final goals of global governance, suddenly then every single event that is happening makes complete sense. Just keep your eye on the goal: total control of the planet and all people who live on it by a single global government which will control how much resources you are allowed to use, how many children you are allowed to have, what standard of living you are allowed to achieve, and where you will be allowed to live. All the while giving the impression that it is necessary for our struggle for "freedom", and to save the earth.
Even George Bush Sr. said it plainly as one of the goals of the Iraq war. The emergence of "a New World Order."
Those who are ignorant simply scoff at the idea. Those who have their eyes opened see it as plain as day, and are amazed at the blindness of those who don't yet see it.
NWO
It is happening folks. Obama is heading to Denmark to sign away America's sovereignty.
Of course, the history and the constitution of the US does not allow him to do this without Congress, but, he has said he will do it anyway.
Here we are. What shall we do about it?
Bill
Quote from: Pirate88179 on December 08, 2009, 12:44:27 AM
NWO
It is happening folks. Obama is heading to Denmark to sign away America's sovereignty.
Of course, the history and the constitution of the US does not allow him to do this without Congress, but, he has said he will do it anyway.
Here we are. What shall we do about it?
Bill
as always the general public will do nothing, but when shit hits the fan... we will see.
My naive belief in my country's constitution tells me : our people have not vote for the ones imposing such carbon taxes on us. It's not part of the deal. Also, it's not proven to be necessary, or useful other than for enrichening the rich.
My country didn't elect the green party as largest one, let alone the one to pull off such a treaty.
Advocacy groups will need to be formed, donations to fund good lawyers. People will need to stand together, make one big fist. They'll need to get to the streets, and on the news.
Quote from: ResinRat2 on December 07, 2009, 04:17:29 PM
Never the less, there are plenty of good scientists that are not convinced on man-caused global warming. Science is looking for the truth; there is enough doubt to continue questioning the validity of the man-causation argument. It wasn't until last year that the opposing side finally got its act together and started posting the other point of view.
From my point of view I see too many globalists jumping on this bandwagon. They know with certainty that man-caused global warming hysteria will lead to greater loss of national sovereignty for nations and a consolidation of global power into international entities. This you cannot deny. It will also cause a greater drive to redistribute wealth among nations in such a way that again the globalists will ultimately control it. This means YOU will have little or no say in the matter.
This is an engine of the New World Order. This is their big chance to further consolidate power and cause the average person to lose more freedoms and personal choices. This may not bother you at all, but it does I.
Being the majority doesn't mean you are right. The majority of the people present condemned Jesus to death. In truth it was an injustice and the mob was wrong. In reality, God's plan was fulfilled by human injustice; turned on its head to save those who choose to be saved.
I agree wholeheartedly with your view. It may be 'unscientific, one-sided, and inaccurate' of me to point this out, according to Paul, but I'll go ahead anyway - there have been record low temperatures in the United States.
Ice and snow has shut down Interstate Highway 1-5 in California. Flagstaff, Arizona has already received a foot and a half of snow. Snowfall in excess of 4 feet is expected in Colorado. Snow and record cold in Sacramento. Massive snowstorm heading for Omaha and the midwest, sub-zero temperatures. Record 10" snowfall in Ottawa and western Kent counties. Snow in Texas, with parts of the Texas Panhandle and West Texas plains receiving 1 to 3 inches of snow. Ther have been record lows in Alaska, the list goes on and on - take a look at http://www.iceagenow.com/Record_Lows_2009.htm and as far as the 'other viewpoint' is concerned, Robert Felix has done an excellent job in his book 'Not by fire but by Ice'.
I'd like also to make a comment about the peer review process, which Paul is so enamoured of. In the CRU emails they talk about getting control over the peer review process so that dissenting views can't see the light of day. In his book 'The Hidden History of The Human Race' by Michael Cremo, he talks about a 'knowledge filtration system' that, through the peer review process, and by a system of selection and elimination, the prevailing scientific paradigm can be maintained, while dissenting voices are discredited and silenced. I would venture to suggest that is exactly what is going on as far as global warming is concerned - and by the way I have not seen any truly verifiable information that global warming is a reality, but a great deal of information which contests it, and there is plenty to consider on iceagenow.com if people want to look at the other side of the argument and judge for themselves.
ResinRat and Silverfish have expanded on my approach to information and my position quite accurately.
Bill...can Obomba really sign away US soverignty if he does not hold the office legally due to his foreign birth orign ?
To me, that seems to be an interesting point of contention.
Regards...
Well the way the constitution was built means that technically he can't sign the thing in the first place, or at least sign it in accordance with his possition as president. If he does sign it and it can't go into law, or at least until it is passed through the house and senate. And if he does sign it in accordance with his posistion as president of the US and it does not pass, then it is illegal, just like NAFTA. But NAFTA should give you an indication as to what can happen if the house and senate do not step in and use there power.
America's sovereignty, prosperity and economic independence are all at stake. This is NOT a green or environmental issue. The Copenhagen Climate Treaty is nothing short of a scam to lead our great nation into servitude.
The United States of America was born as an independent, sovereign, nation in July of 1776, when our Founding Fathers signed the Declaration of Independence. The sovereign and independent status that America has cherished for over 200 years may come to an abrupt end if Barack Obama signs the Copenhagen Climate Treaty.
What is the Copenhagen Climate Treaty?
The Copenhagen Treaty has two stated goals:
· Transfer wealth from Industrial Nations (The United States) to Developing Countries.
· Dictate energy use and consumption to Industrial Nations (The United States)
Now, just so we are clear...
· Goal Number One is Global Socialism
· Goal Number Two is a Global Dictatorship
The Copenhagen Climate Treaty audaciously states:
Industrialized countries have a dual obligation under the Treaty, representing their overall responsibility for keeping the world within the limits of the global carbon budget and ensuring that adaptation to the impacts of climate change is possible for the most vulnerable. This dual binding obligation takes the form of emissions reductions as well as the provision of support to developing countries
Lord Christopher Monckton, the former advisor for science policy to former British Prime Minister, and former President Ronald Reagan ally, Lady Margaret Thatcher, believes that if the U.S. signs any climate treaty coming out of the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference, it could subject the United States to a global dictatorship.
"This treaty of Copenhagen, which is going to be negotiated by the states' parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change,(http://unfccc.int/2860.php (http://unfccc.int/2860.php)) is going to...establish for the first time in human history a global government," he warns.
The devastating immediate economic impact of the Copenhagen Climate Treaty:
· Limit manufacturing in the U.S. by cap and trade regulations = Loss of Jobs
· Limit personal consumption of energy by law and costs = Loss of Freedom
· Hyper Energy cost Inflation
· ALL goods and materials to become more expensive = Double Digit Inflation
· Transportation to become more expensive = $10 per gallon gas prices
· Halt the US Recovery = Prolonged Recession / Depression
· Assure and accelerate the shift of economic growth and profitability from the U.S to emerging markets = Loss of Opportunity
· Increase Imports for emerging countries who will not be subject to the same carbon emissions limits = Unfair Competition, Increased Trade Deficit
· Cause the U.S. to become an even greater debtor while China becomes an even bigger creditor = More Red Debt
· Add momentum to the movement away from the U.S. Dollar toward an alternate single or composite world reserve currency = One World Currency
· Increase the cost of Treasury borrowings = Ballooning Deficit
· Drive up federal and state taxes = Suffocating Taxes
During a visit to Germany in the midst of the Presidential Campaign last year, Barack Hussein Obama declared, "I am a citizen of the world." In front of one million adoring Germans, Obama had announced to the world that he indeed prioritized globalism over patriotism.
The U. S. Constitution mandates that treaty ratification must be advised and consented to by a two-thirds majority in the U.S. Senate. This would normally be a tall order for any President, if said President valued the Constitution.
An Obama advisor once said that he [Obama] regarded the U.S. Constitution as merely a piece of paper...and he saw it as a barrier to the things that the Left around the world want to do â€" and, therefore, they were going to find ways of circumventing it.
Let's compare the Copenhagen Climate Treaty to Cap & Trade.
The Wall Street Journal called Cap & Trade "the biggest tax in American history" and The Washington Times reported that cap-and-trade legislation will levy a $3.6 trillion gas-tax increase that will impact every American and important segments of our economy.
Cap & Trade will cause massive inflation, record unemployment and entire industrial sectors will flee the country in search of profits.
As dreadful as Cap & Trade would be for the United States economy, if the Copenhagen Climate Treaty is signed and ratified, it will be far more dangerous to the economic and political future of this country.
The Copenhagen Climate Treaty will strip America of its Sovereignty, and subject us to laws, rules and huge taxes levied by a one-world, leftist, elitist governing body that wants to steal America's wealth to punish us for our success as a nation. Worst of all, Americans will NOT have the power to vote these elitists out of office, impeach them, or hold them accountable in any way whatsoever.
THIS MAY BE THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE OF OUR LIFETIME. If we do not stand firm and united against this treasonous treaty, the greatest country in the world may be forever subservient to a One World Order and it will have happened on our watch.
Which ever way you look at it the US should not sign the thing, and i hope we don't just like the Kyoto Pact
Nice job explaining it PhiScience.
The Globalists (for sure this includes his Highness Obama) want to circumvent the US Consititution by perverting the "law of the land" phrase that the US Constitution stipulates in regard to Treaties.
Once a Treaty is ratified it becomes the "law of the land."; and these globalists interpret that as superceding the US Constitution and its laws. In effect, it is the loss of sovereinty for the United States. Sign enough Treaties and you can basically sign every law and clause of the US Constitution away to a global government. Notice how every one of these rotten agreements (GATT, NAFTA, Kyoto, etc.) were Treaties. That is the reason why. What a sinister and underhanded way of destroying the US Constitution.
Before you guys start throwing more accusations out there, why don't we wait and see what happens?
My God my brothers & sisters, how much do they pay you people to say these things? It's sad to see how rumors, claims, eyeballing analysis, and such builds up on its own. It spreads like wildfires amongst yourselves. I'm saddened that the Universal law of Cause & Effect will catch up and become the worst enemy of such people.
I'm thankful that I've taken the objective scientific path yet still as open-minded as ever.
Paul
Paul, while you are weighing the data presented to you, decision regarding your and your family's are made FOR you, based on a gravely single-sided approach of the data. Is the truth ever in the upper left corner of the spectrum? And when was the last time that a rushed decision was taken for the right seasons, and worked out great?
All this Global Warmin ''story'' is set up for a reason,that some guys will gain a lot of money from CO2 emission certificates trading. People,don't be stupid. In ancient times in Egypt well educated casta of priests did use natural astrological phenomenoms- like Sun blackening -to rule stupid crowd.
So please,stay on REAL scientific evidence, not on tabloids and Hollywood histeria.
Please see attached statement from Polish Academy of Science.
Sorry, you guys are the enemy! By being complicit with their goals you are in the same camp as they are.
I will not wait and see what happens because it will be the equivalent of "here, try on these chains and handcuffs. They might not be so bad" Those chains and handcuffs will never be removed.
Paul, I don't see you as objective either. There is plenty of evidence for the other view, which you dismiss because you view the Scientific Process as a democratic process. It is not. The whole world could have the wrong scientific opinion, and one person the correct scientific opinion. Who then is correct?
Once our sovereignty is surrendered to these bunch of globalists we can NEVER get it back. Not without violence and bloodshed.
I see the same evidence as you and draw the opposite conclusion. We are not brothers. We are combatants.
All I was suggesting is to stop throwing the accusations of NWO or any other cults crap and stick to the facts. We still don't know if pres Oboma will sign or not. And we still don't know what a final treaty will say.
ResinRat2,
The only scientific discussion in this thread based on objective data is *if* humanity is a major contributor to global warming. That is the only objective scientific discussion in this thread. All of this talk / hate about obama this & that and taking over the world is based on half truths that nobody ever cares to validate based on eyeballing analysis. That's not science, and it's so easy for people get mislead that way. I've seen videos of these conspiracy theorist talking as if it's a matter of fact. I'm a big fan of conspiracy theories in that I like to use such claims to find the higher truth, but we can't take such claims as fact, and preach it as fact.
IMO this thread is summed up in two words, Big Oil!
Paul
Pual,
I agree with you in that they need to stick to the discusion, weather or not global warming is human caused or natural sun cycle. We have argued back and forth for some time about it and while I still believe it is not caused by human activity, I have seen your charts and graphs that show that the increase in temperature have increased with the increase of fossil fuel products, but I am still not convinced because there have also been small cooling periods also shown in your graphs when fossil fuels where being used. The thing that would convince me now as to weather it is human activity or not is during this solar cycle, when we are at a deep minimum, and temps keep rising. I also agree with you that we should be proactive and clean up the energy industry regardless, but to Institute harsh restrictions that would cause more economic pain may not be the answer.
Quote from: Azorus on December 08, 2009, 12:15:53 PM
Pual,
I agree with you in that they need to stick to the discusion, weather or not global warming is human caused or natural sun cycle. We have argued back and forth for some time about it and while I still believe it is not caused by human activity, I have seen your charts and graphs that show that the increase in temperature have increased with the increase of fossil fuel products, but I am still not convinced because there have also been small cooling periods also shown in your graphs when fossil fuels where being used. The thing that would convince me now as to weather it is human activity or not is during this solar cycle, when we are at a deep minimum, and temps keep rising. I also agree with you that we should be proactive and clean up the energy industry regardless, but to Institute harsh restrictions that would cause more economic pain may not be the answer.
Hi,
The problem is that people want to see immediate results, which is why people cry no global warming when the global temperature takes a dive for X years. This is called fluctuations, it's natural, and has always occurred since the beginning. Example of fluctuations is seen in this graph where the blue line is global temperature. As you can see in the graph, the global temperature has taken nose dives & also rapidly increases numerous times in this graphs time span alone. But that's not the trend, those are just fluctuations. The trend requires decades to see.
IMO most of global warming is caused by both humanity & natural cycles.
Regards,
Paul
Solar cycles fluctuate too Paul. Carbon and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere fluctuate too, just not at as dramatic rates. Hey there is another interesting thing to throw in the graph along with solar cycle, greenhouse gases.
Quote from: ResinRat2 on December 07, 2009, 09:53:13 PM
Same here Cap.
I heard one wise man say that unless you can believe in the Conspiracy, what is happening doesn't quite make sense. Once you open your mind to the possibility, research what is going on and how it relates to the final goals of global governance, suddenly then every single event that is happening makes complete sense. Just keep your eye on the goal: total control of the planet and all people who live on it by a single global government which will control how much resources you are allowed to use, how many children you are allowed to have, what standard of living you are allowed to achieve, and where you will be allowed to live. All the while giving the impression that it is necessary for our struggle for "freedom", and to save the earth.
Even George Bush Sr. said it plainly as one of the goals of the Iraq war. The emergence of "a New World Order."
Those who are ignorant simply scoff at the idea. Those who have their eyes opened see it as plain as day, and are amazed at the blindness of those who don't yet see it.
This hits the nail smack on the head, in my opinion, followed by PhiScience who it seems to me also has a comprehensive grasp of where this is all going and the wider implications - that the intention ultimately is to micro-manage and control every aspect of our lives, including the financial, which, as Aaron Russo was told in his meetings with Nick Rockefeller, is intended to be encapsulated in the microchip. On a more positive note, we should remember that the people orchestrating this are relatively few in number. They can print all the money they like, buy the brightest and the best to push their agenda, brainwash the public into useless jelly with food additives and flouride in the water, sell people fake science on the climate and even create a global religion based on it - recall Maurice Strong's statements and the Club Of Rome - but one thing they do not have is numbers.
Regarding the financial aspects of all this, check out Michel Chossudovsky's article on the multibillion trade in carbon derivatives at
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16449
Blythe Masters was the J P Morgan employee who invented credit default swaps - (i.e. derivatives, of which 4.5 quadrillion are still set to implode on us with the controlled demolition of the economy) now, surprise surprise, the same Blythe Masters is now going to control JPM's carbon trading.
Although we are living in very dark times, a I see the email scandal as an indication that there is in fact light at the end of the tunnel, and after an unpleasant trial, things are ultimately going to change - for the better. A mountain of corruption and some deeply unpleasant people (I use that word advisably) in charge of it are going to have to go first, though.
Hi Silverfish,
I agree with you that behind ''global warming'' scam there stays financial agenda.This would be the next beautifull field to gain the money- CO2 derivatives trade and emission certificates market.
That is why all this ''scientific evidence'' was made-up plus hollywood style campaign is going all over the tv and newspapers.
But I am afraid that this e-mail scandal wil be quickly extinguished,they will sacrifice some black sheeps and all will come back to the original plan.Too much effort and money was involved into this ''climate change'' set up....
The same with bird flu and now with swine flu, there was created mass histeria, governments buying milions of vaccines- and what? Look into statistic how many people die because normal seasonal flu.
All this is about mass control and how to gain huge money from creating mass panic.
On my previous post on this forum I did attached statement from the Polish Science Academy,please read it.
I have to say that the eyebrow of even the casual observer would be raised after seeing the well grounded and reasoned words of ResinRat and Silverfish offhandedly dismissed as the paid opinion of "Big Oil".
Let us refrain from baseless accusations and make points using facts and statistics.
I was aware that Bush referred the US Constitution as "just a piece of paper"...I was not aware Obomba did also...not a surprise though.
Wouldn't it be great if they planned all along to have a fake President ( Obomba ) sign the Accord ?
That way it wouldn't be binding...because Biden is actually the legal President, as he takes over in the absense of the President...and there is technically an absence of a legally elected President.
Regards...
Quote from: Cap-Z-ro on December 08, 2009, 04:54:55 PM
I have to say that the eyebrow of even the casual observer would be raised after seeing the well grounded and reasoned words of ResinRat and Silverfish offhandedly dismissed as the paid opinion of "Big Oil".
Let us refrain from baseless accusations and make points using facts and statistics.
Sorry, but I'm the one who's provided the references. There are a truck load of references at wikipedia on the oil companies paying to support anti-global warming.
Paul
Quote from: Cap-Z-ro on December 08, 2009, 04:54:55 PM
I have to say that the eyebrow of even the casual observer would be raised after seeing the well grounded and reasoned words of ResinRat and Silverfish offhandedly dismissed as the paid opinion of "Big Oil".
Let us refrain from baseless accusations and make points using facts and statistics.
I was aware that Bush referred the US Constitution as "just a piece of paper"...I was not aware Obomba did also...not a surprise though.
Wouldn't it be great if they planned all along to have a fake President ( Obomba ) sign the Accord ?
That way it wouldn't be binding...because Biden is actually the legal President, as he takes over in the absense of the President...and there is technically an absence of a legally elected President.
Regards...
Cap:
Actually, from what I have read, Biden would not be President if/when Obama is declared not eligible to run for the office. The Constitution clearly says (according to the attorney I was listening to) that the entire ticket would be declared ineligible and, this is the worst part, the Speaker of the House would then assume office until a new special election could be instated. That would be SanFran Nan. Now that is a very scary thought.
Bill
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/12/09/2765726.htm?section=justin
"
Quote from: Cap-Z-ro on December 08, 2009, 10:54:55 PM
I have to say that the eyebrow of even the casual observer would be raised after seeing the well grounded and reasoned words of ResinRat and Silverfish offhandedly dismissed as the paid opinion of "Big Oil".
Let us refrain from baseless accusations and make points using facts and statistics. "
quote paul-
" Sorry, but I'm the one who's provided the references. There are a truck load of references at wikipedia
on the oil companies paying to support anti-global warming.
Paul "
................................................................................................
What does that have to do with your baseless assertion...
" My God my brothers & sisters, how much do they pay you people to say these things? "
I take it you mean "they" to be 'Big Oil' ?
" All of this talk / hate about obama this & that and taking over the world is based on half truths that nobody ever cares to validate based on eyeballing analysis. That's not science, and it's so easy for people get mislead that way."
Where are these "half truths"...lets discuss them and assign blame where it belongs.
I certainly don't want to be party to any blame projecting.
This would be a good time to apply 'the scientific method', by presenting your evidence to support your contention that people here are dishonest along with being paid agents of disinformation.
@Bill
Sanfran-Nan = Head wringer
Regards...
This whole thing is fake. Global warming has been exposed by hackers. Now the instant backup lie is climate change. They are conducting weather war on the people right now trying to condition the masses to except climate change. The storm in the Northwest USA right now is proof. Look at the storm. I downloaded the surrounding temperatures the moment they first forecast this storm. The lowest was a highland -13 in the Canadian mountains. I checked all the temperatures of the major islands in the North pacific too. There was no -30 to blow in from anywhere.
In the old overunity site at yahoo.com everything was explained on how they did it. Sulfur Dioxide lowers temperatures. Standing wave to steer hurricanes my butt. The patent number was given on the site for atmospheric lenses for HARRP and the patent number for using energy for changing the inertia of mass. The only place they could get -30 temperatures as a source is to steer the jet stream towards the Earth. As surely as they can steer a hurricane they can do that. Think about it.
The recorded surrounding temperatures are rar filed saved web pages. Here they are.
http://megaupload.com/?d=AHOBU6GC
211.04 KB
They used to try to convince people chemtrail spray cooled the Earth too, and they were going to pump water into the atmosphere with ships. Water vapor is clearly a green house gas. Now they are trying to convince the population that if the ice melts it will rip the earth apart.
4/3 pi R cubed, get the diameter mean of the Earth by Adding pole to pole and equator diameters and divide by 2. Then figure out the surface area with that formula. Don't worry about the expansion of water when it turns to ice. It's in the favor of government figures anyway. Figure out how many cubic miles of ice it would take to cover the earth with one inch of water. Also figure out this for the oceans, approximately 75% of the earths surface. You will notice you have absolutely nothing to worry about. The water will seek it's own level and the weight will be distributed. Rain storms can cause as much trouble. I'd like to point out Greenland is a small place by the way. Have fun people.
Quote from: Azorus on December 08, 2009, 12:51:27 PM
Solar cycles fluctuate too Paul. Carbon and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere fluctuate too, just not at as dramatic rates. Hey there is another interesting thing to throw in the graph along with solar cycle, greenhouse gases.
If my understanding is correct, the fluctuation is due to the ozone hole and other depleted regions in the ozone layer. The depleted ozone layer let in more harmful radiations from the sun to penetrate into the atmosphere. The dark surface of the earth absorbs these solar radiations and turns these radiations into heat, thus heating up the earth core.
But right now, the greenhouse effects apparently have taken over. Those greenhouse gases also cause mercury pollution in China and Indonesia.
I reiterate, there is no point to engage in any intellectual discussion with the members of the R Paul cult. The leader of this cult has already declared that he opposes every bill supporting alternative energy investment or energy independency.
http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Ron_Paul_Energy_+_Oil.htm
http://seekingalpha.com/article/34879-ranking-the-candidates-alt-energy-support-congressman-ron-paul
By the way, according to my tea leaf readings, another goal of his cult is to stir up civil war in the US. I hope I am wrong.
Quote from: raburgeson on December 09, 2009, 01:49:32 AM
This whole thing is fake. Global warming has been exposed by hackers. Now the instant backup lie is climate change. They are conducting weather war on the people right now trying to condition the masses to except climate change. (snipped)
Yes, it's fake. First it was 'Global Warming'. When it became apparent that the earth has in fact slightly cooled over the last nine years, then the media came up with the more neutral-sounding phrase 'Climate Change'. I'd like to come up with a new phrase to replace that one, 'Climate Alarmism'. This whole mechanism is based on Hegelian principles, 'Problem-reaction-solution'.
First we create a crisis, whether real or fictional, doesn't really matter. Then we get a reaction from the public, which is overwhelming fear. Survival instincts are triggered in the primitive, reactive part of the brain. Then, like a threatened seal pup turns to its mother for comfort, we instinctively turn to authority to provide the solution - and that solution turns out to be precisely what was originally planned all along. The classic example of this was 911. Now we have an interesting variant, the flu pandemic. You don't need to be Einstein to recognise that this came from a lab. You don't need to have half a brain to recognise that there is something dangerous about the vaccines provided as a 'solution' to the 'problem'. While the initial phase has been relatively mild, outbreaks in Ukraine, Iowa, Norway show a recombinant variant with the potential to do much more damage. Who benefits from all this, or should I say, WHO benefits? check out F. William Engdahl's article 'Mega Corruption Scandal at the WHO' and see 'Mr Flu' Albert Osterhaus's ties to the pharmeceutical industry.
http://www.rense.com/general88/megawho.htm
Your point about weather manipulation is meaningful and has been noted by researchers Michel Chossudovsky and others. If we can change the weather, and there is evidence of different technologies capable of this, then 'we' have an entirely new set of problems 'we' can create, with new solutions waiting in the wings.
" Your point about weather manipulation is meaningful and has been noted by researchers Michel Chossudovsky and others. If we can change the weather, and there is evidence of different technologies capable of this, then 'we' have an entirely new set of problems 'we' can create, with new solutions waiting in the wings."
They call it - Problem-reaction-solution...a tactic as old as time.
Excellent points raburgeson.
As did Blueplanet, who raised the 'ozone' factor.
I had also considered that, but when I consider that the data on that comes from our lying "leadership", how can those figures be trusted.
Regards...
Quote from: Cap-Z-ro on December 09, 2009, 05:59:24 AM
" Your point about weather manipulation is meaningful and has been noted by researchers Michel Chossudovsky and others. If we can change the weather, and there is evidence of different technologies capable of this, then 'we' have an entirely new set of problems 'we' can create, with new solutions waiting in the wings."
They call it - Problem-reaction-solution...a tactic as old as time.
Excellent points raburgeson.
As did Blueplanet, who raised the 'ozone' factor.
I had also considered that, but when I consider that the data on that comes from our lying "leadership", how can those figures be trusted.
Regards...
Apologies to Raburgeson for inadvertedly mixing his quote up with my answer.
As regards trusting information handed to us from official sources, let's take the case of John P. Holdren, 'Science Czar', who was involved in the Climategate email fiasco. In his 1977 book Ecoscience he called for a DOUBLING of carbon dioxide emissions. He also called for draconian population control measures like introducing sterilizing drugs into the water supply and forced abortion. Holdren further stipulated that we should all be worried about global COOLING and that it would cause massive tidal waves. Not an alarmist or anything like that, is he? This ties in with eugenics.
My point is that any information can be twisted or even made up out of thin air, given an official veneer of credibility, and dished out to the public with a certain spin on it to appeal to certain groups. They have supercomputers which calculate exactly what kind of reaction to expect from certain sectors of society, down to the last variable. In the same way they can create a virus, or reconstitute it in the case of the 1918 flu, map its genome, predict the spread and which population segments will be affected when the virus mutates. Witholding information or blanking it out, can be almost as useful as spinning it as far as the media is concerned.
By the way, I'm sure someone can correct me on this, but carbon dioxide appears to be around 0.03-0.04 concentration in the atmosphere, not a vast amount, really. Coal miners were aware that the gas is heavier than air, hence the term canary in the coal mine. I think this should be taken into account when considering its heat-trapping properties, and also how much trapped heat will escape and be radiated out into space will also affect the situation.
As far as the ozone layer is concerned, interesting we haven't heard much about this in the news after a great deal of interest originally focused on. Dr Timothy Ball, who by the way is one of the 'dissenting voices' attacked in Climategate, stated that the ozone layer is capable of regenerating itself. I'm sure there are other factors involved here that need to be taken into account, for example changes taking place in the Earth's magnetic field and cycles of the sun. The effect of the sun on the climate is virtually ignored by climate alarmists, as is the Medieval Warm Period. Why?
Someone with more time than me can prolly dig up the research, but I had read that even if greenhouse gases increase to twice there amounts today it would only acount for maybe 1 degree f. If that is true then what is the problem with greenhouse gases?
Quote from: raburgeson on December 09, 2009, 01:49:32 AM
This whole thing is fake. Global warming has been exposed by hackers.
Silliness. Anyone who's looked into the matter and cares to be objective knows how silly that statement is. Numerous times I've quoted NASA as saying that the emails offer absolutely nothing in regards to debunking global warming. Global warming is real. Again, the emails & entire issue has nothing to do with if global warming is real, but how much of it's caused by humanity.
Instead, why don't you post facts instead of this campaign of lies.
Paul
Damn emeritus professor of atmospheric science at CSU who heads the school's Department of Atmospheric Sciences Tropical Meteorology Project.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=118432
He must be a crackpot, Ron Paul Cult, Big Oil Supporter, Militia, Black Helicopter, Right Wing, Republican, Slave Trade lover, Racist, Evil, Nazi, Anti-Environmental Supporter. LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
OH MY WORD!!! Not another Conspiracy NUT!!!!!!
I actually sat in on one of his presentations at UCCS. he is not a crack pot, and he is very well respected in his field.
As stated many times, global warming data is not contained at just one location. Those bad scientists did not originate the data, but the data was taken from measurements from scientists around the world.
It is wishful thinking to even think that a few bad scientists is a reflection on the entire science community.
Furthermore, as stated, you never find 100% of scientists agreeing on just about anything. Wikipedia states that ~ 75% of such scientists believe that humanity is the cause of global warming. Nearly 100% of scientists believe there is global warming.
It is silly to even suggest that because one can do a google search and find a few so-called scientists who agree with their beliefs that it's suddenly correct. That is not being objective. That is not being scientific.
Again, it is silly to even try and find a trend in the global temperature over a span of a few years. That is called bad science, and yes there are a lot of ding dong scientists out there. That's life, and we just have to agree to disagree, but in the end it's data that will tell the truth. Take a look at the graph of global temperature I posted a day or so ago. Look at how the temperature fluctuates over short periods of time. That is perfectly normal. Gee, look at this year how temperature dropped, that must be global cooling. And look at it a few years later, gee it must now be global warming. Gee, look at the a few years later, must be global cooling. LOL, come on, please be serious and objective.
As for references, I've posted them too many times in this thread already. References & graphs up the yin yang. :)
Paul
Quote from: Azorus on December 09, 2009, 11:02:40 AM
I actually sat in on one of his presentations at UCCS. he is not a crack pot, and he is very well respected in his field.
Hi,
I've already seen numerous debates on the email topic on television from climatologist. What is being portrayed in this thread against most of these scientists is sad, very sad lies. Some of those scientists are bad scientists, no doubt, if we can trust the Internet as showing their correct emails. The issues with some of the other scientists is merely a point of view on how to handle the data, as some call it cherry picking. There's nothing wrong with that so long as you can prove the method improves the accuracy, and that method is used consistently.
Anyhow, the bad emails is just a very small group of scientists, and has no reflection on the entire world of climatologist.
Paul
Ya to pual
even though human made global warming is still not proven.
If they want to pass anything at the summit it should be what a countries says it will do then hold it to them by making it legally binding. Since we still don't have solid proof lets stick to trying to clean up the coal and gas of current powerplants and look at the future to get the solid facts we need for human cuased global warming. Like i have said before I am against human cuased global warming but not against cleaning up the earth, after all we only have one.
Also green house gases repersent such a small amount of the atmosphere that it is not a significant player in Global warming and for the EPA to ban them is stupid.
I don't think any sane scientist would say humans offer absolutely zero to global warming, but the question is how much. We know from measurements that the temperature of the area in and around every major city increases from just an increase in traffic alone. Then there's smog due to humanity. Take a look at major cities-- terrible smog. The list of what humans have and are doing is almost endless.
How each person can help is almost endless as well. From the smallest things such as using more efficient light bulbs, to adding double pained windows.
Just recently on the news they showed a city in the US where people are getting together to pain the roofs of buildings & such with a color that reflects more of the sun light. Now those are great people!! Every square meter (1 meter = 3.28 feet) receives ~ 1000 watts of solar radiation. So you can see just how much it helps to paint your roof white. You can look this up to find out the details, what type of paint they're using.
Asphalt roads absorb nearly all sun light! Take a look at how many roads there are in the world! So that's a massive contribution to global warming.
Paul
Hey, I just looked up the emissivity of Asphalt. It's 0.93. That means Asphalt absorbs 93% of all solar light!
Now if you could just place thin sheets of highly polished Aluminum on your roof, you'd be the greenest home in the world probably, as it's emissivity is 3.9%. ;D
Paul
I use a mix of my own.White latex exterior the whitest you can find.Mixed with zircopax and bone white porcelin clay plus a preventative from shrinking with about 20 percent spar boat deck varnish. It requires a little bit of automotive antifreeze to get them all to mix together. It's a variant of what they use on some gov ships planes buildings. There are a number of other compounds you can add like zinc to make it conductive for protection from lightning strikes. I use on my truck because it blocks out most of the heat and it will fck a tree up good if the truck scrapes against a tree or a branch. Rather then tree huger it's a tree grinder. I wont go into the insulating qualities but if you use multible coats you can mix half with baking soda and the other half with a acid so it forms co2 bubbles in the paint.
Quote from: Doug1 on December 09, 2009, 12:44:51 PM
I use a mix of my own.White latex exterior the whitest you can find.Mixed with zircopax and bone white porcelin clay plus a preventative from shrinking with about 20 percent spar boat deck varnish. It requires a little bit of automotive antifreeze to get them all to mix together. It's a variant of what they use on some gov ships planes buildings. There are a number of other compounds you can add like zinc to make it conductive for protection from lightning strikes. I use on my truck because it blocks out most of the heat and it will fck a tree up good if the truck scrapes against a tree or a branch. Rather then tree huger it's a tree grinder. I wont go into the insulating qualities but if you use multible coats you can mix half with baking soda and the other half with a acid so it forms co2 bubbles in the paint.
Wow, great work! I hope you'll share more on your techniques.
But CO2 bubbles, in the context at hand, that might be understood wrong :-) What's wrong with air bubbles for insulation? :-) I know, for the chimistry, CO2 works out easier.
Quote from: ResinRat2 on December 09, 2009, 10:48:58 AM
Damn emeritus professor of atmospheric science at CSU who heads the school's Department of Atmospheric Sciences Tropical Meteorology Project.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=118432
He must be a crackpot, Ron Paul Cult, Big Oil Supporter, Militia, Black Helicopter, Right Wing, Republican, Slave Trade lover, Racist, Evil, Nazi, Anti-Environmental Supporter. LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
OH MY WORD!!! Not another Conspiracy NUT!!!!!!
The virulent anti-warmist Ron Paulists. Hmm. interesting!
Here's an update from the Copenhagen summit:
Lord Monckton, who has been attending the UN Climate
summit, attempted to obtain a draft of the current
negotiating text agreement and was initially rebuffed.
The persons responsible argued for ten minutes over it
and did not produce the treaty until Monckton
threatened an international diplomatic incident.
Eventually they relented and handed him a multi
thousand page document which he had to search right
through to find a copy of the treaty, somewhat
inconveniently placed right at the bottom of the pile.
He maintains that this document represents a
'global government power grab' on an 'unimaginable scale.'
Here are some of the features:
1) The creation of 700 new bureaucracies and a massive
raft of new taxes including 2 per cent levies on both GDP
and every financial transaction.
2) The new World Government would be handed powers to
'Tax the American Economy to the extent of 2 per cent
GDP, and impose a further tax of 2 per cent on every
financial transaction... and to close down effectively
the economies of the west, transfer your jobs to third
world countries - all of that is still in the treaty draft.'
This new system of taxation will be paid directly to the
World Bank. The Kyoto protocol would be abandoned, and
climate change finance would be under control of the World
Bank.
Money given to poor countries to adapt to climate change
will be dependent on them taking a range of actions
( Just as PhiScience pointed out in his concisely relevant
email, and just as the IMF already does)
The new proposed taxes would amount to at least half the
entire US defence budget.
It is intended to auction allowances to emit greenhouse
gases and if you don't buy an allowance to emit greenhouse
gases, you won't be allowed to emit them - it's quite
simple.
There is a provision for a uniform global levy of 2 dollars
per ton of CO2 for ALL fossil fuel emmissions - as well
as an additional tax on every commercial plane journey,
except ones that go to poor countries.
There will also be a tax on fuel.
And there will also be severe penalties for non-compliance.
Please think - hard - about what this will mean for you
and your family.
This World Government system is being set up right now,
and on the basis of a massive, criminal fraud. This isn't
just a question of 'a few bad scientists' who have no
connection to anything going on in the rest of climate
science.
These 'few bad apples' who are right now distancing
themselves from each other while they await 'investigation'
by an agency which is itself a vehement advocate of
global warming - can we say the words 'whitewash imminent'??
- were presenting the UN with data that was interfered with
at every level. They obstructed Freedom of Information
requests, they exerted peer pressure to smear dissenters,
they messed with computer code -
And we trust these guys enough where a global bureaucracy
is being set up on the basis of phony science that will have
a massive negative impact on your pocket - and your freedom -
FOREVER, while a cartel of international banksters will
enrich themselves - unimaginably - at your expense.
As if they do not already have more money than they
can possibly spend. They are LAUGHING at you. A third of US
agricultural produce will be spent on biofuels, people will
and be and are already starving because of these policies.
Just ask yourself - do you really want this? Do you seriously
want to live in the kind of world that is coming?
- where a faceless company that you have no dealings with
monitors sensing mechanisms in your fridge, cutting off
the power when they consider it expedient to do so - and not
when you need it? I am not just making this up -
'smart meters' are going to be fitted to every house in the
UK, there will be remote monitoring and more. There will be
'Green Police' inspecting our properties making sure we
comply with every regulation.
If you think Brave New World and 1984 were just
fiction, please, dream on.
It's happening right now - this reality is heading fast
in your direction, propelled on the wings of the Copenhagen
summit.
Holy shit! has anyone else read that treaty? It is scary as shit. talk about taxation without repersentation.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/un-fccc-copenhagen-2009.pdf
That was the latest i could find.
Ok lets take a wider look at climate change.
Here’s a graph of estimated global temperature for the past 425,000 years. This temperature record was computed from analysis of ice cores taken at Vostok, a Russian research base in Antarctica, starting in 1970. The deepest core reached 3,623 m (11,886 ft) into the ice sheet. The ice at the bottom has been undisturbed for about half a million years. During this time there have been four ice ages.
Image based on data from the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/vostok_data.html (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/vostok_data.html)
Global temperature variation for the past 425,000 years - The present is at the right. The horizontal 0 line represents the 1961â€"1990 average global temperature. The numbers on the left show the variation from that baseline in °C.
I will have another chart with co2 overlay soon for the same period of time and you may be surprised with what you see.
Quote from: Azorus on December 09, 2009, 03:05:40 PM
Holy shit! has anyone else read that treaty? It is scary as shit. talk about taxation without repersentation.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/un-fccc-copenhagen-2009.pdf (http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/un-fccc-copenhagen-2009.pdf)
That was the latest i could find.
Exactly! Obama will toss out our Constitution by signing that treaty and this new "entity" the treaty creates (Great post Silverfish) will then have sovereignty over the USA as well as every other signatory country. It is madness, pure madness.
It is a an overthrow of our form of government.
I say, by signing that treaty, Obama is committing treason.
Bill
I believe I posted the "resume" of John P. Holdren, 'Science Czar', silverfish, but not in the same depth...thanks, that provides the reader with a more complete picture.
Worth repeating nonetheless, for those who may have overlooked it the first time out.
" Silliness. Anyone who's looked into the matter and cares to be objective knows how silly that statement is. Numerous times I've quoted NASA "
I wood argue the silliness lies in continually quoting NASA as a reputable source.
I've lost track of how many times they have been exposed for covering things up and airbrushing photos...and are widely known derisively as N.ever A. S.traight A.nswer.
" Instead, why don't you post facts instead of this campaign of lies."
This is the 2nd caution for accusing people of being dishonest...deletions will begin at 3.
At that point remove post button will be clicked.
Here we can post whatever opinions we wish, all that is asked is that others are allowed the to do the same without being attacked personally.
" OH MY WORD!!! Not another Conspiracy NUT!!!!!! "
Over the last little while I haven't been keeping up with the latest trends...apparently during that time, the meaning of the term Conspiracy NUT somehow been changed to 'guy with his head on straight'...who gnu ?
Regards...
Great posts folks...no wonder they didn't want Monckton to have that information.
Thats explosive stuff if it becomes widely known to the average taxpayer.
You can bet it will be suppressed or spun by the shmedia...you may even see it spun here...and that may be in progress as I type.
Regards...
It's puzzling why people in this thread would find the Copenhagen summit scary. Big Oil, sure, they should be scared to death of the Copenhagen summit because it's the Climate change conference.
There's not even a reference of the Copenhagen summit as being scary at WikiPedia. That's like saying "Boy, firemen are scary." What an insult to all of the unbelievably hard work so many people are doing to try and help in a positive way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_summit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_summit)
Paul
Hey pual are you opposed to them creating a GEO then or not?
Quote from: PaulLowrance on December 09, 2009, 06:17:54 PM
It's puzzling why people in this thread would find the Copenhagen summit scary. Big Oil, sure, they should be scared to death of the Copenhagen summit because it's the Climate change conference.
Paul
It's not scary to you because you don't fully understand the ramifications. You do not realize how dangerous this is to national sovereignty, and how economically draining it would be. You think I am a big oil supporter. You are wrong. I HATE the oil companies and what they are doing; but this treaty is even more scary to me.
I have a family, I want them to have a future. So many people are in La La land and think freedoms are free. Wrong! They need to be preserved and defended ferociously! It is the only thing that protects you.
What 'Paul' is really saying...
" What an insult to all of the unbelievably hard work so many people are doing to"...pull off this huge global cash and power grab.
Regards...
It says in in black and white pual. The GEO will be created out of the treaty. To fund the GEO each supporting nation will provide 2% of their GDP, also developed nations will provide more. The goal of the GEO is to provide finacial assistance to developing countries only if the accept the GEO's policies and rules on developments. The GEO will be a governing body for all nations that sign the treaty. That is bad by the way. If you do not accept the GEO's policies the nation will be punished financially according to the GEO. Who elects the GEO officials? does not say in the treaty. where is the checks and balances in the geo system? does not say.
You haven't convinced me because you've presented no facts or logic. Again, anyone can read the wikipedia link I proved, which btw provides the facts & references.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_summit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_summit)
Paul
p.s., It's meaningless to say one is not with big oil and at the same time oppose the Copenhagen summit. As far as I'm concerned, you can say anything, but that proves nothing. It's just a claim.
Quote from: Azorus on December 10, 2009, 08:40:14 AM
Hey pual are you opposed to them creating a GEO then or not?
Facts,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Environment_Organisation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Environment_Organisation)
Please point out the issues. They're trying to get countries (people) to work together to help our planet! I know that must make big oil people absolutely furious inside, but who cares about ones stinking wallet when countless beautiful rare life & the natural environment is as stake! How mentally sick for anyone to place $ over life!!!
Paul
Using your own words against you. I have posted the draft that was taken to Copenhagen before, but since you didn't read it from before here is a webpage that contains it.
http://thepostnemail.wordpress.com/2009/10/16/lord-monckton-copenhagen-treaty-will-establish-marxist-world-government/
please quit being hypocritical in insisting people post links if you are not willing to read them.
Quote from: Azorus on December 10, 2009, 09:09:15 AM
Using your own words against you. I have posted the draft that was taken to Copenhagen before, but since you didn't read it from before here is a webpage that contains it.
http://thepostnemail.wordpress.com/2009/10/16/lord-monckton-copenhagen-treaty-will-establish-marxist-world-government/ (http://thepostnemail.wordpress.com/2009/10/16/lord-monckton-copenhagen-treaty-will-establish-marxist-world-government/)
please quit being hypocritical in insisting people post links if you are not willing to read them.
Are you sure that's the article you want to be pushing to make your case?
Paul
Not pushing the article Paul the treaty that was taken to the convention is in the article in its entirety. Now after saying that it has prolly been changed, but they have not published the new one yet so all we have to go off of is what was sent to Copenhagen to be approved.
I fail to see your point, how any of this is going to be so terrible. What's new about people, groups, cities, counties, states, and even countries making an agreement to try and do something good? How in the world is that giving up our sovereignty?
Do you think laws for car traffic, such as stop signs destroyed your sovereignty? How is laws & regulations for climate change going to destroy our sovereignty? Laws are meant to be adjusted, changed, and even removed if need be.
Why not present your case. Saying scary things, scare tactics, etc. without evidence & logic is not going to work on smart people. As far as I can see, the only group that should have to worry about the summit is Big Oil!
Paul
It says in in black and white Paul. The GEO will be created out of the treaty. To fund the GEO each supporting nation will provide 2% of their GDP, also developed nations will provide more. The goal of the GEO is to provide financial assistance to developing countries only if the accept the GEO's policies and rules on developments. The GEO will be a governing body for all nations that sign the treaty. That is bad by the way. If you do not accept the GEO's policies the nation will be punished financially according to the GEO. Who elects the GEO officials? does not say in the treaty. where is the checks and balances in the geo system? does not say.
It is scary when you have a government that presides over you that you have not elected. It is also scary when you are taking 2% of an economies GDP. That is a lot of money that can go back into said countries economy for green tech, but instead it will be used to fund the GEO, it does not say that money will go to fund GEO projects, instead that money will come from carbon trades. So again that it is scary because 2% of our GDP may sound small but that is billions of dollars. Look at small countries where there GDP is around a billion dollars, to them it is nothing because 2% of nothing is nothing. Really I can not see why small countries would not sign it because it has nothing to do with human rights, instead it just focuses on the countries carbon emissions. Seriously this sounds like a good idea to you?
In the treaties current form I can not see why any developed country would see this as a good idea. I do agree that we need to clean up the enviroment, but this treaty in current form is not the answer.
Quote from: PaulLowrance on December 10, 2009, 09:49:56 AM
I fail to see your point, how any of this is going to be so terrible. What's new about people, groups, cities, counties, states, and even countries making an agreement to try and do something good? How in the world is that giving up our sovereignty?
Paul
See, this is the problem. You cannot see the danger right in front of you. Nations will be surrendering authority to a global entity that will have power over every person in that nation. You, as a person inside the borders of that nation, are surrendering your right to object to any decrees that entity decides to force nations to obey.
What if they decided you could only have one child, doesn't that fall into the realm of saving the planet? What if they decide you should have NO children, and institute forced abortions? What if they decide you should only drive cars that they feel you are allowed to have, or what temperature you need to keep you home at? How about how much water you can use? How about even what size home you could own?
How about your employment? Many companies blow off plenty of greenhouse gases. What if it was decided your job should end, without any avenue to grievance you are trapped and must obey. You are surrendering your rights to choose in many other areas. Yet, you will have no place to exercise your grievance because they are a global entity. You don't vote for any of the bureaucrats in charge, and you never will. It will become a whole new layer of authority over your life that you would have no control over; and your country won't protect you because it will sign it's authority, by Treaty, over to this global entity. You are in effect giving away your protections and rights that you have in your government right now.
But of course you will not see. You are blinded by your ambition to save the planet, just as these yokos planned for you to act. Like a puppet giving it all away.
Yeah, be smart...not stupid or "mentally ill".
*shakes head*
Quote from: Azorus on December 10, 2009, 10:05:04 AM
It says in in black and white Paul. The GEO will be created out of the treaty. To fund the GEO each supporting nation will provide 2% of their GDP, also developed nations will provide more. The goal of the GEO is to provide financial assistance to developing countries only if the accept the GEO's policies and rules on developments. The GEO will be a governing body for all nations that sign the treaty. That is bad by the way.
I don't see your logic. Why is it bad to have a group govern a good cause? Seriously, how? You would want to group leadership? Maybe Santa Claus should do it. Maybe every company in the world should do away with the CEO. Maybe every country should do away with their president. Maybe we should go back to the cave days. You think they're going to suddenly start telling you how to brush your teeth, and take over the white house, and kick Arnold Swarchenegger out of office, etc.?
Quote from: Azorus on December 10, 2009, 10:05:04 AMIf you do not accept the GEO's policies the nation will be punished financially according to the GEO.
Those are called laws & regulations that a country would agree upon. If you country starts poising the air again, don't you think they should pay to clean it up?
Quote from: Azorus on December 10, 2009, 10:05:04 AMWho elects the GEO officials? does not say in the treaty. where is the checks and balances in the geo system? does not say.
The truth is there are & have been truckloads of laws & regulations between countries, and for a good reason. There's no such thing as a perfect law, but laws evolve over time.
Paul
Quote from: ResinRat2 on December 10, 2009, 10:08:21 AM
See, this is the problem. You cannot see the danger right in front of you. Nations will be surrendering authority to a global entity that will have power over every person in that nation.
What a bunch a baloney. Nobody appreciates such insinuations that are scare tactics. Your statement is so vague. You make it sound like they can do whatever they want to us, which is an out right lie. This is about climate change. Has nothing to do with "power over every person in that nation"
Paul
Pual,
Do you agree with the treaty in current form?
If so then I will send you a piece of paper that will be a legally binding document that you must send me 2% of your entire income so that I may elect officials to control your energy consumption without your input. If you do not follow our policies we have the legal right to take more of your income. Also for all CO2 you create you must pay a Carbon tax so that we can creat green technologies at another location of our choosing.
2% of income only? I thought of every transaction.
Quote from: Azorus on December 10, 2009, 10:23:36 AM
Pual,
Do you agree with the treaty in current form?
If so then I will send you a piece of paper that will be a legally binding document that you must send me 2% of your entire income so that I may elect officials to control your energy consumption without your input. If you do not follow our policies we have the legal right to take more of your income. Also for all CO2 you create you must pay a Carbon tax so that we can creat green technologies at another location of our choosing.
I can't believe you would say that 2% of your income is not worth trying to save life on this planet. I would spend 99.99999% of my income if that's what it took because I care about all life on this planet, including humanity. So 2% is a drop in the bucket. And that 2% goes to a good cause, it pays people to do good work, creates jobs.
Paul
I was being generous. And only wanted to illustrate that the treaty has some serous flaws.
Quote from: Azorus on December 10, 2009, 10:23:36 AM
Pual,
Do you agree with the treaty in current form?
If so then I will send you a piece of paper that will be a legally binding document that you must send me 2% of your entire income so that I may elect officials to control your energy consumption without your input. If you do not follow our policies we have the legal right to take more of your income. Also for all CO2 you create you must pay a Carbon tax so that we can creat green technologies at another location of our choosing.
BTW, Azorus, nice exaggerations.
Where do i send the paper work? And I did mention that that 2% is only for hiring people to govern you, nothing to do with green tech. Also if you are willing to give 99% of your income I will be more than willing to make a draft for you to sign that you give 99% for the governing body and we can then later tax the rest of your money away as we see fit.
BTW Pual there was no exaggeration.
Quote from: PaulLowrance on December 10, 2009, 11:03:16 AM
I can't believe you would say that 2% of your income is not worth trying to save life on this planet. I would spend 99.99999% of my income if that's what it took because I care about all life on this planet, including humanity.
Paul
That statement is ridiculous. You would live on nothing to save the planet. What a bunch of cockamamie bull!
Social Security Deductions started at 1%. Look where they are now. The same thing would happen, but of course you would give it all away and work for nothing.
I'm glad you are looking purely at the science and have no preconceived agenda. Right!
You've lost it pal. Like I said, you are the ENEMY to us all.
Quote from: Azorus on December 10, 2009, 11:07:38 AM
And I did mention that that 2% is only for hiring people to govern you, nothing to do with green tech.
Ah, that 2% only goes for the people who will govern us? Says who, you? Show the reference.
Paul
Quote from: ResinRat2 on December 10, 2009, 11:09:51 AM
That statement is ridiculous. You would live on nothing to save the planet. What a bunch of cockamamie bull!
Social Security Deductions started at 1%. Look where they are now. The same thing would happen, but of course you would give it all away and work for nothing.
I'm glad you are looking purely at the science and have no preconceived agenda. Right!
You've lost it pal. Like I said, you are the ENEMY to us all.
I'm the enemy, huh, when I say I would give everything I have to help save all life and the environment on this planet, and you can't even give 2%. You might want to rethink that because the only enemy I'm to is Big Oil.
Paul
Paul,
Before I had not questioned your intentions because, while slightly different than my own, where based on facts, ie. you want to protect the environment and believe that human caused global warming is real. While I do not support that human caused global warming is real, I do support saving the environment. However, I question your reading skills because, as I have said before and posted links, the 2% goes to the governing officials of GEO, or in your case whomever I choose. I refuse to post any links for you anymore as you ignore them.
P.S. Still waiting for that address to send the legal document.
Quote from: Azorus on December 10, 2009, 11:35:26 AM
Paul,
Before I had not questioned your intentions because, while slightly different than my own, where based on facts, ie. you want to protect the environment and believe that human caused global warming is real. While I do not support that human caused global warming is real, I do support saving the environment. However, I question your reading skills because, as I have said before and posted links, the 2% goes to the governing officials of GEO, or in your case whomever I choose. I refuse to post any links for you anymore as you ignore them.
And I replied asking if you're certain you would want to use that web page article to present your case? It appeared obvious that article was written by a religious biased anger person who once again makes claims.
Quote from: Azorus on December 10, 2009, 11:35:26 AMP.S. Still waiting for that address to send the legal document.
Are you being serious?
Paul
Throughout most of the past 425,000 years the concentration of CO2 has ranged between 180 and 280 ppm. When the concentration was at its highest the world was warmer. The Antarctic ice cores that provided evidence of ancient temperatures also contain tiny air bubbles that were trapped as snow accumulated. These bubbles have been analyzed and provide a record of CO2 concentration over time. There is a close correspondence between average global temperature and CO2 concentration.
Are the changes in CO2 concentration causing changes in temperature or is it the other way around? It’s both.
A major reason for the drop in atmospheric CO2 as temperatures decrease is that colder oceans are able to dissolve more CO2. There is a constant exchange of CO2 between the atmosphere and the oceans. Gas is dissolved and also released into the atmosphere. The balance is determined largely by temperature. You can see this effect for yourself. Open a bottle of carbonated water or soda. Pour some into each of two glasses. Put one in the refrigerator and leave one at room temperature. Come back in about an hour and take a drink from each. The one in the refrigerator has retained more bubbles. The fluctuations in CO2 level in the atmosphere are part of the carbon cycle, a complex process by which carbon moves between the atmosphere, biological organisms, the Earth’s crust, and the oceans.
The drops in CO2 concentration do not always begin until after a cooling period has begun. Then, as an ice age is ending, the concentrations may remain low for some time into the warming period. This means that the CO2 changes cannot be the driving force in initiating these major climate shifts. But as the climate cools, the concentration of CO2 drops and this has a further cooling effect. And as the climate is warming, more CO2 is released into the atmosphere, further increasing global temperatures. This is called a positive feedback loop.
Look at the graph below.
Over the past 425,000 years, cool periods have coincided with times when the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere was lower. When there is less CO2 in the atmosphere, the greenhouse effect is reduced and the world cools.
The blue and red line indicates the variation in average global temperature compared with the 1961â€"1990 average. The green line shows the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. (Pay close attention to the right-hand edge of the graph.)
This graph shows four eras when the world was cooler than it is today. These are separated by brief warm periods, like the one we are now in.
There is a clear relationship between atmospheric CO2 concentrations and global temperature. But this does not tell us what initiates the large climatic changes we have seen. The explanation may have to do with the motion of the Earth and the Sun.
Sorry, but it's just difficult to take anything you're saying here seriously because you're actually trying to tell these people at this forum that these climate summit people are actually trying to get Obama & the rest of the world to pay *them* (their salary) 2% of the ***entire worlds*** gross domestic product?!?!
Paul
Hi PhiScience,
Yes, that's a great and well known graph. It shows that global warming is real, goes in cycles, and that there's a noticeable amount of correlation with CO2. The question climatologist are trying to figure out is how much of the sudden spike in global warming that began at the dawn of the industrial age is due to humanity. Obviously some of it is, but how much remains to be seen.
Regards,
Paul
Quote from: Azorus on December 10, 2009, 08:57:39 AM
It says in in black and white pual. The GEO will be created out of the treaty. To fund the GEO each supporting nation will provide 2% of their GDP, also developed nations will provide more. The goal of the GEO is to provide finacial assistance to developing countries only if the accept the GEO's policies and rules on developments. The GEO will be a governing body for all nations that sign the treaty. That is bad by the way. If you do not accept the GEO's policies the nation will be punished financially according to the GEO. Who elects the GEO officials? does not say in the treaty. where is the checks and balances in the geo system? does not say.
It is also interesting to note that we, the US spend 4% of GDP on defense. That's our entire military folks, everything, boats planes, men, training, everything. That is how much money they are talking about giving away!! Half of what we spend to defend our country will go to this "World" organization. I think we need the money here.
Bill
Quote from: Pirate88179 on December 09, 2009, 04:37:30 PM
Exactly! Obama will toss out our Constitution by signing that treaty and this new "entity" the treaty creates (Great post Silverfish) will then have sovereignty over the USA as well as every other signatory country. It is madness, pure madness.
It is a an overthrow of our form of government.
I say, by signing that treaty, Obama is committing treason.
Bill
I agree. This article from the Daily Mail may be relevant:
In his provocative book Chill, natural scientist Peter Taylor warns that the world is cooling not warming and that solutions proposed at Copenhagen ignore the risks of a possible return of the Ice Age...
Like a magician who fools themselves but not audience, the Anthropomorphic Global Warming (AGW) lobby have identified the wrong problem and the wrong solution.
Global cooling threatens disaster for humanity in the developed and developing world alike, yet the media and the scientific consensus ignores this peril.
The Climategate controversy revolves around whether warming has been real and why it has not persisted â€" but it misses the point.
Cycles are involved, not short-term trends, and many respected scientists, especially those in Russia and China, think that a cooling cycle is coming.
The AGW brigade have mistaken the current warm period for a trend caused by carbon emissions. But the detailed science says it could be natural and part of a cycle.
Behind the scenes at the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change there is no consensus â€" the dissenting views have been covered over in the summary documents for policy makers â€" and among UK and EU politicians it’s even worse, and criminally expensive for the British taxpayer.
The real science points to the sun’s magnetic cycle as the key driver by unknown mechanisms. Right now, NASA is throwing its hands up and saying ‘we’ve never seen anything like it and can’t tell what it is going to do next’.
More...
* Carry on polluting, climate deal tells China and India
* All the latest from the Copenhagen Climate Conference
* Comment: why chopping a few flights won't help
Many scientists expect a repeat of the Maunder Minimum of the 17th century when the Thames froze every winter â€" and famine spread through Europe and China.
Natural climate change, especially cooling, is already dangerous for very large numbers of people who are vulnerable to climate changing - the urban poor in the developed world, including the UK, plus the poor nations currently dependent on food aid.
Cooling reduces food surpluses upon which we all depend. The biofuels programmes aimed at preventing climate change will expose them to greater risk by decreasing the amount of land available and raising costs of food, while this problem coupled with peak oil will affect everyone worldwide and drive up transport and manufacturing costs to levels even the super rich will struggle to afford.
These threats are real and here now, not in 50 years time.
Some dramatic changes are needed but not those proposed the EU, IPCC and UK politicians as they try to hunt down the will-of-the-wisp that is CO2 emissions.
Business as usual is not an option since cooling actually does put humanity at risk. The apocalyptic scaremongering has made us weary and casual about such threats but we need to act if we are to maintain our humanity.
Our human ecosystems are threatened by the world development model and unintelligent economic growth. No one yet has found a way to develop economically without massive increase in demand for scarce resources â€" soil, water, timber, land and food.
However, it can be done â€" with changes in developed economies, and restructuring development in poor countries â€" and it will require billions.
We need to showcase the projects that work - the unglamorous grass-roots initiatives that enhance the quality of life â€" rather than indulge in the theatrical gestures about solving a AGW that doesn’t exist.
Copenhagen won’t broker a solution â€" not only has the IPCC hyped the warming and misrepresented the science with regard to CO2 and ‘warming’ â€" but it has also proposed a system of cap-and-trade and technology transfer that means huge profits for banks and brokers.
These useless technology sales coupled with a massive global and unelected bureaucracy that decides which technology and which projects get funded â€" merely provide jobs for the boys rather than address the issues
What we need is the creation of resilience â€" the rich world is unstable and will try to buy its way out of problems, by buying food on the world market â€" the rest of the world is at grave risk of starvation.
Food not energy will be the big issue we urgently need to address in the next few years. In the developed world we need to systematically restructure and reduce demand and in the developing world, people need to stay in communities on the land and not be forced to seek work in unsustainable megacities
Climategate does not just demonstrate the corruption of science and peer-review; it also demonstrates the incompetence of specialists who do not understand planetary ecology, especially its cycles.
We’re being fatally led up the wrong garden path by green businesses, politicians, the IPCC and their computer geeks with their doctored spreadsheets and forecasts. They need to get out more and study the real world â€" not their virtual reality â€" because, like the asset bubbles of the financial crisis, the global warming bubble is about to burst…
FOLKS!!!!
Let me state last and forever.
During milions of years earth climate was fluctuating, warming and cooling periods.This is well proven geological evidence.
There was no people, no industry.
Who was responsible for this?????
I know.
DRAGONS!!!
Dragons did emit flames,as everybody knows.They did this violating all emission protocols, they did not follow emission restriction rules and norms.They didn't care about ecology.
And everybody knows what consequences was. No any Dragon survided,they all die. :o
Quote from: pix on December 10, 2009, 04:31:07 PM
FOLKS!!!!
Let me state last and forever.
During milions of years earth climate was fluctuating, warming and cooling periods.This is well proven geological evidence.
There was no people, no industry.
Who was responsible for this? ??? ?
I know.
DRAGONS!!!
Dragons did emit flames,as everybody knows.They did this violating all emission protocols, they did not follow emission restriction rules and norms.They didn't care about ecology.
And everybody knows what consequences was. No any Dragon survided,they all die. :o
Are you actually interested in asking climatologist, or just telling them how it is? If you get a consensus amongst them, they'll tell you that the question is how much of the recent temperature spike that began at the dawn of the industrial age is caused by humanity? At least some of it is.
Paul
Hi Paul,
Did you checked this attachment? I fully agree with its content.
Of course since industrial era started WE DO EMIT greenhouse gases. The question is, how much is human factor involved into warming event.
And fundamental question that those ''scientists'' do not state to the public- that during earth history there was MANY of such climate fluctuations.In fact, earth climate was NEVER constant.
So......, WHO is responsible for those historical changes?
I am telling You:
Dragons! ;D
Please see attached.
Quote from: Cap-Z-ro on December 09, 2009, 05:36:45 PM
Great posts folks...no wonder they didn't want Monckton to have that information.
Thats explosive stuff if it becomes widely known to the average taxpayer.
You can bet it will be suppressed or spun by the shmedia...you may even see it spun here...and that may be in progress as I type.
Regards...
There's so much more. Check this out:
http://www.iceagenow.com/Baby_Its_Cold_Outside.htm
If we spend %4 on military to kill, then we should spend at least 2% to heal.
co2 is a greenhouse gas.
it traps heat.
if there was a 30 foot long by 30 foot wide by 30 foot tall greenhouse sitting in your back yard,
and someone dumped a few hundred pounds of co2 into it,
than that greenhouse would become an oven.
with heat strong enough to kill an adult human.
countless thousands of tons of co2, have been dumped into earths atmosphere.
a truly extreme amount, no matter how some arrogant fool plays his number games.
the reason why huge cold blooded lizards were able to live indefinately on this planet,
is because this planet used to be a very hot sweltering volcanic hell.
BEFORE this carbon was taken out of the atmosphere, by being buried !
the more of this carbon we burn and release,
the more this planets climate will return to how it was during the age of dinosaurs.
CO2 and methane emissions are poisonous, in part because they usually carry air mercury. I believe the EPA from the US knows something that the media doesn't tell you.
Mercury from the atmosphere usually comes from the emissions from the combustion facilities. Mercury in air can eventually end up being in an ocean, forming methylmercury. The mercury in the ocean can travel thousands of miles. This means the pollution from the Asia can affect the sea animals in the US and in Europe.
Check out this article:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090501195628.htm
Check out this one as well. This one is about another motive behind the upcoming climate deal:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/feb/20/deal-end-mercury-pollution
Thanks for those links silver and blue...lots of reading for me tonite.
Regards...
Quote from: PaulLowrance on December 09, 2009, 10:30:58 AM
Silliness. Anyone who's looked into the matter and cares to be objective knows how silly that statement is. Numerous times I've quoted NASA as saying that the emails offer absolutely nothing in regards to debunking global warming. Global warming is real. Again, the emails & entire issue has nothing to do with if global warming is real, but how much of it's caused by humanity.
Instead, why don't you post facts instead of this campaign of lies.
Paul
Of course, we know that NASA would never lie to us - about anything.
Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) had their attorneys file three Notices of Intent to File Suit against NASA. Chris Horner, representing CEI, said the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies failed to comply with the Freedom of Information Act for the past three years.
Quote from: blueplanet on December 11, 2009, 01:07:22 AM
Check out this one as well. This one is about another motive behind the upcoming climate deal:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/feb/20/deal-end-mercury-pollution
Yes. Mercury. It's in the air, it's in the fish we eat, now it's in the vaccines, thanks to wonderful people like Baxter, Novartis and Glaxo Smith Kline - along with toxic adjuvants like petroleum-based squalene adjuvants which cause auto-immune disease and Guille-Barre paralysis, organic brain damage and infertility. While we're on the subject of dangerous pollutants, how about aerosolized depleted uranium, which researchers Leuren Moret and Peter Eyre have demonstrated escapes the battlefield and travels around the planet on prevailing winds, triggering diabetes epidemics and cancer wherever it goes? no mention about this in the mainstream media. How about chemtrails? which Clifford Carnicom has been warning about for years? no mention about this in the mainstream media. How about sodium flourosilicate and stannous sodium flouride, lethal corrosive toxins in our water supply, which the nazis used to pacify inmates in concentration camps, knowing that it reduces initiative, dumbs down populations, calcifies the pineal gland, damages the brain, causing cancer and sterility - and which we are now being told is good for us?
How about lead in petrol? how about aircraft fuel solvents found in the water supply, along with cadmium, lead, mercury, arsenic, pesticides, SSRI antidepressants and oestrogen-mimicking birth pill substances in our water supplies? no mention about this. How about excitotoxins which kill brain cells, like aspartame and MSG which cause obesity and cell mutation?
Our air is being poisoned .Our food is being poisoned. Our water is being poisoned. Genetically modified materials are being allowed to contaminate the food chain, which researchers like Jeffery Smith have shown cause sterility, cancer, and genetic mutation.
Nanotechnology has introduced another dangerous component which is totally unregulated. Yet GM and other horrors are being rubber-stamped by corrupt institutions like the FDA. Can we allow this? can we afford to sit back while the globalists literally rape our planet and tax us into oblivion?
And yet, we are being told that carbon dioxide - which you exhale every day - which plants ingest and turn into life-giving oxygen - is a dangerous poison.
What's wrong with people? don't you recognize tyranny when you see it?
ACT NOW.
Quote from: Loner on December 10, 2009, 11:10:01 PM
1) IF global temps are dropping, on average, then Global warming is NOT part of the discussion. If global temps are rising, then the REASON MUST be determined BEFORE any attempt is made to correct it. (Anyone read the data about general other causes? Just a thought...)
Global temperature is increasing. You can't take an average spanning only a few years because of fluctuations.
Quote from: Loner on December 10, 2009, 11:10:01 PM2) If Temp Dropping, the idea of trying to lower the CO2 in the atmosphere will automatically MAKE THE PROBLEM WORSE. Unless absolute proof can be put forward, acceptable to ALL involved, the idea of limiting CO2 can only be for other reasons. What those are, are not my place to say.
Green move movement is about reducing ones carbon footprint and helping the natural environment.
Quote from: Loner on December 10, 2009, 11:10:01 PM4) The ultimate, obvious scam part, even if CO2 were totally responsible. The EPA, in the US, has declared CO2 to be a poisonous gas. This is for both the "Cap and Trade" and internal Tax reasons. (That's on record, and may be looked up... Several years old, too...) Doesn't anyone read anymore? All US businesses will have to pay a tax for the number of employees they have, as well as all persons in the US having to also pay. Remember, CO2 is exhaled by the average human, and THIS IS in the process of being setup as a TAX on all people. Sounds like a "Control" to me, but that is my opinion, and not worth anything. Please ignore that.
You didn't provide a reference. Also, too much of any gas is deadly.
Quote from: Loner on December 10, 2009, 11:10:01 PMUsing the above 3 as a basis for examining the "Motive" behind the CO2 situation, if seems to be too obvious for anyone to accept the BS that has been put forth, unless they have other agenda's.
The only valid motive so far is for Big Oil to kill the green movement.
Quote from: Loner on December 10, 2009, 11:10:01 PMCan ANYONE say that CO2 is the WORST pollution humans are putting out?
CO2, methane, CO, and many other pollutants.
Paul
Paul you didn't provide a reference to your material so it is invalid, sorry.
P.S. where is the address to send you the legal documentation.
Quote from: silverfish on December 11, 2009, 09:19:44 AM
Of course, we know that NASA would never lie to us - about anything.
Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) had their attorneys file three Notices of Intent to File Suit against NASA. Chris Horner, representing CEI, said the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies failed to comply with the Freedom of Information Act for the past three years.
First of all you provided no references, so I can't take your word for it. And they must be valid references. Also, isn't it a stretch to insinuate that a failure to comply with the Freedom of Information Act means NASA must be a liar? Maybe NASA discovered something they're afraid to reveal. ;)
Paul
Quote from: Azorus on December 11, 2009, 10:35:16 AM
Paul you didn't provide a reference to your material so it is invalid, sorry.
I have in previous posts. :)
Quote from: Azorus on December 11, 2009, 10:35:16 AMP.S. where is the address to send you the legal documentation.
I don't trust you. You people will have to dig hard to find me. I'll be ready. ;)
Paul
Paul,
Just pointing out to other people that may not have followed all of the thread that you generally follow the same pattern of saying to people that do not follow your point of view, you didn't post a link to support your facts so your thread is invalid.
Which for those of you whom have not been following the entire thread Paul will not read it, even if you post a link.
Quote from: Azorus on December 11, 2009, 10:59:09 AM
Just pointing out to other people that may not have followed all of the thread that you generally follow the same pattern of saying to people that do not follow your point of view, you didn't post a link to support your facts so your thread is invalid.
The topic of pollutants was discussed not that long ago. And yes, I provided references up the yin yang. :)
Well, at least your not denying the fact that you don't read their link.
Quote from: PaulLowrance on December 11, 2009, 10:39:50 AM
First of all you provided no references, so I can't take your word for it. And they must be valid references. Also, isn't it a stretch to insinuate that a failure to comply with the Freedom of Information Act means NASA must be a liar? Maybe NASA discovered something they're afraid to reveal. ;)
Paul
Is that meant to be a wink? or a nod and a wink?
Do contact CEI and ask them if this is correct information.
info@cei.org
CEI
Competitive Enterprise Institute
1899 L St NW
12th Floor
Washington, DC 20036
Quote from: Azorus on December 11, 2009, 11:54:14 AM
Well, at least your not denying the fact that you don't read their link.
Who said that? If they provide a link on an interesting topic, then I'll go there.
Quote from: silverfish on December 11, 2009, 11:58:41 AM
Is that meant to be a wink? or a nod and a wink?
Do contact CEI and ask them if this is correct information.
info@cei.org
CEI
Competitive Enterprise Institute
1899 L St NW
12th Floor
Washington, DC 20036
It's not worth it for several reasons. 1) IMO you've clearly demonstrate how biased you are. 2) You've made no point, as a law suite proves nothing until the verdict. 3) Failure for NASA to reveal data does not mean NASA is a liar. Again, if you can provide a valid reference, then great.
Quote from: silverfish on December 11, 2009, 10:30:05 AM
How about lead in petrol? how about aircraft fuel solvents found in the water supply, along with cadmium, lead, mercury, arsenic, pesticides, SSRI antidepressants and oestrogen-mimicking birth pill substances in our water supplies? no mention about this. How about excitotoxins which kill brain cells, like aspartame and MSG which cause obesity and cell mutation?
From my prospective, mercury and Cadmium are the only ones that are worrying. In the case of mercury, the half-life of mercury in the central nervous system can be anywhere between 15 years and 30 years. Because of such a long half-life, mercury is bioaccumulative in our bodies and can remain in the nerve tissues forever. Of all the metals that you have mentioned, mercury is only one that can cause direct damage to the nerve tissues.
It is not just the fishes that become the victims of mercury poisoning. Elemental mercury can end up being in our lungs. Unlike inorganic mercury, elemental mercury in the blood stream can reach the brain by way of blood circulation, causing damage to the nerve tissues.
Arsenic is another metal that can produce similar symptoms of mercury poisoning. It can be found in pesticides. But the half-life of arsenic in our bodies is less than 3 hours. This means that at least half of the absorbed arsenic would be excreted out of the body within three hours.
Lead is not as toxic as mercury. And its half-life in blood is approximately 25 days; in soft tissue, about 40 days; and in bone, more than 25 years. Lead is not a potent neurotoxin, but some scientists suggest that lead can cause cognitive decline. If this is the case, then the upcoming climate deal is justified.
Cadmium is very toxic (but not neurologically toxic). Its presence in the human body can raise the serum GGT, which means the body would become more mercury-toxic. Its half-life can be anywhere between 6 and 38 years. But I think we should blame the smokers, not the environment.
I stand to be corrected.
(EDIT: I don't think oestrogen is a toxin. I believe it can mask the effects of mercury poisoning. I might be wrong. Aspartame, MSG, and Excitotoxins are not pollutants. I can't comment.)
Quote from: PaulLowrance on December 11, 2009, 12:03:49 PM
Who said that? If they provide a link on an interesting topic, then I'll go there.
It's not worth it for several reasons. 1) IMO you've clearly demonstrate how biased you are. 2) You've made no point, as a law suite proves nothing until the verdict. 3) Failure for NASA to reveal data does not mean NASA is a liar. Again, if you can provide a valid reference, then great.
I've given you a good reference - it would be a simple matter to confirm or deny the fact of this lawsuit by contacting them directly - you are welcome to your opinions, by the way, whether or not I agree with them, which I mostly don't.
Quote from: silverfish on December 11, 2009, 02:05:21 PMyou are welcome to your opinions, by the way, whether or not I agree with them, which I mostly don't.
The main difference here is that most of the information I post is not just my opinion, it's what most scientists are saying. Indeed, you have the right to disagree with the majority of the science community.
And yes, on numerous occasions I've already provided the references that state most scientist believe that humanity is the main cause of global warming.
Paul
J Hazard Mater. 2009 Sep 15;168(2-3):591-601. Epub 2009 Mar 18.
Mercury pollution in Asia: a review of the contaminated sites.
Li P, Feng XB, Qiu GL, Shang LH, Li ZG.
State Key Laboratory of Environmental Geochemistry, Institute of Geochemistry, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Guiyang 550002, China. fengxinbin@vip.skleg.cn
This article describes the mercury contaminated sites in Asia. Among the various regions, Asia has become the largest contributor of anthropogenic atmospheric mercury (Hg), responsible for over half of the global emission. Based on different emission source categories, the mercury contaminated sites in Asia were divided into various types, such as Hg pollution from Hg mining, gold mining, chemical industry, metal smelting, coal combustion, metropolitan cities, natural resources and agricultural sources. By the review of a large number of studies, serious Hg pollutions to the local environment were found in the area influenced by chemical industry, mercury mining and gold mining. With the probable effects of a unique combination of climatic (e.g. subtropical climate), environmental (e.g. acid rain), economic (e.g. swift growth) and social factors (e.g. high population density), more effort is still needed to understand the biogeochemistry cycle of Hg and associated health effects in Asia. Safer alternatives and cleaner technologies must be developed and effectively implemented to reduce mercury emission; remedial techniques are also required to restore the historical mercury pollution in Asia.
SOURCE:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19345013?ordinalpos=25&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
Sci Total Environ. 2008 Aug 1;400(1-3):227-37. Epub 2008 Jul 9.
Mercury pollution in Guizhou, southwestern China - an overview.
Feng X, Qiu G.
State Key Laboratory of Environmental Geochemistry, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Guiyang, PR China. fengxinbin@vip.skleg.cn
Mercury (Hg) is a global pollutant and poses a worldwide concern due to its high toxicity. Guizhou province is recognized as a heavily Hg-polluted area in China due to both the special geochemical background and human activities. Here an integrated overview of current knowledge on the behavior of Hg in environments, as well as human health risk with respect to Hg contaminations in Guizhou was presented. Two key anthropogenic Hg emission sources in Guizhou were coal combustion and metals smelting, which dominantly contributed to the high levels of Hg in local ecosystems and high fluxes of Hg deposition. The annual Hg emission from anthropogenic sources ranged between 22.6 and 55.5 t, which was about 6.3-10.3% of current total Hg emissions in China. Meanwhile, Hg Hg-enriched soil in the province serves an important natural Hg emission source to the ambient air. The local environment of Hg mining and zinc smelting areas are seriously contaminated with Hg. It is demonstrated that rice growing in Hg Hg-contaminated soil can accumulate methylmercury (MeHg) to a level to pose health threat to local inhabitants whose staple food is rice. Local inhabitants in Hg mining areas are exposed to Hg through inhalation of Hg vapor and consumption of rice with high level of MeHg. Rice intake is indeed the main MeHg exposure pathway to local inhabitants in Hg mining areas in Guizhou, which is contrary to the general point of view that fish and fish products are the main pathway of MeHg exposure to humans.
SOURCE:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18617222?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=3&log$=relatedreviews&logdbfrom=pubmed
Quote from: blueplanet on December 11, 2009, 02:02:52 PM
From my prospective, mercury and Cadmium are the only ones that are worrying. In the case of mercury, the half-life of mercury in the central nervous system can be anywhere between 15 years and 30 years. Because of such a long half-life, mercury is bioaccumulative in our bodies and can remain in the nerve tissues forever. Of all the metals that you have mentioned, mercury is only one that can cause direct damage to the nerve tissues.
It is not just the fishes that become the victims of mercury poisoning. Elemental mercury can end up being in our lungs. Unlike inorganic mercury, elemental mercury in the blood stream can reach the brain by way of blood circulation, causing damage to the nerve tissues.
Arsenic is another metal that can produce the similar symptoms of mercury. It can be found in pesticides. But the half-life of arsenic in our bodies is less than 3 hours. This means that at least half of the absorbed arsenic would be excreted out of the body within three hours.
Lead is not as toxic as mercury. And its half-life in blood is approximately 25 days; in soft tissue, about 40 days; and in bone, more than 25 years. Lead is not a potent neurotoxin, but some scientists suggest that lead can cause cognitive decline. If this is the case, then the upcoming climate deal is justified.
Cadmium is very toxic (but not neurologically toxic). Its presence in the human body can raise the serum GGT, which means the body would become more mercury-toxic. Its half-life can be anywhere between 6 and 38 years. But I think we should blame the smokers, not the environment.
I stand to be corrected.
You are missing the flouride component. Flourine is one of the most corrosive and toxic substances known - and flouride is a neurotoxin, read the book 'The Devil's Poison' and others. It damages the brain, creates infertility, cancer, dental flourosis, and contributes to a wide range of degenerative disorders. So why is this poison being added to our water supply? You say we should blame the smokers for cadmium - but tobacco is heavily taxed, isn't it? who benefits from this situation? You are leaving out the cocktail of pesticide residues, SSRIs and oestrogen-causing chemicals like Bisphenol A in plastics which cause infertility in humans and involuntary sex-change in fish. That's damaging the environment, isn't it? just as surfactants are doing, industrial products we use every day are leaching into the already polluted water supply.
Flouride poisoning is lethal, damages the bones and reproductive system, not just the brain. Arsenic poisoning is also potentially lethal, and there have been recent incidents of both contaminants leaching into the water supply causing horrendous damage.
You are also leaving out aluminium, one of the metals known to cause alzheimer's disease which damages neurons. This is also found in the water supply and in various food products. We also have toxic barium from chemtrails.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009 Sep 22;106(38):16114-9. Epub 2009 Sep 2.
Polar firn air reveals large-scale impact of anthropogenic mercury emissions during the 1970s.
Faïn X, Ferrari CP, Dommergue A, Albert MR, Battle M, Severinghaus J, Arnaud L, Barnola JM, Cairns W, Barbante C, Boutron C.
Laboratoire de Glaciologie et Géophysique de l'Environnement (Unité Mixte de Recherche 5183 Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique/Université Joseph Fourier), 54 Rue Molière, B.P. 96, 38402 St. Martin d'Hères Cedex, France. xavier.fain@dri.edu
Mercury (Hg) is an extremely toxic pollutant, and its biogeochemical cycle has been perturbed by anthropogenic emissions during recent centuries. In the atmosphere, gaseous elemental mercury (GEM; Hg degrees ) is the predominant form of mercury (up to 95%). Here we report the evolution of atmospheric levels of GEM in mid- to high-northern latitudes inferred from the interstitial air of firn (perennial snowpack) at Summit, Greenland. GEM concentrations increased rapidly after World War II from approximately 1.5 ng m(-3) reaching a maximum of approximately 3 ng m(-3) around 1970 and decreased until stabilizing at approximately 1.7 ng m(-3) around 1995. This reconstruction reproduces real-time measurements available from the Arctic since 1995 and exhibits the same general trend observed in Europe since 1990. Anthropogenic emissions caused a two-fold rise in boreal atmospheric GEM concentrations before the 1970s, which likely contributed to higher deposition of mercury in both industrialized and remotes areas. Once deposited, this toxin becomes available for methylation and, subsequently, the contamination of ecosystems. Implementation of air pollution regulations, however, enabled a large-scale decline in atmospheric mercury levels during the 1980s. The results shown here suggest that potential increases in emissions in the coming decades could have a similar large-scale impact on atmospheric Hg levels.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19805267?itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum&ordinalpos=9
Quote from: silverfish on December 11, 2009, 02:39:15 PM
You are missing the flouride component. Flourine is one of the most corrosive and toxic substances known - and flouride is a neurotoxin, read the book 'The Devil's Poison' and others. It damages the brain, creates infertility, cancer, dental flourosis, and contributes to a wide range of degenerative disorders. So why is this poison being added to our water supply? You say we should blame the smokers for cadmium - but tobacco is heavily taxed, isn't it? who benefits from this situation? You are leaving out the cocktail of pesticide residues, SSRIs and oestrogen-causing chemicals like Bisphenol A in plastics which cause infertility in humans and involuntary -change in fish. That's damaging the environment, isn't it? just as surfactants are doing, industrial products we use every day are leaching into the already polluted water supply.
Flouride poisoning is lethal, damages the bones and reproductive system, not just the brain. Arsenic poisoning is also potentially lethal, and there have been recent incidents of both contaminants leaching into the water supply causing horrendous damage.
You are also leaving out aluminium, one of the metals known to cause alzheimer's disease which damages neurons. This is also found in the water supply and in various food products. We also have toxic barium from chemtrails.
I am sorry I am not worrying about flouride. Are you sure alumium causes Alzheimer's disease? I thought Alzheimer's disease is a product of mercury poisoning. Aluminum will not cause direct damage to the nerve tissues. One univerisity has already demonstrated that mercury is the only metal that would destroy the nerve tissues.
http://knol.google.com/k/dr-max-daunderer/mercury-toxicity-and-alzheimer-disease/3otpgsm3m33p5/65#
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VImCpWzXJ_w&feature=related
Quote from: blueplanet on December 11, 2009, 02:59:52 PM
I am sorry I am not worrying about flouride. Are you sure alumium causes Alzheimer's disease? I thought Alzheimer's disease is a product of mercury poisoning. Aluminum will not cause direct damage to the nerve tissues. One univerisity has already demonstrated that mercury is the only metal that would destroy the nerve tissues.
http://knol.google.com/k/dr-max-daunderer/mercury-toxicity-and-alzheimer-disease/3otpgsm3m33p5/65#
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VImCpWzXJ_w&feature=related
According to information I've looked from more than one source - I will chase it up for you -
aluminium can target neurons specifically causing damage leading to memory loss and Alzheimer's disease. Bear with me and I'll get back to you with something more specific. I recall that kidney dialysis patients were found to have deteriorated mentally as a result of water high in aluminium, but there is other material relating to aluminium toxicity which affects mental functions etc.
Quote from: silverfish on December 11, 2009, 03:15:27 PM
According to information I've looked from more than one source - I will chase it up for you -
aluminium can target neurons specifically causing damage leading to memory loss and Alzheimer's disease. Bear with me and I'll get back to you with something more specific. I recall that kidney dialysis patients were found to have deteriorated mentally as a result of water high in aluminium, but there is other material relating to aluminium toxicity which affects mental functions etc.
Aluminium may be indirectly related to mercury poisoning. But you apparently tried to downplay the problems of mercury pollution in a way to encourage others to oppose every climate deal. This is exactly what the mainstream media in the US is trying to do. Can we not talk about that in PM?
Quote from: blueplanet on December 11, 2009, 03:38:48 PM
Aluminium may be indirectly related to mercury poisoning. But you apparently tried to downplay the problems of mercury pollution in a way to encourage others to oppose every climate deal. This is exactly what the mainstream media in the US is trying to do. Can we not talk about that in PM?
No, you misunderstand me. I have no interest in downplaying the importance of mercury poisoning - but it's not just in the air, it's injected into people and killing them, by corporations that profit massively from doing so. That's horrible. I'm saying that to focus on mercury alone is a mistake - when there are numerous other, not properly recognised and very dangerous elements such as genetically modified organisms contaminating the environment, which is already happening, DU which is worldwide killing wherever it goes, 4.5 billion years active, right? causing genetic mutations, maimed children as a result of Iraq and Afghanistan - not being reported, or underreported - the DU issue alone affects the entire ecosystem, and is almost never mentioned.
The dangers of nanotechnology are rarely talked about.
Mercury pollution is bad. So you have the UN banning incandescent light bulbs, we are told, to save energy - yet the bulbs replacing them contain mercury. Every time one of them breaks it releases mercury vapour into the atmosphere, and mercury vapour is very toxic.
So I am saying it is a grave mistake to seize on a gas like carbon dioxide, which has been with us for thousands of years, absorbed by plants, exhaling life-giving oxygen, now they call carbon dioxide a dangerous pollutant, and will be taxing everyone into oblivion because of it. That's greed, it has nothing to do with 'saving the environment', it is a gross deception, everything to do with control and subjugation, nothing to do with the environment.
How is it that the authorities have suddenly cottoned on to 'saving the environment' when they have consistently ignored it for the past 50 years and more? because they are interested in two things only - profit and control. And if they can reduce the human population along the way, then they will do so. Why do you think that dozens of articles about a 1-child policy and population reduction have suddenly appeared everywhere? Over here in the UK, David Attenborough is going on about population reduction. This is all about eugenics.
Thanks to silver and blue for the supplementary ugly truths...most of which I am familiar with.
Putting it all in one spot is very helpful and informative for other readers...but at the same time, its also a real 'buzz' harsher though.
If thats the gist of your links of earlier today which I saved for tonite, please let me know, so as to avoid further mental trauma.
Thanks in advance.
Regards...
Coming on at 6pm PT on the LINK channel (375 DirecTV) is,
Title: Our Arctic Challenge
Description: Educational. A group from Denmark sets out on a multisport adventure race across Greenland and comes eye to eye with the effects of climate change.
These type of documentaries are on often. They document the devastating effects of climate change. This documentation Big Oil cannot hide.
Here another 'educational group' attend the Lord Monckton speech.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/brownshirt-youth-corps-invade-monckton-speech.html
Regards...
Quote from: blueplanet on December 11, 2009, 02:59:52 PM
I am sorry I am not worrying about flouride. Are you sure alumium causes Alzheimer's disease? I thought Alzheimer's disease is a product of mercury poisoning. Aluminum will not cause direct damage to the nerve tissues. One univerisity has already demonstrated that mercury is the only metal that would destroy the nerve tissues.
http://knol.google.com/k/dr-max-daunderer/mercury-toxicity-and-alzheimer-disease/3otpgsm3m33p5/65#
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VImCpWzXJ_w&feature=related
As regards Alzheimer's,
Check this out:
http://www.scpnet.com/on_pap_3.htm
If you do a search on 'aluminium neurotoxicity' there are quite a few links, including a book
on the subject on Amazon (though it is prohibitively expensive.) As regards absorption from the water supply, I understand this is greatly increased by the presence of flouride, and that also depends on the particular form the aluminium takes. It apparently interacts with other toxins and heavy metals interfering with various body functions. In my books on flouride there is additional material on aluminium, I'll have another look. Cheers.
Here is what happened to the free speech rights of america's earliest opponent to this globalist cabal.
" During its height, [Father]Coughlin's radio program was wildly popular, with listeners flooding his office with 80,000 letters a week. It is estimated that almost a third of the nation tuned in at the time. However, Coughlin's popularity gained him some powerful enemies. The Roman Catholic Church itself did not approve of him and the Vatican wanted him silenced. The Roosevelt administration was determined to shut down the "Radio Priest".
Eventually accomplished this by performing an end run around the 1st Amendment. The administration decided that freedom of speech did not apply to broadcasting because radio was a "limited national resource" and should be regulated as a "publicly owned commons." New regulations were put into place demanding that regular radio broadcasters obtain operating permits. Coughlin was denied a permit and forced off the air. "
http://www.henrymakow.com/charles_coughlin_served_god_an.html
Regards...
And here's one of the ways they go about it today,
" December 11, 2009
Common Purpose, a globalist NGO dedicated to teaching a new generation of one-world leaders and apparatchiks, has applied pressure to the ISP hosting Brian Gerrish’s website, resulting in the site being removed from the internet.
Brian Gerrish is a former naval officer and anti-submarine warfare expert who has conducted detailed research into the federalist agenda of the coming totalitarian socialist state in Europe, otherwise known as the European Union."
http://www.prisonplanet.com/globalist-ngo-has-opposition-website-taken-down.html
Regards...
Quote from: Cap-Z-ro on December 12, 2009, 06:35:03 AM
And here's one of the ways they go about it today,
" December 11, 2009
Common Purpose, a globalist NGO dedicated to teaching a new generation of one-world leaders and apparatchiks, has applied pressure to the ISP hosting Brian Gerrish’s website, resulting in the site being removed from the internet.
Brian Gerrish is a former naval officer and anti-submarine warfare expert who has conducted detailed research into the federalist agenda of the coming totalitarian socialist state in Europe, otherwise known as the European Union."
http://www.prisonplanet.com/globalist-ngo-has-opposition-website-taken-down.html
Regards...
A comment from Harry S. Truman:
Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear. --Harry S. Truman
Quote from: Cap-Z-ro on December 12, 2009, 06:35:03 AM
Common Purpose, a globalist NGO...applied pressure to the ISP hosting Brian Gerrish’s website, resulting in the site being removed from the internet.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/globalist-ngo-has-opposition-website-taken-down
Never heard of him, however, if hostgator immediately 'caved' to the allegations made in the pdf:
http://dmca.hgfix.net/cpexposed.com/cpexposed.com.pdf ,
then they weren't much of an ISP to begin with...there's usually a 'cease and desist' demand followed by some sort of rebuttal and refusal before an ISP take-down.
If the documents listed in that pdf were actually copies of DMCA protected stuff then Gerrish didn't know what he was doing, either (then again, maybe he did...).
He could have easily gotten around it by quoting pertinent sections, giving proper attribution and providing links to the actual documents hosted on another server/s, which he could simply have described as his 'sources', disavowing any other connection to the documents.
If FOIA issues had resulted in the release of the documents then that could establish yet another point in rebuttal of the above take-down demand.
Then too, publicity resulting from the take-down could actually help bring attention to Gerrish's cause, maybe Alex Jones will end up giving him a blog on the prison-planet/infowars network if the response to this take-down is great enough.
No such thing as bad publicity...
Tony
silver quote...
" Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear. --Harry S. Truman "
I believe JFK was the last of Harry's ilk...the rest were and are made.
I don't think what happened to Gerrish's web site would have happened in their US.
Regards...
Quote from: Azorus on December 09, 2009, 03:05:40 PM
Holy shit! has anyone else read that treaty? It is scary as shit. talk about taxation without repersentation.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/un-fccc-copenhagen-2009.pdf
That was the latest i could find.
I just finished reading all of that and don't really know what to say, and not just because I'm tired and probably shouldn't be trying to write at all.
It reminds me of Mao's great-leap-forward or whatever it was, the one that resulted in the starvation of 20-40 million Chinese. The level of bullshit involved is astounding. I don't even think they can do what they say they're going to do, even if they get the money, (and yes they stated they wanted at least 80-90 billion USD per year). My doubts about their ability is based in part on the vagaries of what they say they want to implement on the ground and their admitted lack of knowledge about how they might achieve it. They seem more sure about the fact that there will be dire side-effects of their intended measures on the populations they'll be 'helping'. Even if I was totally trusting of them, and I'm not, I'd have some real concerns with what they're proposing. It really does reek of corruption.
If that's the best they can come up with, and their scare-mongering is based on the true facts of the matter, I'm going to have to put my faith in a higher order and just try to grin and bear it.
It just looks like a power-grab, interference with humanity, and nature in general, on an unprecedented scale. It even makes me suspicious about whether they're actually interested in mitigating climate change at all. It just looks like they're trying to capitalize on the situation. The situation that is, humanity having to face up to the fact that the weather changes, and we have to adapt to it.
Don't fight the weather, that's my advice. Don't mess with it, like we've been led to do, and don't try to fix it in stone like we're being led now to do. It changes, and it's bigger than us.
Reading their draft proposal or whatever you call it, does raise a question though. Can the first world countries actually decrease their greenhouse gas emissions 95% by 2050? That's one of their goals. Is that actually possible, while at the same time being taxed 2% of GDP?
They want the developed countries to pay for the environmentally friendly great-leap-forward of the developing nations, while the developed nations themselves try to figure out how to stop polluting and attain their own environmentally friendly status. Is that actually feasible?
Two recurring ideas in their document, which seem to be key to their (ill-defined?) plans, are those of 'economic diversification' and the implementation of technological solutions. Are these strategies realistic? Especially in that they seem to be mentioned more in relation to the changes developing countries can make, more so than the developed ones. It reminds me of the old, 'Here, we'll pay you to plant this instead, using these expensive new-fangled technologies, and everything will be alright. And don't worry, we'll make some changes to our excessive consumption, just to be fair. Or at least, those under our new expanded powers of control will. How 'bout it? Deal?' Hard to say no when UN sanctions would probably be the result, and when you just want to get into the club yourself.
Too cynical? I could go on at length. There's a lot of stuff in that draft document to inspire such cynicism. If it's so good, they should finalize it (but they never will, it's an open-ended process) and make it compulsory reading for every citizen of every country that's to be affected by it, and see how far it gets. Just like they should have done with every other one of their shady schemes (the ones that got us here in the first place), but never did. Imagine where we'd be if we'd actually been allowed to express our humanity like that, instead of being exploited as an expendable resource.
And before you zealots chime in with your pro and anti this and that, I'm not listening, I don't give a shit, I love ya and that's all there is to it. That's all there is to anything. You can see what you want to see and it isn't going to make any difference to what actually is. And I just told ya what that is :)
Les.
lwh:
Great post.
This all reminds me of when they banned DDT because ONE study showed it MIGHT weaken certain species of bird eggs. Since this decision, millions upon millions of people have died from disease spread by mosquitoes and most of them in poor and under-developed countries. So, save a bird egg, kill millions of poor people. Great decision. This is exactly the type of unintended consequences I have been talking about.
Another idiotic decision they made a few years back was to ban babies from being able to sit in their mother's laps on aircraft because, one day, one of the MIGHT get hurt. In the history of commercial aviation, not one baby was ever hurt by this but they banned the practice anyway. Since that time, it is estimated that tens of thousands of those babies were killed because the folks could not afford the extra ticket for the seat for the baby, so they drove to their destination which is, as we all know, statistically many more times more likely to kill you than flying. So, no babies were ever hurt on a commercial aircraft by sitting on their mother's laps, but now many of them are dead. Great decision.
I don't know how many more of these "great decisions" we can take.
Bill
Quote from: silverfish on December 12, 2009, 04:24:17 AM
As regards Alzheimer's,
Check this out:
http://www.scpnet.com/on_pap_3.htm
If you do a search on 'aluminium neurotoxicity' there are quite a few links, including a book
on the subject on Amazon (though it is prohibitively expensive.) As regards absorption from the water supply, I understand this is greatly increased by the presence of flouride, and that also depends on the particular form the aluminium takes. It apparently interacts with other toxins and heavy metals interfering with various body functions.
Almost all mercury toxic individuals have high level of selenium in their pituitary glands. Does it mean selenium is neurotoxic?
The paper didn't comment on the neurotoxicity of aluminum. I believe you are trying to downplay the issue of mercury poisoning.
Like your government, you are trying to suggest that mercury poisoning is not a big deal. You are trying to ignore the findings by Univeristy of Calgary and other scientists, but you are no expert in toxicity at all. You are trying ignore the fact that air mercury come from emissions from the cars, coal fire plants, mining areas and other combusion facilities. And you are trying to be protective of the oil industry.
QuoteIn my books on flouride there is additional material on aluminium, I'll have another look. Cheers
Have you ever treat people with Alzheimer's disease before?
Quote from: blueplanet on December 13, 2009, 09:38:33 AM
Almost all mercury toxic individuals have high level of selenium in their pituitary glands. Does it mean selenium is neurotoxic?
The paper didn't comment on the neurotoxicity of aluminum. I believe you are trying to downplay the issue of mercury poisoning.
Like your government, you are trying to suggest that mercury poisoning is not a big deal. You are trying to ignore the findings by Univeristy of Calgary and other scientists, but you are no expert in toxicity at all. You are trying ignore the fact that air mercury come from emissions from the cars, coal fire plants, mining areas and other combusion facilities. And you are trying to be protective of the oil industry.
Have you ever treat people with Alzheimer's disease before?
This point was made:
Results:
'There was a statistically significant difference between serum aluminium levels in Alzheimer's disease and other dementias and non dementing controls (P<.05). No difference was found between serum aluminium levels in other dementias and non dementing controls. Serum aluminium levels and the age distribution among patients with Alzheimer's disease showed a statistically significant positive correlation.'
I have absolutely no idea why you have decided I am trying to downplay the issue of mercury poisoning. I have already stated that mercury poisoning is bad news, just as mercury amalgam is an issue and injecting people with mercury-laden vaccines is an issue, just as seafood mercury contamination is an issue, just as industrial processes leading to mercury air contamination are also an issue. I agree with you!
My point was that there are other toxins in the environment like lead, cadmium, flouride, aluminium, and Depleted Uranium, all of which cause harm to a greater or lesser degree - BTW there has been an outbreak of flourosis recently in India due to contaminated water supplies; it's a crippling disease.
Naturally I accept that one study relating aluminium and Alzheimer's like this is not conclusive, merely suggestive of a connection.
You accuse me of being protective of the oil industry. That's a totally ludicrous assertion, about as far from the truth as you can possibly get, and by the way, I never claimed to be an expert in toxicity; perhaps you are, if so, then jolly good luck to you.
If I was such an expert, I would not be a very good one if I focused on mercury as being the sole, pre-eminent danger in the environment, to the exclusion of all others.
Just as nutrients interact in the body, phosphorus interferes with calcium uptake and so on, there is good evidence that toxins interact with each other - that's why I mentioned the connection between aluminium uptake and flouride.
To try and reduce this whole environmental poison issue to mercury alone, without considering other factors, is childish and unscientific, just as the idea that C02, the outward breath of life is a dangerous toxin that must be reduced at all costs, bankrupting poor countries with more crippling loans trying to 'help' them reduce their carbon footprint,
is both fallacious and genocidal.
Quote from: ATT on December 12, 2009, 04:35:14 PM
Never heard of him, however, if hostgator immediately 'caved' to the allegations made in the pdf:
http://dmca.hgfix.net/cpexposed.com/cpexposed.com.pdf ,
then they weren't much of an ISP to begin with...there's usually a 'cease and desist' demand followed by some sort of rebuttal and refusal before an ISP take-down.
If the documents listed in that pdf were actually copies of DMCA protected stuff then Gerrish didn't know what he was doing, either (then again, maybe he did...).
He could have easily gotten around it by quoting pertinent sections, giving proper attribution and providing links to the actual documents hosted on another server/s, which he could simply have described as his 'sources', disavowing any other connection to the documents.
If FOIA issues had resulted in the release of the documents then that could establish yet another point in rebuttal of the above take-down demand.
Then too, publicity resulting from the take-down could actually help bring attention to Gerrish's cause, maybe Alex Jones will end up giving him a blog on the prison-planet/infowars network if the response to this take-down is great enough.
No such thing as bad publicity...
Tony
To hear what Brian Gerrish has to say, check this out:
http://www.redicecreations.com/radio/2009/05may/RIR-090526.php
Quote from: silverfish on December 13, 2009, 01:18:14 PM
To try and reduce this whole environmental poison issue to mercury alone, without considering other factors, is childish and unscientific, just as the idea that C02, the outward breath of life is a dangerous toxin that must be reduced at all costs, bankrupting poor countries with more crippling loans trying to 'help' them reduce their carbon footprint,
is both fallacious and genocidal.
I am a british citizen living in asia. i believe it is the ch**ese government who wants to bankrupt the nation by suppressing the commodity prices. Emission cut will not lead to suppression of commodity prices.
The idea of economic globalization is to export inflation and import deflation. Under the ideology of economic globalization, the US exports inflation by increasing its money supply. And it imports deflation by suppressing the commodity prices, collapsing the gold prices and encourgage the third world to peg their currencies to the US dollars.
To suppress the commodity prices, they have to make sure the "slaves" from the emerging economies continue to produce as much as possible. This means they cannot accept any deal or treaty that would will end up with less cheap labors from the third world, less mining of gold, less drilling of oil fields, less cheap goods, etc, etc.
By telling the emerging economies to peg their currencies, the power-that-be can continue to increase the money supply without any devaluation of the so-called almighty US dollars.
Many government officials from the emerging economies have privately invested their money in dollar-denominated assets, including subprime mortgages and the US treasury bonds. Any appreciation of their countries' currencies will hurt their investments. To protect their own wealth, they will have to suppress the commodity prices and make sure their nations continue to support the US dollars, even at the cost of the environment.
Quote from: blueplanet on December 13, 2009, 03:04:01 PM
I am a british citizen living in asia. i believe it is the ch**ese government who wants to bankrupt the nation by suppressing the commodity prices. Emission cut will not lead to suppression of commodity prices.
The idea of economic globalization is to export inflation and import deflation. Under the ideology of economic globalization, the US exports inflation by increasing its money supply. And it imports deflation by suppressing the commodity prices, collapsing the gold prices and encourgage the third world to peg their currencies to the US dollars.
To suppress the commodity prices, they have to make sure the "slaves" from the emerging economies continue to produce as much as possible. This means they cannot accept any deal or treaty that would will end up with less cheap labors from the third world, less mining of gold, less drilling of oil fields, less cheap goods, etc, etc.
By telling the emerging economies to peg their currencies, the power-that-be can continue to increase the money supply without any devaluation of the so-called almighty US dollars.
Many government officials from the emerging economies have privately invested their money in dollar-denominated assets, including subprime mortgages and the US treasury bonds. Any appreciation of their countries' currencies will hurt their investments. To protect their own wealth, they will have to suppress the commodity prices and make sure their nations continue to support the US dollars, even at the cost of the environment.
Interesting viewpoint! My question is, who is the real 'economic' power behind China, in your opinion? who is the real power behind America, Russia, who is the real power behind Europe? As a child I used to love Chinese wooden dolls. Inside the outer shell is another doll, and you can keep on unscrewing the dolls until you get to the 9th tiny creature inside.
Someone is clearly playing a game here, at our expense. Who is really behind it?
In a film called 'The Wizard Of Oz' There is a little old man behind a curtain pulling the strings. He is the real power, but no-one suspects.
communism is mob rule (rats),
socialism is communism with better public relations (squirrels),
and capitalism is an out of control world wide resource forest fire (fools),
that will ultimately leave toxic wasteland for everyone (survival-destroying insanity).
all 3 types fail.
because all 3 types steal the decision making process from the local population (where it belongs),
and puts the decision making process into the hands of a small number of remotely located,
power hungry fools.
fools who know and care nothing,
about the thousands of small local area's,
from which their very authority, is stolen.
the problem STARTS in a small location.
the problem must be SOLVED in a small location.
there for,
the decision making power must STAY in the small location,
where the problem starts,
and where the problem is solved.
until enough of us collect the required amount of brains and balls to implement this,
civilization boom and bust will be the norm.
countless thousands of future generations,
will suffer from the same old crap down the ages,
until SOMEONE does this.
and keeps it that way forever.
if you need a worthy goal to dedicate your life too,
than dedicate it to the above problem solving method.
it is at least as important an issue, as cheap energy.
What does this say about 'climate change' ?
It sure speaks volumes to me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNQy2rT_dvU&feature=player_embedded
Regards...
Quote from: Cap-Z-ro on December 14, 2009, 06:13:37 PM
What does this say about 'climate change' ?
It sure speaks volumes to me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNQy2rT_dvU&feature=player_embedded (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNQy2rT_dvU&feature=player_embedded)
Regards...
Cap:
That pretty much says it all to me.
"It's the Sun Stupid". (Phil Valentine)
There is something rotten in Denmark I think,
Bill
I missed this; notice in the article it was to be presented at the big Copenhagen shindig. Once they get their Cap and Trade Treaty signed this will be next:
http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14488619
I would venture to guess that China's One Child Policy will be the model to build on.
" There is something rotten in Denmark "...an old adage resurfaced which applies to today perfectly.
After they put a cap on the number kids they will probably move on to rationing food...to cut down on sewage.
Regards...
I just wonder how much longer we will keep getting "Gored" by this Bull.
Sorry, I could not help myself.
Bill
Anyone else catch Gore's speech at Copenhagen where by 2014 all of the artic ocean will be melted?
Quote from: Azorus on December 15, 2009, 05:53:15 AM
Anyone else catch Gore's speech at Copenhagen where by 2014 all of the artic ocean will be melted?
Al Gore: Master of Deception.
The real culprit and the needed solution (according to the article):
http://www.financialpost.com/story-printer.html?id=2314438
Once they limit the number of kids a man can have, like they do in China, next they will try to limit the number of wimmin a man can have.
- Tiger Woods
Nice to see some of the people that I respect here. Sad though to see the conflict.
Oh we can argue and we can argue, but as maybe you will agree on Cap-Z-ro, its all just a question of our minds, and where we set the limit.
I dearly hope that all the people posting here are honest, but I am not sure...
In the end there is nothing to fight about, because we have nothing to fight for, we can only help each other, and believing anything else is to me like trying to change the very inertia of life.
She goes her own way...
I hope the partly good tone of this forum can continue to be as it has been before, because we must all know that we can never be 100% sure of being right, there should always be room for doubt.
Julian
Fox news sent out an article that showed gore lied. the evidence he presented was repealed by the scientist he quoted. showing once again that al gores staff doesn't write the best speeches.
All eyes to the north, Solar Cycle 24 now active.
Incoming coronal mass ejection should make for a good show of the Northern Lights.
http://spaceweather.com/ (http://spaceweather.com/)
It appears the 'real' media makes fake people uncomfortable.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUtzMBfDrpI&feature=player_embedded
Regards...
They can't handle the truth.
Bill
It looks as though the cat is now completely out of the bag.
" December 13, 2009 (LPAC)â€"The official British policy for the Copenhagen conference is now out, in explicit language: Massive population genocide, on a scale that would make Adolf Hitler blush. The London School of Economics, the anchor of the Fabian Gordon Brown government, has produced a study for Copenhagen, released by the British organization Optimum Population Trust (OPT), calling for the reduction of world population by between three to five billion people between now and 2050. This flagrant call for mass extermination is based on the argument that the single greatest cause of global warming is over-population, and that the most "cost-effective" cure for global warming is radical population reduction."
More here...
http://www.larouchepac.com/node/12763
Regards...
Unless they are the first to jump in the vat of molten metal, i call bullshit.
I agree Azorus,
If these elites are such strong believers in population reduction, then they and every member of their families should step forward and sacrifice their lives for the cause. I would be happy to oblige them.
They, of course, expect that it is OTHER people who would have to die. Preferably, just like China, the most innocent of human life still in the mother's womb.
Quote from: ResinRat2 on December 17, 2009, 08:46:10 AM
I agree Azorus,
If these elites are such strong believers in population reduction, then they and every member of their families should step forward and sacrifice their lives for the cause. I would be happy to oblige them.
They, of course, expect that it is OTHER people who would have to die. Preferably, just like China, the most innocent of human life still in the mother's womb.
And on a similar note, those who vehemently call for illegal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan should volunteer to be on the front line where the action is - but funnily enough, they never are...
Quote from: silverfish on December 17, 2009, 11:07:44 AM
And on a similar note, those who vehemently call for illegal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan should volunteer to be on the front line where the action is - but funnily enough, they never are...
Same difference. Their families never go either.
Climategate+
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gksje-ZDNk8&feature=response_watch
Quote from: MasterPlaster on December 17, 2009, 12:48:15 PM
Climategate+
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gksje-ZDNk8&feature=response_watch
and this:
http://www.iceagenow.com/The_Commissars_in_Copenhagen.htm
Quote from: silverfish on December 13, 2009, 03:35:39 PM
Interesting viewpoint! My question is, who is the real 'economic' power behind China, in your opinion? who is the real power behind America, Russia, who is the real power behind Europe? As a child I used to love Chinese wooden dolls. Inside the outer shell is another doll, and you can keep on unscrewing the dolls until you get to the 9th tiny creature inside.
Someone is clearly playing a game here, at our expense. Who is really behind it?
In a film called 'The Wizard Of Oz' There is a little old man behind a curtain pulling the strings. He is the real power, but no-one suspects.
Fortunately, I did not respond to this post too early.
It is simply not the right time.
Too much information is no good for those who are not ready.
I just received this e-mail from the Phil Valentine show which I copied and pasted here:
"Dear FOP:
Another wrinkle in the Climategate scandal. A Russian official has compared CRU data (that's the entity embroiled in the Climategate e-mails) and actual Russian meteorological service records. The CRU data appears to have been manipulated to show global warming. Seeing as how Russia accounts for 12.5 percent of the world's land mass, this is a huge setback for the global warming alarmists. Could Russia be just the first of many countries to make this discovery?
Phil explains this all in full detail and continues to monitor the unseasonably cold and snowy weather in Copenhagen. (It's 20 degrees below normal! God DOES have a sense of humor.)
Also, it's difficult to tell if the Senate is inching closer to a healthcare bill or further away. Phil covers all that and much more today on The Phil Valentine Show. Don't miss it!
Thanks,
The Phil Valentine Show
Westwood One"
http://PhilValentine.com
I thought some of you might be interested.
Bill
@all
This video is great , it shows how much trouble we are in , i almost cried ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kuovqFwUtDc
:D
Mark
@all
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gksje-ZDNk8&feature=response_watch
Mark:
Holy Crap!
He asked her if when she checked out all of the facts herself that he had told her about, and the facts prove what he was saying is true, would she still believe in global warming? She said yes!!!!!
She will not let the facts and data alter her way of thinking about this.
We are in trouble. I would love to see a debate between Gore and Lord Monckton!!!!!
Bill
There is yet a light in the window.
Poll shows a whopping 98% against signing anything in copenhagen.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/12/16/decide-obama-sign-climate-conference-agreements/
Regards...
Yes Fox news is a great source of credible, non-biased information.
Now we just need to use the last of our collective strength to defeat any possible change to our unsustainable world system.
Regards...
I think using the word sheaple is an insult to sheep. Besides, I like kebabs!
I prefer to call the people like this reporter Lemmings.
A truthful report stands on its own, no matter the source.
Its been said by an ex RCMP investigator I know that the truth is not always gleaned from choir boys.
Quote from: Cap-Z-ro on December 17, 2009, 06:20:19 PM
There is yet a light in the window.
Poll shows a whopping 98% against signing anything in copenhagen.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/12/16/decide-obama-sign-climate-conference-agreements/
Regards...
To be fair, it does say at the bottom that : "This is not a Scientific Poll"
I do believe the number of United States citizens that are turning against the Global Warming fraud is growing, but 98%? Maybe 98% of those who were on the Fox Site and read the poll question at the time, this is possible.
I believe many people are sick of the Congress and Senate being obsessed with Global Warming, Bail-Outs, Stimulus Packages, Health-Care Bills, Automobile Company Takeovers, and now Executive Bonus Pay Fascism, have had it with their elected Representatives. This is going to boost Third Pary support.
People are frightened of losing their jobs, and these Yokos want to tie up the United States into a gigantic financial vacuum Treaty that will suck away whatever wealth is remaining.
Regarding the US.
Was there ever a better time to launch a serious third party to oppose the Repocrats?
With some good funding (Ross Perot, he still alive?) it would be hard to ignore.
Quote from: Pirate88179 on December 17, 2009, 04:55:39 PM
Mark:
Holy Crap!
He asked her if when she checked out all of the facts herself that he had told her about, and the facts prove what he was saying is true, would she still believe in global warming? She said yes!!!!!
She will not let the facts and data alter her way of thinking about this.
We are in trouble. I would love to see a debate between Gore and Lord Monckton!!!!!
Bill
So would Lord Monckton, and a lot of other people, including me, but Gore wouldn't agree to it. Wonder why? And I wonder why, when someone asks a legitimate question concerning Climategate at one of his book-signing sessions, he has his goons strong-arm them out of the room, just like the UN security guards did with journalist Phelim McAleer when he attempted to ask the same question of Gore at the Copenhagen summit. This is someone who has controlling shares in Exxon Mobil, who is contributing to trees being cut down in the Amazon, and who's carbon footprint is off the charts... but give him a real debate and he's not interested.
We should not be too relieved that nothing seems to have been agreed at Copenhagen. In fact the infrastructure of world government, including details of 700-odd bureaucracies required to implement all these new taxes, is being hammered out, and Obama is conferring with world leaders in attempt to ram the agenda through even if a treaty hasn't been agreed - Arnold Schwarzenegger, who alarmed us with recent bogus reports of massively rising sea levels, is on board discussing ways to implement this on a local level.
While there is genuine disagreement going on at the summit, by nations who rightly suspect they are going to be seriously ripped off, I suggest that the idea that nothing has come out of the conference is false, and designed to get us to stand down, thinking it's all a lot of hot air and nothing will come of it.
Wrong.
This video ties it all together for the world take over by the Illuminati.
Global Warming 1/4 - Conspiracy Theory - Jesse Ventura, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igg79pqfT08
Quote from cloxxki:
" Regarding the US.
Was there ever a better time to launch a serious third party to oppose the Repocrats?
With some good funding (Ross Perot, he still alive?) it would be hard to ignore."
Unfortunately clox, we are still at the stage where a Ross Perrot or a Ron Paul...or any other honest person would be assassinated like JFK.
We still have a ways to go on that front.
Regards...
@all
Lord Monkton , got attacked by cops , at Copenhagen , yesterday...
Thugs!
This is a view of the future for us all.
Shut-up and comply...OR ELSE!
Quote from: ResinRat2 on December 18, 2009, 08:04:25 AM
To be fair, it does say at the bottom that : "This is not a Scientific Poll"
I do believe the number of United States citizens that are turning against the Global Warming fraud is growing, but 98%? Maybe 98% of those who were on the Fox Site and read the poll question at the time, this is possible.
I believe many people are sick of the Congress and Senate being obsessed with Global Warming, Bail-Outs, Stimulus Packages, Health-Care Bills, Automobile Company Takeovers, and now Executive Bonus Pay Fascism, have had it with their elected Representatives. This is going to boost Third Pary support.
People are frightened of losing their jobs, and these Yokos want to tie up the United States into a gigantic financial vacuum Treaty that will suck away whatever wealth is remaining.
Correct. Although anything coming out of 'FIX News' should be scrutinized carefully. We live in a 'democracy', with 'free speech'. So when Lord Monckton wants to attend the Copenhagen Summit, access is denied - a member of the House of Lords and peer of the realm, he is assaulted by Danish police, knocked unconscious, and has to receive medical treatment. Yet environmentalist groups, funded by Soros/Rockefeller, who have been busy chanting, shouting him down, and preventing him from speaking, are allowed full access, no problem. Communists are allowed full access, not a problem.
Translation...he's moved past the "wacko" stage, and entered the "threat" zone.
By next week he should have already risen to the level of "law breaker".
All that adds up to the PTB becoming uncomfortable with the situation.
I am hoping we are seeing their wheels begin to start wobbling...soon to fall off hopefully.
Regards...
I hope he is OK. Aside from his views and knowledge which evidently some do not agree with, he appears to me to be a really good fellow.
I have noticed that "free speech" here in the US ain't what it used to be. We have to tolerate protests at the funerals of our fallen soldiers because "they have that right" but yet, show up and protest at an Al Gore book signing and you will be removed by security like they did to Phil Valentine and many others. The ones in power now only say you have these rights if you agree with THEM.
A revolution is coming as I have said for 2 years now...hopefully not the violent kind but it is time to stop the socialists before they do any more damage.
Bill
Haven't heard anything more on Monckton's harassment yet.
I heard his 'on the street interview, where he quoted his facts and sources supporting his position.
I have yet to hear a single challenge made in response.
And I know that means he is one presenting the true facts...those who failed to address his points are the dishonest party...2+2=4.
Checkmate...game over in Detroit.
Regards...
Quote from: Pirate88179 on December 18, 2009, 06:29:51 PM
I hope he is OK. Aside from his views and knowledge which evidently some do not agree with, he appears to me to be a really good fellow.
I have noticed that "free speech" here in the US ain't what it used to be. We have to tolerate protests at the funerals of our fallen soldiers because "they have that right" but yet, show up and protest at an Al Gore book signing and you will be removed by security like they did to Phil Valentine and many others. The ones in power now only say you have these rights if you agree with THEM.
A revolution is coming as I have said for 2 years now...hopefully not the violent kind but it is time to stop the socialists before they do any more damage.
Bill
Bill I really respect you, but you have been totally mislead and this whole discussion is a sham...
The reason to why so few people come here to challenge you is because they see it is pointless.
The arguments and sources used here is not valuable for anything, and the only one's you are convincing is yourselves....
Gosh, why is it so easy to fall into these mind traps? You and the rest are totally sure that you are correct, because you have heard so on the conservative radioshows and newsfeed.
The world IS NOT black and white, it is every color from one side to the other, and the only one's
who believe otherwise is what we common folks call fundamentalists. You know, the ones who caused the crusades or have been responsible all kinds of suicide missions.
Heck even political extremists are unlimited.
My plea is that you and your friends stop this cult-like behavior before you actually injure someone for real. This forum is made to open our minds and not only limit ourselves to what we believe is right, that is the folly of the orthodox scientists and religions. We want the truth!
And in the end, finding the truth is the hardest work we will ever do, and we will often cheat our mind into believe we have it, when we actually are completely wrong.
I want to end by saying that I am not claiming myself to be right in any way, but I at least admit that my thoughts and beliefs aren't perfect.
Julian
The truth is it is NOT warming but cooling and I think it takes a lot more faith to believe in something that does not exist and never did doesn't it?
We can agree to disagree and that is fine with me. But when next year when Gore says it will be 3 degrees hotter and all the ice will be gone and it isn't, maybe you might think about it some more.
Bill
*sells suntan oil stock*
"To be fair, it does say at the bottom that : "This is not a Scientific Poll "
Resin is right...
*tosses out Fox poll and false flag scare media disinfo*
Left standing is Lord Monckton's evidence.
Missed silver's post...hope he's ok...bastards.
Hope that woke up those air headed kids who shouted him down.
Regards...
Quote from: Pirate88179 on December 18, 2009, 07:59:16 PM
The truth is it is NOT warming but cooling and I think it takes a lot more faith to believe in something that does not exist and never did doesn't it?
We can agree to disagree and that is fine with me. But when next year when Gore says it will be 3 degrees hotter and all the ice will be gone and it isn't, maybe you might think about it some more.
Bill
Fine Bill, we can agree to disagree.
What ever we believe to be true and actually is the case, I think it would be more productive if we "attacked" the ideas instead of the persons. This is one reason to why I don't like the elections in you country (and I'm sorry if that hurts you), but they are limited to two parties only, and the focus is on the person instead of the politics each party want to pull through, or even the politics of each president...
I won't try to convince you of anything at all, but I hope you like many of us here continue to keep an open mind, and don't lock your intelligence into a single cause.
Your Joule thief experiments are really useful and you have taught plenty other stuff to everyone here, so keep at it if you can :D
Julian
Jullian:
OK, agreed. Oh, just for the record, in our last election we had more than 20 parties represented in the Presidential election, not just two. We have always had many more than 2 parties, at least as long as I can remember. Now, in all seriousness, no one in ANY of the other than the 2 major parties ever gets many votes at all so they really don't make any difference except in rare occasions by drawing votes away from one major party or the other.
I do appreciate your kind words and take them seriously.
Thank you,
Bill
In case you missed it and were wondering, Christopher Monckton himself wrote something about his run-in with the Danish/UN police.
http://sppiblog.org/news/is-the-european-police-state-going-global
Les.
The man is very well spoken...therein lies their problem.
He makes stark sense, and in short order.
Thanks for that piece.
Regards...
WASHINGTON (AP) - Three of every four Americans view climate change as a serious problem that will harm future generations if not addressed, according to an Associated Press-Stanford University poll.
More here...
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20091219/D9CMJFA00.html
Does all this mean that the 90 plus percent of Fox news viewers who don't believe the 'climate change' hype are smarter than the average bear ?
Regards...
Quote from: Cap-Z-ro on December 19, 2009, 10:59:38 PM
WASHINGTON (AP) - Three of every four Americans view climate change as a serious problem that will harm future generations if not addressed, according to an Associated Press-Stanford University poll.
With the consumption of an American being (I Think) 33 timesthe consumption level of an Indian person, they will be hold the most responsible for global warming. The irony!
kinda creepy article
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/22002764/detail.html
Hey, lets everybody get their dirty feet in the 'climategate' tarbaby.
I guess this just about takes care of any shred of credibility Wiki had.
Seems we are now at the point where everybody with a button to push is on the take.
More here...
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=119745
Regards...
Yeah Cap, the lid is blown off and the scandal is being exposed, but I doubt it would change any Greenie's mind. Wiki is just as corrupt as they come.
They will follow in lockstep and kiss Obama's heiny, no matter how much he will jack up the debt and sell our future generations into financial slavery. All to "save" the planet.
Bush, Clinton, Bush2, and now Obama. Every one of them the puppet of these liars and deceivers.
That article doesn't really surprise me. It's like the old country saying, and oddly the matrix kinda said it to only slightly different. The only way to find out how deep the rabbit hole is to follow the rabbit in.
I can almost sense an air of frustration betrayal afoot, with all the leaks and "surprise" disclosures happening almost daily.
The powers that be are getting edgy...you can see it in the face of Obomba.
It would be only right that they are haunted with the image of Sadam in his hood and rope outfit...wondering if that will be their fate.
If that does happen, maybe we will even see a gallows theme 'collector plate' edition for sale on the Home Shopping Network.
Regards...
This makes it much easier for everyone to smell.
" European weather deaths pass 100
Freezing weather brings death and disruption in Germany, Italy and across eastern Europe
Soldiers shovel snow in Milan. Photograph: Antonio Calanni/AP
More than 100 people have been killed in the cold snap across Europe, with temperatures plummeting and snowfall causing chaos from Moscow to Milan.
In Poland, where temperatures have dropped to as low as -20C in some areas, police appealed for tip-offs about people spotted lying around outside. At least 42 people, most of them homeless, died over the weekend.
In Ukraine 27 people have frozen to death since the thermometer dropped last week. Authorities in Romania said 11 people had succumbed to the chill, and in the Czech Republic the toll was 12. In Germany, where temperatures have fallen to -33C in certain parts, at least seven people are known to have lost their lives in the freezing weather.
For millions of others across the continent, the cold snap has brought severe disruption, with flight cancellations and traffic jams thwarting pre-Christmas travel plans.
The resumption of Eurostar services brought some relief to passengers travelling between France, Belgium and England, but many trains across Europe were delayed or cancelled.
Airports were struggling to cope with icy runways, with Ryanair and Easyjet among several airlines to cancel some flights.
In Frankfurt, where snowfall prompted delays and cancellations, 3,000 people were forced to spend last night inside the terminals at the city's main airport. "It is totally chaotic today … no one knows what's going on â€" neither us nor the staff," Dorothee Schaefle, waiting in line, told Die Welt newspaper.
Roads were not exempt from the chaos. After a weekend that brought the heaviest snowfall in about 100 years, Moscow was gridlocked, with tailbacks snailing around the Russian capital.
In Italy, where winters are usually mild, motorways in the north-east were closed and the Ministry of Defence dispatched helicopters in Sicily to bring medical aid to those in need.
In Milan hundreds of soldiers worked through the night to clear the snow- and ice-covered streets "
Maybe if people take the swine flu vaccine they may not notice the frost bite so much if they are lucky enough to get a high fever.
Regards...
Cap:
See? That is exactly why they now call it "Climate Change" instead of global warming. I heard Al Gore speak the other day about this and suddenly, every heatwave, rainstorm, hurricane, snowstorm, and blizzard can now be blamed on "Climate Change."
Kind of convenient for them huh? Sort of covers everything.
It amazes me that they are still going ahead as if nothing has happened even though their cover has been blown. They must think we are really, really stupid.
Bill
Quote from: Pirate88179 on December 23, 2009, 05:09:39 PM
Cap:
See? That is exactly why they now call it "Climate Change" instead of global warming. I heard Al Gore speak the other day about this and suddenly, every heatwave, rainstorm, hurricane, snowstorm, and blizzard can now be blamed on "Climate Change."
Kind of convenient for them huh? Sort of covers everything.
It amazes me that they are still going ahead as if nothing has happened even though their cover has been blown. They must think we are really, really stupid.
Bill
Just comforting is all, Climate change has been occuring for 4.6 billion years and still rising. when will it ever stop!
now that we have pretty much controlled uncontrollable forest fires I guess we buy our selves some time.
Next!
Jerry 8)
Its my fervent hope that all these 'leaks' whistleblowers popping up are creating a state of panic and desperation among these global perps.
And they have no other option than to stay the course with hope in one hand and a turd in the other...sniffing frequently to determine which smells better.
Regards...
Quote from: Pirate88179 on December 23, 2009, 05:09:39 PM
Cap:
See? That is exactly why they now call it "Climate Change" instead of global warming. I heard Al Gore speak the other day about this and suddenly, every heatwave, rainstorm, hurricane, snowstorm, and blizzard can now be blamed on "Climate Change."
Kind of convenient for them huh? Sort of covers everything.
It amazes me that they are still going ahead as if nothing has happened even though their cover has been blown. They must think we are really, really stupid.
Bill
Yes, what makes me laugh, is when you go to the Met Office site at www.metffice.gov.uk and they have a picture of the sun warming the planet and the statement 'New analysis shows global temperature rise calculated by the Met Office is at the lower end of likely warming.'
Directly above that is a picture of snow/icebound roads, with the caption, 'Widespread, heavy snow - a review'. The concept that comes to mind is, 'doublethink' where Orwell describes how two totally contradictory concepts can happily co-exist in the brainwashed mind. 'Cognitive Dissonance' is also applicable, when someone can hold two mutually contradictory opinions, for example, the idea that we must give up our freedom to gain liberty, even though freedom and liberty mean the same thing.
I am in London, where 'white Christmas' has become a myth, something you read about in Dickens. Yet on January 12th we had 8 inches of snow in this area, totally unprecedented. Recently we had a relatively short period of heavy snow, but with very cold temperatures and ice on the roads everywhere. 4 Eurostar trains were shut down, and an unbelievable -16 degrees celcius was recorded in Aberdeen.
Right now we are warming slightly to about 3-5 degrees and rain has dissolved most of the ice and snow. But if you go to Accuweather.com and look at the long-range _European_ forecast, the warming from El Nino is not now expected to occur and therefore more very cold weather could be on the cards for January. You will also get some very interesting opinions from an expert who doesn't subscribe to the 'Gobal Warmist' doctrine, although we are told these scientists are in the 'minority' because Wikipedia tells us, it must be so... and there's a lot coming out now about Wikipedia and the peer review process that should raise a few eyebrows.
None of this should be a surprise to those who understand that information control is the name of the game. If you control the major media outlets - although cracks are even now beginning to appear in this pyramid, (look at James Delingpoles's blog in the Telegraph, for example)
you can control people's perception of reality. On a macro scale, you then get to reinforce the reality that you want to maintain.
It's all a 'mind game' - you can be a pawn, a bishop, a king or a queen - it all depends how much you understand about the game and how it is played.
Hey Pual!
where in your global warming model does the coldest winter in over a decade come?
A good place to start when considering global climate science is to have a vague idea as to what the globe really is.
Running around with thermostats and charts is not going to get you anywhere if you have no idea of what you are measuring.
http://www.singularvortex.com/UVS%20on%20geometrical%20structure%20of%20magnetosphere.htm
What tax will be next imposed. The 2012 galaxtic alignment tax. This would be wealth redistribution to the elite who will quickly devise a plan to adjust the Earth's orbit so that it doesnt get between the galaxtic core and the Sun. (which happens every year) The wealth will of course be depositited in the world banks for good keeping while a plan for readjusting the Earth's orbit is devised. Meanwhile the banks will retain the right to loan out the wealth and secure it with tittle to real assets to whoever is stupid enough to believe that shiny medal, pieces of paper, digital displays of certain numerical value has any real value at all. This bullshit has been going on since the first man demanded that another man give him back more than he lent. This scam has gone on long enough. Money suppose to represent your efforts on the behalf of advancing life liberty and the pursuit of happiness and may I add awareness of a more meaningful life for everyone. Now it has degenerated into a tool used by certain beings to keep us jumping through hoops so there is no time to realize the potential of the human being to become a creature of giving instead of a creature of taking. IMHO
Just a funny comic strip for you: http://www.jesusandmo.net/2010/01/05/care/ (http://www.jesusandmo.net/2010/01/05/care/)
Global Warming Quiz:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/GlobWarmTest/start.html
tak
ps. I got all the questions "correct", but it could be that I've been blinded by bullshit! :)
Knowing the intellectual capacity of most politician pawns I should not have given them any ideas. I can hear it know. It will be people's fault that the Earth has become too massive and it is now altering the planets natural ride through the zodiac.
Just too much fucking going on. Lets see what tax we can impose and deposit in our banks. It will be called the fucking tax.
Any male and female occupying any housing together where there is a possiblity that they will get laid and have some fun will be taxed in proportion to the amount of affection demonstrated by each said occupants in a survey they are required to file each and every year with various authorities. Any tittled owner of a property upon which any fucking could occur will be mandated to obtain social security numbers of those in the pursuit of a little ass and report to the internal fucking agency said number of copulations per year. Those who can proove that they fuck just for fun can file a we use contraception form oral sex for a deduction in the amount of fucking tax due. Sign and return your check along with supporting documentation because that is the way we fucking want it.
Ha, I think a lot of people may have been using that descriptor for the carbon tax already sparks.
Its not out of the question that if they get their way, only the privileged will be allowed to reproduce...and people who are not 'sterilized' will imprisoned for having unsterilized sex.
Regards...
Quote from: Cap-Z-ro on February 02, 2010, 08:03:00 AM
Ha, I think a lot of people may have been using that descriptor for the carbon tax already sparks.
Its not out of the question that if they get their way, only the privileged will be allowed to reproduce...and people who are not 'sterilized' will imprisoned for having unsterilized .
Regards...
'Endgame' Blueprint for global enslavement, sums up the eugenics agenda and traces the history of the families who promoted it. The cult of fake environmentalism is a mask that covers eugenics. In Aldous Huxley's final speech he was quite open about the agenda for a scientific dictatorship, and that the masses must be trained to actually love their enslavement through psychoactive pharmaceuticals, chemicals added to the water, vaccinations, mass brainwashing and so on.
Unfortunately for the Galstons, Darwins and other families who practiced inbreeding in their quest for a super elite, congenital idiocy was frequently the result.
The ship of Global Warming, like the Titanic, is badly listing, ripped so full of holes and torn by so many escalating scandals that there is only one way out, and that's DOWN. Meanwhile glorified railway engineer Pachauri, locked in a world of make-believe, with his scientific fraud collapsing all around him, consoles himself by writing smutty novels with himself as the nobel prize-winning climate scientist jumping into bed with one hero-worshipping nubile nymph after another. You couldn't make this stuff up...watch for the next eco-scare that will inevitably replace the current scientific FRAUD...
The Hottest Hoax in the World:
http://www.openthemagazine.com/article/international/the-hottest-hoax-in-the-world
'We've been had!' Indian Magazine Rips Global Warming: 'The Hottest Hoax in the World...A Pack of Lies, it turns out'
http://www.climatedepot.com/
Climategate intensifies: Jones and Wang apparently hid Chines station data issues:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/01/climategate-intensifies-jones-and-wang-hid-chinese-station-data-issues/#more-15945
All good thoughts.
Our true nature as human beings can only be assessed by how close our 'act' is to the real us.
The farther apart the 2 poles are the more they need to be watched.
I heard it stated that all the world is a stage.
For too long we've had a bunch of no talent actors running the show...that includes all media.
If nobody is watching them, they have no show is over...as recently demonstrated by Jay Leno and Conan O'Brien.
More and more, people seem willing to consider that there is something untoward afoot.
Regards...
Quote from: Azorus on January 07, 2010, 02:07:58 PM
Hey Pual!
where in your global warming model does the coldest winter in over a decade come?
LOL ::) Here in Washington state we just broke a record for the warmest January on record and February to be the same. I thought this thread was dead.
4Tesla
Whereas summers...or whats left of them are an icicle less than warm anymore ?
Go figger huh.
*rebury's thread*
Regards...
The mindscrewers have moved on. Now it is the 2012 earth solar alignment get your ass an ark ticket fast paranoia.
We got the 911 massacre to enforce the contracts some puppet made with the oil companies on behalf of the people of Iraq. We got US troops in Haitai to restore order so that a puppet government can be established there and enslave the Haitains into farming for free. We got Alcoa fucking the people of Jamaica over huge. Us troops will soon be called in to restore order on the college campuses that have become heavily armed and the cheap army Alcoa maintains there is afraid to enter these terrorist spots. Forget about Brazil they are turning unproductive lands like the rain forest into farmland. These are bad bad bad people. What natural calamity will soon befall them. Better to leave the rain forests untouched. The Amazon river network could feed the world and make brazil the breadbasket of the Earth. Fuck no we gotta have them special insects and birds and whatever. The only thing a bird ever did for me was shit on my car. Only thing an insect ever did for me was bite my ass. They can all vanish from the face of the Earth for all I give a shit.
But no you got these stupid rich people doing Amazon visits and swinging from trees and shit playing Tarzan. Get a life a real life not some childhood fantasy about walking around patting nice fluffy playful panda bears. Panda bears are tree sloths. I gotta admit we have alot of work ahead of us like basic housing structures that are built above ground. This has to be the dumbest thing yet. It is a moderate 50 to 60 degrees 4 or 5 feet down and we insist on building aboveground and freezing are ass off in the winter and boiling away in the summer. You build a big cave with a skylight and there you go. No heating and airconditioning bills. Just a little ultrasonic digging machine into the Rock some drainage and you got yourself a house. No lets be stupid and build a cave aboveground made out of lets see ,,,,rock. Then artifically light heat and air condition the aboveground caves. Sorry for sounding like Mickey Rooney but he did make alot of valid points. How about taking some of that solar energy input and using it to desalinate ocean water. Pump the water into the Deserts and turn them into farmland. How about instead of Dupont working on some new kind of automotive finish paint work on manmade food. We can make a smart paint but we cant string together simple sugars and amino acid groups. But I digress.
QuoteWe got the 911 massacre to enforce the contracts some puppet made with the oil companies on behalf of the people of Iraq.
What do you mean by this?
Its not about the conspiracy, I have seen more evidence pointing to the fact of a demolition rather than against, but the Iraqi people have only fallen victims to the bigger decision makers...
And seriously you got a really pessimistic view of the world I might say, on the line with cap-z-ro and the others crowding over this tread.
What about trying to find logic in life instead of accepting every unbacked crazy conspiracy you can find, as seems to be the extreme case here....
Your biggest enemy, tax :D
Why is it so evil? Yeah, I know and have seen some clues that it isn't written down in law in the US but still! Tax has its important functions...
Without tax you'd have a terribly life, I can guarantee it!
In the state we humans are in now, where we still rely on the money and capital to run our lives, the state needs capital to make sure that all the basic needs are available, like police, hospital, firemen, mail and much more including the core structure which keeps a country glued together.
If the case is that you want a country or a world entirely controlled and ruled by private power, then good luck with that...
But if not, then I suggest you take closer look at what tax really is :)
Julian
Quote from: Nabo00o on February 03, 2010, 11:04:16 AM
What do you mean by this?
Its not about the conspiracy, I have seen more evidence pointing to the fact of a demolition rather than against, but the Iraqi people have only fallen victims to the bigger decision makers...
And seriously you got a really pessimistic view of the world I might say, on the line with cap-z-ro and the others crowding over this tread.
What about trying to find logic in life instead of accepting every unbacked crazy conspiracy you can find, as seems to be the extreme case here....
Julian
You say with regard to 911, 'I have seen more evidence pointing to the fact of a demolition rather than against, but the Iraqi people have only fallen victim to the bigger decision makers...'
Within that statement you give tacit acceptance to the suggestion that there is an alternative view to 911 which does not tally with the official view - and you have seen evidence supporting that view, which, in fact, would imply a conspiracy. Yet, in the same breath you talk about 'unbacked crazy conspiracies'
'extreme', 'a pessimistic view of the world', and so on, which, by the way I don't hold.
What I am absolutely certain about, however, is there are such things as real conspiracies, whether they influence economic conditions or perceived terror attacks. The naive media dismissal of 'conspiracy theories' as the province of lone nutters and dysfunctional individuals is a transparent ploy to discredit anyone who doesn't believe everything the government says.
In order to reinforce their viewpoint that everyone must believe them, the government is actually considering banning free speech, fining or taxing people with alternative views, or terminating their broadband access altogether. These are not actions which would be considered 'normal' in a so-called 'democratic' society. They are in fact 'extreme' in such a context, and have more in common with 'banana republics' 'fascist police states' or 'neo-stalinist dictatorships'.
If you think this is a 'conspiracy theory' I'd suggest you study Cass Sunstein's writings or listen to his speeches. You will find an orientation that has far more to do with marxism or communism than classical western democracy.
As for what you call tax, what is going on now with the bailouts I would classify as 'theft', in fact I would go further and call it a 'heist' and the biggest transfer of wealth in recorded history. Given well over 10 X Leverage taken into consideration, the amount taken from the taxpayer, and given to the very same banking institutions that caused the problem in the first place, is in excess of 27 trillion dollars. Let's think about how much money 1 trillion dollars represents. If you take 1 trillion dollars and place them end to end, they will go all the way to the sun and BACK - just one trillion alone is an unimaginable sum of money. The deficit is what, 12 trillion? compare all this to the gross domestic product and you will have some idea of the mess we are in. It's called manufactured DEBT - debt which our children will still be paying off in their old age. So let's please not confuse legitimate tax with the criminal plunder that is currently going on.
Thank you for mixing a lot of other subjects into this which I didn't mention, and then twist the perspective so that I seem like defending them. You'd make a great politician I bet...
Anyway, of course I agree, there are probably a whole range of conspiracies which controls the way we live on earth, what the media says, money and military wise. But that doesn't mean that we know it for certain, even though we know some things more certain than others, or that some people (like me) seem to disbelieve the official story about 9/11 more than other based on convincing evidence.
Still I will not say that I 'know' this, but I have have been strongly convinced, for now.
As for you and everybody else here (mainly Americans and Canadians) who talks about communism, socialism and even Marxism, it is obvious that you generally don't understand the subject at all.
Communism is a supposed outgrowth of socialism, which again was based on Marx original ideas about an alternative to capitalism.
Socialism is not the same as the communism which was said to exist in the USSR and China, and many other countries. These regimes made use of what is called state-capitalism. You take out the private entities and gives all the economic power to the government, who rules in a totalitarian fashion.
Neither is it the same as the so called "national socialism" in Hitlers Germany, since it was only used to benefit one ethnicity of its population and discriminate the other. True socialism is based on democracy in all levels of a community, and could not work in one country alone either.
And about bailouts, who was the man who started all of this again.....?
Also who was the man who increased US loans to new unthinkable heights?
He couldn't have been a strict republican could he?
....
After some thinking I regret posting here.
It seems this place on the forum aids to divide us more than unite us in research.
The main focus on this forum should have been changed to kindness and mutual respect, with free energy research as second ;D
Best thoughts,
Julian
Quote from: Nabo00o on February 03, 2010, 02:14:48 PM
After some thinking I regret posting here.
It seems this place on the forum aids to divide us more than unite us in research.
The main focus on this forum should have been changed to kindness and mutual respect, with free energy research as second ;D
Best thoughts,
Julian
Good post.
Bill
Quote from: Nabo00o on February 03, 2010, 01:56:10 PM
Thank you for mixing a lot of other subjects into this which I didn't mention, and then twist the perspective so that I seem like defending them. You'd make a great politician I bet...
Anyway, of course I agree, there are probably a whole range of conspiracies which controls the way we live on earth, what the media says, money and military wise. But that doesn't mean that we know it for certain, even though we know some things more certain than others, or that some people (like me) seem to disbelieve the official story about 9/11 more than other based on convincing evidence.
Still I will not say that I 'know' this, but I have have been strongly convinced, for now.
As for you and everybody else here (mainly Americans and Canadians) who talks about communism, socialism and even Marxism, it is obvious that you generally don't understand the subject at all.
Communism is a supposed outgrowth of socialism, which again was based on Marx original ideas about an alternative to capitalism.
Socialism is not the same as the communism which was said to exist in the USSR and China, and many other countries. These regimes made use of what is called state-capitalism. You take out the private entities and gives all the economic power to the government, who rules in a totalitarian fashion.
Neither is it the same as the so called "national socialism" in Hitlers Germany, since it was only used to benefit one ethnicity of its population and discriminate the other. True socialism is based on democracy in all levels of a community, and could not work in one country alone either.
And about bailouts, who was the man who started all of this again.....?
Also who was the man who increased US loans to new unthinkable heights?
He couldn't have been a strict republican could he?
....
Thanks for explaining that I don't understand the subject of communism at all, especially if I'm American or Canadian, which I'm not. Are you an authority on the subject? You say 'I'm twisting the perspective' to make it seem like you're defending 'other subjects' - no, I'm referring to what you actually said, and pointing out that the official view is not the only view. You have a problem with that?
One question - who financed the Russian revolution? Who financed Hitler? Follow the money, and the picture becomes clear.
Your statement 'You take out the private entities and gives all the economic power to the government, who rules in a totalitarian fashion.'
I'd say that was an excellent description of what is happening right now.
You say,
'And about bailouts, who was the man who started all of this again.....?
Also who was the man who increased US loans to new unthinkable heights?
He couldn't have been a strict republican could he?'
Don't be cryptic, tell us who you are referring to, and why?
Strict Republican, does that matter? Republican, Democrat, are two wings on the same vulture, just as communism and capitalism were created by the same people - in the same way that 'socialist' politicians are pawns and puppets for the banksters.
Communists, what do they have?. Dachas in the country, limousines, a 'Stazi' police state to suppress the people.
Fascists, what do they have? Castles, mansions, limousines, a 'Gestapo' police state to suppress the people.
What's the difference? now we have a fantastic development - a global police state where we are going to be biometrically recorded with airport millimetre-wave scanners, surveilled constantly, all our electronic comunications monitored - our DNA recorded into databases against our will, all in the name of protecting us
from terrorism - wonderful.
Is this freedom? if that's freedom, I've got beach front property on the moon I want to sell you.
@silverfish
:o ::)
Silverfish, try to understand that I was talking about the general consensus of the people who have commented on this tread, including you, when I said that you had no idea what communism is.
I really don't want to be hostile, no goal is ever so great that it goes above reality and truth, whatever it may be. And the best way to get there is to be as friendly and open as possible, so I apologize if I haven't followed up on that.
Okey you are not American or Canadian, and I am not an authority on communism :D
But a lot of people sight when they hear Americans talk about communist propaganda in their media or "Obama is trying to force socialistic laws through the constitution". Usually hyper conservative or right wing media channels like fox news and radios try to give its audience an impression which fits their ideology. If you are used to more "neutral" media (if I may say so) and watch fox news (or any of the other channels owned by Rupert Murdoch), you get pretty shocked at how everything seems to be twisted in order to fit their view...
I personally think it is scary that somebody actually take what they say seriously....
Anyway, I wasn't trying to be cryptic. If you have followed the recent years in USA you should know that it was George Bush who increased the total debt in his country to new gigantic proportions (primarily because of the wars), in addition to bailing out the first failing company.
Likewise I don't care so much anymore about wether they are republicans or democrats.
Since there for all practical reasons is only a 2 party system in the US, the corruption and lack of democracy this creates makes the voting worthless. At least, if I had been raised there this would have been my conclusion.
And you have no ******* idea how much I agree with you about the increased "security" and surveillance. There have been huge debates in our country about a new law which the EU wants to push though about data collection and storing, everything from who we call, what emails we send and how much, they want all this and more stored from 'everyone' because of counter-terrorism reasons....
And all this started with 9/11 ....
Anyway, I believe this will all be momentarily, I am positive, and I believe there is logic tied to all of this, even if it might be hard for people to understand.
Julian
Double posting again sorry.
But I just have to say that from peaking a little bit around, I see how much we all have in common here.
Of the people who post on this forum, almost everyone seems to be very dedicated at researching and share the knowledge they have. There is a great mutual understanding here, where you automatically assume that the best for you is the best for everyone, so teach and learn as much as you can :)
I really admire that spirit, something of the same which made wikipedia as big as it is today (although not perfect, but nothing really is).
This also proves that egoism and the need for profit is not the major attraction for everyone, and it is this which I see is the big development on earth today.
That even though we are still on a course which is guarantied to worsen, there is also new forces or thoughts in all of us which are forcing us to act more universally and less selfishly.
From suffering comes knowledge, and so will the global mindset gradually change...
Julian
Hmm, lets see...a 'alleged 'noob comes in swinging an axe, complete with negative assessments of various members, how we "think" here.
Where have I seen this MO before ?
Now I recall...its the same entrance used by the various trolls, energy suckers, and disinfo agents who infest all discussions which connect the dots.
Regards...
QuoteHmm, lets see...a 'alleged 'noob comes in swinging an axe, complete with negative assessments of various members, how we "think" here.
Where have I seen this MO before ?
Now I recall...its the same entrance used by the various trolls, energy suckers, and disinfo agents who infest all discussions which connect the dots.
Regards...
Cap, if you are reffering to me, then I wonder how the "alleged noob comes in swinging an axe" fits in. Also, if you check my post history you will find quite the opposite, from the moment I logged on I wanted to help, even if it wasn't much.
But lately I have began to wonder why we need a "moderator of truth" here ;D
Seems kinda odd to me. At least, if some of the catagories in OU.com should have been without a moderator, it should have been this.
This should be a place to share interests about the world openly, but not to create a narrow mindset where everyone thinks the same, and where any other perspectives are attacked from all angles....
You agree I hope, and sorry if you weren't pointing to me in that descrition.
Julian
Nabo,
That is just Cap. He is real big into the conspiracy thingy.
I am not a pessimist I am a realist. But foremost I am a humanist. I love humans because of our capacity to love each other, pick each other up when we fall, go to work not for prideful pursuits but to better the situation of each other. A truck driver hauling a load of fuel through a blizzard to a town running out of fuel doesnt do it for just the pay. He does it because those people need that load. When a school teacher spends years teaching the same subject for a minimal salary is her only reward the small salary he or she receives. When I see a young man who has no agenda beyond being a human speak the truth that war or the taking up of arms aganst another human being is an attack on humanity itself then the realist in me kicks in. I see a survivor of the physcological attack on humanity that has been going on for eons. It take the form of pride. Pride is the seperation of oneself from all that we are made of. How can a quanity of water be better than the water of which it is comprised. I dont get it.
Quote from: Azorus on February 04, 2010, 12:58:20 AM
Nabo,
That is just Cap. He is real big into the conspiracy thingy.
Yes I was referring to you...your last post would have been more suitable than your first one.
You can't un-ring a bell...your words have placed you along side of the above poster...who also likes to use labels on people, instead of engaging in respectable dialogue.
Regards...
OMG Cap, the world is not out to get you get over it.
Cap, (if I can call you that), I'm sorry.
I didn't want generalize you into a group of people, its just that I disagree with some your thoughts, but that's okey, right?
I am normally a big believer and supporter of the individual, and I strongly reject using labels.
But when I said it earlier I was trying to channel what I feel a lot of people outside America thinks...
It doesn't mean that they are right, but only that some things are seen differently from different people.
But what's wrong with sparks post?
If anything I would have had to say that I agree with it whole heartedly.
Julian
Quote from: Azorus on February 04, 2010, 07:01:54 AM
OMG Cap, the world is not out to get you get over it.
So, it seems i've gone from conspiracy nutjob to paranoid...I'm not sure what that means in the mind of a troll.
Any more nonsense posts from this user posts WILL be deleted.
Naboo, I find it hard to believe someone who changes their story when confronted.
And there is nothing wrong with what Sparks posted...I have the same view.
Your future posts will reveal your true nature...no more excuses are necessary.
Regards...
Cap,
not calling you a nut job, or anything. Conspiracy theorist are fine, i don't like it but hey who am i to say what is right.
If this is a forum of truth why would it be motified?
P.S. i have my own theories about things to, i just don't like to mention them in a public forum.
Quote from: Cap-Z-ro on February 05, 2010, 06:07:30 AM
Your future posts will reveal your true nature...no more excuses are necessary.
Regards...
I have nothing to hide :D
It might have been though that my real wishes didn't shine through my first posts here.
Julian
Words are meaningful and powerful...choose them carefully...they are sometimes tough to chew.
What I said above still holds...you can't un-ring a bell...the best you can do is to follow a bad chord with rich tones.
Regards...
Quote from: Nabo00o on February 03, 2010, 03:28:27 PM
Silverfish, try to understand that I was talking about the general consensus of the people who have commented on this tread, including you, when I said that you had no idea what communism is.
I really don't want to be hostile, no goal is ever so great that it goes above reality and truth, whatever it may be. And the best way to get there is to be as friendly and open as possible, so I apologize if I haven't followed up on that.
Okey you are not American or Canadian, and I am not an authority on communism :D
But a lot of people sight when they hear Americans talk about communist propaganda in their media or "Obama is trying to force socialistic laws through the constitution". Usually hyper conservative or right wing media channels like fox news and radios try to give its audience an impression which fits their ideology. If you are used to more "neutral" media (if I may say so) and watch fox news (or any of the other channels owned by Rupert Murdoch), you get pretty shocked at how everything seems to be twisted in order to fit their view...
I personally think it is scary that somebody actually take what they say seriously....
Anyway, I wasn't trying to be cryptic. If you have followed the recent years in USA you should know that it was George Bush who increased the total debt in his country to new gigantic proportions (primarily because of the wars), in addition to bailing out the first failing company.
Likewise I don't care so much anymore about wether they are republicans or democrats.
Since there for all practical reasons is only a 2 party system in the US, the corruption and lack of democracy this creates makes the voting worthless. At least, if I had been raised there this would have been my conclusion.
And you have no ******* idea how much I agree with you about the increased "security" and surveillance. There have been huge debates in our country about a new law which the EU wants to push though about data collection and storing, everything from who we call, what emails we send and how much, they want all this and more stored from 'everyone' because of counter-terrorism reasons....
And all this started with 9/11 ....
Anyway, I believe this will all be momentarily, I am positive, and I believe there is logic tied to all of this, even if it might be hard for people to understand.
Julian
Peace. I agree with what you're saying here. My position is that we need to get beyond left and right, capitalism and communism, to understand what's behind it...
The human body is a little communistic organization going on. Every individual cell working for the good of the whole. It is global effort. The muscle cells cooperating with the nerve cells. I am quite sure that the body holds no predjudice or wars between cells in the eyes and cells in the heart muscles. All work for the good of the organization of cells that form the individual. Organization of chemicals that wish to perpectuate its form. The only thing that seperates man from the beast is his ability to preconceive or create a reality not dependent on physical input from the environment. This ability may not just be mans. A chimpanzee knows that when he cant reach a fruit on a tree he needs to get a stick to swat it. Did the chimpanzee preconceive his arm reaching out and not being able to reach the fruit and then preconceive the same sceanario but using a stick this time. Then going about the task of finding a stick and using it based on comparison of the two minidreams. I think what man needs to do is dream together. Get together and preconceive what heaven on Earth would be and then go out and work towards making this common dream a reality. I feel otherwise man is to suffer the same fate as all the other species that have dominated this planet at one time or another.
Just listened to the radio and now 6 other agencies admit they fudged the global warming figures as well. They are trying to not get charged with a crime so they came clean. How many others are out there that have not confessed yet?
Bill
Quote from: 4Tesla on February 02, 2010, 06:18:46 PM
A ::) Here in Washington state we just A a record for the warmest January on record and February to be the same. I thought this thread was dead.
4Tesla
I hear Washington, D.C.'s Reagan National Airport had 17.8 inches of snow recently... with Baltimore set to total an all-time storm total snowfall record of 26.5 inches... 32.4 inches at Dulles International airport - must be global warming...
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE BALTIMORE MD/WASHINGTON DC
1030 PM EST SAT FEB 06 2010
PRELIMINARY SUMMARY OF TWO-DAY STORM TOTAL SNOWFALLS EXCEEDED IN THE BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON AREA...
THE 32.4 INCH TWO-DAY STORM TOTAL SNOWFALL RECORDED TODAY AT DULLES INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT EXCEEDS THE PREVIOUS TWO-DAY STORM RECORD OF 23.2 INCHES ON 7-8 JANUARY 1996.
http://www.erh.noaa.gov/lwx/feb_5_6_snow_pns.php
Historic snowstorm in DC leaves a mess to be reckoned with:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/06/AR2010020600683.html?hpid=topnews
Q&A: Professor Phil Jones
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm
Phil Jones is director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA), which has been at the centre of the row over hacked e-mails.
The BBC's environment analyst Roger Harrabin put questions to Professor Jones, including several gathered from climate sceptics. The questions were put to Professor Jones with the co-operation of UEA's press office.
QUOTE FROM ARTICAL:
N - When scientists say "the debate on climate change is over", what exactly do they mean - and what don't they mean?
It would be supposition on my behalf to know whether all scientists who say the debate is over are saying that for the same reason. I don't believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this. This is not my view. There is still much that needs to be undertaken to reduce uncertainties, not just for the future, but for the instrumental (and especially the palaeoclimatic) past as well.
Ha!
There goes Paul's 97% of ALL scientists.
This fraud is being more exposed every day.
Bill
Somebody from an organization in North London UK knocked at my door about a week ago asking if I had time for an interview about Global Warming and Climate Change. I was busy at the time, and when I asked how long will it take for the survey he would not give a straight answer, it just seemed like he wanted to get his foot in the door and tell me to cut down the usage of my car.
I replied with "I don't pay bucket loads of cash for a car that you are basically trying to convince me to leave on the driveway as an ornament !".
He then tried saying that he wasn't trying to to that. (Could have bloody fooled me !)
I then told him that I believe in climate change but I don't believe that it is man-made. And when I told him that I was on a quest to give the gift of Free-Energy to the world, he sort of looked at me as if I had the plague, then he told me "I will pop back later when you're not too busy !"... I've not seen him since.
In my opinion, I say that those preachers are paid by Big Oil, to tell us not to use our cars, but still want us to buy the fuel and pay the road tax so that they still get fattened-up like Garfield !.
They are just a bunch of self-centered, donkey-scroated, gimp-mask wearing, wallet-raping, control-freaking, dirty lying bastards ! >:(
Peace-Out
Steve.