.... because oil cartels want underunity. So forget about overunity.
1/ Exxon Video on Global Warming:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fx02_jFudEU
Here we go. Follow the money, not the science.
2/ Exxon Keeps Funding Anti-Global Warming Lobbyists:
"It would appear that the big corporations have taken an active interest in fighting for lost causes. In the last such battle, the oil giant Exxon was proven to still be supporting conservatory lobby groups, which advocate that global warming is not real. Or if it is, it's not caused by us. And if it is, it's not that bad. You've all heard the same line of pathetic reasons and excuses over the course of the years, but, alas for them, the scientific community has proven once and for all that climate change is ours to deal with, The Guardian informs.
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Exxon-Keeps-Funding-Anti-Global-Warming-Lobbyists-115642.shtml
3/ Exxon linked to climate change pay out, CNN, Feb 2007
Think tank offers scientists $10,000 to criticize UN study confirming global warming and placing blame on humans:
http://money.cnn.com/2007/02/02/news/companies/exxon_science/index.htm
4/ Exxon spends millions to cast doubt on warming
The Independent:
http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article2054654.ece
5/ Royal Society tells Exxon: stop funding climate change denial
The Guardian, Wed. Sept 20/ 2006:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/sep/20/oilandpetrol.business
6/ Revealed: how oil giant influenced Bush
The Guardian Wed. June 8/2005:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,12374,1501646,00.html
7/ Dangerous Minds
The Guardian Wed. Nov 10/2004:
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/thinktanks/comment/0,,1347421,00.html
8/ Brussels think tanks persist in Brussels secrecy Exxonmobil covertly funds EU climate sceptics
Corporate Europe Observatory, Dec 2006:
http://www.corporateeurope.org/ThinkTankSurvey2006.html
9/ Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study, The Guardian, 2 February 2007
"Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world's largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report due to be published today:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/feb/02/frontpagenews.climatechange
Economists and the Wall Street have already labeled the alternative energy sector as the next bubble to burst:
http://www.foxbusiness.com/search-results/m/26393408/the-next-wall-street-bubble.htm
So, you need to educate children not to devote any time and resources into this forum. Otherwise, this "bubble" will collapse.
LETS REVIEW OUR "ACTION PLAN" PROPOSED IN 1998:
The material below contains a memo by the API from April 1998.
Memo
Joe Walker
To: Global Climate Science Team
Cc: Michelle Ross; Susan Moya
Subject: Draft Global Climate Science Communications plan
As promised, attached is the draft Global Climate Science Communications Plan that we developed during our workshop Last Friday. Thanks especially to those of you who participated in the workshop, and In particular to John Adams for his very helpful thoughts following up our meeting, and Alan Caudill for turning around the notes from our workshop so quickly.
Please review the pan and get back to me with your comments as soon as possible.
As those of you who were at the workshop know, we have scheduled a follow - up team meeting to review the plan in person on Friday, April 17, form 1 to 3 p.m. at the API headquarters. After that, we hope to have a "plan champion" help us move it forward to potential funding sources, perhaps starting with the global climate "Coordinating Council." That will be an item for discussion on April 17.
Again, thanks for your hard work on this project. Please e-mail me, call or fax me with your comments. Thanks.
Regards,
Joe Walker
Global Climate Science Communications
Action Plan
Situation Analysis
In December 1997, the Clinton Administration agreed in Kyoto, Japan, to a treaty to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to prevent what it purports to be changes in the global climate caused by the continuing release of such emissions. The so-called green house gases have many sources. For example, water vapor is a greenhouse gas. But the Clinton Administration's action, if eventually approved by the U.S. Senate, will mainly affect emissions from fossil fuel (gasoline, coal, natural gas, etc.) combustion.
As the climate change debate has evolved, those who oppose action have argued mainly that signing such a treaty will place the U.S. at a competitive disadvantage with most other nations, and will be extremely expensive to implement. Much of the cost will be borne by American consumers who will pay higher prices for most energy and transportation.
The climate change theory being advanced by the treaty supporters is based primarily on forecasting models with a very high degree of uncertainty. In fact, its not known for sure whether (a) climate change actually is occurring, or (b) if it is, whether humans really have any influence on it.
Despite these weaknesses in scientific understanding, those who oppose the treaty have done little to build a case against precipitous action on climate change based on the scientific uncertainty. As a result, The Clinton Administration and environmental groups essentially have had the field to themselves. They have conducted an effective public relations program to convince the American public that the climate is changing, we humans are at fault, and we must do something about it before calamity strikes.
The environmental groups know they have been successful. Commenting after the Kyoto negotiations about recent media coverage of climate change, Tom Wathen, executive vice president of the National Environmental Trust, wrote:
"...As important as the extent of the coverage was the tone and tenor of it. In a change from just six months ago, most media stories no longer presented global warming as just a theory over which reasonable scientists could differ. Most stories described predictions of global warming as the position of the overwhelming number of mainstream scientists. That the environmental community had, to a great extent, settled the scientific issue with the U.S. media is the other great success that began perhaps several months earlier but became apparent during Kyoto."
Because the science underpinning the global climate change theory has not been challenged effectively in the media or through other vehicles reaching the American public, there is widespread ignorance, which works in favor of the Kyoto treaty and against the best interests of the United States. Indeed, the public has been highly receptive to the Clinton Administrations plans. There has been little, if any, public resistance or pressure applied to Congress to reject the treaty, except by those "inside the Beltway" with vested interests.
Moreover, from the political viewpoint, it is difficult for the United States to oppose the treaty solely on economic grounds, valid as the economic issues are. It makes it too easy for others to portray the United States as putting preservation of its own lifestyle above the greater concerns of mankind. This argument, in turn, forces our negotiators to make concessions that have not been well thought through, and in the end may do far more harm than good. This is the process that unfolded at Kyoto, and is very likely to be repeated in Buenos Aires in November 1998.
The advocates of global warming have been successful on the basis of skillfully misrepresenting the science and the extent of agreement on the science, while industry and its partners ceded the science and fought on the economic issues. Yet if we can show that science does not support the Kyoto treaty - which most true climate scientists believe to be the case - this puts the United States in a stronger moral position and frees its negotiators from the need to make concessions as a defense against perceived selfish economic concerns.
Upon this tableau, the Global Climate Science Communications Team (GCSCT) developed an action plan to inform the American public that science does not support the precipitous actions Kyoto would dictate, thereby providing a climate for the right policy decisions to be made. The team considered results from a new public opinion survey in developing the plan.
Charlton Research's survey of 1,100 "informed Americans" suggests that while Americans currently perceive climate change to be a great threat, public opinion is open enough to change on climate science. When informed that "some scientists believe there is not enough evidence to suggest that [what is called global climate change] is a long-term change due to human behavior and activities," 58 percent of those surveyed said they were more likely to oppose the Kyoto treaty. Moreover, half the respondents harbored doubts about climate science.
GCSCT members who contributed to the development of the plan are A. John Adams, John Adams Associates; Candace Crandall, Science and Environmental Policy Project; David Rothbard, Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow; Jeffrey Salmon, The Marshall Institute; Lee Garrigan, environmental issues Council; Lynn Bouchey and Myron Ebell, Frontiers of Freedom; Peter Cleary, Americans for Tax Reform; Randy Randol, Exxon Corp.; Robert Gehri, The Southern Company; Sharon Kneiss, Chevron Corp; Steve Milloy, The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition; and Joseph Walker, American Petroleum Institute.
The action plan is detailed on the following pages.
Global Climate Science Communications
Action Plan
Project Goal
A majority of the American public, including industry leadership, recognizes that significant uncertainties exist in climate science, and therefore raises questions among those (e.g. Congress) who chart the future U.S. course on global climate change.
Progress will be measured toward the goal. A measurement of the public's perspective on climate science will be taken before the plan is launched, and the same measurement will be taken at one or more as-yet-to-be-determined intervals as the plan is implemented,
Victory Will Be Achieved When
* Average citizens "understand" (recognize) uncertainties in climate science; recognition of uncertainties becomes part of the "conventional wisdom"
* Media "understands" (recognizes) uncertainties in climate science
* Media coverage reflects balance on climate science and recognition of the validity of viewpoints that challenge the current "conventional wisdom"
* Industry senior leadership understands uncertainties in climate science, making them stronger ambassadors to those who shape climate policy
* Those promoting the Kyoto treaty on the basis of extent science appears to be out of touch with reality.
Current Reality
Unless "climate change" becomes a non-issue, meaning that the Kyoto proposal is defeated and there are no further initiatives to thwart the threat of climate change, there may be no moment when we can declare victory for our efforts. It will be necessary to establish measurements for the science effort to track progress toward achieving the goal and strategic success.
Strategies and Tactics
I. National Media Relations Program: Develop and implement a national media relations program to inform the media about uncertainties in climate science; to generate national, regional and local media coverage on the scientific uncertainties, and thereby educate and inform the public, stimulating them to raise questions with policy makers.
Tactics: These tactics will be undertaken between now and the next climate meeting in Buenos Aires/Argentina, in November 1998, and will be continued thereafter, as appropriate. Activities will be launched as soon as the plan is approved, funding obtained, and the necessary resources (e.g., public relations counsel) arranged and deployed. In all cases, tactical implementation will be fully integrated with other elements of this action plan, most especially Strategy II (National Climate Science Data Center).
Identify, recruit and train a team of five independent scientists to participate in media outreach. These will be individuals who do not have a long history of visibility and/or participation in the climate change debate. Rather, this team will consist of new faces who will add their voices to those recognized scientists who already are vocal.
* Develop a global climate science information kit for media including peer-reviewed papers that undercut the "conventional wisdom"on climate science. This kit also will include understandable communications, including simple fact sheets that present scientific uncertainties in language that the media and public can understand.
* Conduct briefings by media-trained scientists for science writers in the top 20 media markets, using the information kits. Distribute the information kits to daily newspapers nationwide with offer of scientists to brief reporters at each paper. Develop, disseminate radio news releases featuring scientists nationwide, and offer scientists to appear on radio talk shows across the country.
* Produce, distribute a steady stream of climate science information via facsimile and e-mail to science writers around the country.
* Produce, distribute via syndicate and directly to newspapers nationwide a steady stream of op-ed columns and letters to the editor authored by scientists.
* Convince one of the major news national TV journalists (e.g., John Stossel ) to produce a report examining the scientific underpinnings of the Kyoto treaty.
* Organize, promote and conduct through grassroots organizations a series of campus/community workshops/debates on climate science in 10 most important states during the period mid-August through October, 1998.
* Consider advertising the scientific uncertainties in select markets to support national, regional and local (e.g., workshops / debates), as appropriate.
National Media Program Budget -- $600,000 plus paid advertising
II. Global Climate Science Information Source: Develop and implement a program to inject credible science and scientific accountability into the global climate debate, thereby raising questions about and undercutting the "prevailing scientific wisdom." The strategy will have the added benefit of providing a platform for credible, constructive criticism of the opposition's position on the science.
Tactics: As with the National Media Relations Program, these activities will be undertaken between now and the next climate meeting in Buenos Aires, Argentina, in November 1998, and will continue thereafter. Initiatives will be launched as soon as the plan is approved, funding obtained, and the necessary resources arranged and deployed.
* Establish a Global Climate Science Data Center. The GCSDC will be established in Washington as a non-profit educational foundation with an advisory board of respected climate scientists. It will be staffed initially with professionals on loan from various companies and associations with a major interest in the climate issue. These executives will bring with them knowledge and experience in the following areas.
* Overall history of climate research and the IPCC process;
* Congressional relations and knowledge of where individual Senators stand on the climate issue;
* Knowledge of key climate scientists and where they stand;
* Ability to identify and recruit as many as 20 respected climate scientists to serve on the science advisory board;
* Knowledge and expertise in media relations and with established relationships with science and energy writers, columnists and editorial writers;
* Expertise in grassroots organization; and
* Campaign organization and administration.
The GCSDC will be led by dynamic senior executive with a major personal commitment to the goals of the campaign and easy access to business leaders at the CEO level. The Center will be run on a day-to-day basis by an executive director with responsibility for ensuring targets are met. The Center will be funded at a level that will permit it to succeed, including funding for research contracts that may be deemed appropriate to fill gaps in climate science (e.g., a complete scientific critique of the IPCC research and its conclusions).
* The GCSDC will become a one-stop resource on climate science for members of Congress, the media, industry and all others concerned. It will be in constant contact with the best climate scientists and ensure that their findings and views receive appropriate attention. It will provide them with the logistical and moral support they have been lacking. In short, it will be a sound scientific alternative to the IPCC. Its functions will include:
* Providing as an easily accessible database (including a website) of all mainstream climate science information.
* Identifying and establishing cooperative relationships with all major scientists whose research in this field supports our position.
* Establishing cooperative relationships with other mainstream scientific organizations (e.g., meteorologists, geophysicists) to bring their perspectives to bear on the debate, as appropriate.
* Developing opportunities to maximize the impact of scientific views consistent with ours with Congress, the media and other key audiences.
* Monitoring and serving as and early warning system for scientific developments with the potential to impact on the climate science debate, pro and con.
* Responding to claims from the scientific alarmists and media.
* Providing grants for advocacy on climate science, as deemed appropriate.
Global Climate Science Data Center Budget --- $5,000,000 (Spread over two years minimum)
III. National Direct Outreach and Education: Develop and implement a direct outreach program to inform and educate members of Congress, state officials, industry leadership, and school teachers/students about uncertainties in climate science. This strategy will enable Congress, state officials and industry leaders will be able to raise such serious questions about the Kyoto treaty's scientific underpinnings that American policy-makers not only will refuse to endorse it, they will seek to prevent progress toward implementation at the Buenos Aires meeting in November or through other ways. Informing teachers/students about uncertainties in climate science will begin to erect a barrier against further efforts to impose Kyoto-like measures in the future.
Tactics: Informing and educating members of Congress, state officials and industry leaders will be undertaken as soon as the plan is approved, funding is obtained, and the necessary resources are arrayed and will continue through Buenos Aires and for the foreseeable future. The teachers/students outreach program will be developed and launched in early 1999. In all cases, tactical implementation will be fully integrated with other elements of this action plan.
* Develop and conduct through the Global Climate Science Data Center science briefings for Congress, governors, state legislators, and industry leaders by August 1998.
* Develop information kits on climate science targeted specifically at the needs of government officials and industry leaders, to be used in conjunction with and separately from the in-person briefings to further disseminate information on climate science uncertainties and thereby arm these influentials to raise serious questions on the science issue.
* Organize under the GCSDC a "Science Education Task Group" that will serve as the point of outreach to the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) and other influential science education organizations. Work with NSTA to develop school materials that present a credible, balanced picture of climate science for use in classrooms nationwide.
* Distribute educational materials directly to schools and through grassroots organizations of climate science partners (companies, organizations that participate in this effort).
National Direct Outreach Program Budget ---- $300,000
IV. Funding/Fund Allocation: Develop and implement program to obtain funding, and to allocate funds to ensure that the program is carried out effectively.
Tactics: This strategy will be implemented as soon as we have the go-ahead to proceed.
* Potential funding sources were identified as American Petroleum Institute (API) and its members; Business Round Table (BRT) and its members, Edison Electric Institute (EEI) and its members; Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA) and its members; and the National Mining Association (NMA) and its members.
* Potential fund allocators were identified as the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), Competitive Enterprise Institute , Frontiers of Freedom and The Marshall Institute.
Total Funds Required to Implement Program through November 1998 ---- $2,000,000 ( A significant portion of funding for the GCSDC will be deferred until 1999 and beyond)
Measurements
Various metrics will be used to track progress. These measurements will have to be determined in fleshing out the action plan and may include:
* Baseline public / government official opinion surveys and periodic follow-up surveys on the percentage of Americans and government officials who recognize significant uncertainties in climate science.
* Tracking the percent of media articles that raise questions about climate science.
* Number of Members of Congress exposed to our materials on climate science.
* Number of communications on climate science received by Members of Congress from their constituents.
* Number of radio talk show appearances by scientists questioning the "prevailing wisdom" on climate science.
* Number of school teachers / students reached with our information on climate science.
* Number of science writers briefed and who report upon climate science uncertainties.
* Total audience exposed to newspaper, radio, television coverage of science uncertainties.
Source 1: http://www.euronet.nl/users/e_wesker/ew@shell/API-prop.html
Source 2: http://www.environmentaldefense.org/documents/3860_GlobalClimateSciencePlanMemo.pdf
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/environment/global-warming/Climate-change-far-worse-than-thought-before/articleshow/5406955.cms
Some people get confused , yes there is a real problem with pollution , but no money to be made from it ...
Politician denied making any changes for many years , until they found a profitable way to go about it, then climate change got invented .
The proper term is climate change , since lawyers check wording so they don't get liable ...
The truth is climate change is really nothing new it always was , now lets work on pollution .
To anyone interested watch the full hour http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2zaPCYgovg
To have a chance to see trough the dogma.
There is no denying it. The Canadien Tundra is melting. The permafrost is now permagreen. This will cause an increase in the oxygen supply to the atmosphere. Good thing it is getting kinda stuffy. A real bad thing is the glacial retreat. It is exposing black volcanic rock throughout upper asia. Black things get hot when they are in the Sun white things reflect. While the politicians are pointing fingers at whose fault it is the colonists continue to rip off the natural rescources of anybody who has what their tribe needs. Obama said he was going to invest in alternative fuels and immediately turns around and mires his efforts down in national health care reform. Good luck with that one. Just a political move because the marks who believe in giving their hard earned money to someone for a piece of paper vote. Aware people see the big picture and see the futility in it. You get sick pay the doctor. Why pay a middle man who is so deeply entrenched in the medical industry he now controls it. Fuck insurance companies they are a scam. You know why a doctor or a hospital has to charge you so much. Because the insurance company charges them outlandish malpractice fees. Add this to the fda and underwriters laboratories and you got yourself a real fuckedup game going on.
This all ties into the legal system which leads us right back to the politicians. A viscious circle of non productive members of society that are a total disgrace to mankind feeding paranoia into our physce as fast as it can to create a salesmans false sense of urgency for a product we definitely have no need for.
Quote from: Mk1 on January 03, 2010, 08:59:54 PM
Some people get confused , yes there is a real problem with pollution , but no money to be made from it ...
Politician denied making any changes for many years , until they found a profitable way to go about it, then climate change got invented .
The proper term is climate change , since lawyers check wording so they don't get liable ...
The truth is climate change is really nothing new it always was , now lets work on pollution .
To anyone interested watch the full hour http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2zaPCYgovg
To have a chance to see trough the dogma.
How many times are people going to use the same tired line.
Climate change IN A VERY RAPID TIME FRAME has NOT always been. Makes just a slight difference w/ the ability to adapt, millions of people living on coasts, etc. For god's sake, man..
all these years they say global warming....blah...blah
so i thinking.... yeah .. can't wait...
and then they say on the t.v. one nite it all was a scam
so here i sit and it's 12 degrees outside.. and me saying
f.u world for getting my hopes up!!!!!!!
If my understanding is correct, the worldwide erratic weather pattern is due to the depletion of the ozone layer. The ozone layer acts like a blanket which stabilizes the atmospheric temperature. But now, the ozone layer is getting thiner, During the sunny day, more harmful radiations from the sun will penetrate through the ozone layer, thus heating up some countries to unprecedented levels. In the absence of any sunshine, however, some of the heat on this planet will escape through the ozone layer, thus causing extreme coolness in some other regions.
However, the fact is: the total area of the icy cover on earth is shrinking. This means more non-reflective surface is exposed to the sun heat. More non-reflective surface on earth means more sun heat will be absorbed. If the data from the scientists are reliable. then it is reasonable to believe that the greenhouse effect is going to take over (or is taking over). This greenhouse effect contributes to the global warming.
What is little mentioned is the mercury pollution as a result of our over-dependency on oil. Each year, the US alone dumps approximately 40 tons of mercury onto the atmosphere. What China does is even worst. There is evidence that more people become mercury toxic because of the environmental pollution. In the US, for example, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recently reported that mercury is present in the bodies of most Americans:
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/173903.php
Remember, mercury poisoning is associated with cognitive decline. The human body has a natural ability to chelate mercury, but this natural mercury chelation ability will NOT work until we live a strict vegan lifestyle in a non-polluted environment. I believe, sooner or later, we will be forced to live a strict vegan lifestyle to preserve our bodies and intellect.
@blueplanet, I believe the ozone hole has more to do with letting in ultraviolet radiation. CO2 traps the heat
Quote from: happyfunball on January 04, 2010, 12:36:37 AM
Climate change IN A VERY RAPID TIME FRAME has NOT always been.
Tell that to the snap frozen wooly mammoths.
Cheers
Quote from: happyfunball on January 04, 2010, 04:53:25 AM
@blueplanet, I believe the ozone hole has more to do with letting in ultraviolet radiation. CO2 traps the heat
Yes, but that is already known. What is little mentioned is the fact that, in the evening time, the black-body radiation on earth can escape to outer space through the ozone hole (or the depleted ozone layer).
On moon, the temperature swing between night and day is in excess of a few hundred degrees, simply because it does not have an ozone layer to stablizes its temperature.
Quote from: hoptoad on January 04, 2010, 07:12:34 AM
Tell that to the snap frozen wooly mammoths.
Cheers
Right, genius. We know of one rapid cooling period (Little Ice Age) and not much else. Certainly none involving an Industrial Revolution.
'Cheers.'
I'm open to data showing CAUSE. But frankly, the EFFECT is there and really can't be seriously denied. And that is the point being DELIBERATELY swamped by all the back-and-forth B-S about "cause".
Regarding "past cooling periods". From water steps, breakwaters, stone jetty's, etc... We know the ocean levels from about 4,000 years or longer: there have been NO significant raising or lowering of sea levels in that period. We also know the positions of the Alps glaciers from these times; and the South American and North American glaciers for several hundred years. These are basic empirical proofs; not B-S from Viking Sagas of them partying in a sunny climate (which, imo, was essentially the first recorded instance of Real Estate Developers lying through their teeth to get more business lol). Even if these things were "true", it is about changes in the path of the Gulf Stream (which is of supreme importance to the climate of the U.K.), not a global climate change like we see now (..otherwise there would have been significant melts and higher sea levels, or the reverse for that matter should a "mini ice age" have been world-wide).
This whole thing is not about science, it has deliberately been made to be about politics... And is being pushed FROM BOTH SIDES to be a divisive, polarizing issue to insure NOTHING of significance ever gets done about it... So we go on using fossil fuels, with the trillions in easy profits and the monopoly control this brings them, for as long as they can get away with it.
Think about this:
Al Gore, a guy who was automatically disliked by 50% of the US pop from the get-go; was exactly the WRONG choice to be the prime spokesman for the "pro" side. It insured this issue would become about politics and not about science. Does anyone here really think that a guy gets to be Vice President of the United States, or a major Party's Candidate in the Presidential Election, without being hand-chosen by the elite?? If you do, i've got some nice beach front property in Greenland you may be interested in buying ;) His becoming "chief spokesman" for the "pro side was simply done by using the corporate-owned mainstream media to SAY he was the "leader".
Cap-In-Trade: Does anyone really think any big corporations will have to pay a dime in new taxes over this?? If it ever happens (unlikely), it will only be ANOTHER energy tax on the people and small business, another way to fleece us out of our money, so they can go on selling fossil fuels for as long as they can, continue to maintain the monopolies.
People say that Global Warming is a scam.. But they don't realize how right they are (..and that they are being manipulated too). Yes, It IS a scam, that allows polarization and division to keep us apart, so they don't have to worry about us coming after THEM; because we are too busy fighting each other. "Ron Paul Revolution" folks, Libertarians, "truthers" of all types, and the Progressive Left who distrust Obama (and that is MOST of them now) BOTH WANT the same things! We want a better world for our children and grandchildren, we want civil liberties and Constitutional law, and we want a nation we can be proud of again.
Our enemies had a meeting, and decided the best way to keep us all from forming a new Coalition for maintaining the Constitution, for restoration of the Rule of Law, for eliminating the incredible power of the corporate lobby's and taking back our government and media from their control... was to keep us divided over "climate change".
And so far it has worked perfectly.
Quote from: blueplanet on January 04, 2010, 08:25:50 AM
Yes, but that is already known. What is little mentioned is the fact that, in the evening time, the black-body radiation on earth can escape to outer space through the ozone hole (or the depleted ozone layer).
On moon, the temperature swing between night and day is in excess of a few hundred degrees, simply because it does not have an ozone layer to stablizes its temperature.
Interesting
Is it coincidence this winter brings the first normal winter in more than 20 years? A winter with steady low temps for over a month.
Anyone tried an orgonite CB? Or TBs and HHGs? Well I did and it will change local climate back to normal. All the gifters at warriormatrix, ethericwarriors etc, etc, they have made a real difference. Congrats to them while being laughed at from everywhere, the result is there, Europe, N.America and most of Asia is back on track and the rest will follow suit. First step to bring back the power to the people is good weather.
I think most of you that have replied to this have confused global warming with climate change.
Quote from: blueplanet on November 25, 2009, 09:52:33 PM
.... because oil cartels want underunity. So forget about overunity.
1/ Exxon Video on Global Warming:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fx02_jFudEU
Here we go. Follow the money, not the science.
2/ Exxon Keeps Funding Anti-Global Warming Lobbyists:
"It would appear that the big corporations have taken an active interest in fighting for lost causes. In the last such battle, the oil giant Exxon was proven to still be supporting conservatory lobby groups, which advocate that global warming is not real. Or if it is, it's not caused by us. And if it is, it's not that bad. You've all heard the same line of pathetic reasons and excuses over the course of the years, but, alas for them, the scientific community has proven once and for all that climate change is ours to deal with, The Guardian informs.
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Exxon-Keeps-Funding-Anti-Global-Warming-Lobbyists-115642.shtml
3/ Exxon linked to climate change pay out, CNN, Feb 2007
Think tank offers scientists $10,000 to criticize UN study confirming global warming and placing blame on humans:
http://money.cnn.com/2007/02/02/news/companies/exxon_science/index.htm
4/ Exxon spends millions to cast doubt on warming
The Independent:
http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article2054654.ece
5/ Royal Society tells Exxon: stop funding climate change denial
The Guardian, Wed. Sept 20/ 2006:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/sep/20/oilandpetrol.business
6/ Revealed: how oil giant influenced Bush
The Guardian Wed. June 8/2005:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,12374,1501646,00.html
7/ Dangerous Minds
The Guardian Wed. Nov 10/2004:
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/thinktanks/comment/0,,1347421,00.html
8/ Brussels think tanks persist in Brussels secrecy Exxonmobil covertly funds EU climate sceptics
Corporate Europe Observatory, Dec 2006:
http://www.corporateeurope.org/ThinkTankSurvey2006.html
9/ Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study, The Guardian, 2 February 2007
"Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world's largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report due to be published today:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/feb/02/frontpagenews.climatechange
Now, I agree with you that Oil Cartels want under-unity, not overunity. The numerous instances where they have allegedly bought off, threatened, or 'removed' individuals threatening their monopoly, are legion, for anyone who cares to do the research.
There is also evidence in the Climategate emails that these same cooporations are quite willing to dialogue with, and negotiate funding for, scientists supporting the pro-global warming hypothesis. So the idea that they will simultaneously support the opposite point of view is open to question, and I would like to see hard evidence that this is the case, not merely because someone in the media says so.
When Lord Monckton tried to gain access to the Copenhagen Summit he was disallowed. This is 'democracy' where he is beaten unconscious by Swedish police, and drowned out by repetitive chanting from speaking by environmentalists funded by George Soros and Rockefeller.
The idea that oil cartels are funding climate skeptics is a fraudulent ploy. It is a means to distract attention from the fact that they themselves are deeply implicated in supporting the fake global warming hypothesis, a 'problem' which has been engineered with a 'solution', waiting in the wings - global carbon taxes. An elite cabal of .international bankers will certainly benefit from this - not poor countries whos economies will be destroyed by these dictates, and not the common people who will be bankrupted trying to meet with these demands, based on questionable 'science', to say the very least
Quote from: Azorus on January 08, 2010, 08:46:18 AM
I think most of you that have replied to this have confused global warming with climate change.
The oil cartels are now financing global warming denial activities.
These activities will suppress public understanding of both global warming and climate change.
Sadly enough, evidence is louder than the loudmouth. The recent Australian flood has long been predicted by the climate scientists in UN. The evidence is clear enough to prove who is right.
You can keep telling us you are not in denial of the change. The evidence of environmental damage will go away overnight.
Next you will be telling us that the chemtrails and GMO are good for us!
Quote from: MasterPlaster on February 27, 2011, 09:20:22 AM
Next you will be telling us that the chemtrails and GMO are good for us!
No, the next thing I am telling you is you have no overunity device to show off.
My belief is based on evidence, not conspiracy. Until you have some evidence to prove that you are qualified to make scientific comments, I am not here to trust you.
Who is really quilty? Only You! You have actively used this system, not only voting for fraud politicians, but also driving car, burning gas, coal. And even now, even on this forum, even more i can hear i^m stupid. But comes time in history, when history meets legend. Goethe
Quote from: Doctor No on February 27, 2011, 11:09:57 AM
Who is really quilty? Only You! You have actively used this system, not only voting for fraud politicians, but also driving car, burning gas, coal. And even now, even on this forum, even more i can hear i^m stupid. But comes time in history, when history meets legend. Goethe
You are right.
We just had the biggest solar flare explosion a few days ago. So, what we we are having now is: greenhouse effects plus X-class solar flares. This time is not going to be easy for us.
Our sun had been through a similar explosion in November 2003. The US started the invasion of Iraq in May 2003, which was 6 months before the actual solar explosion. This invasion, together with the war in Alfghanistan, ended up with many innocent people killed. Since then, the planet earth even experienced many unprecedented "natural disasters", including the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami .
According to one of the Tesla's article (How Cosmic Forces Shape the Human Destiny), the wars in this planet earth instigate violent solar activities. If Tesla and Descartes were correct, then we humans should be blamed for these solar flares.
@Gauss:
What "orgone" device have you successfully used? Do you have a link to build information so that more of us can get involved?
thanks!
truesearch
QuoteWhat "orgone" device have you successfully used? Do you have a link to build information so that more of us can get involved?
True, check out any of the youtube vids by senseidennis on orgonite, and you'll see how he does it. Personally, I doubt they're having an effect on the climate. I think there's more and more evidence that it's entirely solar driven.
Here are a couple of interesting websites with informative articles on climate change in relation to solar activity and cycles:
http://www.evolutionaryleaps.com/
http://www.iceagenow.com/
B
You can of course use orgone guns to steer the clima, but they need to be in GW (1000^s of MW) range. And this is not for 1 state even possible. It needs chains of such devices to be widespread. Today it is not possible, but someday....:-( And to blueplanet: of course, there are we who have influence on all, not only have through our direct behaviour, but also invisible power of tachyons which we produce, and this for many lights speed on. Exactly saying, in each part of second, as small of the tachyon diameter (Planck figure), each of us produces amount of 1.650 MT TNT of energy (bei middle weight body of 75 kG). Want exact proof?;-) So, can You please imagine blueplanet, how we really with this invisible power of our behaviour, really influence not clima only, but also change positions of stars and planet, and drive this all The Universe altogether?;-] This was the greatest secret hidden through Victor Schauberger and German scientists 90 years ago... "But comes time in history, when history meets the legend. " Goethe
Quote from: blueplanet on March 01, 2011, 03:53:07 PM
You are right.
We just had the biggest solar flare explosion a few days ago. So, what we we are having now is: greenhouse effects plus X-class solar flares. This time is not going to be easy for us.
Our sun had been through a similar explosion in November 2003. The US started the invasion of Iraq in May 2003, which was 6 months before the actual solar explosion. This invasion, together with the war in Alfghanistan, ended up with many innocent people killed. Since then, the planet earth even experienced many unprecedented "natural disasters", including the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami .
According to one of the Tesla's article (How Cosmic Forces Shape the Human Destiny), the wars in this planet earth instigate violent solar activities. If Tesla and Descartes were correct, then we humans should be blamed for these solar flares.
Like what I said in my last post, we are apparently repeating the same mistakes that we made several years ago.
Just before the Indonesia tsunami, there was a similar solar explosion on the sun. This solar explosion happened shortly after the two wars broke out.
The latest tsunami in Japan was not very much different. A few days before the happening of the tsunami in Japan, we also had a similar solar explosion. This solar explosion happened at the height of the mid-east unrest.
To me, all these hyperactive solar events seem like warnings to mankind. The solar explosions we had may be the products of our violence conscience. If we stay as we were without any change (in conscience or whatever), I fear that the mankind would continue to be plagued by catastrophic disasters.
Quote from: blueplanet on March 01, 2011, 03:53:07 PM
According to one of the Tesla's article (How Cosmic Forces Shape the Human Destiny), the wars in this planet earth instigate violent solar activities. If Tesla and Descartes were correct, then we humans should be blamed for these solar flares.
interesting idea... and speaking of blaming humans, i'm quite sure i could start a successful religion based on this, but that's neither here nor there. what i am interested in is how would this be tested? if tesla and descartes were correct what mechanism is responsible for this 'instigation'? how does sol invictus know there are wars on earth? why does sol even care? etc. etc.
so, if blueplanet is correct, then all of our major wars have coincided with the peaks of past sunspot cycles???
seems to me this would be pretty simple to prove out, or disprove in this case.
just cross reference the 11 year sunspot cycles with the wars of the past and see if they line up. um, does anyone really think that they will? LOL
come to think of it, wasnt the revolutionary war fought during a time called the monder minimum where there wasnt a sunspot for 70 years?
blueplanet, you need to be receiving more than you are transmitting. LOL
LC
This is all true but, not the issue. With their geo engineering it's hard to tell if there is any weather change. Here is the part to watch out for.They are saying man caused a weather change. This is false, disinformation, ect. If you can no longer get it from rense.com I have an article from a NASA scientist whistleblower that states the new weather pattern is cause by a Sun cycle. Now guess who will be the recipients of such a carbon tax. If that article can no longer be viewed, I have saved a copy of it. Beware of the slight of hand the rich and their controlled government and what they don't say or do. Beyond the tax it will give them a foot hold world wide to take your freedoms. This is a combination power move and theft by deception. The great thing in it for them is they can still raise the fuel prices sky high. Projections were 10 trillion dollars of world tax and they need produce no product to get it.
Here is an example. The government statement is, " There are no more over 7m earthquakes than there were in the past." This is a true statement. However, this is also a true statement. The number of earthquakes over 8 is double what it used to be.
If you would like an example of censorship on the net for the oil cartels, go to rense.com right now and try the link- PA Asks Frackers to Stop Dumping in-
Also try searching this- Ozone destroyed by unusually cold weather + altitude- and they told you it was caused by man using fluorocarbons.
Much bigger things are happening:
http://www.projectworldawareness.com/2010/10/terrifying-scientific-discovery-strange-emissions-by-sun-are-suddenly-mutating-matter/
Weather change is not a debate it is a diversion , used by the elite to divide and concur the anti pollution movement ...
Lets act on what both side can agree on any form of pollution is bad and should be stopped .
Get both sides of your brain working please ...
I don't deny weather change. If man has anything to do with it look at the governments saying they will have control of the weather by 2025. Other wize there is no proof man has had anything to do with it, there is none offered either.
Climate always changing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1KiYGNtixg&feature=feedu
Its very cold outside. I am sleeping now. Please, forgive my snoring....
Gore.....
Goreeee......
Goreeeeeeeeee......
Goreeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee......
Oops, I forgot this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cH20o87adM
Quote from: happyfunball on January 04, 2010, 12:36:37 AM
snip..
Climate change IN A VERY RAPID TIME FRAME has NOT always been..
snip..
Tell that to the snap frozen wooly mammoths.