This thread was started only for peer reviewed references, such as found at wikipedia. Please not claims without such references.
Quote,
"Over 97% of actively publishing climate scientists agree that human activity such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation is a significant contributing factor to global climate change[1]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_consensus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_consensus)
The reference is at the wikipedia page. What makes WikiPedia so special is that they require legitimate references.
For further details see my blog -->
http://globalfreeenergy.info/2010/01/07/global-warming-truth/ (http://globalfreeenergy.info/2010/01/07/global-warming-truth/)
Weren't the poles melting on Mars?
Must sure have been fossil fuel burning and deforestation.
BTW, this thread was started only for peer reviewed references, such as found at wikipedia. Please no claims without such references.Quote from: Tink on January 07, 2010, 12:20:55 PM
Weren't the poles melting on Mars?
Must sure have been fossil fuel burning and deforestation.
Hi. Could please show a peer reviewed reference.
Quote from: PaulLowrance on January 07, 2010, 12:24:55 PM
BTW, this thread was started only for peer reviewed references, such as found at wikipedia. Please no claims without such references.
Hi. Could please show a peer reviewed reference.
I don't need a peer reviewed reference to look out of the window to see a great deal of snow and ice. Here in the UK possibly the coldest winter for 100 years is upon us. In County Durham there are photos of people posing beneath 20-25 foot icicles. Perhaps this is due to global warming, but perhaps the moon is made of cheese, and we just don't see it yet. Perhaps we need a peer review, then we can see it.
The editors leaving Wikipedia in droves, in the wake of the recent scandal concerning peer review, the biased information editing, and the exclusion of contributors who did not fit the informational paradigm, were subject to peer review. These learned gentlemen failed the test. I am happy to fail the test also because I have not provided peer-reviewed references. The fact I am a real human being with intelligence and undamaged perception that can see, not only the major freeze occurring globally right now, but also through the total fraud of 'global warming' and those pushing it who are poised through their companies to net massive profits - I can see through the corrupted peer review process itself and how it has been hijacked by special interests, just like our wonderful mainstream media, that has been constantly telling us that the planet is heating up, it's our fault, and we must be taxed into oblivion because of... an increasingly discredited, isolated, transparent scientific fraud, Anthropogenic Global Warming.
I don't need a peer review to wake up. I don't need a peer review to open my eyes - and I don't need a peer review to tell me how to think. I can do that for myself.
Quote from: silverfish on January 07, 2010, 01:12:47 PM
I don't need a peer reviewed reference to look out of the window to see a great deal of snow and ice. Here in the UK possibly the coldest winter for 100 years is upon us. In County Durham there are photos of people posing beneath 20-25 foot icicles. Perhaps this is due to global warming, but perhaps the moon is made of cheese, and we just don't see it yet. Perhaps we need a peer review, then we can see it.
The editors leaving Wikipedia in droves, in the wake of the recent scandal concerning peer review, the biased information editing, and the exclusion of contributors who did not fit the informational paradigm, were subject to peer review. These learned gentlemen failed the test. I am happy to fail the test also because I have not provided peer-reviewed references. The fact I am a real human being with intelligence and undamaged perception that can see, not only the major freeze occurring globally right now, but also through the total fraud of 'global warming' and those pushing it who are poised through their companies to net massive profits - I can see through the corrupted peer review process itself and how it has been hijacked by special interests, just like our wonderful mainstream media, that has been constantly telling us that the planet is heating up, it's our fault, and we must be taxed into oblivion because of... an increasingly discredited, isolated, transparent scientific fraud, Anthropogenic Global Warming.
I don't need a peer review to wake up. I don't need a peer review to open my eyes - and I don't need a peer review to tell me how to think. I can do that for myself.
You did not read it. It is considered very bad science to try and arrive at the global warming trend from a few years average. The reason is due to the global temperature fluctuations over time. An average of at least a decade is required.
If scientists used your method of taking a few years average they could point out dozens of times throughout the past century where there was global cooling, global warming, global cooling, global warming. Fortunately that is bad science and nearly 100% of climatologist do not practice bad science. That is why nearly 100.00% of active publishing climatologist believe global warming is real, and why over 97% of such climatologist believe humanity is a significant caused of global warming.
As for the rest of your post, sorry, I'm not interested in science based on claims & hand waving, and neither are nearly 100% of active publishing climatologist. Next time please read before making accusations, as I've address all of your concerns in my blog post.
Again, please do not reply unless you have peer reviewed data. No scientists is interested in claims without data.
Quote from: PaulLowrance on January 07, 2010, 01:31:36 PM
You did not read it. It is considered very bad science to try and arrive at the global warming trend from a few years average. The reason is due to the global temperature fluctuations over time. An average of at least a decade is required.
If scientists used your method of taking a few years average they could point out dozens of times throughout the past century where there was global cooling, global warming, global cooling, global warming. Fortunately that is bad science and nearly 100% of climatologist do not practice bad science. That is why nearly 100.00% of active publishing climatologist believe global warming is real, and why over 97% of such climatologist believe humanity is a significant caused of global warming.
As for the rest of your post, sorry, I'm not interested in science based on claims & hand waving, and neither are nearly 100% of active publishing climatologist. Next time please read before making accusations, as I've address all of your concerns in my blog post.
Again, please do not reply unless you have peer reviewed data. No scientists is interested in claims without data.
Your attempts to intimidate people into only posting 'peer reviewed data' is pathetic, in view of the fact that the 'peer review process' is eminently corruptable, just as the Climate Research Institute in East Anglia were quite happy to accept fat cheques, so long as they would push the agenda. And, hey, lots of money and influence from oil companies, too, the same ones that we are told are behind 'climate skeptics' like me, who you claim are in the minority. Your ridiculous claim that nearly 100 per cent of scientists are fully supporting this claptrap is a joke. It amazes me that you still persist with this fairytale, and you call yourself a 'scientist' ??
Wikipedia is another blatant example of 'information filtering' - just like the media, and what is supposed to be 'science'. Yes, I will reply, and I will not be intimidated by your pretentious posturing and demands for 'peer reviews'. Give me a break.
For a start:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/04/christopher-monckton-of-brenchley-replies-to-readers/#more-14803
http://www.iceagenow.com/Record_Lows_2009.htm
http://www.iceagenow.com/AP_accused_of_biased_reporting_on_Climategate.htm
http://www.iceagenow.com/No_Case_for_Global_Warming.htm
Disappointed to read that from Paul, I quite liked some other posts I found from him. Climate peers are the least to be trusted. Too much power and money at stake, and it's barely a science anyway. Guess why NWO played exactly this card? Scientists will never agree, even if a Glacier takes over Rio de Janeiro. You just never know who works for whom. Do they work for Big Oil (burn, burn, burn), or NWO (burn, but tax, tax, tax). Odd how my ideols are not the on the side of my worst enimies. I almost enlisted Greenpeace as a volunteer, less than 4 years ago.
Should Wikipedia not be allowed to be amended with info on "popular contrary opinions and research"? If you write is down as facts surely you'll be censored.
It is a much-read information source, we should try and get in the counterweight we can? Historically correct, of course. Give people some ideas to read up on.
I bet if you search on the holocaust, you can also read about those who chose to deny it ever happened. "We" may be the bad guys in today's debate, next century public knowledge will have caught up with us.
Quote from: silverfish on January 07, 2010, 02:53:56 PM
Your attempts to intimidate people into only posting 'peer reviewed data' is pathetic, in view of the fact that the 'peer review process' is eminently corruptable, just as the Climate Research Institute in East Anglia were quite happy to accept fat cheques, so long as they would push the agenda. And, hey, lots of money and influence from oil companies, too, the same ones that we are told are behind 'climate skeptics' like me, who you claim are in the minority. Your ridiculous claim that nearly 100 per cent of scientists are fully supporting this claptrap is a joke. It amazes me that you still persist with this fairytale, and you call yourself a 'scientist' ??
Wikipedia is another blatant example of 'information filtering' - just like the media, and what is supposed to be 'science'. Yes, I will reply, and I will not be intimidated by your pretentious posturing and demands for 'peer reviews'. Give me a break.
For a start:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/04/christopher-monckton-of-brenchley-replies-to-readers/#more-14803 (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/04/christopher-monckton-of-brenchley-replies-to-readers/#more-14803)
http://www.iceagenow.com/Record_Lows_2009.htm (http://www.iceagenow.com/Record_Lows_2009.htm)
http://www.iceagenow.com/AP_accused_of_biased_reporting_on_Climategate.htm (http://www.iceagenow.com/AP_accused_of_biased_reporting_on_Climategate.htm)
http://www.iceagenow.com/No_Case_for_Global_Warming.htm (http://www.iceagenow.com/No_Case_for_Global_Warming.htm)
Oh sure I'm intimidating you with peer reviewed data, LOL. Your resources are once again the minority, and they are not peer reviewed, and follow under the category of bad science.
Yes, over 97% of the *active publishing climatologist* now believe *humanity* is the cause of global warming. Wikipedia page shows the reference.
Global warming data has been taken by thousands of scientists around the world. You can't hide that. Anyone can take the data and clearly see global warming is real. In fact someone from this forum did that, and it showed the global warming rise at the dawn of the industrial age.
I've dealt with you before where you posted a truck load of links claiming the glaciers were growing. I looked at the first 3 of your links (all non peer reviewed sources) and showed you the peer reviewed data where climatologist clearly showed your internet googling non peer reviewed blog pages were a lie.
The motive here is for Big Oil to pay people to out right lie about global warming.
The facts still remain,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_consensus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_consensus)
"Over 97% of actively publishing climate scientists agree that human activity such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation is a significant contributing factor to global climate change[1]"
Credible research scientists such as Gavin Schmidt with NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies are saying the recent global warming email incident has nothing to do with disproving global warming, quote from Gavin Schmidt at NASA, “There’s nothing in the e-mails that shows that global warming is a hoaxâ€
Unscientific anti global warmest say the planet is cooling down over the past year. This is called bad science because it is impossible to obtain the global warming trend by taking a few years average due to global temperature fluctuations. Global temperatures have always fluctuated by significant amounts. Real scientists find the trend from decades of global temperatures, which clearly shows the global warming trend.
If anyone is intimidating people it's you & Bil Oil. Bil Oil was caught red handed paying millions of dollars to people and groups who are against global warming facts, and who knows how much they've paid under the table without being caught. You're not a scientists because credible scientists do not hide behind an anonymous name like you do posting out right lies.
Quote from: Cloxxki on January 07, 2010, 04:43:36 PM
Disappointed to read that from Paul, I quite liked some other posts I found from him. Climate peers are the least to be trusted. Too much power and money at stake, and it's barely a science anyway.
Sorry, but that's not true and you know it. I asked that this thread be one of posting valid references, not claims. So why don't you tell us exactly how many climatologist were saying something wrong in those emails. And then tell us how many thousands of climatologist there are in the world. Huh?
Just wonder how many anonymous people at this forum are connected with Big Oil. It's sad to see so many people who have zero interest in science, but more interest in gossip and bad science that fulfills their belief system. And you can tell by the fact that they do not post data. At best they post links to blog sites and such.
Again, please do not reply unless you have peer reviewed data. No scientists is interested in claims without data.
Until I see the world governments ban the use of fossil fuels instead of allowing fuel prices to rise and ramping-up the tax on it, then I think I speak for a lot of members on here when I "peer review" the connection between global warming and human energy consumption a complete load of cobblers !
Paul,
I am sure you have read all the peer reviewed scientific data of the seventies global cooling.
Peer reviewed sir, so it is true.
I don't understand you buy this global warming nonsense.
It is all about money and power, wake up please!
Quote from: Tink on January 07, 2010, 05:48:51 PM
Paul,
I am sure you have read all the peer reviewed scientific data of the seventies global cooling.
Peer reviewed sir, so it is true.
I don't understand you buy this global warming nonsense.
It is all about money and power, wake up please!
Your entire post was completely unscientific. A 5 year old can make your claims. Rather than trying bamboozle the poor people here by insulting scientists as you clearly did, show a valid reference.
I'm getting tired of you people lying on this forum. I've seen the global warming data. Over the decades I've seen video footage of glaciers all around the world and how they're melting. Global warming is real, and Big Oil was caught red handed paying off people and groups to lie about global warming. I've already provided references for this.
Why don't you wake up!
BTW, I'm still waiting for Big Oil at this forum to post exactly how many climatologist lied in their emails about global warming, and then tell us how many tens of thousands of climatologist there are. Huh, what, you can't do it? So you would rather insult such climatologist by telling everyone that climatologist are liars and try to tell everyone that because there are a few bad scientists that it suddenly makes all the climatologist bad. Get real, will you. You're living a lie. Sad.
Stefan, IMO your forum is flooded with Big Oil & hardcore conservatives who have a sick agenda.
Well Paul, I must be paid by Big Oil then and I am making a lot of money for a 5 year old for sure.
I do sometimes wonder who you work for though.
Quote from: Tink on January 07, 2010, 06:06:19 PM
I do sometimes wonder who you work for though.
I'll do a background exchange with you anytime. I have NOTHING to hide. Don't take it personal, but one day, soon, I'm hiring a PI to investigate the entire "free energy" community. I think it's very easy for anyone to be approached by Big Oil, and it's rather tempting to accept some nice payment under the table to post lies on a forum. After what I've seen in life, that possibility is actually more likely than not. Don't think for a nanosecond such activity is not traceable. PI's are amazing. I and a lot of people are tired of the corruption in the world!
Quote from: PaulLowrance on January 07, 2010, 06:07:56 PM
I'll do a background exchange with you anytime. Don't take it personal, but one day, soon, I'm hiring a PI to investigate the entire "free energy" community.
Lol, okay then.
But you didn't say anything about the scientific peer reviewed data from the seventies global cooling.
Weren't these people scientists then?
Or did these well learned scientists work for Big Oil at that time, but not anymore?
Quote from: Tink on January 07, 2010, 06:14:12 PM
Lol, okay then.
But you didn't say anything about the scientific peer reviewed data from the seventies global cooling.
Weren't these people scientists then?
Or did these well learned scientist work for Big Oil at that time, but not anymore?
Maybe you missed my post because I asked you to post a valid reference showing that scientists claimed there was global cooling in the seventies. You see, I happen to know the data they had back then, and such data went way back in to mid 1800's, and taking that data up to the 1970's *clearly* shows a global warming trend. So there's no way the science community said that. Sure, anyone can find a few bad scientists saying just about anything, but that's not the science community. Maybe you saw this on a TV show in 70's from some silly guy making silly claims, but IMO it was definitely not the science community saying that.
Are you going to post the references? This is an important topic that should be backed by data, not claims.''
Quote from: PaulLowrance on January 07, 2010, 06:07:56 PM
I'll do a background exchange with you anytime. I have NOTHING to hide. Don't take it personal, but one day, soon, I'm hiring a PI to investigate the entire "free energy" community. I think it's very easy for anyone to be approached by Big Oil, and it's rather tempting to accept some nice payment under the table to post lies on a forum. After what I've seen in life, that possibility is actually more likely than not. Don't think for a nanosecond such activity is not traceable. PI's are amazing. I and a lot of people are tired of the corruption in the world!
Paul:
Good luck with that. I have been a licensed PI now for over 10 years and if anyone ever called me up and wanted me to "investigate" the free energy community, I would tell him to see a psychiatrist. I am sure you will get the same response from any reputable PI. Sure, you can probably find one or two to take your money and do nothing but any REAL PI would think you were nuts.
These idle threats to the good folks here on this forum specifically, and to the free energy movement in general, are really in bad taste. I am sorry but I just had to speak up when I read this. This is beyond ridiculous Paul. I always thought you were a more intelligent person than that.
Bill Tactical Investigations
It's a know fact that Tobacco is bad for your health and the environment, I know that through experience when I was coughing-up a lot of blood, so I gave it up.
With those facts in the open, they are still allowing the manufacture of Tobacco products and are using the "bad for health" part as an excuse to charge big taxes, just like they are doing with fossil fuel !
Quote from: Pirate88179 on January 07, 2010, 11:09:00 PM
Paul:
Good luck with that. I have been a licensed PI now for over 10 years and if anyone ever called me up and wanted me to "investigate" the free energy community, I would tell him to see a psychiatrist.
More big claims Pirate88179? You don't represent other PI's. Why do you think that? Maybe deep down you think all cop>1 research is a joke. You have to be kidding. Big Oil was caught red handed paying out millions of dollars to people and groups who are against global warming. It doesn't take much intelligence to think that Big Oil would pay $ under the table as well to prevent technology that would wipe out Big Oil.
If you truly believe what you wrote, then you need to get out in to big boy world because it's corrupt as hell, but to be honest not for one second do I believe you're being truthful here. Are you trying to protect Big Oil or anyone that might have accepted some $ to post lies on forums?
BTW, Pirate88179 wrote to me, quote "I am doing it to save money, not the planet." I never once told Pirate88179 anything about the planet. What I did say is that humanity can and is destroying the natural environment. That is happening in numerous ways, from global deforestation to pollution.
Quote from: Pirate88179 on January 07, 2010, 11:09:00 PMThese idle threats to the good folks here on this forum specifically, and to the free energy movement in general, are really in bad taste.
It's only a threat to a person if they are guilty.
Quote from: PaulLowrance on January 07, 2010, 04:56:37 PM
Oh sure I'm intimidating you with peer reviewed data, LOL. Your resources are once again the minority, and they are not peer reviewed, and follow under the category of bad science.
Yes, over 97% of the *active publishing climatologist* now believe *humanity* is the cause of global warming. Wikipedia page shows the reference.
Global warming data has been taken by thousands of scientists around the world. You can't hide that. Anyone can take the data and clearly see global warming is real. In fact someone from this forum did that, and it showed the global warming rise at the dawn of the industrial age.
I've dealt with you before where you posted a truck load of links claiming the glaciers were growing. I looked at the first 3 of your links (all non peer reviewed sources) and showed you the peer reviewed data where climatologist clearly showed your internet googling non peer reviewed blog pages were a lie.
The motive here is for Big Oil to pay people to out right lie about global warming.
The facts still remain,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_consensus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_consensus)
"Over 97% of actively publishing climate scientists agree that human activity such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation is a significant contributing factor to global climate change[1]"
Credible research scientists such as Gavin Schmidt with NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies are saying the recent global warming email incident has nothing to do with disproving global warming, quote from Gavin Schmidt at NASA, “There’s nothing in the e-mails that shows that global warming is a hoaxâ€
Unscientific anti global warmest say the planet is cooling down over the past year. This is called bad science because it is impossible to obtain the global warming trend by taking a few years average due to global temperature fluctuations. Global temperatures have always fluctuated by significant amounts. Real scientists find the trend from decades of global temperatures, which clearly shows the global warming trend.
If anyone is intimidating people it's you & Bil Oil. Bil Oil was caught red handed paying millions of dollars to people and groups who are against global warming facts, and who knows how much they've paid under the table without being caught. You're not a scientists because credible scientists do not hide behind an anonymous name like you do posting out right lies.
First of all I am not 'intimidated' by your data, although I certainly have questions about it. Statements coming from NASA do not automatically 'prove' that global warming is a hoax. I do not count these statements as authoritative, just because someone in a government agency says so.
Whatever links I post, naturally you will say, 'non-peer reviewed', 'bad science', 'discredited', because the information, like Lord Monckton's information, goes against your position. Therefore it must be 'bad', just as the 30,000 objectors who disagree with global warming must be either 'non-scientists', or plain wrong, because Wikipedia says so, they must be right. That does not follow, either.
In the Climategate emails they discuss sponsorship from major coorporations including oil companies, as a valid topic. How you then turn this around and claim climate warming skeptics have big oil sponsoring them, leaves me scratching my head. I'd like to see evidence of that, not just a line in Wikipedia. Recently I mentioned that Wikipedia has been questioned for the narrow way it manages the 'peer review' process. Editors with a non-mainstream viewpoint are 'leaving'. That's a polite way of saying they are being 'screened out' because their views do not tally with the dominant editors. If I post a link to this article, I can expect you to say that it's unscientific, non-peer reviewed, and therefore has no merit whatsoever.
One of the topics Lord Monckton was unhappy about was the use of the discredited 'Hockey Stick' graph by Dr Rajendra Pachauri, who continued to use it after a letter from Monckton requesting him not to do so. It is this promotion of questionable data which discredits scientific investigation - which should be impartial, non-partisan, and open to question - that is what science SHOULD be about. The fact that Mr. Pachauri stands to benefit from this situation financially, through a whole string of companies, should not be dismissed, in the same way that Gore will similarly benefit.
I am sure you will agree that the recent unprecendented cold conditions, setting new records globally, are worth discussing. The satellite picture of a totally white UK being one example, with areas going as low as -21 centigrade here, comparable to the South Pole, are extreme, to say the least, and there is good reason for thinking this may lead to winters straight out of Dickens, on a regular basis. Whether this is due to 'Global Warming' or a global cooling trend, this is the 64,000 dollar question. Again, I'd like to see clear evidence that global cooling=global warming, not just because someone in the media says so.
As you say, global temperatures have always fluctuated - because global cycles are operating. Recently, evidence has emerged that the carbon dioxide level of the planet has not increased for the past 150 years. If I post the link, I expect you will say this is 'non-peer reviewed' and therefore invalid.
I am simply questioning your position that there is a near '100 per cent' consensus on global warming. I am questioning your position that this infallible, because the science supports it. I am also questioning your insistence on only posting so-called 'peer reviewed' articles - when it is clear that the peer review process itself is easily corruptable by special interests who have the money, and the influence, to manipulate this process towards an agenda that suits them.
Quote from: silverfish on January 08, 2010, 02:30:29 PMjust as the 30,000 objectors who disagree with global warming must be either 'non-scientists', or plain wrong, because Wikipedia says so, they must be right. That does not follow, either.
There is no 30,000+ climatologist in that petition. Read the wikipedia article (which includes references) on how that petition is worthless, bad data, lies, duplicate names, etc -->
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming_Petition_Project (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming_Petition_Project)
Quote from: silverfish on January 08, 2010, 02:30:29 PMIn the Climategate emails they discuss sponsorship from major coorporations including oil companies, as a valid topic. How you then turn this around and claim climate warming skeptics have big oil sponsoring them, leaves me scratching my head.
That's not true. Show the evidence and please stop making claims. That's why wikipedia is so great because they will not tolerate people like who make claims without evidence.
Quote from: silverfish on January 08, 2010, 02:30:29 PMRecently I mentioned that Wikipedia has been questioned for the narrow way it manages the 'peer review' process. Editors with a non-mainstream viewpoint are 'leaving'. That's a polite way of saying they are being 'screened out' because their views do not tally with the dominant editors.
Not true. Wikipedia requires peer reviewed data. One example is that a month or so ago I've went over the links you posted at this forum about glaciers expanding, where I showed the data take from wikipedia completely contradicts your claims, claims that you grabbed from blog sites and such. Wikipedia will not tolerate bad science based on ambiguous claims.
So the problem is on your end, not wikipedia.
Why don't you post the proof of these so-called scientists that are leaving wikipedia, and don't forget to post their names. Lets see how your claims do not hold up, again.
Quote from: silverfish on January 08, 2010, 02:30:29 PMOne of the topics Lord Monckton was unhappy about
He's a biased British politician, not an objective active publishing climatologist. Enough said about that.
Quote from: silverfish on January 08, 2010, 02:30:29 PMI am sure you will agree that the recent unprecendented cold conditions, setting new records globally, are worth discussing. The satellite picture of a totally white UK being one example, with areas going as low as -21 centigrade here, comparable to the South Pole, are extreme, to say the least, and there is good reason for thinking this may lead to winters straight out of Dickens, on a regular basis. Whether this is due to 'Global Warming' or a global cooling trend, this is the 64,000 dollar question. Again, I'd like to see clear evidence that global cooling=global warming, not just because someone in the media says so.
Unscientific anti global warmest say the over the past year the planet is now cooling. That falls under the bad science category because it is impossible to obtain a global warming trend from averaging global temperatures from a few years, and the reason is due to global temperature fluctuations. Global temperatures have always fluctuated by significant amounts. Real scientists find the trend from decades of global temperatures, which clearly shows the global warming trend.
So lets please stick to science. Enough with the claims taken from blog sites and from politicians. If you believe that over 97% of active publishing climatologist in the world are lying about the data, then prove it.
Quote from: silverfish on January 08, 2010, 02:30:29 PMRecently, evidence has emerged that the carbon dioxide level of the planet has not increased for the past 150 years.
That's wrong. See the attached graph, which I've already shown the source. Show your graph and the source.
Quote from: PaulLowrance on January 08, 2010, 03:00:37 PM
There is no 30,000+ climatologist in that petition. Read the wikipedia article (which includes A) on how that petition is worthless, bad data, lies, duplicate names, etc -->
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming_Petition_Project (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming_Petition_Project)
That's not true. Show the evidence and please stop making claims. That's why wikipedia is so great because they will not tolerate people like who make claims without evidence.
Not true. Wikipedia requires peer reviewed data. One example is that a month or so ago I've went over the links you posted at this forum about glaciers expanding, where I showed the data take from wikipedia completely contradicts your claims, claims that you grabbed from A and such. Wikipedia will not tolerate bad science based on ambiguous claims.
So the problem is on your end, not wikipedia.
Why don't you post the proof of these so-called scientists that are leaving wikipedia, and don't forget to post their names. Lets see how your claims do not hold up, again.
He's a biased British politician, not an objective active publishing climatologist. Enough said about that.
Unscientific anti global warmest say the over the past year the planet is now cooling. That falls under the bad science category because it is impossible to obtain a global warming trend from averaging global temperatures from a few years, and the reason is due to global temperature fluctuations. Global temperatures have always fluctuated by significant amounts. Real scientists find the trend from decades of global temperatures, which clearly shows the global warming trend.
So lets please stick to science. Enough with the claims taken from blog sites and from politicians. If you believe that over 97% of active publishing climatologist in the world are lying about the data, then prove it.
That's wrong. See the attached graph, which I've already shown the source. Show your graph and the source.
OK, first you say 99 per cent, now it's 97 per cent of climatologists agree with the data. Which is it? when you say I should read Wikipedia for the peer-reviewed facts, I have a problem with that. You say that Lord Monckton is a 'biased British politician'? where is your evidence for that? Beacause he disgrees with your point of view, that makes him 'biased'?
Like I said, I can post the link for the Wikipedia scandal. You will immediately criticise me for posting 'non-peer reviewed links'. So where do we go from here? this is your version of 'science' where only approved links are tolerated? very democratic!
You are asking me to 'prove' that 97% of scientists are lying about the data. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying there is a substantial body of people that fundamentally disagree with your views. The Telegraph is a mainstream newspaper, and James Delingpole takes a view in diametric opposition to yours.
I would like YOU to prove global warming and that carbon dioxide is a toxic emission which we will have to be taxed on account of - and NOT by posting graphs which we know PERFECTLY WELL can be manipulated to 'show' a predetermined result - that's the whole point of Climategate, which shows how data is easily corruptable by a pre-determined set of objectives and special interests.
As for the prospect that 90%+ of glaciers are growing, anyone can go to www.iceagenow.com and judge for themselves whether the data is valid, and not invalid just because you say so. You have evidence for that, do you? I'd like to see your evidence, not just bland pronouncements from Wikipedia or graphs that are EASILY modified - based on code that is equally subject to manipulation.
The University of IL is the leading experts in the world on ice and glaciers and their study shows that there is more ice on our planet now and more square miles of glaciers than at any other time in recorded history. This study has been peer reviewed but I am sure since WIKI does not say so, it will not be believed. I guess that entire University must work for big oil as well as the over 31,000 climate experts (Most of them holding PHD's in this field) that have signed the petition AGAINST man-made global warming. There are way more PHD holding climatologists against global warming than agree with it so, how anyone can dare to call that a consensus is rediculous.
My state just had the coolest summer in recorded history last summer and this winter is well on its way to breaking all records also. I just got done shoveling 6" of global warming off of my sidewalk and driveway.
If someone wants to believe in the fairy tale of global warming, that's fine. Just don't expect me to buy it OR pay for it with my hard earned tax dollars...because I will not.
Bill
http://www.wnd.com/images/header_exclusive.gif
HEAT OF THE MOMENT
31,000 scientists reject 'global warming' agenda
'Mr. Gore's movie has claims no informed expert endorses'
Posted: May 19, 2008
8:51 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
http://www.wnd.com/images/warming.jpg
More than 31,000 scientists across the U.S. â€" including more than 9,000 Ph.D.s in fields such as atmospheric science, climatology, Earth science, environment and dozens of other specialties â€" have signed a petition rejecting "global warming," the assumption that the human production of greenhouse gases is damaging Earth's climate.
"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate," the petition states. "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."
The Petition Project (http://www.petitionproject.org/) actually was launched nearly 10 years ago, when the first few thousand signatures were assembled. Then, between 1999 and 2007, the list of signatures grew gradually without any special effort or campaign.
But now, a new effort has been conducted because of an "escalation of the claims of 'consensus,' release of the movie 'An Inconvenient Truth' by Mr. Al Gore, and related events," according to officials with the project.
Gee, I don't think these folks agree either.
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=508767
Three Decades Of Global Cooling Posted 10/12/2009 06:21 PM ET Climate Change: As a Colorado Rockies playoff game is snowed out, scientists report that Arctic sea ice is thickening and Antarctic snow melt is the lowest in three decades. Whatever happened to global warming?
Al Gore wasn't there to throw out the first snowball, er, baseball, so he might not have noticed that Saturday's playoff game between the Colorado Rockies and the Philadelphia Phillies was snowed out â€" in early October. The field should have been snow-free just as the North Pole was to be ice-free this year.
It seems that ice at both poles hasn't been paying attention to the computer models. The National Snow and Ice Data Center released its summary of summer sea-ice conditions in the Arctic last week and reported a substantial expansion of "second-year ice" â€" ice thick enough to have persisted through two summers of seasonal melting.
According to the NSIDC, second-year ice this summer made up 32% of the total ice cover on the Arctic Ocean, compared with 21% in 2007 and 9% in 2008. Clearly, Arctic sea ice is not following the consensus touted by Gore and the warm-mongers.
This news coincides with a finding published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters last month by Marco Tedesco, a research scientist at the Joint Center for Earth Systems Technology. He reported that ice melt on Antarctica was the lowest in three decades during the ice-melt season.
Each year, millions of square miles of sea ice melt and refreeze. The amount varies from season to season. Despite pictures taken in summer of floating polar bears, data reported by the University of Illinois' Arctic Climate Research Center at the beginning of this year showed global sea ice levels the same as they were in 1979, when satellite observations began.
At the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change, hosted by the Heartland Institute, the keynote speaker, Dr. Patrick Michaels of the Cato Institute and the University of Virginia, debunked claims of "unprecedented" melting of Arctic ice. He showed how Arctic temperatures were warmer during the 1930s and that most of Antarctica is indeed cooling.
At the other end of the earth, we are told the Larsen B ice shelf on the western side of Antarctica is collapsing. That part is warming and has been for decades. But it comprises just 2% of the continent. The rest of the continent is cooling.
A report prepared by the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research for last April's meeting of the Antarctic Treaty nations in Washington notes that the South Pole has in fact shown "significant cooling in recent decades."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm
What happened to global warming? By Paul Hudson
Climate correspondent, BBC News
Average temperatures have not increased for over a decade
This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.
But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.
And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise.
So what on Earth is going on?
Climate change sceptics, who passionately and consistently argue that man's influence on our climate is overstated, say they saw it coming.
They argue that there are natural cycles, over which we have no control, that dictate how warm the planet is. But what is the evidence for this?
During the last few decades of the 20th Century, our planet did warm quickly.
Recent research has ruled out solar influences on temperature increases
Sceptics argue that the warming we observed was down to the energy from the Sun increasing. After all 98% of the Earth's warmth comes from the Sun.
But research conducted two years ago, and published by the Royal Society, seemed to rule out solar influences.
The scientists' main approach was simple: to look at solar output and cosmic ray intensity over the last 30-40 years, and compare those trends with the graph for global average surface temperature.
And the results were clear. "Warming in the last 20 to 40 years can't have been caused by solar activity," said Dr Piers Forster from Leeds University, a leading contributor to this year's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
But one solar scientist Piers Corbyn from Weatheraction, a company specialising in long range weather forecasting, disagrees.
He claims that solar charged particles impact us far more than is currently accepted, so much so he says that they are almost entirely responsible for what happens to global temperatures.
He is so excited by what he has discovered that he plans to tell the international scientific community at a conference in London at the end of the month.
If proved correct, this could revolutionise the whole subject.
Ocean cycles
What is really interesting at the moment is what is happening to our oceans. They are the Earth's great heat stores.
In the last few years [the Pacific Ocean] has been losing its warmth and has recently started to cool down
According to research conducted by Professor Don Easterbrook from Western Washington University last November, the oceans and global temperatures are correlated.
The oceans, he says, have a cycle in which they warm and cool cyclically. The most important one is the Pacific decadal oscillation (PDO).
For much of the 1980s and 1990s, it was in a positive cycle, that means warmer than average. And observations have revealed that global temperatures were warm too.
But in the last few years it has been losing its warmth and has recently started to cool down.
These cycles in the past have lasted for nearly 30 years.
So could global temperatures follow? The global cooling from 1945 to 1977 coincided with one of these cold Pacific cycles.
Professor Easterbrook says: "The PDO cool mode has replaced the warm mode in the Pacific Ocean, virtually assuring us of about 30 years of global cooling."
So what does it all mean? Climate change sceptics argue that this is evidence that they have been right all along.
They say there are so many other natural causes for warming and cooling, that even if man is warming the planet, it is a small part compared with nature.
But those scientists who are equally passionate about man's influence on global warming argue that their science is solid.
The UK Met Office's Hadley Centre, responsible for future climate predictions, says it incorporates solar variation and ocean cycles into its climate models, and that they are nothing new.
In fact, the centre says they are just two of the whole host of known factors that influence global temperatures - all of which are accounted for by its models.
In addition, say Met Office scientists, temperatures have never increased in a straight line, and there will always be periods of slower warming, or even temporary cooling.
What is crucial, they say, is the long-term trend in global temperatures. And that, according to the Met office data, is clearly up.
To confuse the issue even further, last month Mojib Latif, a member of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) says that we may indeed be in a period of cooling worldwide temperatures that could last another 10-20 years.
Record colds are being recorded. If stable climate is to be considered a fact, not even warming, we should have good extra-warm weather else where. Half the world has winter, half has summer. Are people being boiled on the Equator?
In Turkey, hundreds of mountain villages are cut off, not just from outside world, but also electricity. The country where you're supposed to get a nice warm winter stay at the beach :-)
i trust paul lowrences brain,
several times more,
than i trust most of your brains.
he bothers to think before he communicates.
and dares to type idea's,
that other people might not want to hear *gasp !*.
as opposed to someone who only communicated,
of what they have been told to think,
by an authority figure.
and throws a toddler-tantrum,
when they read an opinion,
that conflicts with their religion-science.
the references for the above statements,
may be found in fine print,
on the back of my hand.
i fully trust,
in the power of the back of my hand,
to silence the mouth of critics.
only critics is too dignified a word.
more like people who need to listen more,
think more,
and talk less.
by the way, silverfish.
has your attitude regarding innovative thinking,
left the 1700's yet ?
i'm sure that issac newton,
cannot wait to evict your brain,
from his century.
so he can continue to entertain new idea's,
without your non-entertaining attitudes,
disrupting the process,
of someone else's effort.
nitinium:
So, this means we should ignore the facts and reality then? OK, I see where you are coming from.
Bill
by the way.
the worlds climatosphere,
(i can type pretentious arbitrary words too !),
is profoundly convoluted and misleading.
it is influenced by hundreds of factors.
all of them constantly shifting,
in an extremely ambiguous way.
and any one of these factors,
could have countless unknown effects,
on any of the other factors.
which in turn kick each other in the teeth,
in countless more unpredictable ways.
the only certainty regarding the weather,
is that the more unstable the weather is,
the more mankind is disrupting the weather.
and the weather has been profoundly unstable,
over the last decade or 2.
there for,
mankinds disruption of the weather,
has vastly increased,
over the last decade or 2.
*gasp !*
unless you prefer to believe,
that the weather is becoming more unstable,
simply become it wants to become vastly more unstable.
in which case,
you have no reason to argue.
because how are you going to turn the above,
into a constructive,
enlightening argument ?
not that the recent record low temperatures in britain,
is not a sign,
that britain's location,
relative to the earths orbit,
is not suddenly becoming closer to the north pole.
AKA HAARP changing earths orbit.
to make norway the new north pole.
i'll admit,
that my suspicion of HAARP being used,
to altering the earths orbit,
depends entirely on how HAARP is to be used.
i'll also admit that the idea of britain,
turning into a russian-style popcicle-warehouse,
makes me smile.
Quote from: Pirate88179 on January 08, 2010, 08:10:41 PM
nitinium:
So, this means we should ignore the facts and reality then? OK, I see where you are coming from.
Bill
no.
it means that we should ignore you, pirate.
i will give you the honor,
of being the very first person,
to ignore your self.
by the way, pirate.
i still demand your immediate suicide.
so what is delaying you ?
Quote from: nitinnun on January 08, 2010, 08:31:06 PM
no.
it means that we should ignore you, pirate.
i will give you the honor,
of being the very first person,
to ignore your self.
by the way, pirate.
i still demand your immediate suicide.
so what is delaying you ?
Wow, this really shows where you are coming from. I don't do suicides...sorry.
What a sorry post you just made.
Bill
No pirate, I believe nitinnun is a perfect representation of what these global warming worshipers believe. This kind of attitude is why I fight them every chance I can will myself to do it.
If jokers like this guy and his ilk get in control it won't be live and let live. It will be live and all those that disagree with them should DIE!!
Feel free, nitinnun, to label me with the honor of being the second to ignore and call for my suicide. I will be sure to disappoint you as well.
The Sun is directly connected to the Earth via interplanetary plasma. Upon this interplanetary plasma are induced scalar waves generated by solar magnetohydrodynamic currents. Large events on the solar surface or plasmasphere (we got one too) are transmitted by the interplanetary plasma and this wave energy is totally neglected by our scientists. We are just a pimple in the Solar atmosphere so if you are worrying about global warming being a manmade phenomenon your are saddly mistaken. Earth and the Sun dont even know we are here.
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog
Yeah, well I guess the Weather Channel believes that global warming is a hoax as well.
They must be under the influence of BIG OIL (LOL)!
*drags in dead horse and riding crop*
*leaves thread thoroughly entertained*
Farmers almanac predicted this 50year event. Very little solar activity. It aint big oil anymore it is energy cartels. If you believe that these companies are some kind of conspricy between governments of the world to enslave people that is your choice. Its more like these are totally stupid people who find some kind of pleasure in looking at pieces of paper with markings on them that says they are rich. Next step is go out and flaunt it. Make everyone jealous. Alienate everyone so you stand out in a crowd of other assholes doing the same shit. Then after that do the facelift the clone whatever makes them feel they can get an edge on nature. Spend a lifetime keeping a certain image afloat. Bad kharma man just bad kharma.
Cap:
Are you sure it is a dead horse? Was the horse's condition reviewed by a group of QUALIFIED veterinary professionals? Do we know for sure that these vets were not working for big oil?
You made a bold statement claiming this horse was dead, yet you did not post sources for this conclusion. I looked it up on WIKI and it clearly says your horse is not dead. It also went on to say that a dead horse could not be dragged as you CLAIM to have done. I have a problem with all of these discrepancies. Even though I do not understand it, I am confident that big oil is behind this, whatever it is.
Bill
Quote from: silverfish on January 08, 2010, 04:07:37 PM
OK, first you say 99 per cent, now it's 97 per cent of climatologists agree with the data. Which is it?
I never wrote 99%.
Quote from: silverfish on January 08, 2010, 04:07:37 PMwhen you say I should read Wikipedia for the peer-reviewed facts, I have a problem with that. You say that Lord Monckton is a 'biased British politician'? where is your evidence for that? Beacause he disgrees with your point of view, that makes him 'biased'?
Because he does not deal with facts. He pushes ambiguous claims, which is not an scientific method. Math is a great tool because it gets people to agree on something, rather than arguing forever.
Quote from: silverfish on January 08, 2010, 04:07:37 PMYou are asking me to 'prove' that 97% of scientists are lying about the data. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying there is a substantial body of people that fundamentally disagree with your views.
I'm only interested in what scientists say, and over 97% say humanity is the significant cause to global warming. See the exact quote.
I'm done with you until you can show peer reviewed data. I have no further interest in your claims. I've posted the wikipedia links, which contain the references.
Quote from: ResinRat2 on January 08, 2010, 09:57:14 PM
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog (http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog)
Yeah, well I guess the Weather Channel believes that global warming is a hoax as well.
They must be under the influence of BIG OIL (LOL)!
First of all that writer did not say that. Second, that writer does not represent the weather channel. Please get your facts straight.
Quote from: Pirate88179 on January 08, 2010, 04:59:23 PM
The University of IL is the leading experts in the world on ice and glaciers and their study shows that there is more ice on our planet now and more square miles of glaciers than at any other time in recorded history. This study has been peer reviewed but I am sure since WIKI does not say so, it will not be believed. I guess that entire University must work for big oil as well as the over 31,000 climate experts (Most of them holding PHD's in this field) that have signed the petition AGAINST man-made global warming. There are way more PHD holding climatologists against global warming than agree with it so, how anyone can dare to call that a consensus is rediculous.
My state just had the coolest summer in recorded history last summer and this winter is well on its way to breaking all records also. I just got done shoveling 6" of global warming off of my sidewalk and driveway.
If someone wants to believe in the fairy tale of global warming, that's fine. Just don't expect me to buy it OR pay for it with my hard earned tax dollars...because I will not.
Bill
To bad, as usual, you fail to show references. I've dealt with you too many times. Your #'s change. You can't get your data straight. And when you post references they are gibberish sites.
Quote from: Pirate88179 on January 08, 2010, 04:59:23 PM
http://www.wnd.com/images/header_exclusive.gif (http://www.wnd.com/images/header_exclusive.gif)
HEAT OF THE MOMENT
31,000 scientists reject 'global warming' agenda
'Mr. Gore's movie has claims no informed expert endorses'
Posted: May 19, 2008
8:51 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
http://www.wnd.com/images/warming.jpg (http://www.wnd.com/images/warming.jpg)
More than 31,000 scientists across the U.S. â€" including more than 9,000 Ph.D.s in fields such as atmospheric science, climatology, Earth science, environment and dozens of other specialties â€" have signed a petition rejecting "global warming," the assumption that the human production of greenhouse gases is damaging Earth's climate.
"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate," the petition states. "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."
The Petition Project (http://www.petitionproject.org/) actually was launched nearly 10 years ago, when the first few thousand signatures were assembled. Then, between 1999 and 2007, the list of signatures grew gradually without any special effort or campaign.
But now, a new effort has been conducted because of an "escalation of the claims of 'consensus,' release of the movie 'An Inconvenient Truth' by Mr. Al Gore, and related events," according to officials with the project.
Wrong. Wikipedia details the investigations done with that petition. That petition is about as bad as science gets -->
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming_Petition_Project
Quote from: Pirate88179 on January 08, 2010, 08:10:41 PM
nitinium:
So, this means we should ignore the facts and reality then? OK, I see where you are coming from.
Bill
Bill, I've dealt with you so many times. IMO you clearly show your bad thinking process. Your experiments such as JT circuits are childish. You continue to push bad science without bothering to do simple control experiments or to show the detailed measurements for COP. You throw rocks at legitimate research such as Steorn.
Even a child can google and copy & paste a link from someone who agrees with you. That is bad science.
The facts is, over 97% of active publishing climatologist agree that *humanity* is a significant cause of global warming -->
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_consensus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_consensus)
"Over 97%[/color] of actively publishing climate scientists agree that human activity such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation is a significant contributing factor to global climate change[1]"
Quote from: Cloxxki on January 08, 2010, 07:22:18 PM
Record colds are being recorded. If stable climate is to be considered a fact, not even warming, we should have good extra-warm weather else where. Half the world has winter, half has summer. Are people being boiled on the Equator?
In Turkey, hundreds of mountain villages are cut off, not just from outside world, but also electricity. The country where you're supposed to get a nice warm winter stay at the beach :-)
I'm going to continue repeating this so long as you people keep trying to lie to the poor people at this forum -->
QuoteUnscientific anti global warmest say the over the past year the planet is now cooling. That falls under the bad science category because it is impossible to obtain a global warming trend from averaging global temperatures from a few years, and the reason is due to global temperature fluctuations. Global temperatures have always fluctuated by significant amounts. Real scientists find the trend from decades of global temperatures, which clearly shows the global warming trend.
Quote from: ResinRat2 on January 08, 2010, 09:19:57 PM
No pirate, I believe nitinnun is a perfect representation of what these global warming worshipers believe. This kind of attitude is why I fight them every chance I can will myself to do it.
If jokers like this guy and his ilk get in control it won't be live and let live. It will be live and all those that disagree with them should DIE!!
Feel free, nitinnun, to label me with the honor of being the second to ignore and call for my suicide. I will be sure to disappoint you as well.
LOL, that's hilarious coming from you, one who's understanding of physics is laughable.
What we have here is a failure to communicate. I owe my vary existance to oil pumped from the ground so if big oil wants to keep on pumping let em. I need gasoline electricity all the things that bring good things to life. If I has some bubbling crude coming up in the swamp out back you would be damn sure that shit would be going in a barrel for sale as soon as possible. Fuck the global warming and lets move on. When was the last time mother nature helped you out. Mosquitos fleas virus bacteria birdshit on my just washed vehicle. Snow storms hurricanes bee stings poison ivy. Nature sucks. You go to the beach for a day with the family and everyone gets radiation poisoning. Come on its us against the rest of nature.
Quote from: sparks on January 08, 2010, 11:13:17 PM
What we have here is a failure to communicate. I owe my vary existance to oil pumped from the ground so if big oil wants to keep on pumping let em. I need gasoline electricity all the things that bring good things to life. If I has some bubbling crude coming up in the swamp out back you would be damn sure that shit would be going in a barrel for sale as soon as possible. Fuck the global warming and lets move on. When was the last time mother nature helped you out. Mosquitos fleas virus bacteria birdshit on my just washed vehicle. Snow storms hurricanes bee stings poison ivy. Nature sucks. You go to the beach for a day with the family and everyone gets radiation poisoning. Come on its us against the rest of nature.
You write, "Nature sucks" huh? You suck pal!!! You write how you love Oil, huh? LOL, this forum is flooded with Big Oil thugs! You low life scum bag idiots!!!! Nature gave you everything. I'll spend every waking second of my life working of excess energy research to destroy Big Oil!!! It's so obvious what's happening at this website. Anyone who can't see it is dense.
I laugh at all these tree-hugging people that believe all this tripe about global warming. They are taking notice of a bunch of control freaks who also say that cow farts fuck-up the planet, cows have been around for fucking millenia. They'll be instructing farmers to fit catalytic converters to their cow's arses next !, imagine the revenue they will make with that idea.
It's just a bunch of governmental dickheads, taking advantage of the earth's natural cycle !
Quote from Pirate:
" I looked it up on WIKI and it clearly says your horse is not dead. It also went on to say that a dead horse could not be dragged as you CLAIM to have done. I have a problem with all of these discrepancies. Even though I do not understand it, I am confident that big oil is behind this, whatever it is."
*revives horse with 'date r*pe' drug antidote and gallops off*
Ya nature is great. Fuckedup highlevel competition for genetic projection through time. One species after another exploiting other species. Real nice job. PERFECTION.
Listen to this UK Gov climatologist being interviewed on the BBC.
He really ought to be a part of this debate...we should invite him.
They get into 'global warming' a bit near the end.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/the_daily_politics/8443687.stm
Regards...
Poor Paul Lowrance, my link must have gotten his panties in a tizzy because he obviously does not actually like to READ links! Too much effort I guess. You see, you need to actually look at the links on the right of the page that deal with global warming, as well as read down the page. There is plenty of information there on Al Gore’s lies, and how the global warming debate has been hijacked by power hungry politicians whose only goal is the consolidation of power over the human population on the planet.
Here is writing by John Coleman, Weatherman, who founded The Weather Channel, and has written often about the lie of global warming. Sorry about the length of the post, but this is for Paul Lawrence's benefit, since he cannot put an effort in to actually read it.
“David and Goliath
By John Coleman
The 21st century Goliath is Global Warming. It is a powerful six-legged monster. In no order of strength, those legs are:
(1) The big money climate change scientists and their powerful institutions from governmental centers to Universities,
(2) The United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change which is a Geneva-based, highly funded bureaucracy controlled by one-world government political activists,
(3) Environmentalists who seek to use threats of climate chaos to stop the use of fossil fuels and return to a simpler, more “naturalâ€, primitive lifestyle,
(4) Government at all levels whose political leaders find dealing with global warming is their opportunity to save us all from disaster cementing their status and success,
(5) The media populated by people who love to warn us of impending disaster and give us the advice we need to cope, who believe in Al Gore and his political party and who know that “the sky is falling†is the best headline of them all,
(6) Al Gore, who uses his status as a successful former Senator and Vice President to provide a platform to promote his message of doom and gloom, a message he learned in his only college science class and must have truly believed for many years but should see now is only an empty threat.
The total financial resources and power structure behind Goliath are staggering. Goliath now occupies Copenhagen. For the 15th time, Goliath is meeting to publicize his long list of threatened consequences if do not head his demands. The ice will melt, the coasts and islands will flood displacing millions and killing tens of thousands; the polar bears and eventually thousands of other species will die as habitats are destroyed; hurricanes will become superstorms wrecking havoc on the coastal cities killing tens of thousands; heat waves will kill more hundreds of thousands as they grip the planet; drought and heat will destroy our agriculture starving untold millions more. He tells us this is because of our carbon footprints left by our burning of fossil fuels emitting exhaust of carbon dioxide.
Fifteen thousand “delegates†are attending Goliath’s conference coming by hundreds of private jet aircraft, riding in over a thousand limos, occupying every hotel room for miles around and all living on expense accounts paid by taxpayers and stock holders. They are making speeches, politicking one another and most importantly negotiating how much the people of each of their nations will reduce their carbon footprints in coming years, having a major impact on all our lifestyles.
Meanwhile, here at home The Environmental Protection Administration, part of Goliath’s government leg, just classified carbon dioxide as a pollutant that is an endangerment to our lives. And the US Congress is working with the President on legislation known as Cap and trade that will make all of us pay taxes for our carbon footprints. Goliath is a rich and very powerful monster. He thrives on carbon dioxide.
David is tiny and weak. He is composed of:
30 thousand scientists who sign a petition but only a few hundred of whom have the specialized education, skill and positions to do unfunded or underfunded research that debunks the carbon dioxide greenhouse claims of Goliath, a handful of struggling policy institutes that strive to stage events to educate the public and media about the global warming myth, the internet, a resource that is open to all on both sides to communicate and educate and organize and protest as best the skeptics can, There skeptics have established websites and blogs and posted videos, some serious and some as clever as animated musical parodies, talk radio with a hundred solid talk hosts who cover all aspects of the folly of global warming and reach several million people, and a small cadre of elected officials from one or two Senators to a hand-full of members of the House of Representatives, to the President of Czech Republic and a small collection of other office holders who understand the science and are brave enough to join a minority group.
We are outmanned, poor by comparison and somewhat leaderless and disorganized. How can David win this battle? The rocks he throws are small and his rock pile is small. Time is short before the consequences of increased government control, a scaled back and altered lifestyle and, most of all, establishment of bad science as a controlling instrument. David has one great strength, however: Truth.
There is no significant man-made global warming, there has not been any in the past and there is no reason to fear any in the future. Carbon dioxide is a natural trace gas in the atmosphere with very limited greenhouse impact on temperatures and naturally produced CO2 greatly exceeds the CO2 produced by burning fossil fuels. There is no tipping point when the impact of CO2 sets in to cause an increased impact because of “forcing.†The bad science behind the global warming myth is based on a hypothesis that has failed. Superman fought for “truth, justice and the American way.†So is David. But he is no Superman. The battle goes on.
See also videos of the Economic Consequences of Climate Change Policy here. See the 50+ videos from skeptic scientists produced for Copenhagen Icecap and KUSI were involved but CO2Science did the lion’s share of the work and deserve the credit.
out the lie of global warmingâ€
My understanding of physics is fine. You, however, have your nose so high in the air that it is wrapping around and sniffing the methane gas from the area of your body you use to sit with. You have turned global warming belief to the level of a religion. You just cannot see the danger of these power-hungry politicians, like Al Gore, who are using this issue to gain financial and political control over the planet.
You are the enemy, Paul, because people like you will get people killed. You won’t see the danger until it is too late.
Paul thinks he is fighting against big oil, while all he is really promoting is the growth and consolidation of World Governmental Power and the redistribution of wealth into politician's pockets.
Paul, when are you going to realize that Big Oil and Government are buddy, buddy with each other. They just need your efforts to give them control over your money and your life; and you are coming along just fine.
That's the other thing about global-warming enthusiasts too, they just love Big Government. I think the debate needs to change in that direction. You say I am for Big Oil, (which I am not, I hate Big Oil and their control over our energy needs). I say you are for Big Government, Paul. You are a Big Government promoter!
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=121447
Yes, from that evil WND website. Global-cooling is now going to be the danger. Oh wait, that doesn't bode well for global warming activists.
Let's just bait and switch it to "climate-change"
Yes, let's call it "Climate-Change" now. This is an Al Gore tactic. That way, no matter what the weather is, we can blame it on human Carbon-Dioxide production. That way we can promote the Carbon-Credit Tax no matter what happens in the future.
Talk about an obvious underhanded technique. You can see their lie clearly.
Quote from: Bulbz on January 09, 2010, 05:09:58 AM
I laugh at all these tree-hugging people that believe all this tripe about global warming. They are taking notice of a bunch of control freaks who also say that cow farts fuck-up the planet, cows have been around for fucking millenia. They'll be instructing farmers to fit catalytic converters to their cow's arses next !, imagine the revenue they will make with that idea.
It's just a bunch of governmental dickheads, taking advantage of the earth's natural cycle !
These anti global warmest insult people's intelligence. They do a google search, copy & paste, and in their little mind think they've somehow just decreased the "over 97%" figure, lol. Do you actually think I could not post article after article after article that supports global warming? Huh? And what would that prove? Nothing. Anyone can google to find support for anything, even the "earth is flat" people. Does it change the "over 97%" figure? No. It's all these ding dongs have, to post a few articles and cross their fingers they're bamboozling some people here. And the few articles they post are not peer reviewed.
Sorry kiddies, but once again -->
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_consensus
"Over 97% of actively publishing climate scientists agree that human activity such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation is a significant contributing factor to global climate change[1]"
You see, that's the mentality of these people, or at least the role they play. It's a perfect match how they conduct science at this forum, if you call it that.
How they support fakes, and are against claims that IMO are legit such as Steorn & my diode & piezo research. Notice how they don't measure COP or conduct control experiments, yet they'll show you videos up the yin yang of JT circuits powering a bunch of dimly lighted LEDs. When legit researchers such as myself test the efficiency of the JT, it's far below 100%. They don't care, just as long as it distracts legitimate research.So come on, there's no way these anti global warmest / supporters of fake devices are that dumb! They're bamboozling you, legit researchers. And notice how they're deathly opposed to the facts of global warming. And look at how many of them I've pissed off enough (he he) where they've even admitted they like oil / gasoline and hate nature. Oh the power of emotions. Get someone pissed or drunk and you'll eventually get some valuable info.
Well kiddies / thugs, I don't really need anymore info from you. It's blatantly clear what's happening at this forum. Now we have anonymous user AgentGates who arrives just as the Steorn replications started to get some attention, and "the gang" is posting up a storm their about another fake that distracts from Steorn replications. The latest distraction. And what do these fakers want? Time after time after time they've proven they don't want $. Yet they spend a great deal of time and resources lying to you, being evasive like mylow.
...
Well wake up, because they've bamboozled you big time. What are you going to do about it. Probably nothing. People don't seem to care enough anymore.
Big Oil was recently caught red handed paying off people & groups who are against global warming. I tell you, it's a guarantee Big Oil is paying under the table people who are in need of $ to post lies at this forum.
Big Oil isnt just big oil anymore it is big energy. The oil companies have not been sitting idly by the wayside and have spent billions if not trillions into research into alternative energy. You cant sell from an empty cart. They arent the problem it is the asshole powermongers taxing the shit out everything to retain some sense of control. How many jobs are opening up in the energy sector. Fucking zero. Obama just another lieing puppet. If the powermongers have infiltrated the energy corporations we are in for a world of shit. People are figuring out the bankiing scheme. Totally worthless beings enslaving other beings. The majic trick isnt working anymore so what to do. Lets get control over food and energy so now they really gotta bend down and kiss our ass. Not enough of our good slave credits this month well we can take a couple of your children and molest them for awhile. Well give you some bonus food stamps. Dont worry about it kids are resilient.
Quote from: sparks on January 09, 2010, 12:16:25 PM
Big Oil isnt just big oil anymore it is big energy. The oil companies have not been sitting idly by the wayside and have spent billions if not trillions into research into alternative energy. You cant sell from an empty cart. They arent the problem it is the asshole powermongers taxing the shit out everything to retain some sense of control. How many jobs are opening up in the energy sector. Fucking zero. Obama just another lieing puppet.
Nice try, but no cigar. Your above claims are illogical. Big Oil has everything to lose from such technology that will make everyone energy self-reliant; i.e., people will no longer need such companies.
I adore people such as Obama who are willing to sacrafice $ to help the environment! That's a positive act to sacrafice $ & luxuries for such a positive cause. The motive here is to prevent cop>1 technology so Bil Oil can continue to make $ off people by preventing people from being self-reliant. How sick is that!
Besides, the facts remain that Global Warming is true. See the recent wikipedia quote of over 97% of *active publishing* climatologist believe humanity is a *significant* cause of global warming. You can sit here all year long and post your lies, but I'll counteract them.
As I already pointed out in an earlier post... If human activity was the cause of global warming, then they should ban the use of fossil fuels.
I don't like the big oil companies either, but Sorry Paul the government scientists are talking bollocks. I'm not going to take notice of a bunch of nanny-culture control freaks who come up with ideas like cow shit and farts knocking-out the ozone layer.
I'm not saying that big oil should stay, but the tree huggers also should not be trying to force us back into the dark ages by trying to force us to just simply throw-away our motor vehicles. They should be doing something constructive, such as promoting cheap-abundant energy sources for the evolution of man kind.
If mankind was supposed to not evolve in some sort of technological way, then we would all still be a bunch of bacteria, still swimming in the primeval soup.
I guess Paul never saw my EER/B-cap/JT circuit videos. Input 0, output up to 3,000 amps. I think that is just a bit over 100%.
I guess Paul never read the topic on Kapanadze's work. Input 0, output 100kw!! I am not good at math but I believe that is somewhere over 100% as well.
Just because Paul does not know how to do it, he thinks it is impossible.
Paul check out Lasersaber's EER videos. Input 0 Output= enough energy to run an electric motor for 6 days and counting without even using a cap of any kind. This too is over 100%.
Paul will miss all of these devices and more because he is too focused on exposing all of us for working for big oil. He will not even look at any facts or scientific evidence that proves beyond a doubt that global warming is, was and always will be a scam. He is so dedicated that I think he must be working for big oil as a disinformation agent. That makes as much sense as what he is saying about us.
Bill
PS My electric bill for my home and my business averages $30/month. How much is yours Paul? I built a vehicle that gets well over 150 mpg. This has all been documented here and on Youtube. How many mpg do you get Paul? I am not doing it to save the planet, the planet needs no saving. I am doing it to save money. Even so, I'll bet I am way ahead of you even though your motivations are much more pure than evil money, but I'll put my results up against yours any day.
I always wondered what delusional state 'Jacko' groupies relocated to after their much maligned messiah medicated himself gone.
Regards...
I didnt see Obama rowing a boat to Rome to meet with some other king they call the pope. Could of just stayed home and made a phone call dont you think. Rolling two massive jets all round the world. Really reduced his carbon footprint. You want to believe in a pollitician being able to do something noble while in office look at history. Jimmy Carter couldnt do anything. Now the man builds houses for people. There is a man. Not a puppet. This young dickhead they got in office now is a puppet with dark skin. This was played out so that his tribe would get out and vote. You think this man is capable of leading anybody anywhere. He isnt calling the shots that good old boy Biden is. We would be better off picking names out of a phone book and appointing them president. Better chances that we will get a good person on board.
Quote from: Bulbz on January 09, 2010, 12:50:07 PM
I don't like the big oil companies either, but Sorry Paul the government scientists are talking bollocks. I'm not going to take notice of a bunch of nanny-culture control freaks who come up with ideas like cow shit and farts knocking-out the ozone layer.
You say that without lifting your finger to verify your claims. Ask a user by the name ATT at this forum. He took global temperature data that has been taken by countless scientists and made public for ages that clearly shows global warming. You can't hide that kind of data. Maybe in your little world you love to believe that because you read some news about a few bad scientists you somehow now falsely think all climatologist are bad. Wrong.
Furthermore, over the decades I've seen the media from various sources such as Huell Howser's show "California's Gold" visit various glaciers over the decades, and the sad expression on his face to see how they are melting at an alarming rate. Global Warming is a fact, and that's why over 97% of active publishing climatologist believe humanity is the significant cause.
Quote from: Bulbz on January 09, 2010, 12:50:07 PMI'm not saying that big oil should stay, but the tree huggers also should not be trying to force us back into the dark ages by trying to force us to just simply throw-away our motor vehicles.
What a bunch a baloney. You really need to start being scientific in your thought process because your influence is harming others, and yourself. They are doing no such thing, and in fact they are trying to prevent the extinction of our species and all of the other priceless species.
No reaction Paul?
I asked what your electric bill averaged.
Mine is $30.00 for home AND business combined.
What mpg do you get?
The vehicle I built gets over 150 mpg.
You are supporting big oil much more than I am it seems. Funny how that works out eh?
Bill
I guess they forgot to tell the Lord about global warming cause He sure sent some cold weather down here in Texas ;D , eleven this morning that beat a record set in 1942.
Their trying to rush things but the Lord will give them their global warming in due time more than they want.
Quote from: Dave45 on January 09, 2010, 01:03:35 PM
I guess they forgot to tell the Lord about global warming cause He sure sent some cold weather down here in Texas ;D , eleven this morning that beat a record set in 1942.
Their trying to rush things but the Lord will give them their global warming in due time more than they want.
Your insinuation suggests bad science. Again -->
"Unscientific anti global warmest say the over the past year the planet is now cooling. That falls under the bad science category because it is impossible to obtain a global warming trend from averaging global temperatures from a few years, and the reason is due to global temperature fluctuations. Global temperatures have always fluctuated by significant amounts. Real scientists find the trend from decades of global temperatures, which clearly shows the global warming trend."
Quote from: PaulLowrance on January 09, 2010, 01:06:01 PM
Your insinuation suggests bad science. Again -->
"Unscientific anti global warmest say the over the past year the planet is now cooling. That falls under the bad science category because it is impossible to obtain a global warming trend from averaging global temperatures from a few years, and the reason is due to global temperature fluctuations. Global temperatures have always fluctuated by significant amounts. Real scientists find the trend from decades of global temperatures, which clearly shows the global warming trend."
Yet another quote from Paul with no link or no ref. to where it came from. But, it did have quotation marks so I guess that means it must be totally true. Let me try that and see what happens:
"Global Warming Is Fake."
See? I used quote marks too. I'll bet Paul will somehow say my quote marks are not correct but his are, or something else equally ridiculous.
Bill
Quote from: Pirate88179 on January 09, 2010, 01:09:51 PM
Yet another quote from Paul with no link or no ref. to where it came from. But, it did have quotation marks so I guess that means it must be totally true.
I have provide countless times in this thread.
http://globalfreeenergy.info/2010/01/07/global-warming-truth/ (http://globalfreeenergy.info/2010/01/07/global-warming-truth/)
If you want to challenge that scientific fact, then lets go a few rounds. I'm not worried after seeing how you conduct science with your JT circuits.
Don't do it Bill !!!
Its a trap...he's clearly baiting you.
Judging by his juvenile demeanor, I suspect he's probably only 12 yrs old...and wants to have you up on child abuse charges.
Regards...
Quote from: Cap-Z-ro on January 09, 2010, 01:28:59 PM
Don't do it Bill !!!
Its a trap...he's clearly baiting you.
Judging by his juvenile demeanor, I suspect he's probably only 12 yrs old...and wants to have you up on child abuse charges.
Regards...
Sure, that's why my understanding of physics overwhelms his. Facts still remain,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_consensus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_consensus)
“Over 97% of actively publishing climate scientists agree that human activity such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation is a significant contributing factor to global climate change[1]“
Credible research scientists such as Gavin Schmidt with NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies are saying the recent global warming email incident has nothing to do with disproving global warming. Quote from Gavin Schmidt at NASA, “There’s nothing in the e-mails that shows that global warming is a hoaxâ€
Unscientific anti global warmest say the over the past year the planet is now cooling. That falls under the bad science category because it is impossible to obtain a global warming trend from averaging global temperatures from a few years, and the reason is due to global temperature fluctuations. Global temperatures have always fluctuated by significant amounts. Real scientists find the trend from decades of global temperatures, which clearly shows the global warming trend.
I give respect where it's due, not to liars who support the destruction the natural environment of our planet.
Quote from: Cap-Z-ro on January 09, 2010, 01:28:59 PM
Judging by his juvenile demeanor, I suspect he's probably only 12 yrs old
Prime example of emotional logic. By your mentality, Isaac Newton must have been a child as well, as he was ruthless to ignorant people. I have little respect for people who are doing great harm to all life & the natural environment of this planet.
Fucking aliens suck. Just because mankind isnt one of their pets anymore they got to go. We got the Jews praying to one species of em. We got the Christians praying to another. We got the fascists sucking up to another species. Where is the galactic federation of light when you need them. Enlighten some of these creepy aliens with a Tesla Howitzer and vibrate them into a more harmonious vibration. ;D ??? Or at least let us know if we need to build another ark again. This is getting old. Guess these snakes are supercontrol freaks. They decide which species is to prosper. Assholes we got an unalienable pun intended right to the pursuit of happiness. The more the merrier. I gotta find me a piece of ass somewhere and have me some good old human fun.
Quote from: PaulLowrance on January 09, 2010, 01:38:34 PM
Prime example of emotional logic. By your mentality, Isaac Newton must have been a child as well, as he was ruthless to ignorant people. I have little respect for people who are doing great harm to all life & the natural environment of this planet.
I personally have little respect for people like you who think Big Government and Big Government Control are the solution to our problems. You are the enemy to human freedom and liberty. You are blinded by shining Obama as your Cap and Trade savior. He is the champion of Big Government, JUST LIKE YOU!!!!!!!
Aren't you the one who wrote that you would be willing to pay 100% of your income as tax to save the planet? You know you are, and I can search for the quote if you deny that. Such foolish and ridiculous statements only show that you are truly not a wise person at all. You are blinded to your dogma of Environmentalism. No matter what the cost. People like you would be scary as hell if you ever rose to any political power.
You are constantly also quoting wikipedia. Big deal. That reference means little. Wikipedia can be edited and changed by anyone.
A Control Freak, that's what you are.
Quote from: ResinRat2 on January 09, 2010, 02:24:04 PM
Aren't you the one who wrote that you would be willing to pay 100% of your income as tax to save the planet? You know you are, and I can search for the quote if you deny that. Such foolish and ridiculous statements only show that you are truly not a wise person at all. You are blinded to your dogma of Environmentalism. No matter what the cost. People like you would be scary as hell if you ever rose to any political power.
LOL, that is hilarious. It's right in front of you, yet you can't see it. It shows that I am a compassionate person who respects all species and the natural environment of this beautiful planet. The fact that all you see is $$$ before your eyes, how you can't even see that my willingness to give 100% of my all to help save the natural environment shows where you are at.
Quote from: ResinRat2 on January 09, 2010, 02:24:04 PMYou are constantly also quoting wikipedia. Big deal. That reference means little. Wikipedia can be edited and changed by anyone.
Wikipedia is great because it requires peer reviewed data. Yes, it allows people to edit it, but what you left out, interestingly enough, or it didn't occur to you that wikipedia will ban your IP if you continue to corrupt the data with baseless unscientific claims. Wikipedia works. It is great. It requires peer reviewed data. Is it perfect? Nothing's perfect, but it's the best I've seen so far. :)
Hmmmm...let's see. I could sign on to Wikipedia right now and make a few changes. Then, I could continue to sign on using all different IP addresses and agree with those changes I made. Once I do that, it will be accepted as "peer reviewed" and fact.
One person can use as many IP addresses as he wants and Wiki would not know the difference. After reading Paul's useless inaccurate quotes from Wiki, I am sure this idea of mine has been used already. Since this is the case, Wiki is NOT any kind of source to be used or quoted. It has already been proven that they have an agenda with this global warming hoax so, why anyone would even consider them an accurate source makes no sense to me. That would be very bad science.
Let me repeat...using Wiki as a source is very bad science.
If Wiki is "the best I have seen" as you put it Paul, this proves you know nothing of the scientific method. Either that or you are pretending not to just to push your agenda.
Bill
Quote from: PaulLowrance on January 09, 2010, 02:35:50 PM
LOL, that is hilarious. It's right in front of you, yet you can't see it. It shows that I am a compassionate person who respects all species and the natural environment of this beautiful planet. The fact that all you see is $$$ before your eyes, how you can't even see that my willingness to give 100% of my all to help save the natural environment shows where you are at.
So let me get this straight, just so I understand clearly. You would work for free at your job (I assume you have a job, I don't know for sure.) and willingly give it all away to the Government to save the planet? Now, just in case you don't realize it, you need to pay for food and clothing and energy, etc. Since you have no money you would starve and die naked and homeless, unless you believe that someone will support you for all your needs?
AAhhhh, this must be where your savior Obama (whom you adore) comes in. Big Government will take every penny that everyone makes, use it to save the planet, and equally distribute it to everyone. The ultimate utopian Socialist dream. Incredible. Now I see. It's the only explanation, unless you can explain your ridiculous statement on this subject.
You see why I don't have any respect for your opinion on this matter? You are blinded to the extreme. Unless you plan to clarify what you really mean? I have to assume you believe in worldwide Global Government that would redistribute wealth throughout the world and use all the confiscated wealth to save the planet and take care of all our needs.
Is this what you believe? If not, please correct this statement.
Ere Paul...
So if you expect us all to go and scrap all of our cars and stop using fuel, then how the fuck are we supposed to survive ?. And I hope the computer you are using to post on this thread runs on free energy :P
Wow:
I just checked Paul's website and found this: (quoted in part)
"...I start a company to market and SELL such machines to people and companies who are uninterested in building their own..."
So Paul wants to get someone's free energy device (from open source) and turn around and SELL it? This is the same guy that wants us all to give up everything we have to save the planet yet he is planning on SELLING other people's designs? ??? ???
Now I really see where he is coming from. This is disgusting.
Nice to see that the truth eventually comes out.
Bill
PS I did not post a link to Pauls website as I do NOT want to appear to be endorsing it. Check here on our forum as Paul has posted links to it many times in many different topics. Read the page in its entirety (I only quoted part of one sentence) and make up your own minds.
There you go peeps, one article about cow farts, and one about your pet dog's arse destroying the atmosphere.
So... Are the tree huggers going to try persuading us to go out and kill the animals now ?.
Actually... Would they prefer it if all life just killed itself ?.
They might want to live a technology-free crusty lifestyle, but I fucking don't. Like I said before, if we were not supposed to invent technology, then we would never have got out of the primeval soup !
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg12216635.100-methane--the-hidden-greenhouse-gas-methane-from-cowsrubbish-tips-and-rice-fields-is-warming-the-earth-car-exhausts-may-helptheprocess-but-methane-from-the-arctic-tundra-could-be-most-damaging-of-all.html (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg12216635.100-methane--the-hidden-greenhouse-gas-methane-from-cowsrubbish-tips-and-rice-fields-is-warming-the-earth-car-exhausts-may-helptheprocess-but-methane-from-the-arctic-tundra-could-be-most-damaging-of-all.html)
http://conservative-biker.blogspot.com/2009/12/want-to-be-green-well-then-get-rid-of.html (http://conservative-biker.blogspot.com/2009/12/want-to-be-green-well-then-get-rid-of.html)
Well said Pirate...
Open-source free energy should be... Well just free !
Shame on you Paul >:(
The natural order of things is eat or be eaten. This enslavement is of the highest form. An endless search for food and shelter. Nature doesnt provide these it provides the competition. Which species is it now. Oh ya its the polar bears having to swim too far. A polar bear would chew up your ass and not think twice about it. Nature's beauty is a facade. Drink from a nice cool running babbling brook. Make sure it didnt rain and some stagnant pool harboring amoeba colonies just didnt flush downstream. Go pray to your nature God until you go running back to your cave and start burning up some dead trees to keep your ass warm. I dont want any windfarm in my back yard it spoils the view of the marsh outback that stinks of methane from decaying plant corpses. Nice to look at sucks to be a part of.
little energy is required to survive, if you know how.
thick clothing,
high carbohydrate food,
your own body heat,
a house that traps the CO2 that you exhale (greenhouse gas),
and placement under sunlight during the daylight hours,
will see you through even a russian winter.
most of the discomfort from cold,
is merely discomfort.
when your nerves adjust to being colder,
and your homeostasis catches up on converting sugar into body heat,
and you are wearing enough clothing,
you will see that the cold has much less power to kill you,
than most north americans think it has power to kill you.
if anything, a lower body temperature preserves your physiology.
it lowers your metabolism, so that you require less energy to live.
and makes you live longer,
than the poor sweaty fools,
who live in hot climates.
you do not need most of the electricity you have.
you have been mentally conditioned into "thinking" you need it.
and you do not know the natural alternatives,
for many of the things we actually are dependant on.
some of these methods were used by our ancestors,
for countless centuries before us.
you do not need green paper to live.
you have been conditioned to think that you need it.
to make you a part of the elites economic control system.
the money is not the real part.
the elites,
getting their thugs to kick you out of your house,
if you don't caugh up green paper,
is the only real part.
the problem is physical violence.
the problem is being bullied out of your own survival,
by the thugs of rich people.
the problem is NOT lacking green paper.
green paper is just the silk glove,
disguising the iron fist of violence.
i know how to survive,
using mostly natural methods.
it might be less comfortable.
it might not appear glamorous.
but i can say with certainty, that it physically works.
unlike the mainstream system.
which does not physically work.
which is an unsustainable fire,
that was doomed from day one,
to go out.
if the system collapses,
than it will be even easier for "me" to survive,
than it already is.
because then, i will be able to live anywhere.
without a thug of the elites, trying to evict me,
from any unpaid place, where i choose to sit and sleep.
you, pirate, will most likely die.
so i will have your demise, after all.
and if you get depressed enough,
and hopeless enough,
at your own lack of information,
sense,
and survival competency,
than i will even have your suicide.
and your suicide will make me even warmer and more cheerful,
than i already am.
by the way.
nature is not hostile to humans.
nature is neutral to humans.
nature gives humans the same opportunities to survive,
that it gives to poor dumb animals.
a squirrel can survive the winters on its own, in canada.
yet you cannot match the survival of the squirrel ?
why can the squirrel do it,
when you cannot do it ?
the answer,
is that you need to take advantage,
of the opportunites,
that nature gives you.
by being smart and informed.
not die like some stupid fearful lemming,
that willingly ran over a cliff.
when there was no reason for it to kill itself through through fear.
nitinnun:
First, your ignorance is showing once again. Money, at least our money here in North America as you called it, is not paper, it is cloth. Look it up if you don't believe me.
Second, almost all of the lights in my home run from my JT circuits, or my EER. How about you? What was your electric bill last month? I'll bet mine was lower, a lot lower.
All of my free energy circuits are easy to replicate so you have no excuse not to make them. You just choose not to so you can tell others how they need to live. Gee, you fanatics are all alike. Live life like you want but tell others to cut back. Sorry, that does not work with me, or anyone else that has half a brain.
Hoping for someone's death does not endear you to your fellow man, nor to the God of your choice. Let me guess, you are probably an atheist. That would explain a lot about your thoughtless posts.
Just think of all of the pollution you are creating by making all these posts on the forum. Running your computer takes power you know. Since you don't make any energy devices that I have ever seen, I would guess this means you are wasting a natural resource.
I almost feel sorry for you.
Bill
Quote from: Pirate88179 on January 09, 2010, 08:59:10 PM
nitinnun:
First, your ignorance is showing once again. Money, at least our money here in North America as you called it, is not paper, it is cloth. Look it up if you don't believe me.
Second, almost all of the lights in my home run from my JT circuits, or my EER. How about you? What was your electric bill last month? I'll bet mine was lower, a lot lower.
All of my free energy circuits are easy to replicate so you have no excuse not to make them. You just choose not to so you can tell others how they need to live. Gee, you fanatics are all alike. Live life like you want but tell others to cut back. Sorry, that does not work with me, or anyone else that has half a brain.
Hoping for someone's death does not endear you to your fellow man, nor to the God of your choice. Let me guess, you are probably an atheist. That would explain a lot about your thoughtless posts.
Just think of all of the pollution you are creating by making all these posts on the forum. Running your computer takes power you know. Since you don't make any energy devices that I have ever seen, I would guess this means you are wasting a natural resource.
I almost feel sorry for you.
Bill
don't worry, little bug.
my enlightenment is as eternal,
as your foolishness is infinite.
cloth and paper are mere chemical distinctions.
the worthlessness between
green paper,
green cloth,
and the pointlessness of you nitpicking the difference,
are all equally unimportant.
as in, the opposite of important.
not that hemp harvests couldn't quickly produce mankind with all the
paper,
clothing,
building material,
medicine,
and even food,
that it needs.
which is why the elites banned it.
because it was not profitable, and went against world depopulation.
you need electricity to survive ?
the big point of my last post,
is that i DO NOT need electricity to survive.
because it is a mere convenience.
not a requirement.
i won't even bother to mention the difficulties,
of fabricating replacement components,
for even primative electronic equipment.
let alone replacement parts,
for the name brand electronic components,
that you currently possess.
your survival is your own problem.
if you terminate your mortal coil,
because you wouldn't take the path of least resistance,
than that is your flaw.
not mine.
and i'm likely being too kind,
by giving free hints,
to people who cannot stop complaining.
my fellow man has not endeared himself to me.
my fellow man has done the exact opposite of endearing himself to me.
why would i want something so pointless,
as the approval of my fellow man ?
when he has been the worst of venomous burdens ?
i am endeared,
of being free of my fellow man.
and if the world continues like it is,
than i might get my wish.
the prime creator and the spiritual hierarchy,
will love me and forgive me,
no matter what i do.
they even love the elites.
even though they are the most actively disruptive screw-ups,
currently living among the human population.
the consequences of my asking for your suicide,
is someone asking for my suicide.
it is karma.
which actually does exist.
and is inescapable.
but my mortal enemies have already failed to kill me,
on more than a few occasions.
and declared their intent to kill me,
to my face,
countless times.
even since i was a child.
so i'm not effected,
by declaration against my life,
number six hundred and twelve,
issued by sneering asshole number-umpteen-who-gives-a-damn.
the only pollution i see here,
is your incessant raw sewage of a consciousness.
being smeared in this thread.
you would not know the value of the larger picture,
if the larger picture painted itself on your forehead.
at which point i told you to direct your complaining,
to the man standing in the mirror,
at which point you saw the larger picture painted on your forehead,
for the first time in your life.
i have many personal developments,
which are far more significant,
than mere free energy devices.
of which i will not describe,
simply so you cannot smear your polluting consciousness filth,
onto them.
YOU do not even use the natural resources,
that surround us all.
you will likely fall over dead for lack of them,
without using them.
i do not feel sorry for you, little bug.
but i do look down on you with pity.
for reasons that you would not comprehend,
due to your lower consciousness.
Nature has made us into vital amino acid junkies.
Thankyou ever so much nature God for this kind blessing.
Nature has made us only able to survive in a minimal temperature prison.
Praise the Lord of the Sun for this blessing.
Nature has created insects and all sorts of microbes to attack our bodies on a cell by cell basis.
I bow on bended knee now to your supreme wisdom.
Nature has turned us into moving intestinal tracks not any different than a snake.
I am so overwhelmed with the blessings of the nature god I cant go on.
I am so indebted to this being and stand in awe of his creative prowess.
I return now to the search for eternal widsom in hopes that some day I can gain the
wisdom of the nature god.
Ya right. :-[
@nit
Lay off the unaware. You are not promoting anything but confusion.
Quote from: sparks on January 09, 2010, 10:03:23 PM
Nature has made us into vital amino acid junkies.
Thankyou ever so much nature God for this kind blessing.
Nature has made us only able to survive in a minimal temperature prison.
Praise the Lord of the Sun for this blessing.
Nature has created insects and all sorts of microbes to attack our bodies on a cell by cell basis.
I bow on bended knee now to your supreme wisdom.
Nature has turned us into moving intestinal tracks not any different than a snake.
I am so overwhelmed with the blessings of the nature god I cant go on.
I am so indebted to this being and stand in awe of his creative prowess.
I return now to the search for eternal widsom in hopes that some day I can gain the
wisdom of the nature god.
Ya right. :-[
you are only seeing the negative aspects of nature.
nature has positive aspects,
and negative aspects.
the positive aspects of nature,
keep us alive.
and heal us.
such as how the chemicals in raw apples,
force cuts to heal faster.
and strengthen our arteries,
so they are less likely to burst open.
causing a stroke.
or how the pure, undamaged vitamin C,
eaten directly from a raw apple,
forces the conversion of proteins into lysine.
which causes our muscles and bones to grow stronger.
and inhibits the very common canker sore virus, of our mouths.
to say nothing of how the vitamin C,
is directly converted into immune system components.
giving an opportunity to survive disease, to plant/apple eaters.
the negative aspects challenge us.
and force us to stay smart and wise.
and force us to grow spiritually.
such as having to out smart a wolf,
to avoid becoming wolf food.
where you only die, if you were dumber than a wolf.
natures neutrality,
forces us to gain wisdom.
and the wisdom we gain,
allows the quality of our lives,
to increase.
so that we can eventually become wise enough,
to get promoted from the 3rd density to the 4th density.
and the 4th density to the 5th density.
and the 5th density to the 6th density.
if nature only had positive aspects,
than we would quickly grow stupid and weak.
to the point where even a small disruption in the environment,
would cause us to go extinct.
because we had become that unfit to survive,
upon our gluttony of positivity.
nature beats its lessons into our *sses.
but it also gives us tools to recover from the *ss beatings.
and if we are clever enough,
we can avoid the *ss beatings all together.
and if we are really clever,
we will not destroy our selves,
by avoiding the *ss beatings.
nitiuniun:
You mentioned Karma. Karma is very important. In the interest of Karma, I consider this bickering to be over. At least it is on my end.
Bill
My only desire is to spread some harmonious vibrations. Mostly generated by the equally drawn up cornors of the mouth. If I havent made you smile than I have failed. I know what I am and who I am. I am in balance and have the ability to recognise many different planes of reality. I dont hear voices see things that arent there or any of that horseshit I do try to keep in balance between the mind body and spirit. I await the return of the power of love to be deployed on Earth by those that pocess this power. It is the ultimate power which is the only thing I have ever stood in awe of. It is without limit. Generated effortlessly.
Quote from: Pirate88179 on January 09, 2010, 03:01:46 PM
Hmmmm...let's see. I could sign on to Wikipedia right now and make a few changes. Then, I could continue to sign on using all different IP addresses and agree with those changes I made. Once I do that, it will be accepted as "peer reviewed" and fact. One person can use as many IP addresses as he wants and Wiki would not know the difference.
Incorrect. You have no clue what you're are talking about. As usual you make claims. First of all you do not have access to unlimited IP's. Second of all, you don't even know that there are various levels of admin at wikipedia. If a wiki page is continually hacked, then that page is quickly locked for awhile. When the page is unlocked, and the problem continues, then they will block your IP company, followed by contacting your IP company to take action.
So as a hacker, you cannot win. So sorry. Wikipedia has and does work.
Quote from: Pirate88179 on January 09, 2010, 03:01:46 PMAfter reading Paul's useless inaccurate quotes from Wiki, I am sure this idea of mine has been used already. Since this is the case, Wiki is NOT any kind of source to be used or quoted. It has already been proven that they have an agenda with this global warming hoax so, why anyone would even consider them an accurate source makes no sense to me. That would be very bad science.
More claims huh? Wikipedia provides peer reviewed references. What do you provide besides claims? I've seen your level of mentality in the Joule Thief threads. You don't know what you're doing.
Quote from: ResinRat2 on January 09, 2010, 04:16:11 PM
So let me get this straight, just so I understand clearly. You would work for free at your job (I assume you have a job, I don't know for sure.) and willingly give it all away to the Government to save the planet? Now, just in case you don't realize it, you need to pay for food and clothing and energy, etc. Since you have no money you would starve and die naked and homeless, unless you believe that someone will support you for all your needs?
That is correct. I would give my all to save the natural environment of this planet.
Quote from: Bulbz on January 09, 2010, 07:05:54 PM
Ere Paul...
So if you expect us all to go and scrap all of our cars and stop using fuel, then how the fuck are we supposed to survive ?. And I hope the computer you are using to post on this thread runs on free energy :P
There are numerous ways to help reduce your carbon footprint. You're not thinking. You're just lashing out in anger & stupidity.
Quote from: Pirate88179 on January 09, 2010, 07:20:26 PM
Wow:
I just checked Paul's website and found this: (quoted in part)
"...I start a company to market and SELL such machines to people and companies who are uninterested in building their own..."
So Paul wants to get someone's free energy device (from open source) and turn around and SELL it? This is the same guy that wants us all to give up everything we have to save the planet yet he is planning on SELLING other people's designs? ??? ???
Now I really see where he is coming from. This is disgusting.
Nice to see that the truth eventually comes out.
Bill
PS I did not post a link to Pauls website as I do NOT want to appear to be endorsing it. Check here on our forum as Paul has posted links to it many times in many different topics. Read the page in its entirety (I only quoted part of one sentence) and make up your own minds.
You take words from the middle of a sentence in a desperate attempt to twist the meaning. Hear is the entire sentence -->
http://globalfreeenergy.info/public-statement/ (http://globalfreeenergy.info/public-statement/)
"I have never asked or accepted money for my research. I will not accept money or be bought out. I will continue the research until the exact detailed designs to replicate a “Free Energy machine†is in public hands and wide spread. Then, and only then will I start a company to market and sell such machines to people and companies who are uninterested in building their own. My full 100% intent is to help this world as much as possible"And here is the google cache of that page, cached on Dec 6, 2009 01:56:57 GMT -->
http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:KouVPJ5ntb0J:globalfreeenergy.info/public-statement/+%22I+start+a+company+to+market+and+SELL+such+machines+to+people+and+companies+who+are%22+site:http://globalfreeenergy.info/&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a (http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:KouVPJ5ntb0J:globalfreeenergy.info/public-statement/+%22I+start+a+company+to+market+and+SELL+such+machines+to+people+and+companies+who+are%22+site:http://globalfreeenergy.info/&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a)
It says nothing about taking the designs from someone else and selling them. It is referring to my designs.
Quote from: Pirate88179 on January 09, 2010, 07:20:26 PM
PS I did not post a link to Pauls website as I do NOT want to appear to be endorsing it. Check here on our forum as Paul has posted links to it many times in many different topics. Read the page in its entirety (I only quoted part of one sentence) and make up your own minds.
You did not provide a link because you did not want people to read the entire sentence. You chopped off the sentence.
Quote from: PaulLowrance on January 10, 2010, 10:46:27 AM
You take words from the middle of a sentence in a desperate attempt to twist the meaning. Hear is the entire sentence -->
http://globalfreeenergy.info/public-statement/ (http://globalfreeenergy.info/public-statement/)
"I have never asked or accepted money for my research. I will not accept money or be bought out. I will continue the research until the exact detailed designs to replicate a “Free Energy machine†is in public hands and wide spread. Then, and only then will I start a company to market and sell such machines to people and companies who are uninterested in building their own. My full 100% intent is to help this world as much as possible"
And here is the google cache of that page, cached on Dec 6, 2009 01:56:57 GMT -->
http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:KouVPJ5ntb0J:globalfreeenergy.info/public-statement/+%22I+start+a+company+to+market+and+SELL+such+machines+to+people+and+companies+who+are%22+site:http://globalfreeenergy.info/&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a (http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:KouVPJ5ntb0J:globalfreeenergy.info/public-statement/+%22I+start+a+company+to+market+and+SELL+such+machines+to+people+and+companies+who+are%22+site:http://globalfreeenergy.info/&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a)
It says nothing about taking the designs from someone else and selling them. It is referring to my designs.
So lets analyze my sentence. BTW, above I provided the google cache, so that's proof I have not edited my page. It says "
*I* will continue the research until the exact detailed designs to replicate a “Free Energy machine†is in public hands and wide spread." Do you see where it says "I." It is talking about my research, and it says I will continue my research until the exact detailed designs to replicate "Free Energy" is in public hands, and "
*then* and only then" would I start a company to sell my design to people who do not want to build their own.
Folks, there it is, proof how these people such as Bill (Pirate88179) change the context of a sentence. My *entire* sentence is very clear, yet this sick individual clearly took my sentence, chopped it up, took only the part, put a false twist on it, and said some sick things about me. Anyone who reads my full sentence will clearly see the sick attempt from this individual.
And that is exactly what they are trying to do with the topic of global warming.
But Paul... you just did the same thing to me. You did not answer my question, only part of it. You chopped up my question, and only answered what I asked, completely missing the point of my question. Here it is again in entirety:
Quote from: ResinRat2 on January 09, 2010, 04:16:11 PM
So let me get this straight, just so I understand clearly. You would work for free at your job (I assume you have a job, I don't know for sure.) and willingly give it all away to the Government to save the planet? Now, just in case you don't realize it, you need to pay for food and clothing and energy, etc. Since you have no money you would starve and die naked and homeless, unless you believe that someone will support you for all your needs?
AAhhhh, this must be where your savior Obama (whom you adore) comes in. Big Government will take every penny that everyone makes, use it to save the planet, and equally distribute it to everyone. The ultimate utopian Socialist dream. Incredible. Now I see. It's the only explanation, unless you can explain your ridiculous statement on this subject.
You see why I don't have any respect for your opinion on this matter? You are blinded to the extreme. Unless you plan to clarify what you really mean? I have to assume you believe in worldwide Global Government that would redistribute wealth throughout the world and use all the confiscated wealth to save the planet and take care of all our needs.
Is this what you believe? If not, please correct this statement.
So do you believe in what I just wrote? We need to be clear here. You are guilty of taking things out of complete context.
Let me repeat it so everyone can see how guilty you are:
"I have to assume you believe in worldwide Global Government that would redistribute wealth throughout the world and use all the confiscated wealth to save the planet and take care of all our needs.
Is this what you believe? If not, please correct this statement."
I want everyone to know what kind of person you are and what we are dealing with.
Quote from: ResinRat2 on January 10, 2010, 11:21:56 AM
But Paul... you just did the same thing to me. You did not answer my question, only part of it. You chopped up my question, and only answered what I asked, completely missing the point of my question.
Liar. Here's the link to my post, so show everyone here where I did the "same thing". Show me where I chopped your sentence in half and tried to put words in your mouth -->
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8608.msg221179#msg221179 (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8608.msg221179#msg221179)
I don't want to talk you people.
The facts still remain:
http://globalfreeenergy.info/2010/01/07/global-warming-truth/
Quote
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_consensus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_consensus)
"Over 97% of actively publishing climate scientists agree that human activity such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation is a significant contributing factor to global climate change[1]"
Credible research scientists such as Gavin Schmidt with NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies are saying the recent global warming email incident has nothing to do with disproving global warming. Quote from Gavin Schmidt at NASA, "There’s nothing in the e-mails that shows that global warming is a hoax"
Unscientific anti global warmest say the over the past year the planet is now cooling. That falls under the bad science category because it is impossible to obtain a global warming trend from averaging global temperatures from a few years, and the reason is due to global temperature fluctuations. Global temperatures have always fluctuated by significant amounts. Real scientists find the trend from decades of global temperatures, which clearly shows the global warming trend.
Paul, you did it again, it is as plain as daylight.
Why don't you answer my question? I want everyone to see what kind of global-socialist nut-job you really are.
" So let me get this straight, just so I understand clearly. You would work for free at your job (I assume you have a job, I don't know for sure.) and willingly give it all away to the Government to save the planet? Now, just in case you don't realize it, you need to pay for food and clothing and energy, etc. Since you have no money you would starve and die naked and homeless, unless you believe that someone will support you for all your needs?
AAhhhh, this must be where your savior Obama (whom you adore) comes in. Big Government will take every penny that everyone makes, use it to save the planet, and equally distribute it to everyone. The ultimate utopian Socialist dream. Incredible. Now I see. It's the only explanation, unless you can explain your ridiculous statement on this subject.
You see why I don't have any respect for your opinion on this matter? You are blinded to the extreme. Unless you plan to clarify what you really mean? I have to assume you believe in worldwide Global Government that would redistribute wealth throughout the world and use all the confiscated wealth to save the planet and take care of all our needs.
Is this what you believe? If not, please correct this statement."
Quote from: ResinRat2 on January 10, 2010, 11:31:02 AM
Paul, you did it again, it is as plain as daylight.
You can't even think straight. Your previous sentence said I did the same thing. I did not chop your sentence. I did not take your sentence out of context. I answered your question.
To answer you question, again, in different words, I believe in everything I have written.
Maybe what you're trying to do now is bury Bill's sick false accusation. I will not allow that. I will never let Bill's sick act go away. I'll show everyone his sickness.
Let me restate it for all to see:
So you do believe in a worldwide Global Government that would redistribute wealth throughout the world and use all the confiscated wealth to save the planet and take care of all our needs.
Is this what you believe? If not, please correct this statement.
I just want everyone to see what kind of a nut-case you are.
Quote from: ResinRat2 on January 10, 2010, 11:21:56 AM
Let me repeat it so everyone can see how guilty you are:
"I have to assume you believe in worldwide Global Government that would redistribute wealth throughout the world and use all the confiscated wealth to save the planet and take care of all our needs.
Is this what you believe? If not, please correct this statement."
I want everyone to know what kind of person you are and what we are dealing with.
First of all, that is not my quote, just to be clear to everyone. Second of all, I never said such a thing. You try to make it sound like the government is going to take all of your money to save the planet. That's how you people operate. You twist words in sick way.
For anyone who wants to know, scientists are very concerned about climate change, to say the least. Nobody is trying to take everyone's money to save anything. IMO it's great that our government officials are considering spending ~ 2% on climate issues. Look at how much $ we spend on military, and various other things. So yes, I think 2% is very reasonable for climate issues.
As for myself, as clearly stated, *I* would give my all to help save the natural environment of this planet. You people need to stop lying, and stop twisting my words.
So now you are changing what you say. :D :D :D
So let's go back and clarify. You admitted that you would work for free and give 100% of your income to save the planet. You also admitted that you would die starving, naked, and homeless to save the planet.
Are you going to deny that you did this? Do I have to get the quotes now?
You are a typical, lying, socialist, liberal, nut-job. You twist words better than anyone I have seen besides your savior Obama.
Quote from: ResinRat2 on January 10, 2010, 11:54:31 AM
So now you are changing what you say. :D :D :D
No. Show my exact quotes, and do not chop my sentences up. I've been over my posts. I have not changed what I've said.
Quote from: ResinRat2 on January 10, 2010, 11:54:31 AMSo let's go back and clarify. You admitted that you would work for free and give 100% of your income to save the planet. You also admitted that you would die starving, naked, and homeless to save the planet.
Are you going to deny that you did this? Do I have to get the quotes now?
Get some help, will you, because I keep saying that's what I believe, and I AM PROUD OF IT! Why would anyone not be proud to say that they would give their all to save the natural environment of this planet? Huh? What kind of sicko would even suggest that's a bad thing.
Quote from: ResinRat2 on January 10, 2010, 11:54:31 AMYou are a typical, lying, socialist, liberal, nut-job. You twist words better than anyone I have seen besides your savior Obama.
Too bad you can't point out any of my lies because there are none. Yet I have pointed out your lies.
ps, you may think that your posts are burying Bill's sick false accusations of me, but trust me, I'll re-post them soon. I'll never let his sick act go unnoticed. Maybe I'll post a link to it at my website to demonstrate how low anti global warmest are going. Well, we already know, look at the fake petition that was exposed at WikiPedia.
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. 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
Here is the exact quote, are you going to deny that you wrote this?
Quote from: ResinRat2 on January 10, 2010, 12:07:13 PM
Here is the exact quote, are you going to deny that you wrote this?
Gee, how many times do I need to say it. Yes, that is exactly what I believe, and I AM PROUD OF IT! What kind of sicko would even suggest that's a bad thing.
btw, lets not let an important post get buried,
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8608.msg221190#msg221190
I am glad that is clear, you would work for free, and die starving, naked, and penniless to save the planet.
This is hilarious, everyone can see how you are chopping out my quotes and full questions. It is amazing for all to see.
You cannot hide it Paul, everyone can see what a socialist nut-job you are.
Quote from: ResinRat2 on January 10, 2010, 12:14:01 PMI am glad that is clear, you would work for free, and die starving, naked, and penniless to save the planet.
I keep saying the natural environment, but yes I would do the same to save the planet.
Quote from: ResinRat2 on January 10, 2010, 12:14:01 PMThis is hilarious, everyone can see how you are chopping out my quotes and full questions. It is amazing for all to see.
Quotes, yes, of course, every good person does that because I nor anyone else is required to comment on everything you say. I have not chopped your sentence.
It is a good thing to not quote an entire post if one is not commenting on the entire post, as it saves space, and makes it easier for people to see what one is replying to.
What is happening is that you are trying to grab on to anything in a desperate attempt to further your cause. Bil Oil will die soon. Ah, so sorry.Yes, everyone can see what's happening here.
lets not let an important post get buried,
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8608.msg221190#msg221190
Lets recap a few things:
* I believe in what over 97% of active publishing climatologist believe in, which is humanity is a significant cause in global warming.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_consensus
* Anti global warmest came up with a petition, but they were caught red handed. It consists of duplicate names, a good portion of the scientsts were not climatoligst or even active, they changed the question posted on their homepage making it appear as if the petition question was different, etc. WikiPedia details this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming_Petition_Project
* I would give my all if it could help save the natural environment. Look at how this being made fun of at this forum. How that's being called a socialist. I can't image even the sickest person making fun of someone who says they would give their all, including their life to save the entire natural environment of this planet.
It's great to hear on the news about so many companies going green lately. This week alone I've seen on the news two companies in hollywood going green, where they're using efficient lightbulbs, recycling everything they can, etc. I love those good people!
Here's a great non profit organization,
Home page
http://www.hollywoodgreenteam.org (http://www.hollywoodgreenteam.org/)
About
http://www.hollywoodgreenteam.org/about.html (http://www.hollywoodgreenteam.org/about.html)
Thank you to all the good people in this world!!! It's great to see that humanity is beginning to learn to live in peace & harmony with nature, rather than destroy & pollute nature. The good will win.
Quote from: PaulLowrance on January 10, 2010, 10:41:02 AM
There are numerous ways to help reduce your carbon footprint. You're not thinking. You're just lashing out in anger & stupidity.
I'm not lashing out in anger, my apologies if it sounds that way. I have mood swings sometimes, so just take it with a pinch of salt.
And could you please quit calling people stupid, OK I admit I have a mental disability but that doesn't mean I'm stupid !
I know that all you are trying to do is help, but you need to realize that we are modern humans, we have evolved into people who need some kind of basic technology to survive. If we were to give up things such as energy for heating etc we would surely pop our clogs.
Early man was born hairy, we were born almost bald except for the mullet on top of our heads, so keeping warm means burning something of some kind (until society accepts free energy of course ;))
Quote from: Bulbz on January 10, 2010, 01:53:00 PM
I'm not lashing out in anger, my apologies if it sounds that way. I have mood swings sometimes, so just take it with a pinch of salt.
And could you please quit calling people stupid, OK I admit I have a mental disability but that doesn't mean I'm stupid !
I know that all you are trying to do is help, but you need to realize that we are modern humans, we have evolved into people who need some kind of basic technology to survive. If we were to give up things such as energy for heating etc we would surely pop our clogs.
Early man was born hairy, we were born almost bald except for the mullet on top of our heads, so keeping warm means burning something of some kind (until society accepts free energy of course ;) )
Hi Bulbz,
I have no big issue with you. Just the other 2 guys. I apologize if I said anything wrong to you. It's great if you're doing whatever you can to help reduce your carbon footprint or try to work in harmony with the natural environment! It would be nice if our great great great grandchildren could see the natural beauty of the environment. Some people, as voiced in this thread, hate the natural environment, but most people I've found love & care for it, whatever they can do.
Every bit helps, even if it's just a small amount, getting more efficient light bulbs, decreasing the thermostat a bit, become a bit more self conscious about turning off lights that are not needed, etc. :)
Wow!!
Paul has blown yet another gasket while ignoring what is right in front of him. I quote myself below:
"PS I did not post a link to Pauls website as I do NOT want to appear to be endorsing it. Check here on our forum as Paul has posted links to it many times in many different topics. Read the page in its entirety (I only quoted part of one sentence) and make up your own minds."
What part of "I ONLY QUOTED PART OF ONE SENTENCE" did Paul not understand?
Now Paul says that I took only part of his sentence for my quote and is having a hissy fit over that. Really Paul? How did you figure out that I only used part of one sentence? Oh maybe because that is EXACTLY what I SAID I did???? Could this be how you "figured it out" so quickly????
I was more interested in the fact that you said that when someone develops a free energy device that is proven, you will then market it and sell it to folks that do not want to build their own. You kind of skipped over that part eh?
Mr. "I will give everything I have to save the planet" Paul is going to be selling some one else's technology for profit. Why not just work for free and give it away Paul?
See, that was the point of my post, and you, very poorly I might add, attempt to distract attention away from this by accusing me of doing something that I clearly posted that I was doing.
So, market and sell other people's technology if you want. That is your business. But don't sit here and tell the rest of us to give up everything while the entire time you are already planning on capitalizing on this hoax, just like your pal Al Gore and Obama.
Shame on you Paul. You are busted and exposed and everyone that has read all of this can plainly see. Good luck with damage control.
Bill
PS Did you know that your website is registered to a false/inaccurate address? This is a clear violation of the law and is cause to have it taken down. I don't blame you though, if I posted crap like that I wouldn't use my real address either.
Quote from: Pirate88179 on January 10, 2010, 03:04:05 PM
Wow!!
Paul has blown yet another gasket while ignoring what is right in front of him. I quote myself below:
"PS I did not post a link to Pauls website as I do NOT want to appear to be endorsing it. Check here on our forum as Paul has posted links to it many times in many different topics. Read the page in its entirety (I only quoted part of one sentence) and make up your own minds."
What part of "I ONLY QUOTED PART OF ONE SENTENCE" did Paul not understand?
Now Paul says that I took only part of his sentence for my quote and is having a hissy fit over that. Really Paul? How did you figure out that I only used part of one sentence? Oh maybe because that is EXACTLY what I SAID I did? ??? Could this be how you "figured it out" so quickly? ???
I was more interested in the fact that you said that when someone develops a free energy device that is proven, you will then market it and sell it to folks that do not want to build their own. You kind of skipped over that part eh?
Mr. "I will give everything I have to save the planet" Paul is going to be selling some one else's technology for profit. Why not just work for free and give it away Paul?
See, that was the point of my post, and you, very poorly I might add, attempt to distract attention away from this by accusing me of doing something that I clearly posted that I was doing.
So, market and sell other people's technology if you want. That is your business. But don't sit here and tell the rest of us to give up everything while the entire time you are already planning on capitalizing on this hoax, just like your pal Al Gore and Obama.
Shame on you Paul. You are busted and exposed and everyone that has read all of this can plainly see. Good luck with damage control.
Bill
PS Did you know that your website is registered to a false/inaccurate address? This is a clear violation of the law and is cause to have it taken down. I don't blame you though, if I posted crap like that I wouldn't use my real address either.
No need to have a discussion with a sick person. Pirate88179 was caught red handed, and his mod rights do not allow him to delete or modify my post in this area of the forum. So his post if fixed and will go down in the archives. My full sentence is very clear, and it is very positive sentence, which he tried his best to make it sound like a sick sentence. He did not include the link because he knew people would see how sick he attempts were.
So Pirate88179 chopped out my sentence. He gave a completely false and sick interpretation of that chopped sentence. He wrongly accused me. Pirate88179 is a sick person, period.
BTW, Pirate88179 sent me a private message saying I could go to jail if I try to do some private investigations my self because I don't have a PI license. I never once said I was going to be a PI, but that I was going to hire one to investigate if Big Oil is paying people to post lies, when I have the money.
Anyhow, Pirate88179 claims to be a PI, so time after time after time I've asked Pirate88179 to show his PI license #. To this day he has refused to provide me with his PI license #.
Again, here's Pirate88179 post. Notice how he took only a part of my sentence out, left out key words, and provided a very sick interpretation. Anyone who read my post will see the key words, and that my public statement is a very positive sentence. Notice how left out my link so other people cannot read my public statement.
Quote from: Pirate88179 on January 09, 2010, 07:20:26 PM
Wow:
I just checked Paul's website and found this: (quoted in part)
"...I start a company to market and SELL such machines to people and companies who are uninterested in building their own..."
So Paul wants to get someone's free energy device (from open source) and turn around and SELL it? This is the same guy that wants us all to give up everything we have to save the planet yet he is planning on SELLING other people's designs? ??? ???
Now I really see where he is coming from. This is disgusting.
Nice to see that the truth eventually comes out.
Bill
PS I did not post a link to Pauls website as I do NOT want to appear to be endorsing it. Check here on our forum as Paul has posted links to it many times in many different topics. Read the page in its entirety (I only quoted part of one sentence) and make up your own minds.
Paul:
I am not a moderator here...where did you get the idea that I was? ??? Look at my name when I post...does it SAY moderator??? No, it does not. This should be a clue for you.
Even if I were a moderator, why would I ever want to change my post??? I wanted to write what I did, unlike you, I don't need to keep changing my mind to suit which way the wind is blowing. I am very consistent.
Again, you ignored the real questions of my post.
Again, you ignored the point of my post.
If you are not going to answer people's questions here then just say so. You make bold, incorrect, inaccurate and false statements and then when you are called on them, you simply ignore that part of someone's post.
Here you are telling Bulbz how to lessen his damage upon the earth by cutting his thermostat down, etc. yet you ignored my 3 posts asking what your utility bill is?
Why?
Because I suspect, just like Al Gore, your bill is higher than almost everyone's here...I guarantee it is way higher than mine, which I have already posted 3 times. But, you won't respond to this...AGAIN because you are exposed for what you are. an elite fool that wants others to sacrifice while you keep living the good life and making money from other's misery.
You make a good Liberal Paul and an even better Socialist. Admit that is what you are as RR has asked you I don't know how many times now...but...you choose to not answer his questions either.
Paul is for one world government where the government gets all and redistributes it back to the masses as they see fit. Of course, those that do the distributing get a lot more of it but hey, what can you do?
I also noticed you ignored where I pointed out about your domain registration address. Think that little problem will go away too if you ignore it? I'll bet it doesn't. But, we should not expect you to follow the laws, the laws are just for the little people not the elites like you. Sorry, I forgot.
Bill
Quote from: Pirate88179 on January 10, 2010, 03:24:42 PM
Paul:
I am not a moderator here...where did you get the idea that I was? Look at my name when I post...does it SAY moderator??? No, it does not. This should be a clue for you.
I don't want to have a discussion with you. IMO you are a very sick person. Now, as usual you twist the truth. Try reading, here is my post, and take notice to the bold text -->
I wrote,
"his mod rights do not allow him to delete or modify my post
in this area of the forum."
I would caution everyone to not believe anything Pirate88179 writes. He is an out right liar, and I am not going to spend my time reading his posts. Pirate88179 is on my ignore list.
I just love Ed Begley, Jr. and his wonderful TV reality series, "Living With Ed"
Here's a short youtube clip showing various ways to help:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88Yz6_9mb_E (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88Yz6_9mb_E)
Thank you so much Ed Begley, Jr. Together all of us can make a positive difference. The evil on this planet is not going away anytime soon. It's best to ignore it as much as possible, and focus on the positive. :)
Well, we can see that Paul once again avoids any of the points of my post.
I stand on my reputation Paul, good luck with yours. Calling me a liar does not boost your credibility here at all. In fact, it does just the opposite so, keep it up.
I see you just went back and changed another post of yours. (Two posts back) Nice job. See, if you tell the truth to begin with, you would not need to do that.
Bill
PS Everyone here knows Ed Begley Jr. is an environmentalist wacko. He, like Paul, claims if you do not believe in the global warming scam, then you are for pollution. This is their twisted logic.
If anyone sees anything that Pirate88179 writes that I should read, then please let me know. Until then it's a waste of time to read his posts. Same thing goes for the other liars in this thread.
I have spent a lot of time addressing his attacks, and the last one is final where he went so low as to take my extremely positive public statement web page, spin a portion of my sentence leaving out key words and out right lied about what I was saying, and he failed to give my link so everyone could see how he lied about my public statement. Sorry, but that guy is sick. He's thrown rocks at Steorn. He has continued to support the Joule Thief devices, which I and others have shown are well below 100% efficient.
Now lets try to post positive stuff and forget about the liars.
Important article here just published today,
http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100110/OPINION/1100347/-1/NEWSMAP (http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100110/OPINION/1100347/-1/NEWSMAP)
That's science, not claims. Global warming is still here, and as stated many times it caused wicked weather. Global warming means more water molecules evaporate, and such molecules must collect and fall somewhere. During the winters it causes massive snow storms. A big year in snow storms does *not* mean global cooling. Not by a long shot. Global warming is alive & well.
Also, lets not forget that global temperature fluctuations have always exists. We can see in the graphs going back to the mid 1800's that the global temperature has significant fluctuations that during those periods one might think there's global cooling, but nothing could be further from the truth. The global warming trend is still here. You cannot take a few years average and see the trend.
A snippet from a letter sent from the Viscount Monckton of Brenchley
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/03/climate-change-proposed-personal-briefing/#more-14778 (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/03/climate-change-proposed-personal-briefing/#more-14778)
QuoteThe questions I address are a) whether there is a climate problem at all; and b) even if there is one, and even if per impossibile it is of the hilariously-overblown magnitude imagined by the IPCC, whether waiting and adapting as and if necessary is more cost-effective than attempting to mitigate the supposed problem by trying to reduce the carbon dioxide our industries and enterprises emit.
Let us pretend, solum ad argumentum, that a given proportionate increase in CO2 concentration causes the maximum warming imagined by the IPCC. The IPCC’s bureaucrats are careful not to derive a function that will convert changes in CO2 concentration directly to equilibrium changes in temperature. I shall do it for them.
We derive the necessary implicit function from the IPCC’s statement to the effect that equilibrium surface warming Î"T at CO2 doubling will be (3.26 ± ln 2) C°. Since the IPCC, in compliance with Beer’s Law, defines the radiative forcing effect of CO2 as logarithmic rather than linear, our implicit function can be derived at once. The coefficient is the predicted warming at CO2 doubling divided by the logarithm of 2, and the term (C/C0) is the proportionate increase in CO2 concentration. Thus,
Î"T = (4.7 ± 1) ln(C/C0) | Celsius degrees
We are looking at the IPCC’s maximum imagined warming rate, so we simply write â€"
Î"T = 5.7 ln(C/C0) | Celsius degrees
Armed with this function telling us the maximum equilibrium warming that the IPCC predicts from any given change in CO2 concentration, we can now determine, robustly, the maximum equilibrium warming that is likely to be forestalled by any proposed cut in the current upward path of CO2 emissions. Let me demonstrate.
By the end of this month, according to the Copenhagen Accord, all parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change are due to report what cuts in emissions they will make by 2020. Broadly speaking, the Annex 1 parties, who will account for about half of global emissions over the period, will commit to reducing current emissions by 30% by 2020, or 15% on average in the decade between now and 2020.
Thus, if and only if every Annex 1 party to the Copenhagen Accord complies with its obligations to the full, today’s emissions will be reduced by around half of that 15%, namely 7.5%, compared with business as usual. If the trend of the past decade continues, with business as usual we shall add 2 ppmv/year, or 20 ppmv over the decade, to atmospheric CO2 concentration. Now, 7.5% of 20 ppmv is 1.5 ppmv.
We determine the warming forestalled over the coming decade by comparing the business-as-usual warming that would occur between now and 2020 if we made no cuts in CO2 emissions with the lesser warming that would follow full compliance with the Copenhagen Accord. Where today’s CO2 concentration is 388 ppmv â€"
Business as usual: Î"T = 5.7 ln(408.0/388) = 0.29 C°
â€" Copenhagen Accord: Î"T = 5.7 ln(406.5/388) = 0.27 C°
= “Global warming†forestalled, 2010-2020: 0.02 C°
One-fiftieth of a Celsius degree of warming forestalled is all that complete, global compliance with the Copenhagen Accord for an entire decade would achieve. Yet the cost of achieving this result â€" an outcome so small that our instruments would not be able to measure it â€" would run into trillions of dollars.
That's a lot of wasted money and resultant deaths and misery just to make the rich get richer. Spin the 'science' by the 'experts' all you like, AGW is just another invented religion to acquire power and wealth by the useless greedy ones of the world. Just my opinion until proven otherwise. Just remember that even 'scientists' act like sheep ...
tak
So Newsmax, Drudge, Fox, Worldnet Daily, British Telegraph, and the British Royal Society are not credible sources but...capecodonline is??????????
This pretty much says it all folks.
The only 2 credible sources for Paul: capecodonline and wiki.
Bill
PS Paul was unable to build a successful joule thief so now he blames the design while hundreds of other folks have been able to make them just fine.
If one of you is a disinformation agent, I hope Al Gore's pals pay you enough to sell your soul. Nothing he could love more than childish behavior online when Global Warming is being discussed.
Has any scientists here been working on the latest and greatest awesome climate model, Decadal Climate Prediction System (DePreSys)? The amount of cpu power required to run that model is massive, right? DePreSys, an advanced model that takes into every know consideration predicts the global warming *trend* will get far worse than it is.
btw, attached is the global warming data that has been publicly available since the beginning of 1850's. You can't hide that kind of data.
Quote from: PaulLowrance on January 10, 2010, 04:36:34 PM
Has any scientists here been working on the latest and greatest awesome climate model, Decadal Climate Prediction System (DePreSys)? The amount of cpu power required to run that model is massive, right?
btw, attached is the global warming data that has been publicly available since the beginning of 1850's. You can't hide that kind of data.
No, but if you cook the numbers you can "Hide the decline" which they did. Thank God they got caught doing it. Your graph above uses those cooked numbers so, it is not accurate and therefore, not science.
Bill
Someone just sent this graph to me, the link, which is found at wikipedia. Thank you so very much! It shows the 5 year average, and the yearly average. Look at the yearly temperature fluctuations. If one took a few years average, then they would falsely believe there was global cooling ~ 3 to 5 times every 20 years, lol. That is why it is so important to take a long average of at least a decade.
Awesome data! Thank you.
There are alot of us and we are here because man found out how to exploit the rotting vegetation of past years.
Oil is found where ancient rivers once formed delta's where plant produced carbon hydrogen bonded simple sugars would accumulate and become buried under the silts washing out of these ancient rivers. Nature also burns these simple sugars and breaths out carbon dioxide so I guess any future global warming mitigation should involve the arrest of trees for breathing. I guess I should breath really shallow so I dont contribute to global warming. I gotta laugh. The people most concerned with global warming are rich people with waterfront properties. What will they do when they have to use a boat to get to their beach condo parking lot which is submerged under 4 or 5 feet of salt water.
It doesn't matter anyway because the global warming scientists now say we are past the tipping point so lets start thinking boats instead of giving up more human rights to politicians control. Believe it or not Paul people in the privatized energy sector have families they love and cherish and would like to have their descendants be able to live in a clean environment. India and china could give a rats ass about how many cases of lukemia or lung cancer they produce in their populace as they put up plant stacks and burn anything they can get their hands on to produce products below the cost of any country that has minimal environmental and human rights concerns. I dont see these countries coming on board and reducing their production or even bothering with the simplest enviromental safety devices. They dont cherish human life they enslave their populace to work for the good of all. They are like beehive societies and are proud of it. A worker bees life is cheap so let him be a slave for the good of the hive. His daughters can become prostitutes on the street so the worker bee can get his jollies off of course for the good of the hive. There are companies that can put a plasma arc in stacks and o percent emissions from the stack. EPA laws will hold up this technology until the privatized sector runs out of investment money. There are companies that can take a landfill and turn it into usable energy to heat homes and hospitals recycle metals turn plastic into glass for road fill whatever with o carbon emissions just water vapor. They getting any help. No they are having massive siting problems due to environmental impact concerns. The fucking dump they are going to convert is spewing methane gas into the atmosphere and the bureaucrats are worrying about environmental impact from something that is going to turn the dump into a park for the kids to play in some day. Are these the people we should be asking to mitigate global warming issues?
MOD
Even Pauls graph looks like the top of a sine wave to me. Cooked or raw whatever.
Here is a link to the real graphs showing that the earth is cooling:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10783 (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10783)
These graphs use the real data and not the cooked data from the followers of Al Gore.
Bill
Let's see, what will Paul say:
"I already dealt with this issue before, I'm not going to repeat myself."
"Those graphs are false because they are supported by big oil."
"The data is not reliable because it doesn't come from Wikipedia"
"You have shown yourself to be a (big oil supporter, idiot, liar, etc. whatever else I can dream up) Pirate, everyone else knows you are someone who takes things out of context."
"I looked over the numbers and they don't say what I want so they are false"
"Look, it wasn't even written by a climatologist"
"It wasn't written by the 97% of scientists that agree that man made global warming is a fact."
"I don't even want to talk to you guys anymore, but I keep talking because I would give 100% of my income to save the earth; but if you say I would do that then I will change what I quote from you and say what I wanted to say that I said."
"This thread is filled with big oil supporter idiots and everything they quote or write is false, NO MATTER WHAT!"
etc., etc., You are all wrong and liars and frauds. etc.
Did I miss anything? I'm sure new B.S. is coming. Just wait for it.
"Oh yeah, you must hate nature, while I love nature and the earth and Obama who I adore."
That should cover most of it.
I forgot to add. Regarding the graph,
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8608.0;attach=40937;image (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8608.0;attach=40937;image)
If we take the 5 year average, then we *falsely* see there 11 global cooling trends, lol. Folks, that's why good scientists do *not* take short averages because it contains too much fluctuations. If we took only 12 month average, then we see countless global cooling trends.
That is why over 97% of active publishing climatologist are now saying that a significant part of global warming is due to humanity. Actually that's the % of who say a significant amount is due to *humanity*, and it's pretty much nearly 100% of active publishing climatologist believe there is global warming.
Every long term graph shows the global warming trend. That is a fact. It is only the armatures, mostly conservatives who hate Obama & Al Gore, who do not understand the graphs who cry "See, there's no global warming because global warming takes a dip in the last few years." Folks, that is not science, lol. As stated many times, there are always fluctuations, and you need to take a long average.
Paul, your numbers are according to Wiki.
Now in the real world, over 75% of all climatologists and scientists believe that global warming is a hoax. This is according to a real poll done by Zogby. Once again, proving that Wiki can and has been hacked by fanatic zealots like you that continue to use them as a "scientific" ref.
Bill
PS You said that a person CAN'T use different IP address to access Wiki? Well, my IP address is a different one every time I log on here. I do not do that on purpose, it just works that way. I could also use one of hundreds of proxy sites that would alter it as well. Look it up. IP's are not SSN's. That site is hacked and altered every single day.
I was going through some messages from a scientist who has actually done some modeling with the public domain global temperature database that was made public starting in the mid 1800's who makes a great point that there's no getting around the fact that global warming correlates with the explosion of human population. Take a look at the graph,
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8608.0;attach=40936;image (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8608.0;attach=40936;image)
It's amazing how conservatives can deny that clear global warming trend. Oh how Bil Oil hates this.
"global warming" and what have you, will soon take a back seat to the fact that our Moon is playing rodeo and the sun is also rising and setting out of position in winter and summer. These things are responsible for our cold summer last year, and the northern hemisphere smashing records for cold and snow at this moment.
http://www.backwoodshome.com/forum/vb/showthread.php?t=18430
I invite those with inquisitive minds, capable of deciphering what they see with their own eyes, to go out and look at the moon as it rises at night, right now it is in the deep southeast. Two weeks from now it will rise high in the northeast and track in a shallow arc and set high in the northwest....it is so far off the old model as to be laughable (or cryable if you are among that sort).
http://www.isuma.tv/lo/en/inuit-knowledge-and-climate-change-project/earth-has-shifted
http://divulgence.net/Sun%20angle.html
http://www.michaelmandeville.com/earthmonitor/polarmotion/2006_wobble_anomaly.htm
http://www.zetatalk.com/index/earthrv9.htm
http://axischange.wordpress.com/2007/08/09/earth’s-axis-has-changed-›-create-new-post-â€"-wordpress/
http://www.eh2r.com
The earth's crust, being 3 to 4 times thinner than an egg's shell, proportionally speaking, is now being subjected to great stress. The tides are way off, the seas agitated, and scientists are perplexed.
Blessings in Christ Yeshua!
Quote from: TechStuf on January 10, 2010, 06:51:22 PM
"global warming" and what have you, will soon take a back seat to the fact that our Moon is playing rodeo and the sun is also rising and setting out of position in winter and summer.
[snip]
We'll have to see. The newest & best climate model shows bad times ahead. A lot of bad things happening these days. Have you ever been to heavens-above.com ? Great site. It allows anyone to view the satellites without the need of binoculars. The best ones are Iridium Flares, but it requires precise calculations on their part. They have to get everything, Earth & Moon gravity down precisely to know it's path and exactly when it's going to reflect the Suns light from the satellite. You can see Iridium Flares in day light, it's that bright, but it lasts for only a few seconds. It's amazing how precise they can predict satellite positions. Check it out. You can go there right now, enter your *exact* latitude & longitude and it will tell you all of the satellites you can see. It will give you the date & times.
Pual:
Please read Lord Monckton's articles and interviews on GW. They are all over the net. He explains things very well and shows why the data you keep posting over and over is incorrect. His interviews on Alex Jone's show were great.
Bill
QuoteWe'll have to see.
Which is similar, in my experience, to saying....."I don't care to confirm these observations for myself"....
I am sharing HARD EVIDENCE....including photos I've taken myself, photos others have taken, reports from around the world....along with comparisons to actual university website information which PROVES these observations to be true beyond a shadow of a doubt....
And you come back to me with "iridium flares"?
If one can neither discern where the moon and sun used to come up, nor where it is supposed to now, then I can only respond with....
Please Wake Up, the hour is late.
"The harvest is great, yet the laborers are few" - Christ Yeshua
Quote from: TechStuf on January 10, 2010, 07:22:11 PM
Which is similar, in my experience, to saying....."I don't care to confirm these observations for myself"....
I am sharing HARD EVIDENCE....including photos I've taken myself, photos others have taken, reports from around the world....along with comparisons to actual university website information which PROVES these observations to be true beyond a shadow of a doubt....
And you come back to me with "iridium flares"?
If one can neither discern where the moon and sun used to come up, nor where it is supposed to now, then I can only respond with....
Please Wake Up, the hour is late.
"The harvest is great, yet the laborers are few" - Christ Yeshua
How can the moon be off like that when they're using high precision gravity calculations for satellites. I just think it's amazing how they can predict satellite positions so accurately. :)
BTW, the Intensity (Mag) is logarithmic. Also the lower the number the more intense it is. So a mag -3 is much brighter than mag -2. I just checked and there are two Iridium Flares flashing over our house in the next 24 hours. Isn't that amazing. If their calculations of the reflection is off by even a mile then it's wrong. Friends and I have done this dozens of times, and it's always correct. In fact we just did an Iridium Flare sighting a few months ago. Spot on!
@techstuff
I hope it is JC that shows up. Alot better than this selfrighteous neglectful piece of shit that fucked over adam and eve. I am basically tired of the whole crew. All the angels could take a flying leap into oblivion for all I give a shit.
The dark ones the light ones and the old man. JC was chill. He loved his fellow man. He hated politicians and moneylenders. He was a rebel. I figure JC and the gang were like a modern day motorcycle gang roaming around haveing a good old time spreading the love and fishing drinking lots of free wine and feeding the hungry curing the sick telling people how they should all be getting along. Finally they showed up in the wrong sherrifs town and the whole peace movement went down faster than a whos panties in a busy brothel.
This doesnt appear to be the case because Noah's god is showing up again to irradicate all human poplulations so he can interbreed with Noah's wife and daughters to get his DNA back in action on Earth. Some voice gets in my head and tells me to build a big boat so I can survive and let the rest of humanity perish I would a seek counselling. If this didnt work I would tell the voice in my head to fuck off and build his own boat. Which leads us to the matter at hand. If the rats that run the government want to run and hide in tunnels while the rest of the world meets JC let them. I'm gonna stay right here on the surface and give the finger to whatever power is pulling this shit. What have I got to loose. My soul because I flashed some kissass angel the finger. If going to heaven involves standing around having to listen to some faggot angels singing and brownosing some sort of king count me out I want to roll with JC.
QuoteSome voice gets in my head
Peace in Christ be upon you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7dpGWYZMDc
Blessings in Christ Yeshua
His peace is upon me. Thankyou for the blessing. I love Jesus he showed us the way. The rest of the angels and burning bushes and ritualistic stuff is less than productive thinking.
I believe that it is impossible to live in harmony with nature given the population to natural rescource ratio of the present state of Earth. We must either dominate it or the Earth will shake off the human population like we shake off a cold. It appears she is running a fever to do just that. Hmmmmm Smart planets?
QuoteHis peace is upon me. Thankyou for the blessing. I love Jesus he showed us the way
If His peace be upon you, then stop your cursing and be about His business lest He remove it from you.
You mock Yahweh, the Almighty at your own peril.
Quote from: ResinRat2 on January 10, 2010, 05:45:42 PM
Let's see, what will Paul say:
"I already dealt with this issue before, I'm not going to repeat myself."
"Those graphs are false because they are supported by big oil."
"The data is not reliable because it doesn't come from Wikipedia"
"You have shown yourself to be a (big oil supporter, idiot, liar, etc. whatever else I can dream up) Pirate, everyone else knows you are someone who takes things out of context."
"I looked over the numbers and they don't say what I want so they are false"
"Look, it wasn't even written by a climatologist"
"It wasn't written by the 97% of scientists that agree that man made global warming is a fact."
"I don't even want to talk to you guys anymore, but I keep talking because I would give 100% of my income to save the earth; but if you say I would do that then I will change what I quote from you and say what I wanted to say that I said."
"This thread is filled with big oil supporter idiots and everything they quote or write is false, NO MATTER WHAT!"
etc., etc., You are all wrong and liars and frauds. etc.
Did I miss anything? I'm sure new B.S. is coming. Just wait for it.
"Oh yeah, you must hate nature, while I love nature and the earth and Obama who I adore."
That should cover most of it.
Perceptive and funny, in my opinion. What makes me laugh is the implication that the poison-tongued, heavily biased 'Global Warmests' climate change skeptics on this forum should be investigated for covert funding by Big Oil. This is the kind of paranoid, over-the top assertion that manages to totally invert what is actually going on, and tends to discredit itself with no help from me.
One thing I really would like to investigate is the allegation that Al Gore is a major shareholder, possibly a controlling shareholder, in Occidental Petroleum. If anyone knows more about this I'd be interested to hear more. It's not Exxon Mobil, as I incorrectly mentioned in an earlier post, but apparently Occidental. If this is true, then Gore's hypocrisy is just the tip of an expanding iceberg set to explode with shards that will whizz all over the freezing planet.
I draw your attention to this article by David Rose in the Daily Mail, 'The Mini Ice Age Starts Here'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1242011/DAVID-ROSE-The-mini-ice-age-starts-here.html
Professor Mojib Latif has developed new methods for measuring ocean temperatures 3,000 feet beneath the surface, where the cooling and warming cycles start.
Note: Robert Felix contends that underwater volcanic activity significantly warms the oceans, that such activity has been increasing in recent years, and that increasing precipitation from the warming oceans will freeze and form snow. He agrees with Latif that we are heading for 30-40 years of planetary cooling, and that an ice age, whether mini or maxi, is quite on the cards.
Why is that so hard for people to grasp? Surely in a few years we will have a pretty good idea of where the global climate is heading, no amount of fiddling with statistics and dodgy graphs is going to influence that reality, only people's perception of it? I think perception is being actively manipulated on many levels,
not just climate. Nothing new there.
Here's another 'unauthorized, non-peer reviewed' link which gives a different view of certain statements about global warming that are bandied about as cast-iron 'truths' in the media.
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/faqs-and-myths#10
My point all along is that the peer review process is corruptable and a means of controlling information. It can turn what would otherwise be a valid process of scientific inquiry, into something more like a religion where one viewpoint is repeated endlessly and alternative views are ignored or suppressed. We can see this when government organizes 'food advisory panels' staffed with people funded by Monsanto. We can see the 'revolving door' between the UN and the vaccine companies. We can see how special interests always have the financial clout to 'manage' information when it suits them, there is nothing new about this, it's been going on for years, and that's why the media is so full of garbage and propaganda, because they are a fundamental part of this process.
I think recent calls for 'peer to peer' review are a healthy signal in view of the recent Wikipedia scandal. By the way, you can find the article concerning aspects of Wikipedia's integrity and the editing process at wattsupwiththat.com
One thing I really would like to investigate is the allegation that Al Gore is a major shareholder, possibly a controlling shareholder, in Occidental Petroleum. [/quote]
More on this here:
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/03/al_gores_legacy_of_hypocrisy.html
and here:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=65000070
Apparently somewhere between 500,000 and 1,000,000 dollars in Occidental shares. He has obtained 450,000 dollars royalties in 25 years from the Zinc mine on his land (closed in 2003), which has been criticised for POLLUTING the Caney Fork river with LARGE QUANTITIES of Barium, Iron and Zinc.
This is your wonderful planet-saving 'green' environmentalist champion, who cares SO MUCH about the planet, who will profit from his company appropriately named 'Blood and Gore' from the new 'Green Bubble' that stands to make billions, if it hasn't already, from carbon derivatives, just like the Indian UN representative at Copenhagen and his string of companies, which I will describe in detail subsequently.
Approx. 1/3 of American agricultural land given over to biofuels, resulting in a doubling of food prices, starvation and death. Some have already put the figure at around 10 million already - if the World Government Carbon Tax scheme goes through we can expect millions more.
Al Gore is a LIAR, A HYPOCRITE AND A FRAUD - He is not interested in the environment, and couldn't care less about your welfare or the fake environmental movement he promotes, only how to make money out of our ignorance and gullibility, while he laughs all the way to the bank.
http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/770.html
Quote from: silverfish on January 11, 2010, 09:18:53 AM
One thing I really would like to investigate is the allegation that Al Gore is a major shareholder, possibly a controlling shareholder, in Occidental Petroleum.
More on this here:
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/03/al_gores_legacy_of_hypocrisy.html (http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/03/al_gores_legacy_of_hypocrisy.html)
and here:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=65000070 (http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=65000070)
Apparently somewhere between 500,000 and 1,000,000 dollars in Occidental shares. He has obtained 450,000 dollars royalties in 25 years from the Zinc mine on his land (closed in 2003), which has been criticised for POLLUTING the Caney Fork river with LARGE QUANTITIES of Barium, Iron and Zinc.
This is your wonderful planet-saving 'green' environmentalist champion, who cares SO MUCH about the planet, who will profit from his company appropriately named 'Blood and Gore' from the new 'Green Bubble' that stands to make billions, if it hasn't already, from carbon derivatives, just like the Indian UN representative at Copenhagen and his string of companies, which I will describe in detail subsequently.
Approx. 1/3 of American agricultural land given over to biofuels, resulting in a doubling of food prices, starvation and death. Some have already put the figure at around 10 million already - if the World Government Carbon Tax scheme goes through we can expect millions more.
Al Gore is a LIAR, A HYPOCRITE AND A FRAUD - He is not interested in the environment, and couldn't care less about your welfare or the fake environmental movement he promotes, only how to make money out of our ignorance and gullibility, while he laughs all the way to the bank.
I went through your blog site links, and there is *ZERO* evidence that Al Gore is working with Big Oil, and in fact Al Gore is one of the biggest *enemies* of Big Oil. You're not even making sense. If you're making accusations about his past, then say that, but that has nothing to do with what Al Gore is doing. Are you kidding us? Do you know what Al Gore is doing? Al Gore has probably single handily helped more people become more energy independent than anyone on Earth.
The only evidence to date is the fact that Exxon Mobile was caught red handed paying millions of dollars to people & groups who are against Global Warming:
http://globalfreeenergy.info/2010/01/11/big-oil-caught-red-handed/ (http://globalfreeenergy.info/2010/01/11/big-oil-caught-red-handed/)
Al Gore is one of the greatest men ever. He won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007. :) His climate change movie "An Inconvenient Truth" won an Academy Award in 2007. He was Vice President of the United States of American. His book "An Inconvenient Truth: The Planetary Emergency of Global Warming and What We Can Do About It" won a Grammy Award for Best Spoken Word Album in February 2009. Good grief, one could write a book on Al Gore's awards. Take a look,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_awards_received_by_Al_Gore (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_awards_received_by_Al_Gore)
With those kind of awards & spot light it is human nature for everyone to analyze you under a microscope, and to even be jealous. Nobody is a perfect person. Here is the list of criticism for Al Gore.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_gore#Environmental_criticism
Al Gore, one of the greatest men ever, period!
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/03/al_gores_legacy_of_hypocrisy.html
and here:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=65000070
[/quote]
Al's company is the London-based Generation Investment Management, set up in 2004 with the former chief executive of Goldman Sachs Asset Management, David Blood. Hence the nickname, 'Blood and Gore'. As someone put it:
'So Al can buy his carbon offsets from himself. Better yet, he can buy them with the money he gets from his long-time relationship with Occidental Petroleum. See how easy it is to be carbon-neutral? All you have to do is own a gazillion stocks in Big Oil, start an eco-stockbroking firm to make eco-friendly investments, use a small portion of your oil company's profits to buy some tax-deductable carbon offsets from your own investment firm, and you too can save the planet while making money and leaving a carbon footprint roughly the size of Godzilla's at the start of the movie when they're all standing around in the little toe wondering what the strange depression in the landscape is.'
Remember the statement from Aurelio Peccei, a founder of the Club Of Rome, part of the Round Table Network, in the organizations 1991 publication The First Global Revolution:
'In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine, and the like would fit the bill.... all of these are caused by human intervention --- the real enemy, then is HUMANITY ITSELF' (my emphasis)
This is classic problem-reaction-solution.
Al Gore is a cousin of Nixon, a descendant of Edward I, a descendant of Charlemagne and a cousin of George W. Bush. Philip Eugene de Rothschild, unofficial son of Baron Philippe, describes Gore as an active sorcerer in the Satanic mystery religions, and that he has known both Clinton and Gore since childhood
functioning in these capacities.
Lovely chap, eh?
[edit: sorry, thought you were referring to another company accusation.]
So lets check out that London based company and see what they do -->
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_Investment_Management (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_Investment_Management)
Quote, "Generation Investment Management LLP (GIM) is a London-based investment management firm with an investment style that blends traditional equity research with a focus on sustainability factors, including social and environmental responsibility and corporate governance."
Sounds good to me. You go Al!
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/US/weather/01/11/cold.weather/index.html
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/01/08/uk.europe.snow/index.html
about solar cycles or sunspot activity
http://www.spaceweather.com/
fairly accurate blog about current weather in the world
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1410
so how is global warming working out for you paul?
Al Gore is one of the greatest men ever. He won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007.
hah!
sfish,
anyone who says this-you cant argue with
cannot make them see reason
youre wasting your time
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/13/world/13nobel.html
al gore won 1/2 the prize for climate change.
Online commentators and think-tank policy analysts have suggested that Al Gore has created a conflict of interest by working with GIM and simultaneously being the spokesperson for action on global warming.[2][3] The Competitive Enterprise Institute believes that the government policies Gore advocated to the U.S. Senate in January 2009 "will make him and his friends extremely wealthy at the expense of consumers."[4] Such criticism over this alleged conflict of interest has been made as early as March 2007.[5]
GIM also owns a 10% stake in the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX), CCX in turn owns half of European Climate Exchange. This gives Al Gore a financial bias towards promoting global warming control through the issuing of carbon credits.[6]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_Investment_Management
Quote from: jikwan on January 11, 2010, 11:39:50 AM
Al Gore is one of the greatest men ever. He won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007.
hah!
sfish,
anyone who says this-you cant argue with
cannot make them see reason
youre wasting your time
Can I make the blind see and raise the dead? No, but I can make an effort to find out the truth and point it out; sometimes the truth is ugly, and shocking, even to me, but revealing it to myself and others will do more good than harm in the long run - the cost of not revealing it means that lies and deception will continue unabated, and the ignorant will be among its first victims.
One of the greatest men ever... that's a laugh! Nobel Peace Prize, that's a laugh, too. Alfred Nobel designed munitions! In classic Orwellian doublethink, we are asked to believe that Obama deserves his PEACE prize for ...continuing WAR, Bernanke is named as man of the year in Newsweek - for stealing 27 trillion dollars of taxpayer's money and not telling us where it went - MONSANTO is named company of the year by Forbes magazine - it's all a GROTESQUE FARCE and nothing to do with reality.
This is how Gore answers his critics, that is, when his goons aren't busy throwing them out of booksigning events with their questions unanswered, that's 'democracy'.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/al-gore-answers-his-critics.html
What's the matter, Al? polar bear got your tongue? and by the way, Polar Bear populations are increasing, not decreasing, and so is arctic sea ice.
Gore lives less than 50 miles from me. His home electric bill was obtained by an investigator and proved to be over 20 times the average monthly bill for the average person here in the US. (I can dig up that source if needed) All of the local radio stations I listen to make fun of him because he denies that his bills are so high. Yet this is only one of 5 houses that he owns. When he travels, he takes a private jet yet he tells us to use a horse and buggy because we pollute too much.
He was almost broke when he left the office of VP and now, he is a billionaire. All he has done since leaving office was working his warming scam. when asked about all of the money he was making off of this in a congressional hearing, he just laughed and told the asking senator that "you don't know me". He repeated that answer 3 times, obviously not answering the senator's question.
Bill
Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth'? -- A $30,000 Utility Bill
Think Tank Blasts Gore for Hypocrisy, Defenders Call Report a Last Gasp from Warming Skeptics By JAKE TAPPER
Feb. 26, 2007 abcNews.com
Back home in Tennessee, safely ensconced in his suburban Nashville home, Vice President Al Gore is no doubt basking in the Oscar awarded to "An Inconvenient Truth," the documentary he inspired and in which he starred. But a local free-market think tank is trying to make that very home emblematic of what it deems Gore's environmental hypocrisy.
Armed with Gore's utility bills for the last two years, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research charged Monday that the gas and electric bills for the former vice president's 20-room home and pool house devoured nearly 221,000 kilowatt-hours in 2006, more than 20 times the national average of 10,656 kilowatt-hours.
Related Is Gore's Energy Consumption Hypocritical? (http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/BeSeenBeHeard/popup?id=2908558) "If this were any other person with $30,000-a-year in utility bills, I wouldn't care," says the Center's 27-year-old president, Drew Johnson. "But he tells other people how to live and he's not following his own rules."
Scoffed a former Gore adviser in response: "I think what you're seeing here is the last gasp of the global warming skeptics. They've completely lost the debate on the issue so now they're just attacking their most effective opponent."
Kalee Kreider, a spokesperson for the Gores, did not dispute the Center's figures, taken as they were from public records. But she pointed out that both Al and Tipper Gore work out of their home and she argued that "the bottom line is that every family has a different carbon footprint. And what Vice President Gore has asked is for families to calculate that footprint and take steps to reduce and offset it."
A carbon footprint is a calculation of the CO2 fossil fuel emissions each person is responsible for, either directly because of his or her transportation and energy consumption or indirectly because of the manufacture and eventual breakdown of products he or she uses. (You can calculate your own carbon footprint on the website http://www.carbonfootprint.com/ (http://www.carbonfootprint.com/))
The vice president has done that, Kreider argues, and the family tries to offset that carbon footprint by purchasing their power through the local Green Power Switch program â€" electricity generated through renewable resources such as solar, wind, and methane gas, which create less waste and pollution. "In addition, they are in the midst of installing solar panels on their home, which will enable them to use less power," Kreider added. "They also use compact fluorescent bulbs and other energy efficiency measures and then they purchase offsets for their carbon emissions to bring their carbon footprint down to zero."
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/29/al-gore-snubs-earth-hour/ (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/29/al-gore-snubs-earth-hour/)
Gore too Elite to participate in Earth Hour.
Photos of one of his 5 mansions there also.
More on Gore's high energy bills: http://www.lesjones.com/posts/004097.shtml (http://www.lesjones.com/posts/004097.shtml)
"A climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources."
- Emma Brindal, a climate justice campaign coordinator for Friends of the Earth
"We really have to bring about reductions in every sector of the economy." - Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
I wonder why "every sector of the economy" has to have reductions.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1242011/DAVID-ROSE-The-mini-ice-age-starts-here.html
if the IPCC won't listen to their own, .....???? what does that say about them? why would they not?
Tbird:
That was such a good article I posted the lead paragraphs here:
"The bitter winter afflicting much of the Northern Hemisphere is only the start of a global trend towards cooler weather that is likely to last for 20 or 30 years, say some of the world’s most eminent climate scientists.Their predictions â€" based on an analysis of natural cycles in water temperatures in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans â€" challenge some of the global warming orthodoxy’s most deeply cherished beliefs, such as the claim that the North Pole will be free of ice in summer by 2013.
According to the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado, Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007 â€" and even the most committed global warming activists do not dispute this.The scientists’ predictions also undermine the standard climate computer models, which assert that the warming of the Earth since 1900 has been driven solely by man-made greenhouse gas emissions and will continue as long as carbon dioxide levels rise. "
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1242011/DAVID-ROSE-The-mini-ice-age-starts-here.html#ixzz0cLfgNIhL (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1242011/DAVID-ROSE-The-mini-ice-age-starts-here.html#ixzz0cLfgNIhL)
Paul will dispute this because even though those climatologists are the leading ones in the world, their reports do not fit the man-caused global warming model so therefore they can't be true.
Bill
I love it:
100 reasons Why Global Warming is Natural.
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/146138
I can read Paul now...because, because, because,...Anti-Environmental Idiots, Big Oil, Selfish Scumbags, liars, Greedy Capitalists, etc., etc.,...False Information...
I just read today that a Rasmussen poll conducted on Dec. 3rd of last year showed that 59% of Americans say that it's "at least somewhat likely that some scientists have falsified research data to support their own theories and beliefs about global warming." Thirty-five percent say it's "Very likely."
Also reported that economic reality is bringing the alarm of global-warming down and now it is rated dead last among voters on a list of top political and economic concerns.
Also that Obama came away from Copenhagen with nothing!!!!! Let's all jump and cheer. Gore and the rest of his minion goofball admirers are dropping in public opinion. People are starting to wake up to this ongoing lie and crazy alarmist cries of planet death and destruction.
Go jump Lawrence! People are waking up to the falsehoods of your foolish beliefs.
I think we should park a couple of nuclear reactors under the polar ice sheet 24/7. Just for national defense.
Now why do they think the ice is melting? Bla bla bla, it's all your fault, bla bla bla, now you have to pay more, bla bla bla.
I can't believe with all the evidence that people still are denying global warming. Global warming is real people! Do you not look at the long term charts? Do you think the charts and data is fake? Sure the last couple of years have been cooler, but if you look at the overall trend the earth is warming! Has any of you non believers been on a hike to a glacier lately? I have seen glaciers that are about 70% smaller than they were 15 years ago here in Washington state. Why is that? I'm sick of these Christians and far right conservatives saying that we people don't need to be responsible and take care of the environment. How selfish is that? Don't you care enough about the future generations or is it just too easy to say "well it won't be my problem so I don't care".
I agree with Paul and Nitinnun.
Hurt not the Earth. Neither the sea. Nor the trees. - Revelations 7:3
4Tesla
Even if GW is fact, I still don't think cars are the cause of it, it's probably a natural cycle of the planet.
And if it was us causing it, then the government shouldn't be making money from it. If higher taxation is the answer, then why would the problem still be here ?
They should be fixing the problem, not capitalising from it !
Quote from: 4Tesla link=topic=8608.msg221668#msg221668 A=1263290819
I can't believe with all the evidence that people still are denying global warming. Global warming is real people! Do you not look at the long term charts? Do you think the charts and data is fake? Sure the last couple of years have been cooler, but if you look at the overall trend the earth is warming! Has any of you non believers been on a hike to a glacier lately? I have seen glaciers that are about 70% smaller than they were 15 years ago here in Washington state. Why is that? I'm sick of these Christians and far right conservatives saying that we people don't need to be responsible and take care of the environment. How selfish is that? Don't you care enough about the future generations or is it just too easy to say "well it won't be my problem so I don't care".
I agree with Paul and Nitinnun.
Hurt not the Earth. Neither the sea. Nor the trees. - Revelations 7:3
4Tesla
It is too bad you don't understand why we are fighting the global warming hysteria. I am doing it first of all because there is plenty of evidence, and tens of thousands of scientists agree, that global warming is affected little by human activites. The largest contributor to global warming is the sun itself, and as solar activity goes up and down, there is a rise and fall in the overall global temperature.
The other reason I fight the hysteria is because it is being used as a tool by power-hungry politicians, like Al Gore, as a means to get legislation passed that would control every aspect of our lives. By control of energy they would manipulate the economy and social structure of our society. Not just Nationally, like in the United States; but globally by use of treaties and International Organizations like the United Nations. For those of us who abhor the expansion of Governmental Power, it is frightening.
I care a great deal about future generations. I want my son to have a family and enjoy the freedoms I was able to enjoy in my life, but these ambitious politcal-Social engineers want to control their lives. Governmental Power is Force. It is oppressive and feeds on itself as it expands. It needs to be controlled and watched over carefully by the general population so scumbags like Al Gore won't be able to achieve their Iron-Grip control over every aspect of our lives; and so clueless people like Paul Lawrence don't just mindlessly give away our freedoms and protections because of hysterical scare tactics. I also care about the environment, but I don't want it controlled through oppressive laws and regulations. It needs to be controlled through local and state governments, where the control is less oppressive and people can watch over and control it more carefully.
I care about the environment more than you believe, but I refuse to allow Power Hungry and oppressive politicians to take away my freedoms. I can see their sleigh of hand tactics and I KNOW they are doing it just to gain control. All for Social and Political change, and for GREED.
@4Tesla
The other thing you should take note is that if you look at the "long" term trends you notice that from the first half to the last half of this decade temps have been coming down. You might also notice that we still have not hit temps as high as that as the middle ages, if you are looking at long term trends. You might also notice that we still have not hit temps as high as the early 1900's, if you are looking at the long term trends. But thanks for trying!
Quote from: Azorus on January 11, 2010, 11:37:47 AM
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/US/weather/01/11/cold.weather/index.html (http://edition.cnn.com/2010/US/weather/01/11/cold.weather/index.html)
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/01/08/uk.europe.snow/index.html (http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/01/08/uk.europe.snow/index.html)
about solar cycles or sunspot activity
http://www.spaceweather.com/ (http://www.spaceweather.com/)
fairly accurate blog about current weather in the world
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1410 (http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1410)
so how is global warming working out for you paul?
I have no idea what you're trying to insinuate. There is a reason why over 97% of active publishing climatologist now believe more than ever global warming is significantly caused by humanity.
Global Warming causes big snow storms
http://globalfreeenergy.info/2010/01/10/global-warming-causes-big-snow-storms/
Decadal Climate Prediction System
http://globalfreeenergy.info/2010/01/10/decadal-climate-prediction-system/
Quote from: jikwan on January 11, 2010, 11:39:50 AM
Al Gore is one of the greatest men ever. He won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007.
hah!
sfish,
anyone who says this-you cant argue with
cannot make them see reason
youre wasting your time
Everyone is overwhelmed with your scientific methodology. ;) As for me, well, ambigious scientific data works.
2009 Nobel Peace Prize went to
Obamahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Nobel_Peace_Prize
List of awards received by
Al Gorehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_awards_received_by_Al_Gore
Look at that massive list of awards Al Gore has won. ;D Anyone would almost die to win just one of the awards Al Gore has won.
At the time of this writing, and the list is still growing:
2009 awards and honors (https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2Fthumb%2F9%2F93%2FGore_Receives_Berkeley_Medal.jpg%2F210px-Gore_Receives_Berkeley_Medal.jpg&hash=71b3e4c1440aca1c64425bec4b00c94081acc234) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gore_Receives_Berkeley_Medal.jpg) (https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbits.wikimedia.org%2Fskins-1.5%2Fcommon%2Fimages%2Fmagnify-clip.png&hash=1ad46f5cfb18a8540231d3c5de49edde4784b3c7) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gore_Receives_Berkeley_Medal.jpg) Al Gore receiving the Berkeley Medal, The University of California, Berkeley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_California,_Berkeley)'s highest honor, April 2009
- 2009 The Berkeley Medal from the University of California, Berkeley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_California,_Berkeley). [1]
- 2009 Roger Revelle Prize (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Revelle_Prize) from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scripps_Institution_of_Oceanography), University of California, San Diego (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_California,_San_Diego)[2]
- 2009 NAACP Image Award - Chairman's Award (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAACP_Image_Award_-_Chairman%27s_Award) (with Wangari Maathai (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wangari_Maathai)) [3]
[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_awards_received_by_Al_Gore&action=edit§ion=2)] Other
- Gore wrote An Inconvenient Truth: The Planetary Emergency of Global Warming and What We Can Do About It (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Inconvenient_Truth:_The_Planetary_Emergency_of_Global_Warming_and_What_We_Can_Do_About_It), which won a Grammy Award for Best Spoken Word Album (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammy_Award_for_Best_Spoken_Word_Album).
[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_awards_received_by_Al_Gore&action=edit§ion=3)] 2008 awards and honors
- 2008 National Civil Rights Museum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Civil_Rights_Museum) Freedom Award (Theme: "A Climate of Change"): "The National Civil Rights Museum, located at the Lorraine Motel, assassination site of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., chronicles key episodes of the American civil rights movement and the legacy of this movement to inspire participation in civil and human rights efforts globally, through our collections, exhibitions, and educational programs." Diane Nash (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diane_Nash) will also be honored. [4]
- 2008 Named one of Foreign Policy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Policy) Magazine's Top 100 Public Intellectuals[5]
- 2008 Honorary Doctorate in Humane Letters, Carnegie Mellon University (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnegie_Mellon_University)[6]
- 2008 Doctor honoris causa, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89cole_Polytechnique_F%C3%A9d%C3%A9rale_de_Lausanne)[7]
- 2008 Dan David Prize (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_David_Prize): "Social Responsibility with Particular Emphasis on the Environment"[8]
- 2008 The Gore resolution (HJR712) passed by the Tennessee House of Representatives (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_House_of_Representatives) which honors Gore's "efforts to curb global warming"[9]
[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_awards_received_by_Al_Gore&action=edit§ion=4)] 2007 awards and honors (https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2Fc%2Fc9%2FAl_gore_nobel.jpg%2F180px-Al_gore_nobel.jpg&hash=dde37aba30e95c6a01c5a5b71ee977534dd9741c) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Al_gore_nobel.jpg) (https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbits.wikimedia.org%2Fskins-1.5%2Fcommon%2Fimages%2Fmagnify-clip.png&hash=1ad46f5cfb18a8540231d3c5de49edde4784b3c7) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Al_gore_nobel.jpg) Gore receives the Nobel Peace Prize (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Peace_Prize) in the city hall (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oslo_City_Hall) of Oslo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oslo), 2007
- 2007 Nobel Peace Prize (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_Peace_Prize_Laureates#Laureates) with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change) (IPCC) (environment)[10]
- 2007 Primetime Emmy Award (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primetime_Emmy_Award): Outstanding Creative Achievement in Interactive Television for Current TV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_TV) (interactive technology)
- 2007 Time Person of the Year (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Person_of_the_Year): Runner - Up. [11]
- 2007 Gothenburg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gothenburg) Prize for Sustainable Development[12]
- 2007 International Academy of Television Arts and Sciences (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Academy_of_Television_Arts_and_Sciences): Founders Award for Current TV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_TV) and for work in the area of global warming[13]
- 2007 Quill Awards (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quill_Awards): History/current events/politics, The Assault on Reason (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Assault_on_Reason)
- 2007 Prince of Asturias Award (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_of_Asturias_Awards) in Spain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spain) (environment)[14]
- 2007 The Sir David Attenborough (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Attenborough) Award for Excellence in Nature Filmmaking (environment)[15]
- 2007 Honorary Fellow, American Academy of Arts and Sciences (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Academy_of_Arts_and_Sciences)[16]
- 2007 Honorary Doctorate, Concordia University (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concordia_University)[17]
[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_awards_received_by_Al_Gore&action=edit§ion=5)] Other
- Gore starred in the 2006 documentary An Inconvenient Truth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Inconvenient_Truth), which won an Academy Award for Best Documentary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academy_Award_for_Best_Documentary_%28Feature%29) in 2007.
[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_awards_received_by_Al_Gore&action=edit§ion=6)] Additional awards
- 2006 Quill Awards (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quill_Awards): History/current events/politics, An Inconvenient Truth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Inconvenient_Truth)
- 2005 Webby Award (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Webby_Award_winners#2005): Lifetime Achievement Award (interactive technology)[18][19]
- 1998 The Computerworld (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computerworld) Honors Program Honoring Those Who Use Information Technology to Benefit Society: Toshiba America Leadership Award for Education[20]
- 1993 First Annual Cisco Systems (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cisco_Systems) Circle Award: "In recognition of his visionary leadership in building global awareness of computer networking through the National Information Highway Initiative"[21]
Quote from: 4Tesla on January 12, 2010, 05:06:59 AM
I can't believe with all the evidence that people still are denying global warming. Global warming is real people! Do you not look at the long term charts? Do you think the charts and data is fake? Sure the last couple of years have been cooler, but if you look at the overall trend the earth is warming! Has any of you non believers been on a hike to a glacier lately? I have seen glaciers that are about 70% smaller than they were 15 years ago here in Washington state. Why is that? I'm sick of these Christians and far right conservatives saying that we people don't need to be responsible and take care of the environment. How selfish is that? Don't you care enough about the future generations or is it just too easy to say "well it won't be my problem so I don't care".
I agree with Paul and Nitinnun.
Hurt not the Earth. Neither the sea. Nor the trees. - Revelations 7:3
4Tesla
4Tesla,
I agree with you. The people at this web forum do not represent your average person. What's funny is this is a "free energy" forum, supposedly. That gives us a clue who's hanging out here at this forum. ;) LOL, and they wonder why there are so many "free energy" fakes every year from people who do not ask for $, who spend a great deal of time & resources distracting everyone from legit research.
Don't worry about it though because we're in good company, as a recent poll shows over 97% of active publishing climatologist believe humanity is the significant cause of global warming.
Lets here what *scientist*, not amateurs, have to say about the *very recent* cold weather,
http://globalfreeenergy.info/2010/01/10/global-warming-causes-big-snow-storms/ (http://globalfreeenergy.info/2010/01/10/global-warming-causes-big-snow-storms/)
And also,
"Unscientific anti global warmest say the over the past year the planet is now cooling. That falls under the bad science category because it is impossible to obtain a global warming trend from averaging global temperatures from a few years, and the reason is due to global temperature fluctuations. Global temperatures have always fluctuated by significant amounts. Real scientists find the trend from decades of global temperatures, which clearly shows the global warming trend."
Paul your article does not address lowering average temps, please try again.
And Paul on your website it says that if you ever make an overunity machine that you would sell it for money, please try again being a saint somewhere else.
Quote from: Azorus on January 12, 2010, 11:13:56 AM
Paul your article does not address lowering average temps, please try again.
In a scientific & logical manner the model completely explains the recent frigid weather. If you attempting suggest a few years shows global cooling, LOL, then try again because that is amateur science. Real profession scientists, that is active publishing climatologist keep telling you how real science is conducted. Again -->
"Unscientific anti global warmest say the over the past year the planet is now cooling. That falls under the bad science category because it is impossible to obtain a global warming trend from averaging global temperatures from a few years, and the reason is due to global temperature fluctuations. Global temperatures have always fluctuated by significant amounts. Real scientists find the trend from decades of global temperatures, which clearly shows the global warming trend."
Anyhow, I'm not concerned about the "gang" at this forum. I've seen their level of mentality and their understanding of physics. I'm a huge believer in excess energy, but not what they push, which time after time has been distractions / fakes.
Okay paul next question. Where temps warmer or cooler in the darkage than they are now?
And your link you provided does not explain lowering average temps. key word AVERAGE. so try again.
Answer: averages are caculated over a decade, 10 years of data.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record
oo more scientist bailin on global warming...
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/01/11/years-global-cooling-coming-say-leading-scientists/?test=latestnews
Paul i have said it before and i say it again. Global warming is false, fiction, not true, made up. Climate change is real. I am glad that your are working toward overunity, but quit pedling your global warming.
Quote from: Azorus on January 12, 2010, 11:43:38 AM
Okay paul next question. Where temps warmer or cooler in the darkage than they are now?
And your link you provided does not explain lowering average temps. key word AVERAGE. so try again.
It does explain it. You claim the average shows a lowering, but that's about as vague a statement as it gets-- amateur science. I've already details this countless times. You can *not* take a short average of a few years because of the large fluctuations that are clearly seen since the beginning of the data in the mid 1800's. The larger the average, the more the fluctuations go away. That is a fact.
Furthermore, you can't get rid of the fact that the global temperature is significantly higher (in terms of global temperatures) then it was since 1850. There would have to be *massive* global cooling for a long time before the global temperature dropped even close to the mid 1850's.
Quote from: Azorus on January 12, 2010, 11:43:38 AMAnswer: averages are caculated over a decade, 10 years of data.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record)
Yes, it clearly says & shows there is global *warming*, not cooling.
Quote from: Azorus on January 12, 2010, 11:43:38 AMoo more scientist bailin on global warming...
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/01/11/years-global-cooling-coming-say-leading-scientists/?test=latestnews (http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/01/11/years-global-cooling-coming-say-leading-scientists/?test=latestnews)
Fox news is the most conservative news organization that I'm aware of. CNN has caught them red handed deliberately lying. When time permits I'll find the reference. Furthermore, that article provides zero evidence. Also, you can find scientists who will believe in just about anything. Presently over 97% of *active publishing* climatologist believe humanity is the significant cause of global warming.
You see, that's the problem here, and it is very evident. Those who oppose the fact that global warming is real cannot show evidence, they point to ding dong conservative & sometimes religious websites. I'm not interesting in amateur science.
Paul you are a tool. You can not be convinced unless there was three feet of snow for 10 years. global warming not real, climate change is.
If you follow your own graphs that you worship you will notice that they do not follow up to the current year, maybe you should look into that. You would notice that 1997-1999 where a lot warmer than now, oh wait 10 years ago, that would mean a cooling trend...
QuoteLets here what *scientist*, not amateurs, have to say about the *very recent* cold weather,
As is becoming painfully more clear everyday, much work is left to the *amateurs* that is either not being done by *scientists* or is willfully being ignored due to threat of professional peril.
Case in point:
http://www.backwoodshome.com/forum/vb/showthread.php?t=18430
The top graphic at the URL above is hosted at Arkansas University, it is one of many such graphics which can be found at various institutions of *higher learning* around the world. It does not require the credentials of a scientist to decipher it's meaning....and that such as was the norm for many, many years, is no longer the case. Not even close. One has only to watch the moon's rise/set locations and orbital track over a single night at it's northernmost point once a month to ascertain a few sobering truths.
Scientists can't even explain why tides were two feet higher than their models predicted, along the entire east coast, this year. This despite our Moon playing rodeo across the skies. Ocean currents of our swaying earth are effecting the entire planet's weather systems. The Sun, now rises and sets at odd angles and in odd locations at the beginning of summer and winter....and as any *honest* scientist knows, the Sun and Moon and Earth's attitude toward them, is responsible for the Lion's share of the predicament in which we now find ourselves.
http://divulgence.net/Sun%20angle.html
http://www.isuma.tv/lo/en/inuit-knowledge-and-climate-change-project/earth-has-shifted
Blessings in Christ Yeshua
Luke 21:25-28 (New International Version)
25"There will be signs in the sun, moon and stars. On the earth, nations will be in anguish and perplexity at the roaring and tossing of the sea. 26Men will faint from terror, apprehensive of what is coming on the world, for the heavenly bodies will be shaken. 27At that time they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. 28When these things begin to take place, stand up and lift up your heads, because your redemption is drawing near."
Another thing you might want to look into is the Global average mean temperature. That is how they come up with weather or not the plantet is warmer now or in the past. They compare current temps with the mean to come up with a +- factor as to where we stand to the global average mean temp, which right now sits at about +0.78C. So yes temps are warmer than they have been in the past! ya you got one thing right! but we are still a lot cooler than they have been in the past too. Amature scientist indeed.
Quote from: ResinRat2 on January 12, 2010, 06:59:40 AM
It is too bad you don't understand why we are fighting the global warming hysteria. I am doing it first of all because there is plenty of evidence, and tens of thousands of scientists agree, that global warming is affected little by human activites. The largest contributor to global warming is the sun itself, and as solar activity goes up and down, there is a rise and fall in the overall global temperature.
The other reason I fight the hysteria is because it is being used as a tool by power-hungry politicians, like Al Gore, as a means to get legislation passed that would control every aspect of our lives. By control of energy they would manipulate the economy and social structure of our society. Not just Nationally, like in the United States; but globally by use of treaties and International Organizations like the United Nations. For those of us who abhor the expansion of Governmental Power, it is frightening.
I care a great deal about future generations. I want my son to have a family and enjoy the freedoms I was able to enjoy in my life, but these ambitious politcal-Social engineers want to control their lives. Governmental Power is Force. It is oppressive and feeds on itself as it expands. It needs to be controlled and watched over carefully by the general population so scumbags like Al Gore won't be able to achieve their Iron-Grip control over every aspect of our lives; and so clueless people like Paul Lawrence don't just mindlessly give away our freedoms and protections because of hysterical scare tactics. I also care about the environment, but I don't want it controlled through oppressive laws and regulations. It needs to be controlled through local and state governments, where the control is less oppressive and people can watch over and control it more carefully.
I care about the environment more than you believe, but I refuse to allow Power Hungry and oppressive politicians to take away my freedoms. I can see their sleigh of hand tactics and I KNOW they are doing it just to gain control. All for Social and Political change, and for GREED.
That's absolutely right. There is plenty of evidence that temperature goes up and down in cycles, and has done for millenia - also that the sun influences the climate, a simple fact that global warming proponents downplay or ignore.
Yes, this is about social and political control, about new taxing systems, about controlling the population, and about furthering centralisation of power - because the more justification you have to do this, the faster the process will continue. Just read the documents written by the 'elite'. Read Maurice Strong, read Henry Kissinger about using food as a weapon, for example, read the Club of Rome Documents which clearly show that they are looking for a new threat in the environment to fulfill their agenda. We know from their statements, and can read between the lines, to understand what the plan is - always was - to create a global fascist state where everything is controlled. How many children you have, everything you buy and sell, everything you do, everywhere you go, all will be monitored and controlled. The idea is to have a cashless society based on microchips - and we are more than halfway there already.
All we need is a new financial crisis, such as the collapse of the dollar, the collapse of the 1.4 quadrillion derivatives bubble, or a combination of the two; a new genetically engineered pandemic with serious consequences; or an environmental crisis which is more about perception than reality, like global warming for example.
Then, when enough people who are suffering cry out for a 'solution' the system can 'reboot' into the globally centralised system which was planned all along, to 'save' us, from the problems, real or perceived - doesn't matter.
Once you see the pattern that is being played out here, then 'Climategate', the recent 'Bankstergate', the bailout of enormous sums of money to the very people who created the problem in the first place, where they were told not to disclose the true extent of the sums paid - where we are not allowed to know where the TARP money went - how all of this is connected, then it starts to make sense. Google 'Endgame' to see how the Darwin, Huxley, Galston, Rockefeller and other bloodline families obsessively interbred to perserve their DNA, create the eugenics and the philosophy of the superhuman which Hitler so much admired.
This cabal of psychopaths, who have made it their stated intention to cull the human race by 80% or more, now control our economy, and the politicians supposedly managing it. Until we wake up to this reality, we are going to be their victims.
Until we snap out of the 'pollyanna' state of denial and address the situation, a global tyranny - just as Orwell envisioned - will be upon us. It will be 'nice'. It will be 'for our own good' 'to save the planet' - but it will be tyranny on a scale never before imagined.
The first stage is understanding how deep the rabbithole goes. Do your research, and you'll find out. The next stage is coming together, pooling our resources, and being creative about new ways to stop cooperating with the system. The system can only function if we give our power to it every day, in so many ways. The system is run by a relatively small group of psychopaths at the top of the pyramid. Always remember that we outnumber them greatly - and that we are powerful both individually and collectively. They don't want you to know your true power - so never forget it.
These guys understand how consciousness relates to DNA, and that DNA is like a crystalline receiver-transmitter. That's why they are busy introducing full body scanners at airports - the planning for this was already in place before the 'Underwear Bomber' provided the justification for it - problem-reaction-solution, another false flag terror op, and they leave so many loose ends, it's plain that they are not even bothering to cover this up properly.
The full body scanners are there to create biometric profiles of the population, in addition to their DNA profiles. They also have the useful side-effect of damaging your DNA and reducing the full spectrum of infinite consciousness which is your true nature.
There are many other way in which they have tried to reduce your potential. Flouride, heavy metals, aspartame, food additives, the list is endless.
Make no mistake, this Illuminati agenda is going to be exposed - and we are going to discover some amazing new realities about which we know nothing. But we must stop the denial, stand together and create the new reality.
Paul,
I think you should become a cult leader. One; if anyone says anything to the contray of what you say they are wrong, even with evidence because it comes from an untrusted site, where we all know wiki is infaulable. Two; Global Warming already has a cult leader called Al Gore, you worship him as a god so it should be easy for you to take his place as his susessor since you already know everything about Global Warming, except he won peace prize for Climate Change not global warming. Three; Like all good clut leaders you have your own website which when quoted is ignored, because if someone quotes something that you intend to do, damit it is none of there business! refering to your selling of an idea for overunity even though you claim to want free energy for all. Four; You already have followers as blind as you are! Tesla4 step right up!
And if you only watch CNN i feel sorry for you, they only have like 3-4 stories on all day, must get boring for ya!
Quote from: silverfish on January 12, 2010, 03:08:59 PM
That's absolutely right. There is plenty of evidence that temperature goes up and down in cycles, and has done for millenia - also that the sun influences the climate, a simple fact that global warming proponents downplay or ignore.
Earth's temperatures regularly follow a ~100 year warming trend like we have now? More like hundreds of thousands or millions of years, in which case, there is plenty of time to adapt.
Quote from: happyfunball on January 12, 2010, 03:52:59 PM
Earth's temperatures regularly follow a ~100 year warming trend like we have now? More like hundreds of thousands or millions of years, in which case, there is plenty of time to adapt.
I'm freezing my face off here in the UK. If you think this is part of a 100 year warming trend, then go ahead and believe it. When next year's winter proves yet more devastating than this one, you will no doubt justify this as evidence of global warming. Where is this global warming? I certainly haven't experienced it, do you know anyone who has?
People need to look at the mediaeval warm period, to understand that relatively recently temperatures were the same or warmer than today. Thousands of years ago C02 levels were higher than they are today, and now we are asked to believe C02 is a toxic gas that we must be taxed on - our breathing, which benefits plants, so that they can produce oxygen.
Question everything - especially so-called 'bona fide' data brought to you courtesy of special interests.
Quote from: Azorus on January 12, 2010, 03:47:00 PM
Paul,
I think you should become a cult leader. One; if anyone says anything to the contray of what you say they are wrong, even with evidence because it comes from an untrusted site, where we all know wiki is infaulable. Two; Global Warming already has a cult leader called Al Gore, you worship him as a god so it should be easy for you to take his place as his susessor since you already know everything about Global Warming, except he won peace prize for Climate Change not global warming. Three; Like all good clut leaders you have your own website which when quoted is ignored, because if someone quotes something that you intend to do, damit it is none of there business! refering to your selling of an idea for overunity even though you claim to want free energy for all. Four; You already have followers as blind as you are! Tesla4 step right up!
And if you only watch CNN i feel sorry for you, they only have like 3-4 stories on all day, must get boring for ya!
I agree. I posted a quote of a part of a sentence from Paul's website where it said he was planning on selling this technology (what happened to open source??) and even said it was only a part of a sentence and what happened?
Paul had a fit "claiming" that I only posted part of one sentence (duh, that is what I said I did) so I was trying to deceive people. Notice that he STILL has not responded to the question of selling open source technology to which his quote, in his own words, was stating clearly that he was planning on doing so.
He will never answer to this. As a matter of fact, I would bet that his website gets "edited" to remove that statement, then he can claim that I made the whole thing up and he never said anything like that.
Everyone in TN knows the fraud that Al Gore is, hopefully soon, the rest of the country will see him for what he is. Paul, on the other hand, will just continue to worship this fraud.
Bill
This from USA Today on Wiki:
"The episode demonstrates the lack of accountability that often comes with articles posted by anonymous people over the Internet. Unlike content included in magazines, books and other traditional media, online material can be submitted by just about anyone, often without having to volunteer any identifying information."
Rest of the article can be found here:
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techpolicy/2005-12-05-wiki-rules_x.htm
I just noticed this article is from 2005. I will try to find more recent ones that show that, although wiki does seem to try their best, continually quoting them as a source for scientific data is not prudent.
Bill
Quote from: silverfish on January 12, 2010, 04:07:25 PM
I'm freezing my face off here in the UK. If you think this is part of a 100 year warming trend, then go ahead and believe it. When next year's winter proves yet more devastating than this one, you will no doubt justify this as evidence of global warming. Where is this global warming? I certainly haven't experienced it, do you know anyone who has?
People need to look at the mediaeval warm period, to understand that relatively recently temperatures were the same or warmer than today. Thousands of years ago C02 levels were higher than they are today, and now we are asked to believe C02 is a toxic gas that we must be taxed on - our breathing, which benefits plants, so that they can produce oxygen.
Question everything - especially so-called 'bona fide' data brought to you courtesy of special interests.
It's winter. It's supposed to be cold. The warming trend is the overall annual mean temperature. It's just the same thing over and over with you guys, 'the earth has always had warming and cooling cycles,' and 'it's winter and it's cold therefore, no climate change.'
The one instance you bring up, the Medieval Warm Period, is the only known such anomoly and that occured over the course of 500 years. Note the fact that it is an anomaly, and therefore by no means considered normal in Earth's history. If that's what you're basing your comments on, then they're essentially baseless.
Quote from: Azorus on January 12, 2010, 02:25:15 PM
Paul you are a tool. You can not be convinced unless there was three feet of snow for 10 years. global warming not real, climate change is.
If you follow your own graphs that you worship you will notice that they do not follow up to the current year, maybe you should look into that. You would notice that 1997-1999 where a lot warmer than now, oh wait 10 years ago, that would mean a cooling trend...
Yes they did, but you don't seem to understand the mathematics evolved. In the 5 year average graph each point consists of 5 years of data. So for example in that particular graph the last point for 2005 would be 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005. As you can see, although the last point might be drawn at 2005, but it consists of data up to 2009. So to do what you complain about, they would have to time travel, lol.
Active publishing climatologist must get a truck load of such statements from amateur scientists every day.
Quote from: Azorus on January 12, 2010, 03:47:00 PM
And if you only watch CNN i feel sorry for you, they only have like 3-4 stories on all day, must get boring for ya!
I watch unbiased news stations. Fox News is the most biased news station (if one could consider it that) that I am aware of.
Quote from RR:
" The other reason I fight the hysteria is because it is being used as a tool by power-hungry politicians, like Al Gore, as a means to get legislation passed that would control every aspect of our lives. By control of energy they would manipulate the economy and social structure of our society. Not just Nationally, like in the United States; but globally "
Once they convince everyone energy production is a contributing factor in "globa warming", it then appears to make sense to regulated it...they have control what free energy producing devices will be 'permit'ed to produce energy.
That is their goal...and they are desperately trying to overcome the exposure of their emails and admission of destroying date which contradicted their falsified data.
By the way, all forums are occupied by paid agents of distraction.
I've noticed they all employ the same familiarization pattern whereby they enter popular threads, display some knowledge and insight, are generally very obliging, and appar elpful and generous.
Next thing you know they are disrespectful in other threads...make baseless generalizations and wild accusations.
And seemingly, its as if they can't recognize a fact if their life depended on it...yet they argue other unrelated red herring points.
In the end, they serve their purpose by stealing your most valuable asset---your time.
Its wise to steer clear of people who without provocation disrespect others.
Regards...
I see more chance of man surviving global warming then global freezing. If all the watervapor and oceans froze over it would change the whole surface of the Earth white. White reflects solar radiation including the infrared radiation which is about 60 percent of the identified electromagnetic waves presently considered a factor in the heating of the Earth. Course we dont take into account that we are sitting on the surface of a piece of the Sun and there is alot of heating from within the Earth.zin
Well anyway if the whole thing goes white then the Earth turns into a frozen snowball. Maybe global warming is a bunch of krap and the real deal is global freezing. Now the tunnels undergound make sense. Down there with an insulating layer of snow it would be really comfy. Heat from the interior of the Earth would be trapped while we wouldnt have to deal with the wonders of nature including hurricanes tornadoes rain snow heatwaves arridification crop devouring bugs deer vermin microbes
plant poisons killer bees red ants flys mosquoitos cockroaches fleas etc etc etc. Nature sure is beautiful.
By the way, all forums are occupied by paid agents of distraction.
I've noticed they all employ the same familiarization pattern whereby they enter popular threads, display some knowledge and insight, are generally very obliging, and appar elpful and generous.
Next thing you know they are disrespectful in other threads...make baseless generalizations and wild accusations.
And seemingly, its as if they can't recognize a fact if their life depended on it...yet they argue other unrelated red herring points.
In the end, they serve their purpose by stealing your most valuable asset---your time.
excellent! this is very rarely mentioned
Quote from: PaulLowrance on January 12, 2010, 07:17:47 PM
I watch unbiased news stations. Fox News is the most biased news station (if one could consider it that) that I am aware of.
That's interesting; Fox News is consistently overall #1 in ratings, day after day after day. I guess the wave is leaving you far behind. This must mean you are out of touch with the way the rest of the United States is moving. I’ll tell you why, because they recognize the B.S. coming from the other networks and they want to see REAL news.
Oh wait; it must be a biased source, right Paul; maybe because it’s not on Wikipedia? Oh, wait again, it must be because the data must be wrong, after all, the numbers don’t agree with the Mighty Paul Lowrance and his adoring followers.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/30/fox-news-dominates-3q-200_n_304260.html
http://www.mediabistro.com/TVNewser/Ratings/
I guess you can tell I am really angry with this guy.
I can't stand to watch Fox News.. bunch of idiots.. If you watch Fox News I bet you listen to Rush Limbaugh, are a far right conservative Christian and Republican... correct?? The problem with the conservative far right republicans and the liberal far left Democrats is that there is no changing their minds. What they think the world should be like has to be the right and the only way... closed minded people. Now people in the middle are open minded.. see the gray areas and don't see things in black and white. That is the kind of people I thought would be on this forum.. but it doesn't seem to be the case.
4Tesla
Quote from: silverfish on January 12, 2010, 04:07:25 PM
I'm freezing my face off here in the UK. If you think this is part of a 100 year warming trend, then go ahead and believe it. When next year's winter proves yet more devastating than this one, you will no doubt justify this as evidence of global warming. Where is this global warming? I certainly haven't experienced it, do you know anyone who has?
People need to look at the mediaeval warm period, to understand that relatively recently temperatures were the same or warmer than today. Thousands of years ago C02 levels were higher than they are today, and now we are asked to believe C02 is a toxic gas that we must be taxed on - our breathing, which benefits plants, so that they can produce oxygen.
Question everything - especially so-called 'bona fide' data brought to you courtesy of special interests.
Uh?? It is called winter! The glaciers here in Washington state are disappearing.. can you explain why that is? Yes I have seen them myself!
I think everyone has to agree that becoming energy independent is good for all.. it makes environmentalist happy as we cut back on co2 and it makes us a safer nation as we are no longer sending our money overseas to the terrorist.. not saying that they were responsible for 9/11 ;)
A lot of electric cars coming soon! I've been following the Chevy Volt.. very cool!
Check it out here:
http://www.chevrolet.com/pages/open/default/future/volt.do
http://www.chevroletvoltage.com/
http://gm-volt.com/
4Tesla
Quote from: Pirate88179 on January 11, 2010, 06:17:13 PM
Tbird:
That was such a good article I posted the lead paragraphs here:
"The bitter winter afflicting much of the Northern Hemisphere is only the start of a global trend towards cooler weather that is likely to last for 20 or 30 years, say some of the world’s most eminent climate scientists.Their predictions â€" based on an analysis of natural cycles in water temperatures in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans â€" challenge some of the global warming orthodoxy’s most deeply cherished beliefs, such as the claim that the North Pole will be free of ice in summer by 2013.
According to the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado, Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007 â€" and even the most committed global warming activists do not dispute this.The scientists’ predictions also undermine the standard climate computer models, which assert that the warming of the Earth since 1900 has been driven solely by man-made greenhouse gas emissions and will continue as long as carbon dioxide levels rise. "
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1242011/DAVID-ROSE-The-mini-ice-age-starts-here.html#ixzz0cLfgNIhL (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1242011/DAVID-ROSE-The-mini-ice-age-starts-here.html#ixzz0cLfgNIhL)
Paul will dispute this because even though those climatologists are the leading ones in the world, their reports do not fit the man-caused global warming model so therefore they can't be true.
Bill
Exactly. It doesn't matter how credentialled or academic they are, or how much the information is backed up from other sources. It will be 'bad science' because it doesn't fit the global warming model. If you raise the subject of ClimateGate emails, these will be described as 'taken out of context' or, perversely, 'proof' that big oil is funding Climate skeptics, scientific skeptics are in the minority, there is a 'consensus' and all the other nonsense, etc. etc. ad infinitum.
There's easily enough valid information and links posted on this forum to show people that the global warming hypothesis, far from being clear-cut, has MANY questions hanging over it and is clearly in dispute - that is a fact that anyone with half a brain can see right away, in fact anyone with the ability to read newspapers can see also that we have been given contradictory information right from the start.
4Tesla, considers the mediaeval warm period as an 'abnormal' period in the past 500 years. If you go back further you will find similar periods when the Earth was warmer than today. Perhaps these were 'abnormal' too - but I have another explanation. The climate changes in cycles just as it has done for millions of years, and human beings have been breathing out CO2 for 150,000 years or so without any problem. Yet this tiny fraction of the atmosphere is cited as a major problem. The fact that carbon dioxide is heavier than air is ignored. The fact that the SEAS ABSORB LARGE AMOUNTS OF CO2 is ignored. And when questionable graphs like the hockey stick graph 'proving' global warming are compiled, they conveniently leave out the mediaeval warm period and ignore the influence of larger cycles such as ice age cycles, sun cycles, magnetic reversals, and so on. Including these cycles would give very different results - but no, we never see that.
I moved to the southern part of the US to enjoy some of the heat from global warming. All I can say is" I've been robbed" Im freezing my arse off. Do you have to be a fat bastered to feel global warming? Is it the earth or ones own personal atmosphere that has a problem?
take a look
http://www.storyofstuff.com/capandtrade/
its a part-animation explaining global warming scams
be a little patient, you get to understand in a short time
the main wrong concepts/corruption
Quote from: Doug1 on January 13, 2010, 07:18:13 AM
I moved to the southern part of the US to enjoy some of the A from global warming. All I can say is" I've been robbed" Im freezing my arse off. Do you have to be a fat bastered to feel global warming? Is it the earth or ones own personal atmosphere that has a problem?
Funny! I'm freezing my backside off here in the UK, fresh snowfall all night last night. We can expect the cold conditions to persist into February.
According to Rutgers University Global Snow Lab, December 2009 was the second snowiest ON RECORD IN THE NORTHERN HEMISPHERE. Must be global warming...
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/10/second-snowiest-december-on-record-in-the-northern-hemisphere/
Quote from: ResinRat2 on January 12, 2010, 07:56:35 PM
That's interesting; Fox News is consistently overall #1 in ratings, day after day after day. I guess the wave is leaving you far behind. This must mean you are out of touch with the way the rest of the United States is moving. I’ll tell you why, because they recognize the B.S. coming from the other networks and they want to see REAL news.
I have no idea if that's true and have zero interest because using that as a bases to watch a news station is nothing but illogical. If one follows that logic then they'll simply follow everything in life that is the most popular, which means you'll be basing your life on average intelligence. In case you haven't noticed, the general public is not scientific. I have observed that public in totality is dominated by emotions / desires.
I'm still waiting for you people to show one shred of science. Show your graph the proves there the global warming trend is gone? Come on, please by all means. Enough with the talk and claims. Anyone can post blog articles with ding dongs claiming just about anything, but that's proof, just a bunch of claims.
A dip in global temperature? LOL, that's your proof. That's your failed logic because if you consider a few years average then we can point ~ a dozen global warming and global cooling trends in the graph, lol. That's not science. You can't even seem to comprehend what a fluctuations are.
Quote from: Cap-Z-ro on January 12, 2010, 07:21:14 PM
Quote from RR:
" The other reason I fight the hysteria is because it is being used as a tool by power-hungry politicians, like Al Gore, as a means to get legislation passed that would control every aspect of our lives. By control of energy they would manipulate the economy and social structure of our society. Not just Nationally, like in the United States; but globally "
Once they convince everyone energy production is a contributing factor in "globa warming", it then appears to make sense to regulated it...they have control what free energy producing devices will be 'permit'ed to produce energy.
That is their goal...and they are desperately trying to overcome the exposure of their emails and admission of destroying date which contradicted their falsified data.
By the way, all forums are occupied by paid agents of distraction.
I've noticed they all employ the same familiarization pattern whereby they enter popular threads, display some knowledge and insight, are generally very obliging, and appar elpful and generous.
Next thing you know they are disrespectful in other threads...make baseless generalizations and wild accusations.
And seemingly, its as if they can't recognize a fact if their life depended on it...yet they argue other unrelated red herring points.
In the end, they serve their purpose by stealing your most valuable asset---your time.
Its wise to steer clear of people who without provocation disrespect others.
Regards...
Good advice, and accurate, in my opinion.
It seems to me that if people start taking a closer look at the father
of the environmental movement, Maurice Strong, they are going to open a huge can of worms that exposes not only fraud going on at the highest levels, the cultlike religious aspects, but also a monumental hypocrisy which beggars belief.
George Washington Hunt attended the 4th World Wilderness Congress at Denver, Colorado in 1987. (Denver happens to be a major centre for the NWO, check out the mural). He managed to get in only because another attendee had flu. He was subsequently vetted by PSYCHICS before attending the Congress. Strong, who is linked to a cult called the 'Gospel of Judas' apparently has cult-like centers in the area and his wife initiated the 'Gaia' earth religion espoused recently by Al Gore. Just as with Bohemian Grove we see occult activities all over the place where the 'elite' convene themselves.
This UN meeting was significant, to say the least. Attending it were:
Edmond de Rothschild, world banker
Secretary of the Treasury, Banker
Head of the IMF
Head of the World Bank
David Rockefeller
Head of the United Nations at Geneva,
Maurice Strong, secretary general, (Rothschild's right hand man) convening the conference.
Michael Sweetman, president of the 'World Conservation bank' - this was talked about in 1987 as the plan for one bank, and only one credit card for the entire world - and if you didn't do what the bankers wanted, tough, mate, your credit would be cut off. That's where we're all going, by the way.
When George Hunt voiced opposition to some of the astonishing things he heard about this and regard to the depopulation agenda, David Rockefeller threatened him to shut up or 'he would regret it'.
Hunt was called by a Christian group in San Luis Valley who exposed the fact
that Maurice Strong is up to all kinds of tricks. Strong was going to pump water to cities and turn the San Luis Valley, an area thousands of miles square, into a DUST BOWL. Here is the stunning hypocrisy behind your 'Gods' of the environmental movement, who are nothing but frauds, crooks and con-men hiding behind a quasi-religious veil. It's alleged that Strong took a 1 million dollar bribe from the UN over the oil for food program. He was exposed by FOX (No, I don't trust FIX News either but this time they were right on the money) He got 8 million dollars when he sold Debaka for water rights which he did not own.
Strong left the States in a hurry after Hunt reported him to Congress for tacking a 'rider' onto the Quadrennial water bill that would allow growth and development to the UC Aquafers. If hunt had not written to congress this bill would have passed benefiting AWDI, Strong's company.
It was Strong, head of the Official Biological Diversity meeting, 1992 in Rio de Janeiro who said 'We must destroy industrial society for Gaia'
At the end of the 4th Congress in Denver, Gros Harlem Bruntman, in charge of 'Population reduction' (who was head of WHO for six years) presented a paper to Rothschild in which it stated that 2 billion people have to be REMOVED from the planet. Hunt mentions how a prominent Canadian banker at the convention actually said 'Let's remove the 'cannon fodder' that unfortunately inhabits the Earth, without telling them'
These are the kinds of people with their fingers on the purse strings of the planet. And we are going to allow them to set up an unelected world government where you have zero freedom of choice about what to do with your money? total control, a psychopath's wet dream, no-one will be allowed to buy or sell unless they say so, that's what Hunt discovered, and it tallies exactly with what Aaron Russo learned from Nick Rockefeller.
You will be paying carbon credits and taxes directly to people who you don't know, haven't elected, and have an agenda to depopulate the planet - which we know is going on from the contaminated UN vaccines containing AIDs in Rwanda, and Guille-Barre syndrome. Interestingly one of the 'threats' Hunt was given for opposing the agenda was GBS, and he came down with it.
the planet. Hunt mentions how a prominent Canadian banker at the convention actually said 'Let's remove the 'cannon fodder' that unfortunately inhabits the Earth...
[/quote]
Specifically: David Lang, Canadian banker from Montreal, Canada, speaking at the 4th World Wilderness, Denver, Colorado:
'Until recently I had a balance sheet that had billions of dollars still existing which have now been written off, so those circumstances have a bad habit of disappearing when the auditor finally gets his hands on to the balance sheet. I suggest therefore that this be sold not through a democratic process, that will take too long and devour too much of the funds, to educate the cannon fodder which unfortunately populates the Earth. We have to take almost an elitist program that we can see beyond our swollen bellies and look to the future in time frames, and the results, which are not easily understood, and which can be, with intellectual honesty, be reduced down to some kind of simplistic definition'
So that is what we are, 'Cannon Fodder' 'Useless Eaters' who must be eliminated for the good of Mother Earth, in the new Gaia religion.
Rothschild said that he wanted to capture all the carbon dioxide, ship it to the poles to stop them from melting - and no doubt make vast profits in the process. This is the same guy that wears a skull of bones belt and who, when it was pointed out that Mars's icecaps are also shrinking, said that this was because Mars is closer to the Sun than Earth. This is the guy who is portrayed as 'Jesus' in Outside magazine.
We have Obama portrayed as the Saviour, and strangely enough, when he saw a bas relief of Akhenaton, made the comment that it reminded him of himself.
The elites love to play God. They love to decide who gets what by controlling food resources, the money supply, administering deadly vaccines, and cooking up wild geoengineering schemes. It's all to 'save the planet'. The game is to use guilt over the environment to sell people into giving up their rights.
The BBC recently proposed a 'ration card', so that even if you wanted to buy food or a product, you won't be able to if your carbon credits run out. George Hunt revealed that food will be taxed in proportion to how much of 'Mother Earth' went into it. He says that the idea is to bring about a kind of neo-feudal system. By classifying carbon dioxide as a poison, the globalists will be able to control and constrict the entire life-cycle through taxation.
Do you now see what kind kind of crazies are running the planet, and why denial is no longer an option?
See Hunt's site at www.thebigbank.com, and the 12th January interview with Alex Jones for more detail.
See Hunt's site at www.thebigbank.com,
[/quote]
Correction - www.thebigbadbank.com
See Hunt's site at www.thebigbank.com
[/quote]
correction - www.thebigbadbank.com
Hi,
I would request everyone here to go to the following google cache page
and veryify that my public statement web page says the following -->
http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:KouVPJ5ntb0J:globalfreeenergy.info/public-statement/+%22I+start+a+company+to+market+and+SELL+such+machines+to+people+and+companies+who+are%22+site:http://globalfreeenergy.info/&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a (http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:KouVPJ5ntb0J:globalfreeenergy.info/public-statement/+%22I+start+a+company+to+market+and+SELL+such+machines+to+people+and+companies+who+are%22+site:http://globalfreeenergy.info/&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a)
QuoteI have never asked or accepted money for my research. I will not
accept money or be bought out. I will continue the research until the exact
detailed designs to replicate a “Free Energy machine†is in public hands and
wide spread. Then, and only then will I start a company to market and sell
such machines to people and companies who are uninterested in building
their own. My full 100% intent is to help this world as much as possible
The following was posted in another part of this forum where Pirate88179
has mod privileges. Sorry to post this, but I do not trust that Pirate88179
at all! Also, this thread here is where he first posted the libel act against me.
Quote from: PaulLowrance on January 14, 2010, 07:42:30 AM
Hey, here is the proof that is creature called Pirate88179 is a liar, from
the google cache server!!! ->
http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:KouVPJ5ntb0J:globalfreeenergy.info/public-statement/+%22I+start+a+company+to+market+and+SELL+such+machines+to+people+and+companies+who+are%22+site:http://globalfreeenergy.info/&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a (http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:KouVPJ5ntb0J:globalfreeenergy.info/public-statement/+%22I+start+a+company+to+market+and+SELL+such+machines+to+people+and+companies+who+are%22+site:http://globalfreeenergy.info/&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a)
Read it and weep Pirate88179!
Everyone please take a look at *Googles* time stamp. It says,
"This is Google's cache of http://globalfreeenergy.info/public-statement/. (http://globalfreeenergy.info/public-statement/.)
It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on Dec 6, 2009 01:56:57 GMT. The current page could have changed in the meantime."
And attached is a snap shot of my web browser.
Show us Pirate88179 my nasty public statement, huh? How pathetic
that you could not even provide people a link to my "full" sentence.
You have stoop so low as to cut a small section of my *sentence*
followed by your sick interpretation that was clearly wrong. My public
statement was a very positive sentence!
Get some professional help Pirate88179!
Quote from: PaulLowrance link=topic=8608.msg222066#msg222066 A=1263397292
I'm still waiting for you people to show one shred of science. Show your graph the proves there the global warming trend is gone? Come on, please by all means. Enough with the talk and claims. Anyone can post blog articles with ding dongs claiming just about anything, but that's proof, just a bunch of claims.
A dip in global temperature? LOL, that's your proof. That's your failed logic because if you consider a few years average then we can point ~ a dozen global warming and global cooling trends in the graph, lol. That's not science. You can't even seem to comprehend what a fluctuations are.
How about this:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100022226/agw-i-refute-it-thus-central-england-temperatures-1659-to-2009/
Silver give it up, no amount of evidence will change his mind. All he will do is say that this graph proves his point more and call you an armature scientist, it's what he does. And Paul as far as you saying that you will build free energy devices and sell them to people who don't want to build them that is not called free energy, it's hypocritical. If people do buy your free energy device they would be stupid, but it wouldn't change the fact that you would be a hypocrite.
Quote from: silverfish on January 14, 2010, 08:26:11 AM
How about this:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100022226/agw-i-refute-it-thus-central-england-temperatures-1659-to-2009/ (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100022226/agw-i-refute-it-thus-central-england-temperatures-1659-to-2009/)
Wrong! Wow, what an out right lie! If this wasn't so sad,
it would be hilarious. James Delingpole is *journalist* and
should not be practicing bad science because he's terrible
at it. Furthermore, is someone paying Delingpole to be deceptive.
Attached is an enlarged image of Central England temperature,
where you can clearly see the rise at the dawn of the
industrial age.
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/04/28/central-england-temperature/ (http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/04/28/central-england-temperature/)
Quote,
QuoteIn this limited view, the temperature increase during
the modern global warming era is both quantitatively and
qualitatively unlike any other part of the record. Even
including all the earlier, less precise data, the recent
warming has brought central England to a climate much
warmer than previously measured. The rate of warming
in CET since 1980 is 0.05 +/- 0.02 deg.C/yr, or half a degree C
per decade. If this trend continues,
then by mid-century CET will have increased by a substantial
amount, another 2 deg.C. This will bring CET to
heights unknown for at least 350 years, probably several
thousand years, and in all likelihood warmth not seen since
humans inhabited the British Isles.
Secondly, not that even matters since journalist Delingpole
out right lied, he's talking about "Global" warming, but his
entire claim is based on a Central England. Maybe someone
should tell the poor chap that Central England is not the world, lol.
OMG, all of these non-scientific people who are hitting the
forums like mad posting these lies gives me so much incentives
to investigate these people. I am so glad that the science
community is not giving in to these thugs, that over 97%
of all active publishing climatologist believe *humanity*
is the significant cause of global warming.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_consensus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_consensus)
And yes, the attached image does contain data up to the 2009.
It is a 30 year moving average, so each spot on the graph
spans 30 years. Basic physics.
more shocking graphical data... it's actually pirates that are to blame.
from venganza.org
I wrote this onis once, but it is worth repeating. Why are you even wasting your time with Lowrence. He is a hero in his own mind.
I repeat from previously:
Let's see, what will Paul say:
"I already dealt with this issue before, I'm not going to repeat myself."
"Those graphs are false because they are supported by big oil."
"The data is not reliable because it doesn't come from Wikipedia"
"You have shown yourself to be a (big oil supporter, idiot, liar, etc. whatever else I can dream up) Pirate, everyone else knows you are someone who takes things out of context."
"I looked over the numbers and they don't say what I want so they are false"
"Look, it wasn't even written by a climatologist"
"It wasn't written by the 97% of scientists that agree that man made global warming is a fact."
"I don't even want to talk to you guys anymore, but I keep talking because I would give 100% of my income to save the earth; but if you say I would do that then I will change what I quote from you and say what I wanted to say that I said."
"This thread is filled with big oil supporter idiots and everything they quote or write is false, NO MATTER WHAT!"
etc., etc., You are all wrong and liars and frauds. etc.
Did I miss anything? I'm sure new B.S. is coming. Just wait for it.
"Oh yeah, you must hate nature, while I love nature and the earth and Obama who I adore."
I forgot one: "That's bad science, no matter what they say because it disagrees with the 97% of scientists that agree with global warming.
That should cover most of it.
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on January 14, 2010, 09:19:21 AM
more shocking graphical data... it's actually pirates that are to blame.
from venganza.org
And you don't "think" that the # of privates world wide correlates with the world population? LOL
Quote from: ResinRat2 on January 14, 2010, 09:20:25 AM
I wrote this onis once, but it is worth repeating. Why are you even wasting your time with Lowrence. He is a hero in his own mind.
I repeat from previously:
Let's see, what will Paul say:
"I already dealt with this issue before, I'm not going to repeat myself."
"Those graphs are false because they are supported by big oil."
"The data is not reliable because it doesn't come from Wikipedia"
"You have shown yourself to be a (big oil supporter, idiot, liar, etc. whatever else I can dream up) Pirate, everyone else knows you are someone who takes things out of context."
"I looked over the numbers and they don't say what I want so they are false"
"Look, it wasn't even written by a climatologist"
"It wasn't written by the 97% of scientists that agree that man made global warming is a fact."
"I don't even want to talk to you guys anymore, but I keep talking because I would give 100% of my income to save the earth; but if you say I would do that then I will change what I quote from you and say what I wanted to say that I said."
"This thread is filled with big oil supporter idiots and everything they quote or write is false, NO MATTER WHAT!"
etc., etc., You are all wrong and liars and frauds. etc.
Did I miss anything? I'm sure new B.S. is coming. Just wait for it.
"Oh yeah, you must hate nature, while I love nature and the earth and Obama who I adore."
I forgot one: "That's bad science, no matter what they say because it disagrees with the 97% of scientists that agree with global warming.
That should cover most of it.
Stefan,
I am not kidding here, you better tell these people to stop lying!! I may have written *some* of those quotes. I don't know since I've only checked two of these quotes, and in both cases I did not write it.
How interesting that this liar can't even provide the links to my *so-called* quotes. A typical thug IMO. I just did a forum search on the 1st quote, and the only result that came up was *your* post. Then I did a 2nd forum search taken a random quote from your list, which was "You have shown yourself to be a (big oil supporter, idiot, liar, etc. whatever else I can dream up) Pirate, everyone else knows you are someone who takes things out of context." Again, the only search result that came back was *your* post!
What kind of sick person would place false quotes from a person?
On top of a forum search, I just did a google search, and the only
results that came up was from ResinRat2's post.
This is the 2nd time you've posted those quotes that you claim I
made. I may have made some of those quotes, but the first and
only two I've checked were not my words. So who do you think
you are to lie about what I said???
Did you actually think I was not going to verify? Well, it worked for
awhile since I did not verify the first time you made that sick post.
So lets see you show where I wrote the following two quotes -->
"You have shown yourself to be a (big oil supporter, idiot, liar, etc. whatever else I can dream up) Pirate, everyone else knows you are someone who takes things out of context."
"I already dealt with this issue before, I'm not going to repeat myself."
And no, I did not edit my posts since you provided these fake quotes like a week ago.
I agree with resinrat2, back when i was arguing with you to give me all your income. I hardly think any one of them is a direct quote, more of a paraprhase of what you say. And the "that is just bad science" is a direct quote you use all the time.
I only ask since your are obviously not a scientist yourself, what qualifies a scientist to be one, and if facts are facts why does it matter who wrote them?
Pual please explain
"a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures"
in your wiki page you posted, i would really like to know how significant it is, because it doesn't say.
Quote from: Azorus on January 14, 2010, 09:47:19 AMI hardly think any one of them is a direct quote, more of a paraprhase of what you say.
Wow, how sick. Pretend to post someone's quotes, and all this time they were nothing but paraphrases. It shows their mentality and how low they will stoop.
So I've been incorrectly quoted. I've been libeled by another member here who's username starts with a "P." These people post out right lies about global warming.
I'm just wondering if there's not even one correct quote in that list. Well, that's besides the point, since the first two quotes I checked were *not* my words. How sad.
There you go good people. Now you know what kind of creatures I'm up against.
Paul please quite crying libel when on a forum. Libel refers to a writen publication not an open forum discution.
Paul doesn't get it. Power people use scientists to further their quest for power. They exploit science. You want to get the real deal on Global Warming ask a scientist who has spent his career studying the Sun. By all scientific and intuitive processes employed the SUN can now be officially confirmed by the scientific community and political structure of the Earth as being HOT. Greenhouse gasses are created by plants assholes. What is in the greenhouse. Plants. What is the greenhouse gas they emit. Am I the only one that gets it.
Animals have always exploited vegetation. They eat it and burn it in the mitochondria of their cells. Us smart monkies figured out a way to heat other things up than cell mitochondria.
The powermongers have always had scientists under wraps. Ancient astronomers figured out when their would be solar eclipses. The powermongers would imprison the astronomers so the TRUTH would be sequestered while the Pharoh or whatever idiot was in power would go up on stage and tell the people they werent working hard enough so he was going to make the sun go out for a couple of minutes to show how bad ass he was.
Same shit different century. Global warming and cooling is directly related to solar activity. This time they are using helioscientist's work for political gain. This cold winter we are experiencing right now was predicted. The Sun has gone quiet.
Coronal mass ejection is down.
Quote from: sparks on January 14, 2010, 11:19:43 AM
Paul doesn't get it. Power people use scientists to further their quest for power. They exploit science. You want to get the real deal on Global Warming ask a scientist who has spent his career studying the Sun. By all scientific and intuitive processes employed the SUN can now be officially confirmed by the scientific community and political structure of the Earth as being HOT. Greenhouse gasses are created by plants assholes. What is in the greenhouse. Plants. What is the greenhouse gas they emit. Am I the only one that gets it.
Absolutely. The sun is being ignored in this debate - NASA confirms what is apparently a magnetic reversal taking place on the sun. We have the recent extensive lack of sunspots. We have the Earth's magnetic pole wandering towards Russia, in what could be a partial reversal. When you look at past cycles where magnetic pole reversals and pole shifts wiped out entire species, prior to the onset of ice ages - and carbon/diamond layers in the crust reveal changes that could be due to massive electrical plasma discharges, associated with these shifts - it's folly to ignore the sun and it's influence on climate.
'We', i.e. carbon-based life forms, are by no means the primary factor influencing climate, and this influence has been heavily overstated.
Paul is right, sorry, I did not mean it to say he said each of those quotes. I was sarcastically paraphrasing his words and attitude. I really think he can't lighten up and recognize this, but I have been intentionally sniping at him with words specifically chosen to irritate him. Comedians and Comics do this all the time when they "Roast" celebrities and politicians. Just like Saturday Night Live creates skits at the victim's humiliation.
My point in all this is that there is absolutely nothing that anyone can quote to Paul that he will agree with or believe that are not specifically from the sources he chooses as valid. Anything he disagrees with he will refuse to accept as valid, which is any website or source that does not agree with the Hypothesis of Man-Made Global Warming. Period.
All other references he sees as invalid, even Scientists who were once global warming supporters, and now have changed their minds. They are all either Big Oil supporters or somehow have some other greedy, evil, agenda; while Al Gore (who will make a fortune from the Cap and Trade Scam) is the greatest homo-sapian on the planet.
@ Resin
I have specifically targeted sources pual has used to prove him wrong, ie wiki. He still did not listen.
This is my point. It is a waste of time with him.
He would give it all away to Al Gore; hook, line, and sinker. Every freedom and dollar. His "all". The trouble is his willingness to give it all away will spill over to all of us who recognize Gore for what he is, a power-hungry, greedy politician, who will get rich off the Global Warming Scam.
I have to fight him, I need to defeat his plans.
The reason WardenClyffe tower was torn down was not because Big oil and gas couldnt meter it it was because a waterfall in canada could power a community in brazil. A thermal to electric conversion plant in the middle of the Sahara could warm homes in the chineese northlands. A windmill in the islands capturing tradewinds could run a desalination plant in Japan. There would be bounty not scarcity. There would be power everywhere all the time due to the cooperation at the grass roots of society. There would be no centralization of power there would be a life of giving not taking and hoarding. Go out and maintain the windmill or dust off the solar collectors why because it helps out everyone. This concept of giving is beyond the descendants of the snake to comprehend. They are a species that has been halted in it's evolution into higher forms of beings because of the ruthless nature of the animals they are. Nature allows beings of this type like the shark to perpectuate and not evolve into higher life forms. These people and I use the term loosely are so stupid they are dangerous. They are actually insane and their insanity becomes apparent when they are asked to imagine something like what they see in inkblots or cloud formations. They cant see anything but a piece of paper with inkblots on them. They are fellows like Jeffrey Dommer who are completely unaware of what it is to be human because they are not. They are not homosapiens they are homoserpians. Their brain development became stalled along the line somewhere and since they only choose to have siblings that are of the serpent mind prosper their offspring of the sane mind are considered weak and cutout of the circle of the family affairs. The marriages and subsequent children from theses unions are all manipulated to enhance the chances that a homoserpian will be born instead of a homosapien. Look at George Bush the little elf with pointed ears and tongue that flicks like a snake every once in a while and tell me this thing is a homosapien. It is no fault of theirs it is just survival of the fittest in the game nature produces. Nothing to do with the higher states of being. I prefer for my offspring not to inhabit the same planet as this species and would welcome transport to someplace these creatures do not rule.
Quote from: ResinRat2 on January 14, 2010, 12:12:13 PM
Paul is right, sorry, I did not mean it to say he said each of those quotes. I was sarcastically paraphrasing his words and attitude. I really think he can't lighten up and recognize this, but I have been intentionally sniping at him with words specifically chosen to irritate him. Comedians and Comics do this all the time when they "Roast" celebrities and politicians. Just like Saturday Night Live creates skits at the victim's humiliation.
My point in all this is that there is absolutely nothing that anyone can quote to Paul that he will agree with or believe that are not specifically from the sources he chooses as valid. Anything he disagrees with he will refuse to accept as valid, which is any website or source that does not agree with the Hypothesis of Man-Made Global Warming. Period.
All other references he sees as invalid, even Scientists who were once global warming supporters, and now have changed their minds. They are all either Big Oil supporters or somehow have some other greedy, evil, agenda; while Al Gore (who will make a fortune from the Cap and Trade Scam) is the greatest homo-sapian on the planet.
RR:
I think the word you are looking for is satire. Satire is protected from certain civil laws here in the US. A local radio talk show host I listen to here (Phil Valentine out of Nashville) made a parody using a Bruce Springsteen song and was threatened to be sued by Springsteen's attorney's. Valentine's attorney's pointed out the laws protecting satire and parody and the issue was dropped.
Funny thing is, in another topic Paul made claims that I slandered him. When I pointed out to him that since he and I have never spoken, and we can't speak on this forum to each other, there was no way anyone can slander anyone here. Now his false claims have changed to libel. So now he has falsely claimed that I have slandered and libeled him. I wonder what is next?
Bill
I see a 'tar baby' with many limbs protruding.
*leaves winch behind for stuck members*
Not that any members wood ever poke a 'tarbaby' with their member.
Regards...
Quote from: sparks on January 14, 2010, 11:19:43 AM
Greenhouse gasses are created by plants assholes. What is in the greenhouse. Plants. What is the greenhouse gas they emit. Am I the only one that gets it.
You are so wrong it is funny.. I think you may be the only one that thinks plants are a source of greenhouse gas! Animals.. yes Plants.. no!
4Tesla
Green house gases are created by plants. water vapor is a very well know green house gas, look it up on wiki. plants creat water vapor.
I liked it a while back when the ippc was trying to go for a complete ban on greenhouse gases, someone stood up and told him to stop talking then. Not sure if it was real or not but it is a funny joke.
Quote from: Azorus on January 14, 2010, 02:40:16 PM
Green house gases are created by plants. water vapor is a very well know green house gas, look it up on wiki. plants creat water vapor.
Okay.. maybe he isn't the only one.. I'll do some research but.. plants absorb co2 and emit oxygen.. which to me makes them a non source of greenhouse gas.
4Tesla
okay so they go through all the trouble of getting oxygen from water because they dont need the oxygen they just like doing it so animals can use the oxygen. They dont use the oxygen for any carbon hydrogen bond breaking any time during their life time. They dont need any of the energy stored in the hydrogen bonds they created they just do it for fun. Some idiot said dont plant grass plant trees they lock up the carbon longer. The trees have this majical way of staying alive without oxidation of the simple sugars it went through the trouble of making. Ya right.
How many times have we heard that it aint the heat it is the humidity. Water is the best infrared capture antennae there is.
58 percent of the identified electromagnetic wave energy from the sun is in the infrared bands. Doesn't it seem peculiar that scientists say that plants are only able to convert ultraviolet light into free hydrogen. That no other lifeform has ever evolved that is able to convert infrared energy into hydrolysis of water. That lifeforms are only going to use 16percent of the emradiation reaching the surface. Obviously A evolved when ultraviolet light was the predominant wavelength round here and carbon dioxide levels were much higher. Maybe Tesla and Paul are smart plants tired of being pushed aside by an exploitive species. Man ate from the tree of knowledge and now eats from the tree of life. Obviously the trees are pissed off. :D
gonna help you out tesla4
http://www.co.bell.tx.us/bellnet/bellnetweb/web/res_grid/elementry/h2ovapor.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_Gases
so maybe, just maybe an Elementary student does know more than you.
I found this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide#Role_in_photosynthesis
It says plants emit co2 during respiration, but they also absorb co2.. more or the same that they emit.. so they aren't likely the cause of rising co2 levels.
4Tesla
While again i hate wiki, here is your own ignorance at work
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Where_do_plants_give_off_water_vapour_from
Quote from: Azorus on January 14, 2010, 03:08:11 PM
gonna help you out tesla4
http://www.co.bell.tx.us/bellnet/bellnetweb/web/res_grid/elementry/h2ovapor.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_Gases
so maybe, just maybe an Elementary student does know more than you.
Maybe.. but I don't recall this being taught in school.. at least mine. ::)
I still don't believe that plants are causing the co2 levels to rise..
4Tesla
I doubt they are too. Would you like to explore that tangent?
Water vapor is from water.. plants may use water, but they do not make water.. so how is that causing global warming (or climate change)?
4Tesla
What is wrong with wikipedia.. a lot of good stuff there.
The wiki link i provide was pretty specific,During photosynthesis plant give off water vapour from their leaves.
Never once did i say that this is contributing to global warming or climate change.
I posted what I have because of a post from you claiming that plants do not produce greenhouse gases, which they clearly do.
What is wrong with wikipedia.. a lot of good stuff there. (quote)
is it true that any tom dick or harry myself included
can delete/insert any thing he wants on wiki?
is there no moderator even?
wiki leaves the moderating up to the users, which was pointed out before that anyone can validate wiki data by logging in with multi ips, or vise versa delete data they do not like by doing the same. While most wiki data seems accurate, there are serious flaws in it.
this means i can spend all day inserting bull$hit and nonsense on wiki
and its completely legal
i suddently feel very powerful
i feel like a god
Quote from: Azorus on January 14, 2010, 03:45:08 PM
I posted what I have because of a post from you claiming that plants do not produce greenhouse gases, which they clearly do.
Okay.. I was under the impression that Sparks was claiming the plants were the cause of climate change and rising co2 levels. I was implying that plants aren't the cause. I should have been more careful on my reply.
If you look at the charts.. co2 levels go up and down.. what causes them to go down?
I understand that anyone can add or delete from wiki.. but I keep that in mind while reading it.. I also understand that if no one could add to it.. we would be missing a great source of information on the Internet.
4Tesla
Ohyes Jikwan you can now grow your own tree of knowlege. Fertilize it well with the utterances of men professing to be experts on the subject. Make the language of the tree as hard to understand as possible. This way a mystic cloak descends upon your tree and the ill informed become so confused with the line of shit you are fertilizing your tree with that they throw their hands up and begin to adore the tree itself. Imagine the state of confusion when Moses who is looking for someway to feed his family goes up a mountain without food and water for many days and begins hallucinating. There he sees a burning bush that tells him his tribe has been chosen above all other men to rule the Earth. Moses falls and bumps his head which causes him to finally get a good nights sleep. Upon awakening he scribes on some rocks a plan for humans to follow that is basically intuitive. For it to carry weight with the clan on the brink of rebellion he mixes in some God commandments. To this day the zionists are waiting for the God created by the hallucinations of a dehydrated exhausted man to return and install them in charge of everything. What is wrong with this picture. Eating fruit from the wrong tree of knowlege.
Quote from: sparks on January 14, 2010, 04:29:19 PM
Ohyes Jikwan you can now grow your own tree of knowlege. Fertilize it well with the utterances of men professing to be experts on the subject. Make the language of the tree as hard to understand as possible. This way a mystic cloak descends upon your tree and the ill informed become so confused with the line of shit you are fertilizing your tree with that they throw their hands up and begin to adore the tree itself. Imagine the state of confusion when Moses who is looking for someway to feed his family goes up a mountain without food and water for many days and begins hallucinating. There he sees a burning bush that tells him his tribe has been chosen above all other men to rule the Earth. Moses falls and bumps his head which causes him to finally get a good nights sleep. Upon awakening he scribes on some rocks a plan for humans to follow that is basically intuitive. For it to carry weight with the clan on the brink of rebellion he mixes in some God commandments. To this day the zionists are waiting for the God created by the hallucinations of a dehydrated exhausted man to return and install them in charge of everything. What is wrong with this picture. Eating fruit from the wrong tree of knowlege.
What are you talking about ??? :o ::) Subject: Global Warming Truth
4Tesla
Sparks.. is all that bla, bla, bla, your way of saying that the trees are the problem and we should just cut them all down?
4Tesla
I am just saying that we should not be made to feel guilty because we exploit plants. Either by injesting them burning them or burning their rotten corpses. Paul would give his life to keep nature the way it is and I am just trying to have him see through the facade that natural order hides behind. He wants his descendants to be able to do what. Take nature walks and such. Meanwhile nature has it in for his descendants. We need to turn desert into rich fertile farmlands. We need to take human waste and burn it in plama arc processes. We need more biologically engineered crops and enviromentally engineered cropland. We need microbial farms to convert crop waste into fuels. We need to manipulate nature like it has never been manipulated before. Its man against nature if you like it or not. Study it find out its processes duplicate them and leave nature in the dust. The elitist's plan is to reduce world populations to whatever levels they feel would sustain a viable population that has to depend on nature for the few bones it tosses man its way.
Quote from: silverfish on January 14, 2010, 11:39:33 AM
Absolutely. The sun is being ignored in this debate - NASA confirms what is apparently a magnetic reversal taking place on the sun.
I've provided solar irradiance graphs up the yin yang in the older global warming thread, which does not show complete correlation with global warming.
Quote from: Azorus on January 14, 2010, 12:22:05 PM
@ Resin
I have specifically targeted sources pual has used to prove him wrong, ie wiki. He still did not listen.
You did not prove me wrong. I made a claim what the wikipedia article said, but it said the complete opposite of what you claimed, lol. Maybe what happened is your quickly edited the wikipage to false information thinking it will stick. If so, then it did not stick very long.
Quote from: jikwan on January 14, 2010, 03:53:14 PM
What is wrong with wikipedia.. a lot of good stuff there. (quote)
is it true that any tom dick or harry myself included
can delete/insert any thing he wants on wiki?
is there no moderator even?
Wrong. Wikipedia has a lot of levels of moderation. It's sad to see such ignorance here.
Wikipedia has proven to work. Try and edit a global warming wikipedia page and see how fast your edits are undone. Do it three times and see how fast your IP gets banned from wikipedia. Get another IP and keep up the nonesense and a wikipedia moderator will lock the thread, and your ISP will be contacted.
Don't you just love System Admins. Yes, they know what they're doing, and they know how to combat hackers and such.
WikiPedia works great.
So, after reading 3 pages of new posts, nobody could show any evidence that global warming is not true. And they wonder why over 97% of active publishing climatologist believe humanity is a significant cause of global warming.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_consensus
Couldnt be compilation of data portraying totally unrelated coincidental events could it. Like man my car broke down and my electric toothbrush battery dropped below useable levels. I wish my toothbrush wouldnt make my car breakdown. How naive are you Paul. You show me one thing nature has done to help man survive as a species and I will gladly donate a buck to some wildlife preservation fund. Nice move it made on behalf of the Hatian people . I am sure the world banks will be more then willing to get them some money so they can rebuild. Of course repayment with interest or seisure of assets.
*admits to growing animals in my greenhouse*
This is an interesting tidbit about Wikipedia that I will throw out to you Lowrance: a University Analytical class I took a little over a year ago specifically required that absolutely NO references from Wikipedia were allowed in any of the written material. The Professor stressed that Wikipedia was NOT considered a reliable reference.
You crack me up, posting around here as if screaming and implying with your words that no one has shown you anything that reliably contradicts your conclusions of human-caused Global Warming. All the while you are picking and choosing what you will decide to believe. Well we can do the same thing. My conclusions are that your sources are biased toward that conclusion, and reject any contradictory data. Who do you think you are? As if you think that by continually trying to get in the last word that you will be the one who is right and the rest wrong. What a joke you are. The rest of us see how biased and close-minded you are as well.
Your sources are biased, and their conclusions are wrong. I don't care if you don't like it, that's too bad. I have worked in Research ever since I was 21 years old. I just turned 50 last year. Does that mean that I don't understand Research and Development and the Scientific Method? I can see that all these Global-Warming conclusions are being driven forward for a POLITICAL Agenda, not for a Scientific one. That is what I see. I have also seen the other sides of the argument, the other graphs, conclusions, and explanations. I find their conclusions more credible and in line with the reality of the planet, solar system, and the way nature works.
Al Gore is a scumbag. I don't care how many awards he has received from Organizations that have Socialist Agendas. The guy is a rotten egg who desires great power, greater wealth, and even greater control over the political landscape. People like you just roll over and kiss his a## like he is some kind of Savior, like Obama. They have your sorry self in adoring glee; and people like me need to fight people like you every chance we get the motivation to keep on fighting. The future of Liberty for future Generations depends on it.
You, however will never see it and never understand the concept of what Liberty requires. The bad guys are laughing at you because they have you controlled like a puppet.
Quote from: ResinRat2 on January 14, 2010, 07:57:31 PM
This is an interesting tidbit about Wikipedia that I will throw out to you Lowrance: a University Analytical class I took a little over a year ago specifically required that absolutely NO references from Wikipedia were allowed in any of the written material. The Professor stressed that Wikipedia was NOT considered a reliable reference.
Well, given that I know for fact you are a liar; e.g., your massive list of quotes that you said were mine, and now we all know they were not my quotes, not even close.
Therefore, there is zero chance I would take your word for it. In fact, your hatred toward this topic is very clear, and the amount of out right lies you have posted has been pointed out in this thread. So I would not take your word for nothing!
And even if it's true what you say about some class, it is entirely pointless. That's like saying, "Gee, I found a scientist that believes man was created by a God." Ummm, so what if you can find a scientists that believes in something? I am interested in data, and that's exactly what WikiPedia is for, peer reviewed references. Geez, how many times must I say it before it sinks into your head?
@Cap
Thats another thing. As the co2levels rise wouldnt this be like talking to your plants to help them grow. My kid was into cultivating plants and kept on plaguing me to make him a little motor that would fill up a greenhouse with co2 every hour or so from paintball gun canisters. Said he could make a fortune on it selling it to stoners all overthe world along with a UV flurescent lamp kit and a terrarium. Something like expand your mind starter kit. So as the co2 levels rise plant life is promoted. So we are actually in the long run contributing to co2 level dropping by helping plants grow.
Man I feel so relieved I can breath without feeling guilty about my carbon footprint as the footprint seems to be getting covered by leaves which will rot oh no if they rot and there is a forest fire my breathing will condemn the world to global warming via plants growing and burning. Fuck it I am so confused at this point I am going to find my kids stash and forget about it.
Awesome list of over 450 Peer-Reviewed Papers that are skeptical of Man-Made Global Warming.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
Many of the papers need to be purchased from the Journals, but there are many, many of them that are free. Just keep clicking until you find the free ones.
Try and stick to the papers Lowrance, be a man and quit complaining because your fragile feelings were hurt. If you go on a public-forum and start blasting people then you need to expect to get attacked. You are not going to get rid of me just because you call me a liar.
Lowrance has shown himself to be hostile toward the hypothesis that global-warming is NOT caused by human activities. Please, everyone, feel free to use this information to to make his life miserable. There is plenty of "peer-reviewed" info here. Nice.
At the very least it shows there is NOT a consensus that global-warming is caused by human activities, the issue is still up for considerable debate.
This is a nice paper. Plenty of information:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/EndersbeeReprint.pdf
Solar activity cools and warms the earth, and the temperature drives the Carbon Dioxide and Methane solubility in the oceans. Very nicely done.
RR2:
That is a bogus site that is not peer reviewed and is not recognized by Paul as being a scientific source because the information there does not agree with his position. Also, that site can not be edited by the users using proxy servers and spoofed IP addresses so it can't possibly be accurate.
Evidently, we can't even quote Paul from his own website without being called a liar either.
We can only quote from the sites that Paul accepts as scientific. You know, the ones that claim global warming is real and man caused.
I hope this helps.
Bill
What form of life is responsible for capturing ultraviolet light radiation and splits water then stores the energy in the form of carbonhydrogen bonding. I still maintain the plants are guilty of global warming. Could it even have crossed the global warming nuts minds that as carbon dioxide levels rise so does plant photosynthesis. The more plants you have the more uv radiation captured the more plant respiration and animal respiration including bugs. I think bugs breath and produce carbon dioxide but I might be mistaken on that one.
Okay guys.. you want the truth!!!!! Here is the truth:
Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IM1-DQ2Wo_w
4Tesla
Quote from: 4Tesla on January 15, 2010, 02:10:40 AM
Okay guys.. you want the truth!!!!! Here is the truth:
Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IM1-DQ2Wo_w (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IM1-DQ2Wo_w)
4Tesla
4Tesla:
Unfortunately, you are correct. I actually know some folks that feel this way. BUT, they tend to think that OTHER people are the cancer and need to be removed, THEY, of course, need to be here as they are the good and the elite. This is where it gets dangerous.
Bill
Quote from: Pirate88179 on January 15, 2010, 02:14:49 AM
4Tesla:
Unfortunately, you are correct. I actually know some folks that feel this way. BUT, they tend to think that OTHER people are the cancer and need to be removed, THEY, of course, need to be here as they are the good and the elite. This is where it gets dangerous.
Bill
Those are my favorite lines from that movie and no links to wikipedia.. lol.. Yes, very sad that people think that way.. reminds me of Hitler.
4Tesla
Quote from: 4Tesla on January 15, 2010, 02:22:33 AM
Those are my favorite lines from that movie and no links to wikipedia.. lol.. Yes, very sad that people think that way.. reminds me of Hitler.
4Tesla
Exactly! Perfect example. We now know that Hitler's mother was Jewish, making him half Jewish. Notice he did not have blond hair.
We also have some other modern day hypocrites like Al Gore. Don't drive your car, don't take vacations, turn your thermostat down...etc. all the while he flies around in a private jet every where he goes and his electric bill on only ONE of his 5 houses is 20 times the national average on power usage.
Another case of "Do what I say not what I do." This is the standard mantra of an Elite.
Bill
PS This is why I am so against this "movement".
Quote from: Pirate88179 on January 14, 2010, 10:28:19 PM
RR2:
That is a bogus site that is not peer reviewed and is not recognized by Paul as being a scientific source because the information there does not agree with his position. Also, that site can not be edited by the users using proxy servers and spoofed IP addresses so it can't possibly be accurate.
Evidently, we can't even quote Paul from his own website without being called a liar either.
We can only quote from the sites that Paul accepts as scientific. You know, the ones that claim global warming is real and man caused.
I hope this helps.
Bill
This is obviously true, we have seen it all over this thread. Lowrance will now mostly belly-ache and cry that we are liars so nothing we post can be true. The coward's way out of the debate.
The way I now understand the cycle is as follows: The solar activity raises and lowers, this influences the amount of solar radiation that strikes the earth. The earth's overall temperature then raises or lowers due to the level of solar activity. This influences the solubility of Carbon Dioxide in the oceans. The higher temperatures cause the release of carbon dioxide from the oceans which raises the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This raising of Carbon Dioxide level then influences plant growth. The plant growth speeds up or slows down due to the Carbon Dioxide level. The higher Carbon Dioxide level speeds up plant growth, which then increases plant conversion of carbon dioxide to oxygen in the atmosphere.
So we have a balancing act throughout the process, but specific natural mechanisms regulate the absorption and release of Carbon Dioxide. All driven by solar activity.
'Fe fi fo fum, I smell the blah of a jibberish man'
Somebody in this thread appears to be a little 'wiki wacky'.
Regards...
Quote from: sparks on January 14, 2010, 05:59:12 PMYou show me one thing nature has done to help man survive as a species and I will gladly donate a buck to some wildlife preservation fund.
Wow, what kind of a sick monster would say things like that. People eat vegetables for one thing.
Furthermore, that shows who you are, that you need to get something in order to like it. Nature, from the plants to the animals are living. Yes, that is correct, I love the animal kingdom, and try to care for them. They are precious! That is called Unconditional Love.
Quote from: ResinRat2 on January 14, 2010, 09:47:01 PM
Awesome list of over 450 Peer-Reviewed Papers that are skeptical of Man-Made Global Warming.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html (http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html)
Many of the papers need to be purchased from the Journals, but there are many, many of them that are free. Just keep clicking until you find the free ones.
Try and stick to the papers Lowrance, be a man and quit complaining because your fragile feelings were hurt. If you go on a public-forum and start blasting people then you need to expect to get attacked. You are not going to get rid of me just because you call me a liar.
Lowrance has shown himself to be hostile toward the hypothesis that global-warming is NOT caused by human activities. Please, everyone, feel free to use this information to to make his life miserable. There is plenty of "peer-reviewed" info here. Nice.
At the very least it shows there is NOT a consensus that global-warming is caused by human activities, the issue is still up for considerable debate.
Again you demonstrate false logic. Over 97% of active publishing climatologist beleive humanity is the significant cause of global warming, so it does not matter if you publish papers from the less than 3%.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_consensus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_consensus)
You people are getting desperate now.
And in those papers, probably falsified by a someone being paid by Big Oil, there is not a shred of scientific evidence. Global Warming is a fact.
Quote from: ResinRat2 on January 14, 2010, 10:20:48 PM
This is a nice paper. Plenty of information:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/EndersbeeReprint.pdf (http://icecap.us/images/uploads/EndersbeeReprint.pdf)
Solar activity cools and warms the earth, and the temperature drives the Carbon Dioxide and Methane solubility in the oceans. Very nicely done.
It's called Solar irradiance, and there has been no correlation to show it caused the global warming. The data does not correlate.
Quote from: sparks on January 14, 2010, 11:26:46 PMI still maintain the plants are guilty of global warming.
Well, at least you now admit Global Warming is real. I guess now that you propose it's now due to you & humans, it's a lot easier to admit it.
Anyhow, sigh, more claims by unscientific people. Did you even try to lift a finger and do some research to verify your claim, or does it just make you feel good to attack other life.
So do your research to see that deforestation has increased with human population.
What, still nobody here can post the data to prove global warming is not real? Again, global temperatures have always fluctuated over time. If one thinks a few years or even up to 8 or so years of cooling somehow magically means there's now a global cooling trend is practicing bad science.
In order to see the Global Warming trend one must consider an average of at least a decade.
Someone recently tried to lie about Central England temperature data. Central England temperature clearly shows the global warming trend. Please see the attached image of Central England temperatures.
Ah, here's a graph that goes back to the year 1000! And the obvious sudden rise in global temperatures at the dawn of industrial age. Oh how Big Oil must hate such data with a passion. You can't hide that kind of data, as it's been globally distributed for a long time.
Still waiting for some scientific data to disprove global warming. It is not due to the Sun, as Solar irradiance correlation has holes in it. It's not due to plants & animals, as their population has dwindled with human population. So far the only positive correleation is humanity, which is why the recent pole shows that *over* 97% of *active publishing* climatologist believe *humanity* is the significant cause of global warming. :) It's obvious why these people at this forum oppose this. They lie and are deceitful. It will be interesting to find out their motive.
Sounds like man envy to me. The animals are easily controlled whereas man is aware of who and what he is. Unlike the prototype lifeforms that are not the sharpest tools in the shed. I pray for the enlightenment of such creatures. Their vary existence testifies to the Universal Power of tolerance and love. I do not represent big oil or any other money based scramble for false wealth. The reality at least mine is that fossil fuel exploitation has made possible the proliferation of mankind on this planet. This allows more forms of life that have reached a level of awareness to commune with the higher forms of life that pocess enough intellect to know they are of God and do not seperate themselves from God.
Quote from: PaulLowrance on January 14, 2010, 06:40:33 PM
So, after reading 3 pages of new posts, nobody could show any evidence that global warming is not true. And they wonder why over 97% of active publishing climatologist believe humanity is a significant cause of global warming.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_consensus
So Lowrance, I went to your hyperlink at the bottom of your post, which references Wikipedia, of course, but the very first footnote at the bottom of the page (Footnote #1) references the survey you so proudly display and shout "97% of active publishing climatologist believe humanity is a significant cause of global warming."
http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
On the far right column it displays the questions that were asked:
1.When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
2.Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?
Then it continues and says:
“In our survey, the most specialized and knowledgeable respondents (with regard to climate change) are those who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change (79 individuals in total). Of these specialists, 96.2% (76 of 79) answered “risen†to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question
2.â€
What? Is this the survey you so proudly display? Look what it says. Your “over 97%†number is based off a total of 79 people, and only 77 of them agreed. It wasn’t even unanimous, and it is based off of 79 people?
What are you going to say now Lowrance? That I am a liar, that I changed Wikipedia? Read it for yourself.
Quote from: ResinRat2 on January 15, 2010, 01:09:10 PM
So Lowrance, I went to your hyperlink at the bottom of your post, which references Wikipedia, of course, but the very first footnote at the bottom of the page (Footnote #1) references the survey you so proudly display and shout "97% of active publishing climatologist believe humanity is a significant cause of global warming."
http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf (http://tigger.uic.edu/%7Epdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf)
On the far right column it displays the questions that were asked:
1.When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
2.Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?
Then it continues and says:
“In our survey, the most specialized and knowledgeable respondents (with regard to climate change) are those who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change (79 individuals in total). Of these specialists, 96.2% (76 of 79) answered “risen†to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question
2.â€
What? Is this the survey you so proudly display? Look what it says. Your “over 97%†number is based off a total of 79 people, and only 77 of them agreed. It wasn’t even unanimous, and it is based off of 79 people?
What are you going to say now Lowrance? That I am a liar, that I changed Wikipedia? Read it for yourself.
Are you okay, LOL. You act as if there's something wrong. It's a great recent survey done by a University on *active publishing* climatologist. Not the fake unscientific deceitful petition done by your side who is not a scientist.
You don't even know that you've shown support for Global Warming.
:D :D :D :D Paul Lowrence's link is based off of 79 people on the whole planet, and only 77 of them agreed humans cause global warming. What a joke you are Lowrance.
Quote from: ResinRat2 on January 15, 2010, 01:35:47 PM
:D :D :D :D Paul Lowrence's link is based off of 79 people on the whole planet, and only 77 of them agreed humans cause global warming. What a joke you are Lowrance.
Are you okay. The "whole planet" is not the active publishing climatologists. It's the only legit objective survey taken.
And do you even know how to calculate the statical error involved in the survey. OMG, I'm talking to uneducated people who have an insane agenda to kill the global warming movement.
So 35,000 PHD's sign a petition that says global warming is not real and Paul has a survey where 77 "people" claim it is real and he goes with the 77? And this is science???
Good find RR I did not see that before.
77 people...
Wow,
35,000 against, 77 for and Paul quotes the 77.
OK
I got it now.
Bill
I love the way you have now removed that link that has been at the bottom of your posts all this time linking to that 97% statistic. Suddenly ashamed of your link?
That's because you were giving the impression that 97% of publishing climatologists support the hypothesis of man-made global warming. You failed to mention that the total number of these professionals who answered the survey was only 79, and out of them only 77 agreed. The other two must have been big-oil supporters, right?
Human-caused global warming is a lie; and you are the enemy.
Hey tbird, would you please send me a link with your email address, my PM system is malfunctioning again. I can receive PMs but I can't send them.
Thanks.
Quote from: ResinRat2 on January 15, 2010, 02:47:39 PM
I love the way you have now removed that link that has been at the bottom of your posts all this time linking to that 97% statistic. Suddenly ashamed of your link?
Man, you are sick. I removed no such link. Show the proof!! IMO you people are so freaking delusional it's really sad, lol. I have no idea what link or what page you're even talking about because you're so vague. Is this the link, huh -->
http://globalfreeenergy.info/2010/01/07/global-warming-truth/ (http://globalfreeenergy.info/2010/01/07/global-warming-truth/)
Looks like it's still there. I have a lot of posts on my website on global warming, and you probably looked at the wrong page. Hopeless. You people are hopeless.
Quote from: ResinRat2 on January 15, 2010, 02:47:39 PMThat's because you were giving the impression that 97% of publishing climatologists support the hypothesis of man-made global warming. You failed to mention that the total number of these professionals who answered the survey was only 79, and out of them only 77 agreed.
You don't even understand statistics & statistical error, do you, LOL. That survey was done by a a University. I'm glad they know about statistics. Man, who pays you to live on these forums saying ANYTHING / lies.
Quote from: Pirate88179 on January 15, 2010, 02:39:52 PM
So 35,000 PHD's sign a petition that says global warming is not real and Paul has a survey where 77 "people" claim it is real and he goes with the 77? And this is science???
Good find RR I did not see that before.
77 people...
Wow,
35,000 against, 77 for and Paul quotes the 77.
OK
I got it now.
Bill
Wrong. That petition was a lie, and has long been exposed -->
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming_Petition_Project
Paul:
Your link has been removed from your posts. Why did you do this? Or, are you claiming as you did in the other topic that, "someone" removed it for you?
I give you the same answer i gave you over there. I can't do it. The only person that could is Stefan and I doubt he would do that...why would he?
So, that leaves just you Paul. You removed it after RR pointed out how ridiculous it was for you to be quoting it once we knew the truth about the survey.
Here is a tip for you...once your tricks are exposed for all to see, you really should not try using the same ones again on the same folks. It really does not work.
Bill
Quote from: Pirate88179 on January 15, 2010, 03:00:09 PM
Paul:
Your link has been removed from your posts. Why did you do this? Or, are you claiming as you did in the other topic that, "someone" removed it for you?
I give you the same answer i gave you over there. I can't do it. The only person that could is Stefan and I doubt he would do that...why would he?
So, that leaves just you Paul. You removed it after RR pointed out how ridiculous it was for you to be quoting it once we knew the truth about the survey.
Here is a tip for you...once your tricks are exposed for all to see, you really should not try using the same ones again on the same folks. It really does not work.
Bill
LOL, removed what link, and from what post? Are you people that delusional?! LOL
Claims after claims after claims without any evidence. Vague, vague, vague. Such a life you people live.
Here it is -->
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8608.msg222816#msg222816 (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8608.msg222816#msg222816)
Is that what you lost. LOL Gee, looks like the link's still there. Here you go again,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_consensus
Don't lose it now. Opps, did you just lose it again.
Quote from: Pirate88179 on January 15, 2010, 03:00:09 PM
Paul:
Your link has been removed from your posts. Why did you do this? Or, are you claiming as you did in the other topic that, "someone" removed it for you?
I give you the same answer i gave you over there. I can't do it. The only person that could is Stefan and I doubt he would do that...why would he?
So, that leaves just you Paul. You removed it after RR pointed out how ridiculous it was for you to be quoting it once we knew the truth about the survey.
Here is a tip for you...once your tricks are exposed for all to see, you really should not try using the same ones again on the same folks. It really does not work.
Bill
As an welcome antidote to the endless stream of suspect graphs from Paul, I strongly recommend watching this 6-part Documentary, 'Global Warming - The Other Side' by John Coleman, which effectively demolishes the carbon/global warming hypothesis -
http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/81583352.html
Judge for yourself.
Quote from: PaulLowrance on January 15, 2010, 03:07:20 PM
LOL, removed what link, and from what post? Are you people that delusional?! LOL
Claims after claims after claims without any evidence. Vague, vague, vague. Such a life you people live.
Well, it was there on every post and now it is not.
Your great response to this is, and I quote, "What link?"
Do you not think people saw this Paul?
What part of first it was there, and now it is not do you not understand?
What link? Ha ha, that was a priceless reply.
Bill
Quote from: silverfish on January 15, 2010, 03:11:25 PM
As an welcome antidote to the endless stream of suspect graphs from Paul, I strongly recommend watching this 6-part Documentary, 'Global Warming - The Other Side' by John Coleman, which effectively demolishes the carbon/global warming hypothesis -
http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/81583352.html (http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/81583352.html)
Judge for yourself.
I've seen it. Do you really believe that, and somehow think that's science?
Quote from: Pirate88179 on January 15, 2010, 03:12:51 PM
Well, it was there on every post and now it is not.
Wow, you are so delusional. It's amazing how you believe something when your buddy suggests it. Get this straight, I have *NEVER* had that in the footnotes of my posts. Never.
LOL
Quote from: PaulLowrance on January 07, 2010, 03:56:37 PM (http://index.php?topic=8608.msg220378#msg220378)
"Oh sure I'm intimidating you with peer reviewed data, LOL. Your resources are once again the minority, and they are not peer reviewed, and follow under the category of bad science.Yes, over 97% of the *active publishing climatologist* now believe *humanity* is the cause of global warming. Wikipedia page shows the reference.Global warming data has been taken by thousands of scientists around the world. You can't hide that. Anyone can take the data and clearly see global warming is real. In fact someone from this forum did that, and it showed the global warming rise at the dawn of the industrial age.I've dealt with you before where you posted a truck load of links claiming the glaciers were growing. I looked at the first 3 of your links (all non peer reviewed sources) and showed you the peer reviewed data where climatologist clearly showed your internet googling non peer reviewed blog pages were a lie.The motive here is for Big Oil to pay people to out right lie about global warming.The facts still remain,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_consensus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_consensus)"
So I guess this wasn't your post Paul? I guess someone else planted this link at the end of every post you made then?
This one was quoted by someone else so it did not change back when you made your changes.
Sorry to have caught you in yet another lie but, hey, if you would stop lying, this would not happen.
Bill
Quote from: Pirate88179 on January 15, 2010, 03:48:54 PM
Quote from: PaulLowrance on January 07, 2010, 03:56:37 PM (http://index.php?topic=8608.msg220378#msg220378)
"Oh sure I'm intimidating you with peer reviewed data, LOL. Your resources are once again the minority, and they are not peer reviewed, and follow under the category of bad science.Yes, over 97% of the *active publishing climatologist* now believe *humanity* is the cause of global warming. Wikipedia page shows the reference.Global warming data has been taken by thousands of scientists around the world. You can't hide that. Anyone can take the data and clearly see global warming is real. In fact someone from this forum did that, and it showed the global warming rise at the dawn of the industrial age.I've dealt with you before where you posted a truck load of links claiming the glaciers were growing. I looked at the first 3 of your links (all non peer reviewed sources) and showed you the peer reviewed data where climatologist clearly showed your internet googling non peer reviewed blog pages were a lie.The motive here is for Big Oil to pay people to out right lie about global warming.The facts still remain,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_consensus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_consensus)"
So I guess this wasn't your post Paul? I guess someone else planted this link at the end of every post you made then?
This one was quoted by someone else so it did not change back when you made your changes.
Sorry to have caught you in yet another lie but, hey, if you would stop lying, this would not happen.
Bill
Umm, are you okay. I already showed you where one of my recent posts that *HAS* that link. Why in the world would I want to remove that great link???
Furthermore, you claimed that this link was at the bottom of *ALL* of my posts. Man, there is something seriously wrong with you. I mean, seriously wrong.
Here are you liar -->
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8356.msg212577#msg212577 (http://index.php?topic=8356.msg212577#msg212577)
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8608.msg222909#msg222909 (http://index.php?topic=8608.msg222909#msg222909)
You sadden me, it's just difficult to believe there is something like you that exists. Sorry, but I'm ignoring your posts again. So again, I would greatly appreciate it if anyone could contact me if Pirate88179 says something I should address. Thank you very much!
And we can add this to this list, and surely there are plenty more of my posts that contains that great WikiPedia link -->
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8608.msg220378#msg220378
Poor Pirate88179.
Anyhow, you're on ignore, Pirate88179.
Quote from: Pirate88179 on January 15, 2010, 03:48:54 PM
Quote from: PaulLowrance on January 07, 2010, 03:56:37 PM (http://index.php?topic=8608.msg220378#msg220378)
"Oh sure I'm intimidating you with peer reviewed data, LOL. Your resources are once again the minority, and they are not peer reviewed, and follow under the category of bad science.Yes, over 97% of the *active publishing climatologist* now believe *humanity* is the cause of global warming. Wikipedia page shows the reference.Global warming data has been taken by thousands of scientists around the world. You can't hide that. Anyone can take the data and clearly see global warming is real. In fact someone from this forum did that, and it showed the global warming rise at the dawn of the industrial age.I've dealt with you before where you posted a truck load of links claiming the glaciers were growing. I looked at the first 3 of your links (all non peer reviewed sources) and showed you the peer reviewed data where climatologist clearly showed your internet googling non peer reviewed blog pages were a lie.The motive here is for Big Oil to pay people to out right lie about global warming.The facts still remain,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_consensus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_consensus)"
So I guess this wasn't your post Paul? I guess someone else planted this link at the end of every post you made then?
This one was quoted by someone else so it did not change back when you made your changes.
Sorry to have caught you in yet another lie but, hey, if you would stop lying, this would not happen.
What is sad is that the link in Pirate88179 post is MY POST, and Pirate88179 writes, "This one was quoted by someone else so it did not change back when you made your changes."
No Pirate88179, the link you provided (even though the html link code is missing "overunity.com/") is not someone else post. It is my post, and the link is there. Why would I remove that great WikiPedia link. That post of mine is 8 days old. I can't edit it anyways. Nor would I want to.
Furthermore, it's sad how you broke the link to *my* post. You don't want people to see your lies. It's my post, and my post contains that great WikiPedia link. I did not edit it. Here is the unbroken link to my post, so people can verify it -->
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8608.msg220378#msg220378 (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8608.msg220378#msg220378)
And here is your link. You removed "www.overunity.com/ (http://www.overunity.com/)". How deceitful of you. And if you edit your post, then too bad that everyone here who has this thread on their notifications can check their emails to verify you broke think -->
http://index.php/?topic=8608.msg220378#msg220378 (http://index.php/?topic=8608.msg220378#msg220378)
Tarbaby quote:
"And in those papers, probably falsified by a someone being paid by Big Oil, there is not a shred of scientific evidence. Global Warming is a fact."
A non stick area has appeared on the 'tarbaby'..the words "probably falsified" indicates lack of "scientific method"...or IOW, "bad science"...oopsy.
And you people should know 'tarbaby's never check out links.
Especially if they think there might be some 'scientific' stuff in there'.
As you may be realizing by now 'tarbaby's' are impervious to barbs, jabs, and derision...but are very sensitive to logic and information.
So they have to use artificial substitutes like 'I can't believe its not logic'...and 'spintastic'.
*once again leaves behind dead horse and riding crop for any arms not stuck in the tarbaby*
When left alone, 'tarbaby's' collect dust and dry up...losing their sheen and their grip totally.
Regards...
Quote from: PaulLowrance on January 15, 2010, 04:08:52 PM
What is sad is that the link in Pirate88179 post is MY POST, and Pirate88179 writes, "This one was quoted by someone else so it did not change back when you made your changes."
No Pirate88179, the link you provided (even though the html link code is missing "overunity.com/") is not someone else post. It is my post, and the link is there. Why would I remove that great WikiPedia link. That post of mine is 8 days old. I can't edit it anyways. Nor would I want to.
Furthermore, it's sad how you broke the link to *my* post. You don't want people to see your lies. It's my post, and my post contains that great WikiPedia link. I did not edit it. Here is the unbroken link to my post, so people can verify it -->
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8608.msg220378#msg220378 (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8608.msg220378#msg220378)
And here is your link. You removed "www.overunity.com/ (http://www.overunity.com/)". How deceitful of you. And if you edit your post, then too bad that everyone here who has this thread on their notifications can check their emails to verify you broke think -->
http://index.php/?topic=8608.msg220378#msg220378 (http://index.php/?topic=8608.msg220378#msg220378)
Here is the post:http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8608.15
«
Reply #21 on: January 08, 2010, 01:30:29 PM »
It was a post by Silverfish, not you Paul. Sorry, you messed up yet again. Since you changed your link to the wiki quote on the bottom of your posts, the only way to prove that was to copy and paste a post where someone quoted your entire post, and that is what I did. If I had quoted Silverfish, it would only shows HIS post not where he quoted you.
So now everyone can see that I did not quote your post and that you got caught once again. How many times does this make Paul?
I did not break any links, or whatever you accused me of. I just simply copied and pasted from a post that you claimed did not exist...but evidently, you did not count on someone quoting you. This shows we were NOT seeing things and you, until RR pointed out the fallacy in the wiki "survey" had this on the bottom of all of your posts. you now have removed it and got caught....again.
It must really suck to be you.
Bill
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIqZkrK_fGo
Quote from: happyfunball on January 15, 2010, 07:00:50 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIqZkrK_fGo
Excellent video!
4Tesla
Proof of global warming.
http://curezone.com/forums/fm.asp?i=1280338#i
Quote from: jikwan on January 15, 2010, 09:35:28 PM
Proof of global warming.
http://curezone.com/forums/fm.asp?i=1280338#i
;D LOL
Quote from: happyfunball on January 15, 2010, 07:00:50 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIqZkrK_fGo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIqZkrK_fGo)
Thanks for posting that new Stanford University video. I think Heidi Cullen just gave that lecture Dec. 2 2009. How refreshing to hear real science.
Paul:
I am so sorry. I just now learned of your mental disability. Please forgive me as I had no idea. Just remain calm and enjoy your life as best you can. That is all any of us can hope for.
Again, I am sorry. I did not know.
Bill
Quote from: Pirate88179 on January 16, 2010, 02:32:09 AM
I just now learned of your mental disability. Please forgive me as I had no idea.
Bill
Bill.. that is just mean. I don't think you would like someone making a public statement like that about you. You want to seriously apologize you could do it better than that and by PM. You and Paul need to stop this nonsense. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but you two are making it personal.
4Tesla
Quote from: PaulLowrance on January 15, 2010, 02:08:05 PM
Are you okay. The "whole planet" is not the active publishing climatologists. It's the only legit objective survey taken.
And do you even know how to calculate the statical error involved in the survey. OMG, I'm talking to uneducated people who have an insane agenda to kill the global warming movement.
'An insane agenda to kill the global warming movement' I love it! your fanatical streak is really coming out now, Paul. No need to spend time trying to discredit other people and accuse half the forum of being liars, biased, uneducated, unscientific, etc., etc.
Just read your own posts and listen to yourself!
Quote from: silverfish on January 16, 2010, 04:27:52 AM
'An insane agenda to kill the global warming movement' I love it! your fanatical streak is really coming out now, Paul. No need to spend time trying to discredit other people and accuse half the forum of being liars, biased, uneducated, unscientific, etc., etc.
Just read your own posts and listen to yourself!
Come on guys.. quit being so mean! Including Paul! I admit.. I'm not always careful with my posts, but we all need to work on not making these posts personal.
4Tesla
So what is the plan to mitigate global warming problems by the Earth worshipers. First and foremost make sure there is no more uncontrolled reproduction going on. We want just the high quality people to replicate. (More like reptiliancate) The masses should be rendered sterile or just allowed to die when the shit hits the fan. Just quality people should be produced. People we will control like the way things were when the zoo was set up. After the impending natural disasters occur we will crawl out of our snakeholes and repopulate the Earth with just enough quality people and some slaves to serve our every whim. Our descendants will be allowed to return to the Garden of Eden while the electronically controlled slaves will be reduced to robots that will serve our descendants as it should be. The Garden of Eden will need landscapers and pool repairmen so we need to keep some of these smartmonkeys around because our only ability is to remember. We wouldnt want our descendants breaking a sweat or anything. We have zero reasoning skills or imagination or intuition so we need these smartmonkeys in case something comes up we just havent dealt with before.
35 Inconvenient Truths -- The lies and errors of Al Gore's Propaganda Film.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/press_releases/monckton-response-to-gore-errors.pdf
Oh wait! The guy must be a Big Oil supporter. LOL!
Again - it's not about saving the planet. Al Gore just wants the wealth and the control that CAP and TRADE would bring to him and his cronies.
Wow 20 pages already , too much for me to read , the fact that Wikipedia is being quatoed as a reliable source is amusing however. Maybe you should look up (on Wiki if you like) the number of edits/articles etc related to climate change this guy has made.
http://deathby1000papercuts.com/2009/12/wikipedia-agw-bias-wiki-censor-william-connolley-axed/
I am sure you will now agree quoting anything you read on Wikepedia is a BIG mistake.
I think the "CLOUD" experiment being run at CERN will put an end to this idiocy once and for all.
If you believe in AGW you should watch this and have a rethink.
http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1181073/
Sceptics of AGW will find reading about "cloud" very interesting ,it is REAL science being done by REAL scientists, no weathermen with a PhD from the church of climatology. The Wall Street Journal article "Follow the Money" will explain how this AGW got so out of hand and of course the climategate files are worth a look. This explanation of them by a REAL scientist is long but well worth reading.
John P. CostellaB.E.(Elec.)(Hons.) B.Sc.(Hons.) Ph.D.(Physics) Grad.Dip.Ed.
http://www.assassinationscience.com/climategate/
Quote from: tonyc on January 16, 2010, 08:10:06 AM
Wow 20 pages already , too much for me to read , the fact that Wikipedia is being quatoed as a reliable source is amusing however. Maybe you should look up (on Wiki if you like) the number of edits/articles etc related to climate change this guy has made.
People need to become educated how wikipedia works. If a wikipage is trashed, it will be undone. If the attacker continues, then their IP is banned. If they continue getting other IP's, the wikipedia page is locked, and further system admin steps are taken. Eventually their ISP will be contacted, and action will be taken.
So as you can see, wikipedia has and does work. It's not perfect, but no system is perfect. Also what a lot of people are unaware of is that there is an admin hiarchy system on the wikipedia. So wikipedia has 1000's of moderators.
Quote from: Pirate88179 on January 16, 2010, 02:32:09 AM
Paul:
I am so sorry. I just now learned of your mental disability. Please forgive me as I had no idea. Just remain calm and enjoy your life as best you can. That is all any of us can hope for.
Again, I am sorry. I did not know.
Bill
Attack noted. I'll take that any day, but what cannot be tolerated is your libelous & deceitful statements about my public statement. We can carry this discussion in private, so please stop your attacks.
Sorry, but you are on my ignore list, again. Please contact me in private if you must.
This is great. My hats of to the University of Missouri on their Global Warming solutions & competitions,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9MK9bvXLjs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9MK9bvXLjs)
Since 1990, the campus has achieved a 19% reduction in energy use, while campus building space grew by 60%!
And they are saving $276,000 / year! Energy costs were reduced by 46%. That's being smart & compassionate to all life on this planet and for the future generations. That kind of news literally brings me tears of joy that there are such good people in the world.
Quote from: PaulLowrance on January 14, 2010, 09:25:33 AM
And you don't "think" that the # of privates world wide correlates with the world population? LOL
what the hell does a private have to do with the discussion? LOL.
as you can see, the graph shown clearly demonstrates unarguably that there is a statistically significant inverse relationship between pirates and global temperature...
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on January 16, 2010, 11:07:13 AM
what the hell does a private have to do with the discussion? LOL.
as you can see, the graph shown clearly demonstrates unarguably that there is a statistically significant inverse relationship between pirates and global temperature...
Calm down. I meant to type pirates. I was suggesting that as human population increases, so would pirates. Anyway, I don't think scientists are too interested in trying to correlate pirates to global warming data. ;)
Quote from: PaulLowrance on January 16, 2010, 11:25:12 AM
Calm down. I meant to type pirates. I was suggesting that as human population increases, so would pirates. Anyway, I don't think scientists are too interested in trying to correlate pirates to global warming data. ;)
calm down? what the hell are you talking about? LOL. did you see the LOL at the end this time? what evidence do you have to back up your suggestion? pirate populations have been declining for the last 300 years... has the world population done the same? your suggestion is illogical.
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on January 16, 2010, 11:34:19 AM
pirate populations have been declining for the last 300 years... has the world population done the same? your suggestion is illogical.
Well thanks for the fascinating info, lol. Not sure pirate population is of much interest to climatologist because its population is probably complex and unpredictable and they definitely don't cause much CO2, and they have a much better data base, the human population.
Anyhow, maybe this is the graph you're talking about,
http://blogs.uslhc.us/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/piratesarecool4.gif (http://blogs.uslhc.us/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/piratesarecool4.gif)
Hmm, did Rush Limbaugh create that graph? Hmm, 17 pirates in the entire world by year 2000? Do you have any idea how many Somali pirates alone there are right now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somali_pirates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somali_pirates)
Quote from: PaulLowrance on January 16, 2010, 11:49:33 AM
Well thanks for the fascinating info, lol. Not sure pirate population is of much interest to climatologist because its population is probably complex and unpredictable and they definitely don't cause much CO2, and they have a much better data base, the human population.
Anyhow, maybe this is the graph you're talking about,
http://blogs.uslhc.us/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/piratesarecool4.gif (http://blogs.uslhc.us/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/piratesarecool4.gif)
Hmm, did Rush Limbaugh create that graph? Hmm, 17 pirates in the entire world by year 2000? Do you have any idea how many Somali pirates alone there are right now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somali_pirates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somali_pirates)
you're welcome. are you assuming how much co2 pirates 'cause', and aren't you assuming that it's even co2 at fault? i'm really not sure how you even consider what you said logical as the graph i posted previously clearly demonstrates a decline in global pirate population. if the co2 that pirates 'cause' were to blame and if said co2 were responsible for global warming then logically global warming would slow down because the amount of pirates is decreasing, hence the co2 they 'cause' would also be decreasing.
anyhow the graph i was refering to was in my post...
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8608.msg222411#msg222411
how did rush create that? he ripped it off from venganza.org... by the way if you do a search at venganza for pirates you will find that the somali issue was covered as well. a correlation was found between increased somali pirate activity and cold periods... regardless, the statistical data clearly shows an inverse relationship to the number of pirates and the global temperature.
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on January 16, 2010, 01:29:09 PM
you're welcome. are you assuming how much co2 pirates 'cause', and aren't you assuming that it's even co2 at fault? i'm really not sure how you even consider what you said logical as the graph i posted previously clearly demonstrates a decline in global pirate population. if the co2 that pirates 'cause' were to blame and if said co2 were responsible for global warming then logically global warming would slow down because the amount of pirates is decreasing, hence the co2 they 'cause' would also be decreasing.
anyhow the graph i was refering to was in my post...
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8608.msg222411#msg222411 (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8608.msg222411#msg222411)
how did rush create that? he ripped it off from venganza.org... by the way if you do a search at venganza for pirates you will find that the somali issue was covered as well. a correlation was found between increased somali pirate activity and cold periods... regardless, the statistical data clearly shows an inverse relationship to the number of pirates and the global temperature.
Ohhh, I thought you were and the gang were just being funny about your pirate & global warming correlation, lol. Well my man, take your science to Stanford University. Well, maybe they're use your graphs as their dart board. That could come in handy. ;D Let me know what Stanford says.
Quote from: PaulLowrance on January 16, 2010, 02:10:57 PM
Ohhh, I thought you were and the gang were just being funny about your pirate & global warming correlation, lol. Well my man, take your science to Stanford University. Well, maybe they're use your graphs as their dart board. That could come in handy. ;D Let me know what Stanford says.
the gang? there's no gang... are you paranoid or something? it's just me, and i was being funny. my point was to show that statistics can be made to indicate anything. there is no proof from either side of this debate... nor do i expect any that is irrefutable anytime soon.
is that what they do at stanford? play darts?
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on January 16, 2010, 02:20:51 PM
is that what they do at stanford? play darts?
Only in their free time.. LOL
Lowrance, the fact that you even made any kind of a big deal about the # of pirates gag in relation to global warming shows how ridiculous you are. All you care about is getting in the last word, no matter what silly thing you say.
Chew on this Peer-Reviewed paper for a while (which I doubt you would). This is simply more evidence that the hypothesis of man-caused global warming is false. Care to give it a try?
http://suesam.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/climate-change-re-examined.pdf
Once again, another paper showing that global warming is happening because of natural causes that we cannot control. The author must be a big oil supporter, anti-environmental, pro-pollution, right-wing radical, idiotic, uneducated ( professor), moron. Right Paul?
This comes to mind.
Scandals continue to pop-up with the Global-Warming Hoax. This time The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) described as "seriously complicit in data manipulation and fraud."
Data described as: non gradus anus rodentum (Not worth a rat's ass!) LOL!
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/NOAAroleinclimategate.pdf
Once again, Human-caused global warming is a HOAX!!!!!!!!
Nicely done, PEER REVIEWED paper showing the correlation between Carbon Dioxide levels in the atmosphere correlated with temperature. The conclusion of the paper is that Man-made Carbon Dioxide Emissions are insignificant in influencing the overall Carbon Dioxide levels in the atmosphere.
http://www.heartland.org/custom/semod_policybot/pdf/25543.pdf
The hypothesis of Man-made global warming is a HOAX and a LIE being used by greedy, power-hungry politicians (a.k.a. Al Gore ) to gain control over our wealth and our lives.
Universities around the world are going green, and for a good reason, the research they are doing shows that Global Warming is a fact. Surface temperature of the entire planet has increased 1°C (1.8°F) the past 150 years. That is scary. The attached image shows the data over the past 150+ years that has been freely available to anyone. You can't hide that kind of data.
Today the congratulations goes to the University of Nottingham for their professional scientific research in Global Warming and for all of the green improvements to the University. They're doing their part. I'm doing my part. Lets all do our part by being environmentally friendlier and going green.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dA1HQYmPvA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dA1HQYmPvA)
Another recently "peer-reviewed" paper showing the conclusion that during the long Geological history of earth, there was no correlation between global temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/files/documents/debate.pdf
I have no problem with anyone wanting to go "green"; but since man-caused global warming is a cruelly devised hoax, the money for the conversion needs to come out of their pocket, not mine. This is so Al Gore and his cronies won't steal our wealth and freedoms for their own person gain and greed.
Quote from: ResinRat2 on January 16, 2010, 10:41:33 PM
Scandals continue to pop-up with the Global-Warming Hoax. This time The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) described as "seriously complicit in data manipulation and fraud."
Data described as: non gradus anus rodentum (Not worth a rat's ass!) LOL!
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/NOAAroleinclimategate.pdf
Once again, Human-caused global warming is a HOAX!!!!!!!!
NOAA data manipulation followed up here:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100022474/climategate-goes-american-noaa-giss-and-the-mystery-of-the-vanishing-weather-stations/
and an excellent example in Bolivia - no thermometer data for Bolivia in GHCN since 1990, so how can it be so hot? GIStemp “makes it up†from “nearby†thermometers up to 1200 km away, on the beaches of Chili, Peru and the Amazon Jungle.
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/01/08/ghcn-gistemp-interactions-the-bolivia-effect/
There is not a darn thing wrong with going green. First A is chop down all the trees and use it for housing. Then you plant crops in the same exact spot you removed the trees from. It has been going on since the beginning of time. It is called subsistance farming. Did you know a subsistance farmer only needs to work 4hours tops a day. The frigging system has us working an average of 10hours a day and rising. Eureka thats the correlation. Global manmade warming due to sweating our asses off working for money that can arbitrarily become worthless.
I have an idea.. reduce the co2 levels and see what happens.. if the earth starts to cool.. then co2 is the cause.. if it continues to warm.. then it is not.
4Tesla
Quote from: 4Tesla on January 17, 2010, 05:35:59 PM
I have an idea.. reduce the co2 levels and see what happens.. if the earth starts to cool.. then co2 is the cause.. if it continues to warm.. then it is not.
4Tesla
So the place in time we happen to be on, somewhere on the wavy line that is "climate", will decide whether our CO2 reduction was real or misguided? You tell me first what place in time we are.
Something else, what about we WAIT what climate actually does, and keep doing CO2 reading. Problem: data presented until now has been cherry picked and then manipulated.
Who to trust?
Quote from: 4Tesla on January 17, 2010, 05:35:59 PM
I have an idea.. reduce the co2 levels and see what happens.. if the earth starts to cool.. then co2 is the cause.. if it continues to warm.. then it is not.
Sounds like a reasonable idea, but there's a 'gotcha': co2 accumulations are a little like radioactivity, they have a sort of 'half-life' in that they don't diminish right away with the cessation of co2 production.
co2 in atmospheric suspension takes about 100 years to go away, once co2 production has stopped altogether.
ESRL 5-year data spread:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/index.html#global
co2 currently at 387ppm - 10ppm change in 5-years.
CDAIC comparison 1750-present:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html
co2@280ppm-1750, 384ppm at time of publication. ~100ppm rise in 200 yrs.
Browse the first two paragraphs after the table for a run-down.
So that's a quick peek at co2.
So what's all the fuss about, should be good for the plants, right?
It sure is, in fact some plants can take advantage of increased levels right away because the oceans are the worlds biggest co2 'sink', so certain ocean 'plants' will get a real boost from the dissolved co2 in jake-time.
Well, that's a good thing then, more oxy from plant respiration, good for the fish and all...but there's one more thing, in order for any concentrations of oxy to propagate, the oceans have to 'mix', the currents have to 'move' and that depends on temperature differences causing convection flow.
In fact, that's what makes 'weather', the ocean currents moderate the temperatures of the water, air and, indirectly, the land masses, as well as providing the means for precipitation and snowfall to occur. Without the snow-pack, our rivers wouldn't flow, we wouldn't fill our reservoirs or recharge our aquifers and our hydro-electric plants wouldn't operate.
OK, all OU guys know all about Rankine cycles, Carnot cycles and heat engines, right? Well it's the same thing here, it works the same way, it's not the temperature so much as it is the -differences-.
So if the delta-Ts around the globe go down, then the currents get weaker, less convection flow, less differential, less movement of hot to cold.
More plants thriving means more o2, more atmospheric density and faster normalization/equalization of disparate temps...cold places warm up, warm places cool down, differentials decline.
Actually, with diminished differentials, our society would break down well before we hit critical-mass with the temperature itself, water would be the reason (loss of snow-pack). Food would be the next casualty, depopulation would follow, you get the drift.
Now, take a look at this link and 'connect the dots':
http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=paleontologist-peter-wards-medea-hy-2010-01-13
It'll take a long time for anything drastic to happen temperature-wise, but the fallout along the way could get us before that happens.
Of course, maybe co2 doesn't have any effect at all on climate or temps, in which case we should go ahead and ramp-up on fossil-fuel use, which we'll have to do anyway to keep up with population increases, we can always fix it later I guess.
Quote from: 4Tesla on January 17, 2010, 05:35:59 PM
I have an A.. reduce the co2 levels and see what happens.. if the A starts to cool.. then co2 is the cause.. if it continues to warm.. then it is not.
4Tesla
I dont believe it is the co2 we have to worry about in the first place. It is the rest of the shit coming out of a stack. Carbon monoxide nitrous oxide sulpher dioxiode and all the rest of the poisons. We just need carbon and hydrogen bonds and break the bonds properly instead of the present method of using untreated air as an oxidizing agent. If you want to point fingers look at the infernal combustion engine promoters. The steam plant operators. The jet engine developers. They are the ones producing poisons. We can handle the co2 but the nitric acid compounds will leave you sick for months. The carbon monoxide will kill you in minutes. Why isnt there an oxygen seperator mandated before you start up the thermal energy process. Why do we have to use unburnt fuel to cool the chamber down. Why isnt the carbon supplied as methane gas instead of glorified sludge. BECAUSE OF MONEY. Money does not make the world go run it turns it into a fucking mess. And who controls money this illusion of wealth. The greedy. And who controls greed pride envy and all the rest of the evil stuff. A sadly confused legion of beings that look upon themselves as seperated from the scource of life. Unwilling to admit we are all made from the same cloth.
Quote from: ATT on January 17, 2010, 07:49:23 PM
Now, take a look at this link and 'connect the dots':
http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=paleontologist-peter-wards-medea-hy-2010-01-13
Great article. On this topic it seems the truth is what you believe. I just hope we can find alternative energies as it will be good for all.
Not sure what ATT stands for, but I like Verizon ;)
4Tesla
Quote from: ATT on January 17, 2010, 07:49:23 PM
A like a reasonable idea, but there's a 'gotcha': co2 accumulations are a little like radioactivity, they have a sort of 'half-life' in that they don't diminish right away with the cessation of co2 production.
co2 in atmospheric suspension takes about 100 years to go away, once co2 production has stopped altogether.
ESRL 5-year data spread:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/index.html#global
co2 currently at 387ppm - 10ppm change in 5-years.
CDAIC comparison 1750-present:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html
co2@280ppm-1750, 384ppm at time of publication. ~100ppm rise in 200 yrs.
Browse the first two paragraphs after the table for a run-down.
So that's a quick peek at co2.
So what's all the fuss about, should be good for the plants, right?
It sure is, in fact some plants can take advantage of increased levels right away because the oceans are the worlds biggest co2 'sink', so certain ocean 'plants' will get a real boost from the dissolved co2 in jake-time.
Well, that's a good thing then, more oxy from plant respiration, good for the fish and all...but there's one more thing, in order for any concentrations of oxy to propagate, the oceans have to 'mix', the currents have to 'move' and that depends on temperature differences causing convection flow.
In fact, that's what makes 'weather', the ocean currents moderate the temperatures of the water, air and, indirectly, the land masses, as well as providing the means for precipitation and snowfall to occur. Without the snow-pack, our rivers wouldn't flow, we wouldn't fill our reservoirs or recharge our aquifers and our hydro-electric plants wouldn't operate.
OK, all OU guys know all about Rankine cycles, Carnot cycles and heat engines, right? Well it's the same thing here, it works the same way, it's not the temperature so much as it is the -differences-.
So if the delta-Ts around the globe go down, then the currents get weaker, less convection flow, less differential, less movement of hot to cold.
More plants thriving means more o2, more atmospheric density and faster normalization/equalization of disparate temps...cold places warm up, warm places cool down, differentials decline.
Actually, with diminished differentials, our society would break down well before we hit critical-mass with the temperature itself, water would be the reason (loss of snow-pack). Food would be the next casualty, depopulation would follow, you get the drift.
Now, take a look at this link and 'connect the dots':
http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=paleontologist-peter-wards-medea-hy-2010-01-13
It'll take a long time for anything drastic to happen temperature-wise, but the fallout along the way could get us before that happens.
Of course, maybe co2 doesn't have any effect at all on climate or temps, in which case we should go ahead and ramp-up on fossil-fuel use, which we'll have to do anyway to keep up with population increases, we can always fix it later I guess.
The question is whether CO2 levels will rise from the current level of 390 parts per million (a tiny proportion) to 1000 parts per million. If this happens - a big 'if', we are told to expect a catastrophic change. According to Ward, microorganisms, not asteroid or comet impacts, were responsible for most of the mass extinctions in history - but there are also indications that magnetic pole shifts and ice ages are also associated with mass extinctions (and also the unexplained rapid emergence of new species, possibly due to genetic mutation from radiation getting through Earth's compromised magnetic field) So there is more than one explanation for mass extinctions, the asteroid/dinosaur hypothesis has been questioned.
There are geological layers of minute diamonds and carbon bucky-balls accompanying these pole shifts which may indicate powerful electrical, plasmic discharge activity in the atmosphere.
If the C02 warming component has been exaggerated, and there is plenty of evidence to show that this has been done on purpose, we do not need to fear fluctuations in temperature and natural climate cycles which have been going on for millennia. However, we should not be surprised if the magnetic north pole is travelling 35 miles per year towards Siberia, in what may be the beginning of a shift.
Ward's idea that life is ultimately self-destructive like a virulent virus programmed to wipe out the biosphere - I don't buy that. I don't buy the runaway escalation of C02 hyped by people like Al Gore, or the current status of CO2 as a toxic gas.
It is a natural part of the life cycle. We need it. Plants need it. More C02, more plants, plants grow faster, more oxygen. Another point recently demonstrated - climate warming comes first, C02 increase follows after, not the other way round.
It is a natural part of the life cycle. We need it. Plants need it. More C02, more plants, plants absorb C02, more oxygen. Another point recently demonstrated - climate warming comes first, C02 increase follows after, not the other way round.
[/quote]
As for climate change melting Himalayan glaciers by 2035, IPCC and the UN are going to have to eat their words. The warning was based on an article in the New Scientist. The news report was based on a telephone interview with Indian scientist Syed Hasnain of Jawaharlal university in Delhi, who has now admitted that the claim was based on speculation and not supported by research.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6991177.ece
Quote from: 4Tesla on January 18, 2010, 03:58:56 AM
Not sure what ATT stands for, but I like Verizon ;)
Anthony (Tony) Triola, they're my initials.
I don't know much about all this, Paul got me started looking at data so whenever I find something that looks interesting, I post.
Quote from: silverfish on January 18, 2010, 07:25:34 AM
Indian scientist Syed Hasnain of Jawaharlal university in Delhi, who has now admitted that the claim was based on speculation and not supported by research.
I see that a lot with this subject, seems speculation is the one thing that's not in short supply with all this.
Leads me to wonder where the science ends and the ideology begins.
.
Quote from: Cloxxki on January 17, 2010, 06:50:45 PM
So the place in time we happen to be on, somewhere on the wavy line that is "climate", will decide whether our CO2 reduction was real or misguided? You tell me first what place in time we are.
Something else, what about we WAIT what climate actually does, and keep doing CO2 reading. Problem: data presented until now has been cherry picked and then manipulated.
Who to trust?
Good point. Next question: who benefits? how about Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the UN Climate Change panel, who will receive up to £10,000,000 funding over the next five years from the Department for International Development. The Energy and Recources Institute (TERI) of which he is the director-general, is facing demands for the Charity Commission to investigate 'irregularities' and conflict of interest.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7005963/Taxpayers-millions-paid-to-Indian-institute-run-by-UN-climate-chief.html
This should lay to rest any future potential CO2 issues.
" A German professor has created a filter which extracts more than a thousand times more carbon dioxide from the air than a tree."
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,672072,00.html
Regards...
What if we took the collected carbon dioxide and then attached hydrogen to it using A. Then we could synthesize various plastics. This plastic from the atmosphere could be used to create polyester fibers for clothing. Building materials. Fuels. We could also use gamma radiation infrared radiation cosmic background radiation elf radiation magnetohydrodynamic current stimulated radiation. The plants work on a very narrow band of radiation. They change energy into mass.
Google biosolar collectors. The manmade synthesized chlorophyll should do the trick as far as collecting uv. Then there are another host of processes emerging to convert infrared frequencies into mass. Mass is energy just a matter of time.
Quote from: Cap-Z-ro on January 19, 2010, 05:56:41 AM
This should lay to rest any future potential CO2 issues.
" A German professor has created a filter which extracts more than a thousand times more carbon dioxide from the air than a tree."
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,672072,00.html
Regards...
Check out UK environmentalist and nature lover David Bellamy's views on Global Warming and C02 - 76, intellectual faculties and sense of humour still intact...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kU_AZ--tg7Y
Quote from: Cap-Z-ro on January 19, 2010, 05:56:41 AM
This should lay to rest any future potential CO2 issues.
" A German professor has created a filter which extracts more than a thousand times more carbon dioxide from the air than a tree."
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,672072,00.html (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,672072,00.html)
Regards...
Great! Lets put them to use if possible.
He right silver...everything has been blown way out of proportion.
Greed and desperation tends to cause that.
Bottom line...the earth can regulate itself just fine...after all, it has outlasted a number of human infestations so far.
Regards...
http://www.backwoodshome.com/forum/vb/showthread.php?t=18430
http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/sports/Weird-Rip-Currents-Spook-La-Jolla-Divers.html
http://www.physorg.com/news90905241.html
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2009/12/08/Hawaii-sees-highest-surf-in-decades/UPI-33121260280870/
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/breaking/story/852054.html
http://www.gpb.org/news/2009/07/27/scientists-dont-know-whats-causing-freak-tides
http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/000200907241023.htm
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=deep-water-ocean-currents-climate
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100110151325.htm
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn8398
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/2010/01/08/stunning-new-satellite-image-shows-extend-of-arctic-weather-gripping-britain-86908-21951250/
Check out the number and diversity of just TODAY'S quakes:
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsww/Quakes/quakes_all.php
There will be signs in the sun, moon and stars. On the earth, nations will be in anguish and perplexity at the roaring and tossing of the sea. 26Men will faint from terror, apprehensive of what is coming on the world, for the heavenly bodies will be shaken. 27At that time they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. 28When these things begin to take place, stand up and lift up your heads, because your redemption is drawing near." Luke 21:25-28
I will bring to ruin, those ruining the earth. - Yahweh, Almighty God
Every island fled away and the mountains could not be found. Revelation 16:20
Blessings in Yeshua, Jesus Christ
" I will bring to ruin, those ruining the earth. - Yahweh, Almighty God"
Gee...I uh, hope I wasn't outta line with all those anti global warming cracks ??
Regards...
You puzzle me, Cappy Z....you rail against the evil tyrant devil worshipping rulers of the globe....you know, the ones fully detailed in God's Word to be in power during our generation, those thoroughly identified in detail in God's Word.... yet fail to grasp the Truth of it. You mock the Living God while pontificating against many of His enemies. There is no pleasing the many at this late hour. It's too bad that so many of this sort seem to seek revenge....for being born.
Blessings in Christ Yeshua
We've been down this road before remember ?
"Gods word" has yet to be written...all we have are the words of men.
You are free to have your own personal beliefs...as we all are...you become offensive to others when you become over zealous in your belief to the point of castigating others as 'sinners', as it were.
You are free to think you are superior to others...I feel safe in saying that we'd all appreciate it if you would keep those thought to yourself.
Everyone has their own spiritual path to follow...you need to respect that.
The only preacher I care listen to is the Reverend Shnorr..for obvious reasons.
Regards...
Please do not let the Truth of the words I share burden you, and I do not include myself anywhere among them, as advocating myself "superior" to others!
QuoteEveryone has their own spiritual path to follow...you need to respect that.
An odd statement, considering your own curious 'methods' of showing respect for the beliefs of others.
http://www.arkdiscovery.com/DTimes-2.htm
http://www.arkdiscovery.com/DTimes-3.htm
There is a way which seems right to a man, But its end is the way of death. Proverbs 14:12Lots of spiritual paths out there to be sure....and of all the religions, societies and political systems I've studied, none come remotely close to the evidence shared in God's Word.
But of course, to each his own.
Blessings in Christ Yeshua
How did this turn to religion? TechStuf, you are definitely Christian.. thanks for sharing that with us.
I may not agree with Cap-Z-ro on climate change, but I totally agree with him on religion.
Did you know that less than 1/3 of the worlds population are Christians?
If there were only 100 people on earth, 31 would be Christian.
http://www.100people.org/statistics_100stats.php?section=statistics
Something to think about.
4Tesla
Religious zealots do not comprehend the concept of "Live and Let Live".
They are too blinded by their own obsession and ego.
Yes, there is nothing more effective than the arrogance of ego to prevent common sense from flourishing in the human mind.
Regards...
Quote from: Cap-Z-ro on January 19, 2010, 05:26:10 PM
He right silver...everything has been blown way out of proportion.
Greed and desperation tends to cause that.
Bottom line...the earth can regulate itself just fine...after all, it has outlasted a number of human infestations so far.
Regards...
I agree. There are plenty of real environmental threats, runaway global warming due to C02 is just not one of them. What concerns me is the creation of fake crises which in their proposed 'solutions' bankrupt entire nations and starve people, while a small sector makes vast sums of money out of it. Even now the next 'Eco-Scare'
is being prepared - Nitrous Oxide, 'Laughing Gas', or perhaps it will be something else. We need to stop buying into this deception.
With control of every aspect of human existence being the end goal...they then can do with anyone what they choose.
And those "choices" will not be for anyone's benefit...the 'choices' will be to satisfy the deranged agenda of the sickest minds on the planet.
Regards...
Dear Pual,
I submit to you a link to read.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/What-does-Solar-Cycle-Length-tell-us-about-the-sun-role-in-global-warming.html
Quote from: Azorus on January 21, 2010, 11:45:59 AM
Dear Pual,
I submit to you a link to read.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/What-does-Solar-Cycle-Length-tell-us-about-the-sun-role-in-global-warming.html
Good article.. nice to see we are back on topic!
4Tesla
AMEN...oops.
apparently not all of the IPCC report (2007) is based on "peer-reviewed writting...(january 2010)
http://www.technologyreview.com/business/24389/?nlid=2683
also, Mr. Lindzen (a professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology [MIT]) has a problem with the IPCC reports. "The Climate Science Isn't Settled". (nov 30, 2009)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574567423917025400.html
tom
The amount of visible light infrared and uv are a very small portion of the amount of energy transferred between the Sun and the Earth. Obviously missed by the published pack of buffons is the coronal mass ejection that slams into the day side of the Earth at millions of miles an hour all the time. Or the scalar waves that heat the coronal atmosphere to millions of degrees above the temperature of the solar plasmasphere racing down plasma conduits directly from the sun to the Earth. . Or cosmic background radiation photons constantly being absorbed by upper atmospheric mass as the Earth moves through this field at 60,000 miles an hour. Or gamma radiation from outside the solar system causing mass to energy conversion in the upper atmosphere producing muon showers. How many accelerated neutrinos does it take to cause a heating effect. Or how about the magnetohydrodynamic currents responsible for the formation of the planet to begin with. These two counter rotating fluidic currents give rise to the magnetosphere. Any instability in these currents results in inductive heating of mass residing within the magnetic flux field produced by these currents. This is heat from within the planet radiating out. The Earth will someday cool to the point that it will become a frozen rock probably the size of a baseball. Of course its gravity isnt going anywhere soon. It just resides in a smaller field. The Earth moves under our feet the sky comes tumbling down tumbling down wherever gravity abounds.
As others and I have said before, there is no solid proof that supports Man Made Global warming. All graphs that have been submitted by Paul, or anyother individual are inconclusive. Up to the late 1970's there is a near direct correlation with solar output and the earths warming pattern. After that there is less than a 75% correlation with solar output and less than a 78% correlation with greenhouse gases. Thus making it inconclusive. the answer is more study needs to be done, no definitive answer can be made at the moment. I and others have submitted graphs, articles to this conclusion.
Quote from: Azorus on January 22, 2010, 09:35:21 AM
As others and I have said before, there is no solid proof that supports Man Made Global warming. All graphs that have been submitted by Paul, or anyother individual are inconclusive. Up to the late 1970's there is a near direct correlation with solar output and the earths warming pattern. After that there is less than a 75% correlation with solar output and less than a 78% correlation with greenhouse gases. Thus making it inconclusive. the answer is more study needs to be done, no definitive answer can be made at the moment. I and others have submitted graphs, articles to this conclusion.
To further underline your point, take a look at James Hansen, in charge of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS):
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100023339/james-hansen-would-you-buy-a-used-temperature-data-set-from-this-man/
more on GISS land surface anomaly temperature data, pointing to questionable results:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2010/01/was-2009-warmest-year-on-record-in.html
more on Himalayan glacier melting not backed up by evidence:
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2010-01-20-un-panel-himalayan-glaciers_N.htm
and EPA's CO2 endangerment finding challenged today in the US senate:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/21/epas-co2-endangerment-finding-challenged-today-in-the-u-s-senate/#more-15502
Quote from: Azorus on January 22, 2010, 09:35:21 AM
As others and I have said before, there is no solid proof that supports A Made Global warming. All graphs that have been submitted by Paul, or anyother individual are inconclusive. Up to the late 1970's there is a near direct correlation with solar output and the earths warming pattern. After that there is less than a 75% correlation with solar output and less than a 78% correlation with greenhouse gases. Thus making it inconclusive. the answer is more study needs to be done, no definitive answer can be made at the moment. I and others have submitted graphs, articles to this conclusion.
My point exactly. The electromagnetic wave spectrum is openended. In other words there are big photons and there are little photons. (photons are just a name for electromagnetic waves they come in all sizes depending on their wavelength) and there are countless types of electromagnetic waves imposed on this little spherical standing wavefield we call Earth. Until all these scources of radiant energy are taken into account lets move on to bigger and better uses of technology than trying to cool down the planet. If we cool down the planet it is going to rain. It is going to rain alot. It will make the rising of the oceans predictad by snowmelt look like a mosquito urine stream in a swimming pool. This has been done in the past. Noah's flood comes to mind. You take all the water vapor that is present in the heated atmosphere and place it in the oceans goodbye land mass.
Quote from: Azorus on January 22, 2010, 09:35:21 AM
Up to the late 1970's there is a near direct correlation with solar output and the earths warming pattern. After that there is less than a 75% correlation with solar output and less than a 78% correlation with greenhouse gases. Thus making it inconclusive.
Sorry I'm no longer watching this thread due to spending more time on a legit excess energy magnetic design, but happened to glance at the recent posts here today. I would like to add that there is also no correlation between solar output up to 1900. See attached image. So far the only 100% direct correlation is CO2 and human population. That along with a massive amount of further data is why over 97% of active publishing climatologists believe humanity is a significant cause of Global Warming.
for you pual
http://www.skepticalscience.com/What-does-Solar-Cycle-Length-tell-us-about-the-sun-role-in-global-warming.html
you should have read the link. You of all people would agree with this guy.
Quote from: Azorus on January 22, 2010, 12:04:49 PM
for you pual
http://www.skepticalscience.com/What-does-Solar-Cycle-Length-tell-us-about-the-sun-role-in-global-warming.html (http://www.skepticalscience.com/What-does-Solar-Cycle-Length-tell-us-about-the-sun-role-in-global-warming.html)
you should have read the link. You of all people would agree with this guy.
I understand his research agrees with my conclusion, but added my post because you made no mention to the fact there's also no solar & global warming correlation prior to 1900.
There is no correlation with greenhouse gases either. so what warmed up the earth during that time?
Quote from: PaulLowrance on January 22, 2010, 11:36:46 AM
Sorry I'm no longer watching this thread due to spending more time on a legit excess energy magnetic design, but happened to glance at the recent posts here today. I would like to add that there is also no correlation between solar output up to 1900. See attached image. So far the only 100% direct correlation is CO2 and human population. That along with a massive amount of further data is why over 97% of active publishing climatologists believe humanity is a significant cause of Global Warming.
Another recently "peer-reviewed" paper showing the conclusion that during the long Geological history of earth, there was no correlation between global temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/files/documents/debate.pdf
So Paul is wrong; and his statement that 97% of active publishing climatologist believe humanity is a significant cause of global warming is based off of only 79 people on the whole planet. I dealt with this already starting here:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8608.msg222865#msg222865
Paul is a deceiver, giving the impression that the over 97% is a large group of people. It is not.
The major link between water vapor and Carbon Dioxide levels in the atmosphere and global warming is shown to be that water vapor and Carbon Dioxide levels increase AFTER the average global temperature rises. This is a result of the solar activity warming the atmosphere and the solubility of Carbon Dioxide in the oceans going down due to warming. This is what is shown to raise the Carbon Dioxide and water vapor levels.
Obviously this will go on and on because Paul refuses to believe that the sun warms the atmosphere and the physics of carbon dioxide solubility shows that as the temperature rises the solubility of Carbon Dioxide gas in water decreases, thus releasing more Carbon Dioxide and water vapor into the atmosphere.
Quote from: Azorus on January 22, 2010, 12:41:26 PM
so what warmed up the earth during that time?
I've already answered that. I agree with over 97% of active publishing climatologist that the significant cause of global warming is due to humanity from a wide range of effects from deforestation to CO2 emissions.
Quote from: ResinRat2 on January 22, 2010, 12:52:22 PM
Another recently "peer-reviewed" paper showing the conclusion that during the long Geological history of earth, there was no correlation between global temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/files/documents/debate.pdf
So Paul is wrong; and his statement that 97% of active publishing climatologist believe humanity is a significant cause of global warming is based off of only 79 people on the whole planet. I dealt with this already starting here:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8608.msg222865#msg222865
Paul is a deceiver, giving the impression that the over 97% is a large group of people. It is not.
The major link between Carbon Dioxide levels in the atmosphere and global warming is shown to be that Carbon Dioxide levels increase AFTER the average global temperature rises. This is a result of the solar activity warming the atmosphere and the solubility of Carbon Dioxide in the oceans going down due to warming. This is what is shown to raise the Carbon Dioxide levels.
Obviously this will go on and on because Paul refuses to believe that the sun warms the atmosphere and the physics of carbon dioxide solubility shows that as the temperature rises the solubility of Carbon Dioxide gas in water decreases, thus releasing more Carbon Dioxide into the atmosphere.
That's right, carbon dioxide increase _follows_ global warming, not preceding it - and the sun warms the planet - just as it has always done for thousands of years. The idea that human-caused C02 is responsible for global warming, when the planet has been cooling for the past 9 years, is being exposed as false, even in the controlled mainstream media. The scientific data on which warming is based is shown to be manipulated - repeatedly. The scientists responsible are recipients of large grants or business interests prompting them to reinforce the perception of global warming where none exists. NASA GISS, IPCC, The Met Office in the UK, the East Anglian Climate Research Unit - all of these organizations are being exposed for their bias and their culpability, and, no doubt, more corruption will be revealed as the 'can of climate worms' opens wider.
Here's more on NASA global warming alarmist Dr. James Hansen, who calls for the destruction of industrial civilisation and population reduction measures to prevent 'climate change'.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/nasa-global-warming-alarmist-endorses-book-that-calls-for-mass-genocide.html
Read 'Ecoscience' by Science Czar John Holdren to get his views on forced abortion, drugging of the water supply and all the rest of it.
Yes pual i am glad you agree with 1/39 of the scientific population on climate change, that agreed to “In our survey, the most specialized and knowledgeable respondents (with regard to climate change) are those who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change (79 individuals in total). Of these specialists, 96.2% (76 of 79) answered “risen†to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question
2.â€
here is your cookie. No you did not answer what warmed the earth prior to 1900
No it is not a great survey when only 30% respond, and only 1/39th answer your two proud questions.
BTW over 3100 scientist where questioned, not just 79.
let me correct that over 10,000 where petitioned. only 3194 responded, of which only 79 answered those two questions that where deemed qualified.
So the others that answered the question with masters, and doctorits that answered the question didn't matter?
Quote from: Azorus on January 22, 2010, 02:23:35 PM
Yes pual
First of all, I have no interest in someone who acts like a immature child. My name is clearly spelled "Paul." You're harming yourself, not me.
Quote from: Azorus on January 22, 2010, 02:23:35 PMi am glad you agree with 1/39 of the scientific population on climate change, that agreed to “In our survey, the most specialized and knowledgeable respondents (with regard to climate change) are those who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change (79 individuals in total). Of these specialists, 96.2% (76 of 79) answered “risen†to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question
2.â€
here is your cookie. No you did not answer what warmed the earth prior to 1900
No it is not a great survey when only 30% respond, and only 1/39th answer your two proud questions.
BTW over 3100 scientist where questioned, not just 79.
let me correct that over 10,000 where petitioned. only 3194 responded, of which only 79 answered those two questions that where deemed qualified.
So the others that answered the question with masters, and doctorits that answered the question didn't matter?
Furthermore, your understanding of science and statistics seems limited. The survey was done by scientists at the University of Illinois. For anyone interested, here's the pdf -->
http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf (http://tigger.uic.edu/%7Epdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf)
Again, I agree with over 97% of active publishing climatologist.
*checks to see if Paul is watching*
Stunning: NASA GISS Admits No Evidence of AGW In The US, Won’t Be For Decades!
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/12532
Quote from: tbird on January 22, 2010, 10:03:31 PM
Stunning: NASA GISS Admits No Evidence of AGW In The US, Won’t Be For Decades!
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/12532 (http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/12532)
That blogger is lying. He does not even show the graphs. One of the attached graphs shows the US temperatures. Clearly a warming trend in the US. Here are the graphs. One of the graphs separates rural & major city temperatures. Notice how rural temperatures show no warming trend, but major city temperatures show warming trend. That is not hardcore proof that humanity is the significant, which is what over 97% of active publishing climatologist are saying.
Another attached graph shows the fluctuations over time between global cooling and warming. Once again, those are fluctuations. If we analyzed the global temperature by month, we would see global cooling / warming fluctuating on a yearly basis. If we took global temperatures on a daily basis, we would see global cooling / warming fluctuating on a monthly basis, lol. A scientist understands the difference between a trend and fluctuations.
The United States is showing the same warming trend since the industrial age as the global, and we can clearly see that it occurs in *cities*.
Quote from: tbird on January 22, 2010, 10:03:31 PM
Stunning: NASA GISS Admits No Evidence of AGW In The US, Won’t Be For Decades!
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/12532
UN Climate Chief admits mistake on Himalayan Glaciers warning:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6994774.ece
More errors identified in UN Climate Change Panel assessing Himalayan Glaciers - Dr. Rajendra Pachauri dismissing calls for him to resign:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6999051.ece
UK Parliamentary House of Commons Science and Technology Committee launches investigation into Climategate to find out the implications of the disclosures for the integrity of scientific research:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100023449/wow-uk-parliamentary-investigation-into-climategate-may-not-be-a-whitewash/
Sanity Check: 2008 and 2009 were the coolest years since 1998 in the USA:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/23/sanity-check-2008-2009-were-the-coolest-years-since-1998-in-the-usa/#more-15539
Arctic temperatures above 80 degrees N are the lowest in six years:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/23/arctic-temperatures-above-80%c2%b0n-are-the-lowest-in-six-years/#more-15548
And last but not least, Climategate - CRU was but the tip of the iceberg:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/01/climategate_cru_was_but_the_ti.html
I love this description in your final link, silverfish:
'And this from the computer expert:
That the bias exists is not denied. That the data are too sparse and with too many holes over time in not denied. Temperature series programs, like NASA GISS GIStemp try, but fail, to fix the holes and the bias. What is claimed is that "the anomaly will fix it." But it cannot. Comparison of a cold baseline set to a hot present set must create a biased anomaly. It is simply overwhelmed by the task of taking out that much bias. And yet there is more. A whole zoo of adjustments are made to the data. These might be valid in some cases, but the end result is to put in a warming trend of up to several degrees. We are supposed to panic over a 1/10 degree change of "anomaly" but accept 3 degrees of "adjustment" with no worries at all. To accept that GISTemp is "a perfect filter". That is, simply, "nuts". It was a good enough answer at Bastogne, and applies here too.
Smith, who had a family member attached to the 101st Airborne at the time, refers to the famous line from the 101st commander, U.S. Army General Anthony Clement McAuliffe, who replied to a German ultimatum to surrender the December, 1944 Battle of Bastogne, Belgium with a single word: “Nuts.†'
It just goes to show you, the "NUTS" are the ones giving us the warnings. Their bias is so strong toward the lie of Human Caused Global Warming that they will lie and conceal the truth. The graph that shows the global cooling trend shows it plainly. People like Lowrance - who accuse others of lies - use data filled with lies.
-- Oh wait, just like Lowrance keeps spouting off: over 97% of actively publishing climatologists say we are the cause of global warming, you know; those 77 out of 79 climatologists. 77 scientists out of the whole population of about six BILLION people. Of course, according to Lowrance, everyone else is wrong or a liar or a supporter of big oil.
People like him are the enemy of human freedom and truth.
Shhh, be quiet you 2 !!!
You're gonna wake Paul up for ats sake.
Have some consideration !!!
Sheesh...
Quote from: Cap-Z-ro on January 23, 2010, 02:51:25 PM
Shhh, be quiet you 2 !!!
You're gonna wake Paul up for ats sake.
Have some consideration !!!
Sheesh...
I do like a man with a sense of humour... :)
Quote from: ResinRat2 on January 23, 2010, 01:28:43 PM
I love this description in your final link, silverfish:
'And this from the computer expert:
That the bias exists is not denied. That the data are too sparse and with too many holes over time in not denied. Temperature series programs, like NASA GISS GIStemp try, but fail, to fix the holes and the bias. What is claimed is that "the anomaly will fix it." But it cannot. Comparison of a cold baseline set to a hot present set must create a biased anomaly. It is simply overwhelmed by the task of taking out that much bias. And yet there is more. A whole zoo of adjustments are made to the data. These might be valid in some cases, but the end result is to put in a warming trend of up to several degrees. We are supposed to panic over a 1/10 degree change of "anomaly" but accept 3 degrees of "adjustment" with no worries at all. To accept that GISTemp is "a perfect filter". That is, simply, "nuts". It was a good enough answer at Bastogne, and applies here too.
Smith, who had a family member attached to the 101st Airborne at the time, refers to the famous line from the 101st commander, U.S. Army General Anthony Clement McAuliffe, who replied to a German ultimatum to surrender the December, 1944 Battle of Bastogne, Belgium with a single word: “Nuts.†'
It just goes to show you, the "NUTS" are the ones giving us the warnings. Their bias is so strong toward the lie of Human Caused Global Warming that they will lie and conceal the truth. The graph that shows the global cooling trend shows it plainly. People like Lowrance - who accuse others of lies - use data filled with lies.
-- Oh wait, just like Lowrance keeps spouting off: over 97% of actively publishing climatologists say we are the cause of global warming, you know; those 77 out of 79 climatologists. 77 scientists out of the whole population of about six BILLION people. Of course, according to Lowrance, everyone else is wrong or a liar or a supporter of big oil.
People like him are the enemy of human freedom and truth.
NASA under fire for refusing Freedom of Information requests as to why it has had to repeatedly correct its climate figures:
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=518890
New article:
Global warming is real, and we should be worried
http://www.seattlepi.com/connelly/414555_joel23.html?source=rss (http://www.seattlepi.com/connelly/414555_joel23.html?source=rss)
4Tesla
Quote from: 4Tesla on January 23, 2010, 04:54:17 PM
New article:
A is real, and we should be worried
http://www.seattlepi.com/connelly/414555_joel23.html?source=rss (http://www.seattlepi.com/connelly/414555_joel23.html?source=rss)
4Tesla
I don't think so. Readers of this article don't seem to agree with its content! From the comments section:
Posted by allmountain40 at 1/22/2010 7:54 p.m.
Nice article. But the reporter fails to address two very big reasons in the belief that there is no man made global warming. First; The studies conducted from core samples from antarctica by the UW proffesor that show that the Earth goes through cycles of heating and cooling. His data shows we are by no means even close to warming trends that the planet has seen in the past. The reality is the planet warms and glaciers recede. The planet cools and glaciers advance. These are normal earth cycles as shown by the antarctic ice. Second; It is historical fact that when the Vikings first came to greenland, they were able to farm there. This is not disputable. Today, it is too cold to farm there. Historical records from all over Europe show that it was warmer in the middle ages than today. Yet, there were no cars, no industry, and no greenhouse gasses. Only the normal planetary cycle of warming and cooling. Want me to believe in man made global warming? Address these two issues and quit showing me temperature charts that only go back 130 years. Yes glaciers are receding, just as they always have during warming periods. If glaciers didn't recede at normal intervals, the entire puget sound would still be buried under them. There were no cars around to cause global warming to end the multiple ice ages. Only this planets NATURAL rhythms.Posted by allmountain40 at 1/22/2010 7:54 p.m.
There is a second political agenda also. If man invests in free energy devices like solar wind ocean thermal then his human rescourcefulness will not be available to the slavers. If your reality improves will there be a need for drugs ridiculous immersion into sporting events or electronic entertainment and communications. Would you need to be in the phone world if you could be out tending a beautiful fruit bearing garden with your children powered by uvlights whose electricity is produced by a solar array in the Ghobi desert. Would you dream about zooming around in the newest sleekest infernal combustion driven 800hp car to get an adrenaline rush when you could be relaxing with friends and neighbors every afternoon and watching the kids splash around in a crystal clear pool disinfected with ozone produced by an electric plant using a Tesla turbine which does not require damming the river at all. Would you be out shopping for cloths to impress other people with if you were impressing other people with human acts of love and kindness. So create this false sense of urgency to keep the old slave system going. It is not the new world order we need to be afraid of it is the old world order making desperate moves to retain mind control.
Whoops , seems the claim that 97% of scientists agree was a typo , it should read 7%. I warned you not to rely on Wikipedia for facts. (You will note that this 97% claim came from one of over 5,000 Wikipedia edits/deletions/bannings related to climate change undertaken by William M Connolley.)
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/consensus_what_consensus_among_climate_scientists_the_debate_is_not_over.html
Quote from: tonyc on January 24, 2010, 11:34:38 PM
Whoops , seems the claim that 97% of scientists agree was a typo , it should read 7%. I warned you not to rely on Wikipedia for facts. (You will note that this 97% claim came from one of over 5,000 Wikipedia edits/deletions/bannings related to climate change undertaken by William M Connolley.)
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/consensus_what_consensus_among_climate_scientists_the_debate_is_not_over.html (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/consensus_what_consensus_among_climate_scientists_the_debate_is_not_over.html)
Exactly what I have been saying. Great post! Lots of other interesting facts in this link as well.
Bill
They have a name for people who alter reality to make it fit what they want it to.
Quote from: Azorus on January 25, 2010, 08:11:17 AM
They have a name for people who alter reality to make it fit what they want it to.
The Chairman of IPCC certainly fits the bill. Bogus claims that the Himalayan glaciers were melting, and wrongly linking global warming to an increase in the number and severity of natural disasters such as hurricanes and floods, were used to win grants worth hundreds of thousands of pounds. Pachauri dismisses calls for his resignation:
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/investigate_pachauri_now#66070
Video clip with Dr. Richard North on Indian television discussing Pachauri's position:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/24/pachauri-must-resign-his-position-is-untenable/#more-15639
and
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35029710/ns/us_news-environment
UN wrongly linking global warming to natural disasters:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7000063.ece
Glacier scientist: 'I knew climate data hadn't been verified':
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245636/Glacier-scientists-says-knew-data-verified.html#ixzz0dUx6pwXe
Was talking to pual that seems to believe that whatever anyone else says is not real. He should just stick to his 79 defence.
East Coast USA checking in. The winter has been essentially nonexistant. A few very cold days last month, a little snow, and now, mid-end January, it's been spring-like for weeks. Not quite spring, but certainly nothing like a normal winter. Blame it or don't blame it on whatever you want, there's no way to deny how mild this winter is. Without exaggeration, I've never seen a winter like this.
Quote from: silverfish on January 24, 2010, 04:24:08 AM
Quote from: 4Tesla on January 23, 2010, 04:54:17 PM
New article:
Global warming is real, and we should be worried
http://www.seattlepi.com/connelly/414555_joel23.html?source=rss (http://www.seattlepi.com/connelly/414555_joel23.html?source=rss)
4Tesla
I don't think so. Readers of this article don't seem to agree with its content!
silverfish,
"Readers" ? Now that's being scientific, LOL. Not. Now lets all judge by what "readers" say, and not scientists, lol.
BTW, nice article 4Tesla.
Quote from: tonyc on January 24, 2010, 11:34:38 PM
Whoops , seems the claim that 97% of scientists agree was a typo , it should read 7%. I warned you not to rely on Wikipedia for facts. (You will note that this 97% claim came from one of over 5,000 Wikipedia edits/deletions/bannings related to climate change undertaken by William M Connolley.)
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/consensus_what_consensus_among_climate_scientists_the_debate_is_not_over.html (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/consensus_what_consensus_among_climate_scientists_the_debate_is_not_over.html)
OMG, you people are trying to hard now, out right being deceitful. WikiPedia shows the reference to the "over 97%" figure, and if you even bothered to read the pdf you would see that they provided the numbers so you can even do your own math. It is not a typo. Over 97% of active publishing climatologist believe humanity is the significant cause of global warming.
http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
What I'm seeing here is a truck load of *anonymous* people posting under various usernames at various blog sites & forums out right lying about global warming. Big Oil has already been caught paying millions of dollars to people & groups who are against the global warming movement.
http://globalfreeenergy.info/2010/01/07/global-warming-truth/
Quote from: PaulLowrance on January 26, 2010, 09:58:11 AM
A, you people are trying to hard now, out right being deceitful. A shows the reference to the "over 97%" figure, and if you even bothered to read the pdf you would see that they provided the numbers so you can even do your own math. It is not a typo. Over 97% of active publishing climatologist believe humanity is the significant cause of global warming.
http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
Once again, yes Lowrance, lets look at your 97% quote from the link above:
"(79 individuals in total). Of these specialists, 96.2% (76 of 79)answered “risen†to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2."
You still use that silly quote that includes
only 79 people, and only 77 of them agreed (97%). Your "Over 97% of active publishing climatologist believe humanity is the significant cause of global warming." quote is dishonest and deceptive.
It is based off of only 77 out of 79 people.
Paul,
The survey you so famously quote was sent to all geosciences faculty at reporting academic institutions, along with researchers at state geologic surveys associated with local universities, and researchers at U.S. federal research facilities (e.g., U.S. Geological Survey, NASA, and NOAA (U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). Where out of 10,257 Earth scientists only 3146 responded to the survey. Of which only 30.7% answered your famous quote. So how is it that 30.7% is a consensus?
Also only 90% of all that participated stated yes to question 1, only 82% said yes to question 2. Why are these results dropped for just the scientists that published a paper in the last 5 years? Are they not scientists too? They are not valid? or is it that they are dropped so that it can read better if 76 people out of 79 agree, to make it 96.2 agreement to each question.
Quote from: ResinRat2 on January 26, 2010, 10:16:30 AM
Once again, yes Lowrance, lets look at your 97% quote from the link above:
"(79 individuals in total). Of these specialists, 96.2% (76 of 79)answered “risen†to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2."
You still use that silly quote that includes only 79 people, and only 77 of them agreed (97%). Your "Over 97% of active publishing climatologist believe humanity is the significant cause of global warming." quote is dishonest and deceptive. It is based off of only 77 out of 79 people.
Anonymous username ResinRat2,
The University took the survey of well over 3000. How many *active* and *publishing* climatologist do you think there are? Huh? Again, this is a professional survey done by a University on the *percentage* of *active* and *publishing* climatologist. That must really hurt Big Oil.
Paul Lowrance
Quote from: Azorus on January 26, 2010, 10:23:22 AM
The survey you so famously quote was sent to all geosciences faculty at reporting academic institutions, along with researchers at state geologic surveys associated with local universities, and researchers at U.S. federal research facilities (e.g., U.S. Geological Survey, NASA, and NOAA (U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration).
Yes. if you can't understand why, then you don't understand statistics. The news media, example CNN, takes surveys all time based on a very small percentage.
The survey is on active publishing climatologist for good and obvious reasons. Ahh, did they exclude the truck load of fake scientists hired or paid off by Big Oil? ;)
So you still did not answer the question. How is it a concensus? if only 3146 respond to over 10,000 geoscienctist, how is it? And for your bashful boast of did they exclude the truck load of fake scientists hired or paid off by Big Oil, a survey is done with all sides contributing, it is nonbias, or it would not be a survey. So if they survey is only done on active publishing climatologist wouldn't that mean it is bias, because you are still a scientist no matter how long ago it was you published a paper. It could be that you are now teaching and have no time to publish a paper, that does not change what you are. This survey is not like that of CNN it was meant to show an overwhelming majority of the science community as unified, instead it has left serious holes.
I don't have or want to make time to explain basic statistic to you.
I can't help you if you somehow think it is wrong to survey *active publishing* climatologist. This is not like some policeman pulling over by race. Nothing related. Seriously, just think about it for a nanosecond why the University would not want to survey scientists that are *inactive.*
Enough said. I have much better things to do, like work on my magnetic research.
I'll end todays Global Warming posts on the following graph, which clearly shows that Global Warming is occurring in big cities (black graph), not rural (red graph). The graph is in degrees Celsius *change*. I'm so thankful for all of the great people who are at least trying to reduce their carbon footprint. Thank you!!!
Paul,
Please quit dodging the question. Answer how it is a consensus if only 3146 of over 10,000 answer? I understand the intent of the survey is to get a united sense that global warming is happenening, but you can not boast such a claim if you get only 30.4% of all the scientist surveyed to answer. When you dodge the question it makes it seems as if you do not understand. Please answer.
Paul,
As it says in your article "An invitation to participate in the survey
was sent to 10,257 Earth scientists.
The database was built from Keane and
Martinez [2007], which lists all geosciences
faculty at reporting academic institutions,
along with researchers at state
geologic surveys associated with local
universities, and researchers at U.S. federal
research facilities (e.g., U.S. Geological
Survey, NASA, and NOAA (U.S.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration) facilities; U.S. Department
of Energy national laboratories; and
so forth)."
These are already well know scientist, not average people. Why did they only pick a slect few to keep as valid results when the entire list was sent out to Earth scientist?
Things do not add up, statistics show that 30.4% is not consensus.
Do you really think you're fooling people here by trying to falsely insinuate I did not answer your question. I answer it. The survey conducted by the University is one of active publishing climatologist. Inactive scientists are not up to date and show lack of interest or do not have the time. Why in the world would you want to place your trust in inactive scientists? And who knows what the percentage would have been for the inactive scientists. Maybe it would also be close to 97%, but that's unimportant. What's important is to get the opinions of the best scientists. And if you somehow think that active publishing scientists are not the best, then that's your opinion, not mine.
Do they pay you per post or per hour to out right trash science and post gibberish?
qouted from article
An invitation to participate in the survey
was sent to 10,257 Earth scientists.
The database was built from Keane and
Martinez [2007], which lists all geosciences
faculty at reporting academic institutions,
along with researchers at state
geologic surveys associated with local
universities, and researchers at U.S. federal
research facilities (e.g., U.S. Geological
Survey, NASA, and NOAA (U.S.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration) facilities; U.S. Department
of Energy national laboratories; and
so forth).
This is a list of Earth Scientist as of 2007, they are current on earth science issues, the survey was conducted in 2008. Please explain why only 30.4% only responded. Please explain why only 79 are considered active from there list of over 10,000, that they made, from 2007 when they did there survey in 2008? Please explain how 3146 is a concensus of over 10,000?
I would also like to make note that they made this list of Earth Scientist. If they made the list, did the survey, why did they alter the results?
qouted
Results show that overall, 90% of participants
answered “risen†to question 1
and 82% answered yes to question 2. In
general, as the level of active research
and specialization in climate science
increases, so does agreement with the two
primary questions (Figure 1). In our survey,
the most specialized and knowledgeable
respondents (with regard to climate
change) are those who listed climate science
as their area of expertise and who
also have published more than 50% of
their recent peer-reviewed
papers on the
subject of climate change (79 individuals
in total). Of these specialists, 96.2%
(76 of 79) answered “risen†to question 1
and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question
2.
What this part of your article is saying that there is bias in it because it only picks a select field of research and then tosses out the rest of the data. In other words the article is flawed, it would be more reasonable to say that yes only 90% of researchers agree global temps are rising, but instead they wanted to make headlines by saying 96.2%.
It would also take away from the article if it said that only 28.15% of scientist answered yes to both questions. The article is meant to get headlines, nothing more. When a survey picks a certian field it is bias. You would say it is bias of fox, or cnn if they only picked democrats for surveys or librals. When you exculed all other data, but that with which looks good, you are publishing falsities.
Quote from: Azorus on January 26, 2010, 12:01:16 PM
You would say it is bias of fox, or cnn if they only picked democrats for surveys or librals.
Fox would never pick democrats.. LOL
Fox = conservative news
Quote from: Azorus on January 26, 2010, 11:55:56 AM
qouted
Results show that overall, 90% of participants
answered “risen†to question 1
and 82% answered yes to question 2. In
general, as the level of active research
and specialization in climate science
increases, so does agreement with the two
primary questions (Figure 1). In our survey,
the most specialized and knowledgeable
respondents (with regard to climate
change) are those who listed climate science
as their area of expertise and who
also have published more than 50% of
their recent peer-reviewed
papers on the
subject of climate change (79 individuals
in total). Of these specialists, 96.2%
(76 of 79) answered “risen†to question 1
and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question
2.
What this part of your article is saying that there is bias in it because it only picks a select field of research and then tosses out the rest of the data. In other words the article is flawed, it would be more reasonable to say that yes only 90% of researchers agree global temps are rising, but instead they wanted to make headlines by saying 96.2%.
LOL, I think this is funny that you are telling University scientists how to conduct science. I'm tired of explaining basic science to you.
BTW, the "over 97%" is the % of scientists who believe humanity is the significant cause of global warming. Not about how many believe global warming is occurring. Obviously if ~ 97% believe humanity is the significant cause, then a higher percentage will believe something is causing global warming.
Quote from: 4Tesla on January 26, 2010, 07:48:16 PM
Fox would never pick democrats.. LOL
Fox = conservative news
I agree. Even a blind person could tell. That's why I have it blocked because they're so biased. What are thoughts on MSN news channel? It seems a bit liberal, and hence biased. Personally I like CNN, as it seems to be relatively unbiased.
if you can get thru this 149 page account of the climategate emails, you will see why it is so hard to believe the IPCC reports. a few bad apples has soiled the barrel.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/climategate_analysis.pdf
tom
Quote from: PaulLowrance on January 26, 2010, 11:11:44 AM
I'll end todays Global Warming posts on the following graph, which clearly shows that Global Warming is occurring in big cities (black graph), not rural (red graph). The graph is in degrees Celsius *change*. I'm so thankful for all of the great people who are at least trying to reduce their carbon footprint. Thank you!!!
Paul ,
I feel that you have misunderstood what Urban Warming is.. It is a strong argument put forward by sceptics.
One reason for the claimed increase in global temperatures is due to the ever increasing temperature reading by urban thermometers. This is not caused by the rise in co2 (aka. global warming) it is caused by the increase in traffic and the increase of the number of things such as air conditioner heat exchangers being placed too close to met stations etc. This inflated data is then used to show that the world is warming , which is not occurring in rural areas. Imagine the effect on a thermometer placed near a busy airport. Each year more and more multi-engine jets are landing/taking off , this would show an increase in the temp reading for that thermometer .
Your claim that global warming is being seen in cities is not correct, what you are seeing is the Urban Heat Island effect. This has nothing to do with co2 levels in the upper atmosphere. It is however seriously biasing the the global temperature reading and giving many people the impression that the earth is warming much faster than it actually is, as many of the met station are located at airports or in urban areas.
Please be aware, most septics do not deny co2 has an effect, we are simply arguing that co2 has very little effect and the billions of dollars spent on a futile attempt to reduce it would be much better spent on more serious pollution problems.
It is odd that we are both arguing for a better environment , you are obviously aware that we can not continue to pollute our planet and expect no consequences. Have a look at some of the horrific photos of pollution in this link and you will see why I feel there are more pressing issues than CO2 at the moment.
http://www.chinahush.com/2009/10/21/amazing-pictures-pollution-in-china/
It is my belief that support for AGW is falling rapidly both within the "layman" population and the scientific population. I hope this leads to a global review of the impacts man is having on the planet and some serious discussions can be held on what can be done to reduce them. If only a fraction of the money spent so far on AGW had been spent on serious alternative energy research, it would make the CO2 issue mute anyway.
cheers
Tony.
Hi all,
Well we here in Washington state have had the warmest January on record!! Vancouver BC, just north of us, is the home of the 2010 Winter Olympics and has no snow!! So why is this?? Yes, there is an El Nino, but we have had stronger El Ninos.. so why so warm???
Vancouver Forced to Import Snow to Winter Olympics
http://planetgreen.discovery.com/work-connect/vancouver-import-snow-olympics.html
The warmest decade on record
http://news.mongabay.com/2010/0126-climate.html
4Tesla
Hi all,
More evidence of climate change..
US Drought Monitor
http://www.drought.unl.edu/dm/monitor.html
4Tesla
Paul,
Your 97% is only 79 people, hand picked out of over 10054 Earth scientist. All 10054 are considered current, where picked for the survey because of there knowlege in the field of earth science. Why do they leave out the rest of the other scientist. It is bias, because they want a small number with a high precentage that makes headlines.
Quote from: PaulLowrance on January 26, 2010, 09:31:23 AM
I don't think so. Readers of this article don't seem to agree with its content!
silverfish,
"Readers" ? Now that's being scientific, LOL. Not. Now lets all judge by what "readers" say, and not scientists, lol.
BTW, nice article 4Tesla.
Since Climategate, Glaciergate, and now Amazongate, so-called 'scientists' have revealed themselves to be some of the most biased people on the planet, willing to sell out the truth for a few hundred thousand dollars worth of research grants.
You may huff and puff all you like but even the BBC is beginning to admit that Global Warming is beginning to look like a load of hot air. And that's because - it is!!
Quote from: tonyc on January 26, 2010, 10:39:09 PM
Paul ,
I feel that you have misunderstood what Urban Warming is.. It is a strong argument put forward by sceptics.
One reason for the claimed increase in global temperatures is due to the ever increasing temperature reading by urban thermometers. This is not caused by the rise in co2 (aka. global warming) it is caused by the increase in traffic and the increase of the number of things such as air conditioner heat exchangers being placed too close to met stations etc. This inflated data is then used to show that the world is warming , which is not occurring in rural areas. Imagine the effect on a thermometer placed near a busy airport. Each year more and more multi-engine jets are landing/taking off , this would show an increase in the temp reading for that thermometer .
Your claim that global warming is being seen in cities is not correct, what you are seeing is the Urban Heat Island effect. This has nothing to do with co2 levels in the upper atmosphere. It is however seriously biasing the the global temperature reading and giving many people the impression that the earth is warming much faster than it actually is, as many of the met station are located at airports or in urban areas.
Please be aware, most septics do not deny co2 has an effect, we are simply arguing that co2 has very little effect and the billions of dollars spent on a futile attempt to reduce it would be much better spent on more serious pollution problems.
It is odd that we are both arguing for a better environment , you are obviously aware that we can not continue to pollute our planet and expect no consequences. Have a look at some of the horrific photos of pollution in this link and you will see why I feel there are more pressing issues than CO2 at the moment.
http://www.chinahush.com/2009/10/21/amazing-pictures-pollution-in-china/
It is my belief that support for AGW is falling rapidly both within the "layman" population and the scientific population. I hope this leads to a global review of the impacts man is having on the planet and some serious discussions can be held on what can be done to reduce them. If only a fraction of the money spent so far on AGW had been spent on serious alternative energy research, it would make the CO2 issue mute anyway.
cheers
Tony.
Great post, some good points here, and what I have been saying all along that there are real pollution issues to be concerned about, but CO2 is not one of them
The BBC's Andrew Neil is beginning to recognise that 'The Dam is Cracking' as far as global warming is concerned:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/dailypolitics/andrewneil/2010/01/the_dam_is_cracking.html
Quote from: tonyc on January 26, 2010, 10:39:09 PM
Paul ,
I feel that you have misunderstood what Urban Warming is.. It is a strong argument put forward by sceptics.
One reason for the claimed increase in global temperatures is due to the ever increasing temperature reading by urban thermometers. This is not caused by the rise in co2 (aka. global warming) it is caused by the increase in traffic and the increase of the number of things such as air conditioner heat exchangers being placed too close to met stations etc.
They know the addition of heat from traffic. Years ago I've seen the research on this. Trust me, academic scientists know the difference.
Quote from: tonyc on January 26, 2010, 10:39:09 PMYour claim that global warming is being seen in cities is not correct, what you are seeing is the Urban Heat Island effect. This has nothing to do with co2 levels in the upper atmosphere.
Umm, such co2 is one cause of global warming, lol. I'll trust academic active publishing climatologist over anti global warmest thank you very much.
Lets all work together to reduce our carbon footprint. And hopefully in a few years time we will never need Big Oil again.
Quote from: Azorus on January 27, 2010, 08:11:32 AM
Paul,
Your 97% is only 79 people, hand picked out of over 10054 Earth scientist. All 10054 are considered current, where picked for the survey because of there knowlege in the field of earth science. Why do they leave out the rest of the other scientist. It is bias, because they want a small number with a high precentage that makes headlines.
LOL, I'll answer you again. The 10054 are *NOT* active publishing climatologist. And please stop insinuating what the 10054 are. If you think you know, then post the reference that shows it. And please learn about statistics. That survey was done by a University. They know a thing or two about statistics.
Quote from: silverfish on January 27, 2010, 09:58:32 AM
Since Climategate, Glaciergate, and now Amazongate, so-called 'scientists' have revealed themselves to be some of the most biased people on the planet, willing to sell out the truth for a few hundred thousand dollars worth of research grants.
You may huff and puff all you like but even the BBC is beginning to admit that Global Warming is beginning to look like a load of hot air. And that's because - it is!!
Wrong. You anti global warmest are trying to make good scientists guilty of the failings a few bad scientists.
And also there's word going that those few bad apples did it on purpose to destroy the global warming movement. That's just rumors so far, but hopefully it will be investigated. I wouldn't put it past a conservative to take such drastic sick actions.
Quote from: PaulLowrance on January 27, 2010, 10:36:17 AM
LOL, I'll answer you again. The 10054 are *NOT* active publishing climatologist. And please stop insinuating what the 10054 are. If you think you know, then post the reference that shows it. And please learn about statistics. That survey was done by a University. They know a thing or two about statistics.
Poor Paul,
You are absuletly right, they are not all climatologist. They are Earth Scientist which is why they where selected for the survey. You have outlined the Bias of the survey. Thanks!
@Silverfish & Azorus
Did you see my posts on the previous page?
4Tesla
Yes i would agree with you on the fox issue. As for warmer in washington that sounds like great news, wish i was in the same boat.
:D :D
Oh Azorus, don't you understand what Paul means?
Unless you can get those 77 out of 79 scientists to say that Global Warming is not caused by humans, then he will continue to say that over 97% of scientists agree that global warming is caused by humans.
The other thousands and thousands that disagree are wrong...PERIOD!
No matter who you quote, no matter what you say, only those 77 scientists know what is true, and all the other thousands are wrong. That's because out of the whole human population there are only 79 actively publishing climatologists on the planet right now; and the 77 out of 79 are the ONLY ones who can say what is correct.
EVERYONE ELSE, NO MATTER WHO THEY ARE, no matter WHAT THEY KNOW...are WRONG!
Thanks for opening my eyes ResinRat2. I have never seen it so clearly as now, how could i be so blind. Those 79 Climatologists know way more about earth than all of there peers. It was foolish of me to think that over 10,000 earth scientists opions are valid, when these 79 climatologists know absolutely everything there is to know about earth and it's climate. How could I have missed that.
Here is a article from the Technology Review.
http://www.technologyreview.com/business/24389/?nlid=2683 (http://www.technologyreview.com/business/24389/?nlid=2683)
Quote from: ResinRat2 on January 27, 2010, 03:11:33 PM
:D :D
Oh Azorus, don't you understand what Paul means?
Unless you can get those 77 out of 79 scientists to say that Global Warming is not caused by humans, then he will continue to say that over 97% of scientists agree that global warming is caused by humans.
The other thousands and thousands that disagree are wrong...PERIOD!
No matter who you quote, no matter what you say, only those 77 scientists know what is true, and all the other thousands are wrong. That's because out of the whole human population there are only 79 actively publishing climatologists on the planet right now; and the 77 out of 79 are the ONLY ones who can say what is correct.
EVERYONE ELSE, NO MATTER WHO THEY ARE, no matter WHAT THEY KNOW...are WRONG!
I apologize for this one. I was a bit overzealous. Lowrance would not reject everyone outside this group. As long as any scientist outside of the climatologist specialty agrees with the idea that Global Warming is caused by humankind then that is OK. It just means they are enlightened and intelligent, not like anyone else who disagrees with the sacred hypothesis.
Quote from: PhiScience on January 27, 2010, 05:08:05 PM
Here is a article from the Technology Review.
http://www.technologyreview.com/business/24389/?nlid=2683 (http://www.technologyreview.com/business/24389/?nlid=2683)
We're human and humans make mistakes.. doesn't mean through out all the research because of mistakes. If we did that.. then no science is relevant.
4Tesla
Quote from: 4Tesla on January 27, 2010, 08:53:29 PM
We're human and humans make mistakes.. doesn't mean through out all the research because of mistakes. If we did that.. then no science is relevant.
4Tesla
No, it means that no man caused global warming science is relevant due to the money involved and the cooking of the books with the numbers to make the outcome say what they want.
This has been proven beyond a doubt. The numbers are out there. Many fine folks have posted links here to those real numbers. It is easy to see what has been going on.
Bill
I guess you could say that truth is in the eye of the beholder. If I spent my entire life being stupid enough to even think I could figure out all the stuff that effects how warm this place or that place is I would be very embarrassed when some little child pointed out that I had no clothes on. Modern science the new emperor. (to some at least)
Sasquatches, Hogs, Chipmunks, and Ants.
Which are you?
If you want a good laugh at those who extol people like Al Gore, read this one. All these rich Sasquatches are laughing at you poor suckers while they live a lavish and wasteful lifestyle.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/tech-mainmenu-30/environment/2778-not-all-carbon-footprints-are-alike
Check out Gov Schwarzenegger's 400-mile daily private jet commutes. All the while warning others about global warming.
Al Gore is a good example. He justifies his lifestyle by saying he is paying in Carbon Credits, but he purchases the credits from his company and pays HIMSELF!!!!!!! Some sacrifice... all the while he tells YOU that YOU are the one being wasteful. The Sasquatch footprint of his Tennessee mansion is more than 20 times the average American home, not including his posh new San Francisco high-rise townhouse, or his charter jet travels. Yet people like Lowrance sing nothing but praises about this hypocrite!
sigh :-\
Where Al is hypocritical, I do applaude that he did open a lot of people up to climate change. I think before he came along and made a misleading movie no one knew that it did existed.
Quote from: Azorus on January 27, 2010, 02:52:35 PM
As for warmer in washington that sounds like great news, wish i was in the same boat.
No.. not good news.. Washington gets most of it's power from hydro.. no snow pack.. no power.
We still have a couple of months left for winter.. so not going to worry yet.
4Tesla
I guess it is a good thing that snow pac comes from the mountians, washington dc? or washington state?
Washington state
Quote from: ResinRat2 on January 27, 2010, 10:10:23 PM
Sasquatches, Hogs, Chipmunks, and Ants.
Which are you?
If you want a good laugh at those who extol people like Al Gore, read this one. All these rich Sasquatches are laughing at you poor suckers while they live a lavish and wasteful lifestyle.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/tech-mainmenu-30/environment/2778-not-all-carbon-footprints-are-alike
Check out Gov Schwarzenegger's 400-mile daily private jet commutes. All the while warning others about global warming.
Al Gore is a good example. He justifies his lifestyle by saying he is paying in Carbon Credits, but he purchases the credits from his company and pays HIMSELF!!!!!!! Some sacrifice... all the while he tells YOU that YOU are the one being wasteful. The Sasquatch footprint of his Tennessee mansion is more than 20 times the average American home, not including his posh new San Francisco high-rise townhouse, or his charter jet travels. Yet people like Lowrance sing nothing but praises about this hypocrite!
Isn't his San Francisco Townhouse situated right on the edge of the Bay? that's a strange place to put your dwelling, when according to Al's predictions he will be up to his neck in water before long - unless, of course, he knew the rising seas claim was bogus to begin with...
Al Gore is still pissed the bushes ripped off the election and he wasnt in the loop. He is mad because he wanted to be king for 4years while the real power people did their thing. I guess the powers that be didnt feel like this figure head could pull off the coupdetat the Bushes did. Now we have homeland security something like Hitler had but they called it the Gestapo. We have bills introduced in Congress and enacted upon that are classified. Al gore is a pawn and always will be a pawn. Powermongers crave power. Power people manipulate lower class powermongers like pieces on a chess board. The pawns have no idea they are being manipulated. They give them various tittles like deputy of this and president of that while the true power resides where it has always resided. Some forms of life hate mankind because they are so dumb they think that this piece of shit some people refer to as God liked the way humans came out. Satan and God go fuck off and do some interexamination and you will find you both are idiots. One guilty of child neglect and the other a spoiled brat taking out his misplaced anger on an innocent third party. Like some drunk who doesnt dare beat his wife anymore she has friends. So he goes and kicks the shit out of the dog.