 |
 |
Al Gore - Convenient Liar - The Master of Hypocrisy (Page 34)
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Snow-i 
Or maybe people should be able to do as they please.
Its not your job or some commissions job to tell me how to run my business or when and where i have to eat.
They tried that over in russia...its called communism....it doesn't work.
Maybe people should develop a conscience, and not be gluttonous and think about someone else. It is the state's job to make sure that some don't take advantage of others, who may be unfairly disadvantaged through no fault of their own.
Being a Robber Baron doesn't work either.
|
|
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by OldManMac
Maybe people should develop a conscience, and not be gluttonous and think about someone else.
This assumes those who feel as Snow-i does are somehow the gluttonous ones and the ones attempting to save you from yourself are not. i.e. A fat-ass in this regard is quick to bring up the inactivity of another fat-ass. To them I say, get out of your own friggin' car first.
It is the state's job to make sure that some don't take advantage of others, who may be unfairly disadvantaged through no fault of their own.
No, it is this fallacious notion that will make us all disadvantaged to the State. Who saves us from them?
|
|
ebuddy
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status:
Offline
|
|
Why is it that this Al Gore thread has gone on for 34 pages, and I can't even get my Patrick Swayze or Steve Guttenberg threads to go more than a couple?
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status:
Offline
|
|
You should get Patrick Swayze a nobel prize; that will help.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by OldManMac
It is the state's job to make sure that some don't take advantage of others, who may be unfairly disadvantaged through no fault of their own. the malicious intentions of others
There, that's better.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status:
Offline
|
|
More of Gaia flexing her muscles
Second volcano erupts in Alaska's Aleutian chain
By Yereth Rosen Tue Jul 22, 7:34 PM ET
ANCHORAGE, Alaska (Reuters) - A second volcano in Alaska's Aleutian Islands has erupted in less than a month, shooting steam and ash as high as 20,000 feet into the air, officials said on Tuesday.
The eruption on Mount Cleveland on Chuginadak Island took place 90 miles west of Okmok Volcano where ongoing eruptions since July 12 have captured the attention of scientists and forced nearby residents to evacuate.
And none of this has any affect on GCC? All that steam (water vapor) injected into the atmosphere won't contribute one bit?
|
|
45/47
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Chongo
And none of this has any affect on GCC? All that steam (water vapor) injected into the atmosphere won't contribute one bit?
It contributes a tiny bit, sure, but it pales in comparison to the amount humans produce.
|
|
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status:
Offline
|
|
Back to the drawing board, huh Chongo? Maybe 167th time is a charm? 
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Chongo
More of Gaia flexing her muscles
All that steam (water vapor) injected into the atmosphere won't contribute one bit?
Yes, it contributes a large bit, for about 10 days, which is how long water vapor stays in the atmosphere before it re-equilibrates with liquid water (meanwhile the particulates released by the volcano are providing shade and lowering the temperature). Released CO2 on the other hand stays in the atmosphere for hundreds of years. If all we had to do to reverse CO2 emissions was wait 10 days, it wouldn't be a problem and Al Gore would need to have some other cause to bang on about.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status:
Offline
|
|
But I thought you global warming conspiracy theorists said there can't be any natural effects on the environment!
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status:
Offline
|
|
How about a pool on how much cooler the world will have gotten by the time this thread finally dies?
Put me down for 1/10 of a degree cooler.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2006
Status:
Offline
|
|
I don't understand why anybody with a brain cell would oppose the amount of global warming that has been forecasted, the side effects of which have been grossly exaggerated.
Spread this list on every discussion board.
If the world warms up a little:
1. In North America and Central Asia, usable and arable land will be freed from ice and then exposed to the elements. The land will become quickly habitable and teaming with new wildlife.
2. Melting the Arctic will allow countries to drill for new oil sources, meaning energy prices will stabilise and even lower. This will fuel and enrich not only economic growth world-wide, it will mean companies can keep investing money in new energy technologies from these new sources of capital, and it means nations such as Russia, Britain, Denmark, Canada and the United States will have more revenue for national projects.
3. To offset any chance of rising sea-levels, channels can be cut into desert regions of the world. We could pump water into deserts in Africa, the United States, Asia and Australia - transforming these landscapes completely by bringing them to life. The side effect of this terraforming would bring incomes to millions of people who previously have had nothing and end famine.
4. Winter energy costs will be greatly reduced, saving pensioners from bills they already find hard to afford.
5. Visits to the beaches will become popular for more than just the summer season, meaning coastal towns will see their economic fortunes improve and they'll have a new revenue stream to improve the condition of our coastlines.
6. People will dress up in thinner, more affordable clothes instead of all the layers they have to wear in the winter. This should in theory force people to look after their bodies in order to look better, meaning a healthier population. Who wouldn't want to see lots of the opposite sex looking better?
(
Last edited by PaperNotes; Jan 9, 2018 at 06:44 AM.
)
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
|
|
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2006
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by OldManMac
Comedy Gold, PaperNotes
NOT as funny as:
-Al Gore's massively error filled documentary and others like him.
-The BBC's environmentalists journalists saying we will make a massive energy saving by unplugging out mobile phone adapters.
-Greenpeace and everything position they have ever taken.
-Leonardo Di Caprio's Prius that is gathering dust as he travels around the world in "VIP" class.
-Computer models used to predict global warming. They can't even predict next week's weather with much accuracy.
-Believing that the world is becoming uncontrollably "hotter". Global warming ceased in 1998 and is only projected to start another cycle in 2015, if it starts at all.
-Your useless post.
(
Last edited by PaperNotes; Jan 9, 2018 at 06:44 AM.
)
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Buckaroo
No response to David Evans' article?
No smoking hot spot
David Evans | July 18, 2008
I DEVOTED six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian Greenhouse Office. I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia's compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, in the land use change and forestry sector.
FullCAM models carbon flows in plants, mulch, debris, soils and agricultural products, using inputs such as climate data, plant physiology and satellite data. I've been following the global warming debate closely for years.
When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty good: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the old ice core data, no other suspects.
The evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until we were certain when it appeared we needed to act quickly? Soon government and the scientific community were working together and lots of science research jobs were created. We scientists had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet.
But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming. As Lord Keynes famously said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"
There has not been a public debate about the causes of global warming and most of the public and our decision makers are not aware of the most basic salient facts:
1. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it.
Each possible cause of global warming has a different pattern of where in the planet the warming occurs first and the most. The signature of an increased greenhouse effect is a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics. We have been measuring the atmosphere for decades using radiosondes: weather balloons with thermometers that radio back the temperature as the balloon ascends through the atmosphere. They show no hot spot. Whatsoever.
If there is no hot spot then an increased greenhouse effect is not the cause of global warming. So we know for sure that carbon emissions are not a significant cause of the global warming. If we had found the greenhouse signature then I would be an alarmist again.
When the signature was found to be missing in 2007 (after the latest IPCC report), alarmists objected that maybe the readings of the radiosonde thermometers might not be accurate and maybe the hot spot was there but had gone undetected. Yet hundreds of radiosondes have given the same answer, so statistically it is not possible that they missed the hot spot.
Recently the alarmists have suggested we ignore the radiosonde thermometers, but instead take the radiosonde wind measurements, apply a theory about wind shear, and run the results through their computers to estimate the temperatures. They then say that the results show that we cannot rule out the presence of a hot spot. If you believe that you'd believe anything.
2. There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None. There is plenty of evidence that global warming has occurred, and theory suggests that carbon emissions should raise temperatures (though by how much is hotly disputed) but there are no observations by anyone that implicate carbon emissions as a significant cause of the recent global warming.
3. The satellites that measure the world's temperature all say that the warming trend ended in 2001, and that the temperature has dropped about 0.6C in the past year (to the temperature of 1980). Land-based temperature readings are corrupted by the "urban heat island" effect: urban areas encroaching on thermometer stations warm the micro-climate around the thermometer, due to vegetation changes, concrete, cars, houses. Satellite data is the only temperature data we can trust, but it only goes back to 1979. NASA reports only land-based data, and reports a modest warming trend and recent cooling. The other three global temperature records use a mix of satellite and land measurements, or satellite only, and they all show no warming since 2001 and a recent cooling.
4. The new ice cores show that in the past six global warmings over the past half a million years, the temperature rises occurred on average 800 years before the accompanying rise in atmospheric carbon. Which says something important about which was cause and which was effect.
None of these points are controversial. The alarmist scientists agree with them, though they would dispute their relevance.
The last point was known and past dispute by 2003, yet Al Gore made his movie in 2005 and presented the ice cores as the sole reason for believing that carbon emissions cause global warming. In any other political context our cynical and experienced press corps would surely have called this dishonest and widely questioned the politician's assertion.
Until now the global warming debate has merely been an academic matter of little interest. Now that it matters, we should debate the causes of global warming.
So far that debate has just consisted of a simple sleight of hand: show evidence of global warming, and while the audience is stunned at the implications, simply assert that it is due to carbon emissions.
In the minds of the audience, the evidence that global warming has occurred becomes conflated with the alleged cause, and the audience hasn't noticed that the cause was merely asserted, not proved.
If there really was any evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming, don't you think we would have heard all about it ad nauseam by now?
The world has spent $50 billion on global warming since 1990, and we have not found any actual evidence that carbon emissions cause global warming. Evidence consists of observations made by someone at some time that supports the idea that carbon emissions cause global warming. Computer models and theoretical calculations are not evidence, they are just theory.
What is going to happen over the next decade as global temperatures continue not to rise? The Labor Government is about to deliberately wreck the economy in order to reduce carbon emissions. If the reasons later turn out to be bogus, the electorate is not going to re-elect a Labor government for a long time. When it comes to light that the carbon scare was known to be bogus in 2008, the ALP is going to be regarded as criminally negligent or ideologically stupid for not having seen through it. And if the Liberals support the general thrust of their actions, they will be seen likewise.
The onus should be on those who want to change things to provide evidence for why the changes are necessary. The Australian public is eventually going to have to be told the evidence anyway, so it might as well be told before wrecking the economy.
Dr David Evans was a consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005.
|
|
45/47
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2006
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
(
Last edited by PaperNotes; Jan 9, 2018 at 06:43 AM.
)
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status:
Offline
|
|
Does this mean the polar bears can stop clinging to their little ice islands now? Whew. My compassion just couldn't handle that image any more. I was about to donate to the scientists at National Geographic.
|
|
ebuddy
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
|
|
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status:
Offline
|
|
If he is a quack, why did the Australian government hire him?
|
|
45/47
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2006
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
(
Last edited by PaperNotes; Jan 9, 2018 at 06:40 AM.
)
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2006
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Chongo
If he is a quack, why did the Australian government hire him?
He isn't a quack. The econazi movement is so vociferous and hateful of anyone questioning their propaganda that they use intimidation, insults and violence to silence all critics, from calling people crazy and shooting doctors to smashing businesses and burning down labs. They should be grouped with Islamist terrorists because their aims are the same - nothing but the downfall of civilisation, ending progress and then turning back the clock - to an age of totalitarian rulers, no liberty, oppression, massive outbreaks of disease and the sheepish worship of things like rocks, trees and invisible forces. They admit it themselves that they are hateful of modernity and want to bring back the past. It's their stated ambition.
(
Last edited by PaperNotes; Jan 9, 2018 at 06:40 AM.
)
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by PaperNotes
Interesting. I clicked on one of your links at random and found that the article is not disputing global warming at all. Quite the contrary, it is an article that assumes that global warming is real, is a threat and warrants a huge effort to add lime to the oceans to boost their absorption of CO2.
This measure, by the way, seems, um, kind of risky. I just refuse to believe that the solution to the consequences of messing with the environment is messing with the environment some more. There are bound to be other consequences of such actions.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by PaperNotes
He isn't a quack. The econazi movement is so vociferous and hateful of anyone questioning their propaganda that they use intimidation, insults and violence to silence all critics, from calling people crazy and shooting doctors to smashing businesses and burning down labs. They should be grouped with Islamist terrorists because their aims are the same - nothing but the downfall of civilisation, ending progress and then turning back the clock - to an age of totalitarian rulers, no liberty, oppression, massive outbreaks of disease and the sheepish worship of things like rocks, trees and invisible forces. They admit it themselves that they are hateful of modernity and want to bring back the past. It's their stated ambition.
Oh come on, what planet are you on?
As a self-described tree hugger, let me say that what we want is to move FORWARD into an era of sustainable progress in which we use technology to allow us to coexist with the natural world, not run roughshod over it as we have.
Even if you doubt the science on global warming, can you doubt the facts of desertification, habit destruction, coral reef erosion, fish stock depletion? You don't have to believe that we're warming the earth to see that we are damaging the natural world more and more as our population continues to grow.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2006
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Helmling
Interesting. I clicked on one of your links at random and found that the article is not disputing global warming at all.
I don't dispute it either (nobody does, they dispute the alarmism and political activism behind it). Neither do I dispute:
-There were Ice Ages
-There were much higher temperatures during a period of global warming around 1000-800 years ago. Where were the cars, gas, computers, high population and free markets, that Greens oppose, back then?
-There was a mini-Ice Age in the 18th and 19th century which we have been coming out of as it takes a couple of centuries for temperatures to normalise....BUT then...
-What is supposed to be the world's normal mean temperatures?
The answer to the last one is nobody knows because there isn't a normal mean temperature. This has allowed political groups and money hungry scientists an easy way to exploit global warming and ring alarms.
Here's where things get very corrupt. The scientists responsible for the hockey stick graph used by the IPCC and Al Gore purposely removed medieval global warming and the mini-Ice Age of the last 1000 years from their graphs! Those two events are undisputed yet don't show up on their graphs at all, expunged and suppressed completely. That detail alone, just that and nothing else, tells you that the alarmism is a multi-billion dollar politically inspired hoax.
I could mention even more, such as Al Gore's claim that the Darfur conflict is caused by the drying up of Lake Chad from global warming!! Yes, your SUV is responsible for the Islamists killing blacks in the region. Yes, your SUV is responsible for every time Lake Chad has dried up for hundreds of years. Now vote Democrat, buy a new SUV ($$$$$$$$$$$ for the car companies who play along), pay eco taxes AND buy carbon credits from....Al Gore. Because he IS selling them.
There is no reason to worry. There is no reason to pay higher taxes. There is no reason to give power to people who will rob you of your freedom.
(
Last edited by PaperNotes; Jan 9, 2018 at 06:40 AM.
)
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2006
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Helmling
As a self-described tree hugger, let me say
As a self-described lover of complete freedom from green communism, I do let you say. Now go speak to a tree.
(
Last edited by PaperNotes; Jan 9, 2018 at 06:40 AM.
)
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status:
Offline
|
|
Why do these conversations always have to devolve to be about the far end extremes of communism vs. complete freedom? Give me a break people, this act is wearing extremely thin...
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2006
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
(
Last edited by PaperNotes; Jan 9, 2018 at 06:40 AM.
)
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Helmling
Oh come on, what planet are you on?
As a self-described tree hugger, let me say that what we want is to move FORWARD into an era of sustainable progress in which we use technology to allow us to coexist with the natural world, not run roughshod over it as we have.
Even if you doubt the science on global warming, can you doubt the facts of desertification, habit destruction, coral reef erosion, fish stock depletion? You don't have to believe that we're warming the earth to see that we are damaging the natural world more and more as our population continues to grow.
So the real agenda behind global warming hysteria comes out?
It was never about science was it? It was about the tree-hugger agenda. It was about saving coral reefs and having nothing to do with my carbon footprint?
Many, many before me speculated that this was the case, but were called ignorant and narrow. Apparently for such avid scientists, science means very little to you if it doesn't support your agenda.
I'm all for the environment...but, arguments for it get less and less appealing when crap like this years-long global warming hysteria is constantly on the front page. I'll continue to drive my hummer.
Wake me up for the next scare.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
|
|
Being in debt and celebrating a lower deficit is like being on a diet and celebrating the fact you gained two pounds this week instead of five.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status:
Offline
|
|
I have to get one of these
(
Last edited by Chongo; Sep 24, 2008 at 10:16 PM.
)
|
|
45/47
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Status:
Offline
|
|
Old Farmers Almanac: Global cooling may be underway
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/news...-almanac_N.htm
DUBLIN, N.H. — The Old Farmer's Almanac is going further out on a limb than usual this year, not only forecasting a cooler winter, but looking ahead decades to suggest we are in for global cooling, not warming.
Based on the same time-honored, complex calculations it uses to predict weather, the Almanac hits the newsstands on Tuesday saying a study of solar activity and corresponding records on ocean temperatures and climate point to a cooler, not warmer, climate, for perhaps the next half century.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Buckaroo
Old Farmers Almanac: Global cooling may be underway
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/news...-almanac_N.htm
DUBLIN, N.H. — The Old Farmer's Almanac is going further out on a limb than usual this year, not only forecasting a cooler winter, but looking ahead decades to suggest we are in for global cooling, not warming.
Based on the same time-honored, complex calculations it uses to predict weather, the Almanac hits the newsstands on Tuesday saying a study of solar activity and corresponding records on ocean temperatures and climate point to a cooler, not warmer, climate, for perhaps the next half century.
... until 2035 when global cooling becomes a more popular concept. Global cooling will become the call to order. The only thing that won't change will be the culprit. In an interesting twist we will begin burning oil in large chambers to warm the earth. Oil will once again become necessary and there will be great wars over it and conservatives will be "unscientific" for siding with big solar.
|
|
ebuddy
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2006
Status:
Offline
|
|
http://www.nzcpr.com/guest116.htm
A conspiracy stratagem was openly presented by Maurice Strong, a godfather of the global environmental movement, and a former senior advisor to Kofi Annan, the U.N. Secretary-General. In 1972 Strong was a Secretary-General of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, which launched the world environment movement, and he has played a critical role in its globalization. In 1992 Strong was the Secretary-General of the “World Summit” conference in Rio de Janeiro, where on his instigation the foundations for the Kyoto Protocol were laid.
In an interview Strong disclosed his mindset: "What if a small group of world leaders were to conclude that the principal risk to the Earth comes from the actions of rich countries? And if the world is to survive, those rich countries would have to sign an agreement reducing their impact on the environment. Will they do it? The group’s conclusion is "no." The rich countries won’t do it. They won’t change. So, in order to save the planet, the group decides: Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about? This group of world leaders form a secret society to bring about an economic collapse." (Wood,1990) .
"On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but … On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well … we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have …Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest”
The same moral standard is offered by Al Gore: “I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous (global warming) is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are” (Gore, 2006)
According to the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, during the past 10 years funds for the promoters of the man-made global warming hypothesis received in the United States alone more than $50 billion.
Both surface and troposphere observations suggest that we are entering a cool phase of climate. These observations are in a total disagreement with IPCC climatic model projections, based on an assumption that the current Modern Warm Period is due to anthropogenic emissions of CO2 (IPCC-AR4, 2007) . The annual increment of global industrial CO2 emission increased from 1.1% in 1990-1999 to more than 3% in 2000- 2004 (Raupach et al., 2007) , and is still increasing. Thus, according to IPCC projections the global temperature should be increasing now more rapidly than before, but instead we see a cold spell. It is clear that cooling is not related to the rapidly increasing CO2 emission. Its cause is rather the Sun’s activity, which recently dropped precipitously from its 60 year long record in the second half of the 20th century, the highest in the past 11 centuries (Usoskin et al., 2003) , to an extremely low current level.
Inform yourselves and take action against all Greens and Neo-Communists.
More:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/science/environment/
http://climatedebatedaily.com/
hint: the liberal media won't report any of the content from the column on the right
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUKLOvtAUDk
A thoroughly scientific documentary that is massively suppressed by the mainstream media, that was unreasonably bullied on an Australian debate programme and subsequently vindicated by OFCOM who ruled that it was factual sound science, unlike Al Gore's documentary that a British High Court judged to have many errors.
(
Last edited by PaperNotes; Jan 9, 2018 at 06:38 AM.
)
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status:
Offline
|
|
"LOL." The Global Warming Swindle was a "thoroughly scientific documentary?"
Are you an idiot?
I must ask that question, because you're certainly acting like one.
greg
|
|
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status:
Offline
|
|
Stil acting like the unimpeachable source/expert???
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status:
Offline
|
|
The GW nutcases continiously show short term "WEATHER" as proof of Global warming. perhaps when they can produce an accurate 10,000 year history of the weather, and demonstrate that their computer models are accurate then I might believe it. NOW, they can't show any of this. The NASA scientists I've talked to say we don't even know the impact of clouds on climate. Sunspot cycles seem to have somehing to do withGW too, but the guilt wouldn't be there, that the GW nazi's need to get the young and stupid followers they want.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status:
Offline
|
|
Nonsense. I'm pointing out that the documentary has already been thoroughly covered in this thread, and in another thread with the name "The Great Global Warming Swindle." It wasn't "thoroughly scientific." In fact the preeminent scientist quoted in the documentary tried to sue the makers for false representation. 
But I guess you're still listening to the advice of your own "expert sources" that you refuse to name, right? 
greg
|
|
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by BadKosh
The GW nutcases continiously show short term "WEATHER" as proof of Global warming. perhaps when they can produce an accurate 10,000 year history of the weather, and demonstrate that their computer models are accurate then I might believe it. NOW, they can't show any of this. The NASA scientists I've talked to say we don't even know the impact of clouds on climate. Sunspot cycles seem to have somehing to do withGW too, but the guilt wouldn't be there, that the GW nazi's need to get the young and stupid followers they want.
What?!?! This statement is complete and utter bullshit.
NO ONE shows short-term weather as proof of global warming. In fact, the ONLY TIME you will see this happen is when a GW-DENIER offers it as proof that GW doesn't exist. This is readily apparently throughout the entire history of this thread – look at all the articles posted by GW deniers saying "oh it's gotten colder this summer/fall/year, GW doesn't exist!"
I'd ask you to quit saying such false statements, but the evidence from this thread shows that you're an inveterate liar.
greg
|
|
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status:
Offline
|
|
I agree, it's the press that does that.
How about the rest of his post? Why should I believe that they can accurately determine the global mean temperature from ten thousand years ago down to a tenth of a degree resolution? Or a thousand? Or even a hundred and fifty years ago?
|
|
Being in debt and celebrating a lower deficit is like being on a diet and celebrating the fact you gained two pounds this week instead of five.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status:
Offline
|
|
I completely agree. That's one of the main problems with the science.
The problem with that argument is, that we'll never be able to solve that problem. We'll never be able to figure out the global mean temperature from 10 000 years ago without some level of uncertainty. So essentially, the argument boils down to demanding data that's impossible to supply, and then when (of course) it's not supplied, claiming that you can't change your position.
My question is: for someone who holds this position (see: many in this thread), will they ever be able to change their mind? I say no. If in 50 years AG climate change is an obvious and accepted fact, will they have changed their position? No. We still won't know those temperatures from xxx years ago without great uncertainty.
Essentially, what they're left with is seeking out the holes in the science. What we know isn't addressed. (See: this thread again.) What we don't know is what will be focused on. And since we will never know everything, it provides an excellent way to disbelieve something; all you have to do is keep shifting your position as your arguments get tackled, towards other problems which have not yet been addressed.
You can study the history and growth of the theory of evolution to find an excellent (and ongoing) example of this. The history of GW, even on the forum, is another great example. Look at what people were arguing 6 years ago on here, and how easily those arguments can be rebutted today, compared to back then.
greg
|
|
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2006
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton
Nonsense. I'm pointing out that the documentary has already been thoroughly covered in this thread, and in another thread with the name "The Great Global Warming Swindle." It wasn't "thoroughly scientific." In fact the preeminent scientist quoted in the documentary tried to sue the makers for false representation.
That's incorrect and has been explained as rumour. The scientist in question was threatened by other scientists who support anthropogenic global warming and pleaded for his views to be removed so that he wouldn't be bullied or lose his job.
More fun direct from NASA
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/09/2...te-of-the-sun/
Notice how solar activity was highest in 1998 when global warming peaked. We have no seen a decade of temperatures dropping and it is no surprise to see solar activity is extremely low.
And since temperatures have been dropping yearly since 1998 (1938 was the hottest year of the century by the way, which was followed by 30 years of cooling even though CO2 output increased dramatically after the war) how come the liberal media continues to report every month that global warming is occurring before our eyes?
These cretins are profiting off of hysteria and by bullying companies and governments to part with their cash for credits. The church did this centuries ago when they sold indulgences to people who wanted to live a bit more merry.
But when this hysteria dies down and the cooling sun laughs at the liars, theres going to be a lot of **** hitting the fan. No doubt the profiteers will simply shrug and pass the blame on bad "computer models".
(
Last edited by PaperNotes; Jan 9, 2018 at 06:38 AM.
)
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status:
Offline
|
|
[QUOTE=PaperNotes;3730305]That's incorrect and has been explained as rumour. The scientist in question was threatened by other scientists who support anthropogenic global warming and pleaded for his views to be removed so that he wouldn't be bullied or lose his job.[quote]
Carl Wunsch would be bullied or lose his job? Are you kidding?
You're lying, and spreading lies.
After looking at the issue again, I was slightly wrong about something; he didn't end up trying to sue the filmmaker. He renounced the position they attributed to him, and then he looked into taking legal action, but ultimately didn't.
He said the film's views were "grossly distorted" and "as close to pure propaganda as anything since World War Two." Try that on for size.
But keep lying, though.
greg
|
|
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2006
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton
Originally Posted by PaperNotes
That's incorrect and has been explained as rumour. The scientist in question was threatened by other scientists who support anthropogenic global warming and pleaded for his views to be removed so that he wouldn't be bullied or lose his job.
Carl Wunsch would be bullied or lose his job? Are you kidding?
You're lying, and spreading lies.
greg
No I'm not. If you accuse me of ever lying then I will forum slap you with evidence. I will anyway: Durkin himself said he received a distressed phone call from him. Durkin said it on air in an interview and it has not been contested. That is evidence. You have none to counter Durkin's programme.
You and no one on the AGW crusade has been able to contest these facts:
1. The Medieval Warming period was hotter than today. No cars or industrialisation was around that could have done that.
2. The Little Ice Age occured from the 17th to 19th century and most of the 20th century saw us coming out of that.
3. Mann's hockey stick graph for the IPCC that is also used by Gore removes the Medieval Warming and Little Ice Age from the chart.
4. 1938 was the hottest year of the 21st century.
5. From the 40s to the 70s we saw global cooling at the same time as massive industrial growth and carbon output. So much so that scientists in the 70s ran sensational headlines that we were heading for an Ice Age.
6. Carbon output has risen dramatically further still since the mid 90s when China and India started liberalising their economies yet global temperatures have receded since 1998.
7. Patrick Moore, ecologist and Greenpeace co-founder, and many others in knowledgeable insider positions have spoken out against the closeted communist sympathies of the environmental movement that is backing Anthropogenic Global Warming Theory. It's a politically motivated agenda, not environmental. Anyone with any common sense knows that development creates cleaner more habitable disease-free environments, not the other way around. Moore's new organisation Green Spirit is ecology done correctly because it is scientific and without political taint.
(
Last edited by PaperNotes; Jan 9, 2018 at 06:38 AM.
)
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2001
Status:
Offline
|
|
Is this the oldest thread on MacNN?
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by PaperNotes
You and no one on the AGW crusade has been able to contest these facts:
1. The Medieval Warming period was hotter than today
... in Europe.
4. 1938 was the hottest year of the 21st century
... in the USA.
Say, I've always wondered, maybe you can answer me... what does the G in "AGW" stand for?
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton
... in Europe.
... in the USA.
Say, I've always wondered, maybe you can answer me... what does the G in "AGW" stand for?
uhh...pretty sure 1938 was in the 20th century anyways...what do i know though...i don't have a climatology degree.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jan 2007
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Snow-i
uhh...pretty sure 1938 was in the 20th century anyways...what do i know though...i don't have a climatology degree.
1998
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 
|
|
|
Forum Rules
|
|
|
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top