Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Go Green Or Else
03-04-2007, 04:25 PM,
Go Green Or Else
Go look up the word concept... Then look up jumping on the bandwagon... There's a subtle difference there fella, when you realise this you might be able to answer my question without resorting to insults :wink:
03-04-2007, 05:34 PM,
Go Green Or Else
You still haven't proved anything other than you're a waste of time who acts like a wise ass.

If you disagree with me then please state why. I've given my viewpoint. Whats yours?

If this is all you're gonna bring to the table then what do you expect?
03-04-2007, 05:46 PM,
Go Green Or Else
Quote:You still haven't proved anything other than you're a waste of time who acts like a wise ass.

If you disagree with me then please state why. I've given my viewpoint. Whats yours?

If this is all you're gonna bring to the table then what do you expect?
Lol, answer a question with a question and insults. I didnt realise your post belonged to the childrens table, i should have known and expected your response
03-04-2007, 05:49 PM,
Go Green Or Else
03-04-2007, 06:09 PM,
Go Green Or Else
Is it your bed time already?:LOL:
03-04-2007, 06:24 PM,
Go Green Or Else
No actually I was looking at some stuff - it's quite interesting. Though I'm not sure where you stand as you seem to have no real purpose.

Take a look.

We've had the official Gospel of Catastrophic Global Climate Change preached at us so often by the mainstream media our pets have it memorized.

All together now: The planet is getting hotter. Glaciers are melting. Sea levels are rising. Fragile species are disappearing. Coral reefs are dying. Hurricanes are more powerful. Droughts are more prolonged. Floods and heavy rainstorms are more numerous.

According to Al Gore and a chorus of the planet's top climate scientists, blame for all of the above -- plus every bad, annoying or odd natural event that happens on Earth from now until the Sun implodes -- can be pinned with certainty on global warming caused by 200 years of mankind spewing excess CO2 into the air.

But is it really true that New York City will be two-stories deep in ocean water in a century or two?

No one knows. Despite what Professor Gore says, the science of climate change is still far too complex and uncertain for most scientists to understand the present, much less predict the distant future.
It is indeed far too complex for ANYONE to say the "debate is over".

But most people would stop their global worrying if they looked at the big picture and long run. For starters, we are at the tail end of an ice age that began about 40 million years ago. Ice sheets like the one that covered most of the Northern Hemisphere until about 20,000 years ago have come and gone in 40,000- and 100,000-year cycles.

Unless man-spewn greenhouse gases do raise Earth's temperature and keep it there permanently, or unless Mother Earth fixes her own wobbly axis or smooths out her eccentric orbit around the sun, we have a rendezvous with a future ice age no matter how many carbon taxes we implement or SUVs we drive.

Also, please stop worrying about the planet's 67,000-plus glaciers melting. Glaciers have retreated and advanced for eons. If every glacier not on Greenland or Antarctica disappeared in 1,000 years -- and no one is saying they will -- sea level would rise about 18 inches. By the way, about 90 percent of all of Earth's ice is in Antarctica -- and it's not shrinking.
But those poor widdle polar bears....oh what will they do?

The second article is by J.R. Dunn writing about a few foreign glaciologists:

Dr. V.K. Raina is a leading Indian glaciologist, a scientist who has devoted half a century to the glaciers of the Himalayas, the man to see concerning South Asian glacier studies. Which raises the question of why no one has come around to see him.

Dr. Raina undercuts contentions by the UN's International Panel on Climate Change that Himalayan glaciers have retreated due to global warming.

"Claims of global warming causing glacial melt in the Himalayas are based on wrong assumptions," he says.

These include the fact that American and European glaciers are situated at much lower altitudes, and are less dusty, which, if my truncated scientific education isn't leading me wrong, suggests that they would melt much less quickly than Himalayan glaciers. Raina's statements imply that observations at only a handful of sites are being applied worldwide without any kind of local confirmation, a serious lapse of scientific procedure, if true.

Like any scientist anywhere, Raina spends much of the interview bemoaning levels of funding. But he has a point - of the 9,575 glaciers in India, only fifty, or a little over half of one percent, are currently under study. One somehow expects more, particularly considering all the rhetoric about glaciers being a key element in the case for global warming.

Dr. Raina is backed up by at least two other glaciologists, Dr. R.K. Ganjoo, director of a glacial study center, and geologist M.N. Koul. Neither sees any evidence of glacial retreat in any of the sites they've studied.

Can you hear the cries yet? "We are causing the demise of our world". Myth's abound, and much of our MSM, and politicians, fall for it hook, line and sinker. Well, maybe they are not falling for it rather then believing in something they can profit from Lets take a look at a few of those myths:

MYTH 3: Human produced carbon dioxide has increased over the last 100 years, adding to the Greenhouse effect, thus warming the earth.

FACT: Carbon dioxide levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout geologic time. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased. The RATE of growth during this period has also increased from about 0.2% per year to the present rate of about 0.4% per year,which growth rate has now been constant for the past 25 years. However, there is no proof that CO2 is the main driver of global warming. As measured in ice cores dated over many thousands of years, CO2 levels move up and down AFTER the temperature has done so, and thus are the RESULT OF, NOT THE CAUSE of warming. Geological field work in recent sediments confirms this causal relationship. There is solid evidence that, as temperatures move up and down naturally and cyclically through solar radiation, orbital and galactic influences, the warming surface layers of the earth's oceans expel more CO2 as a result.

MYTH 5: Computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant global warming.

FACT: Computer models can be made to "verify" anything by changing some of the 5 million input parameters or any of a multitude of negative and positive feedbacks in the program used.. They do not "prove" anything. Also, computer models predicting global warming are incapable of properly including the effects of the sun, cosmic rays and the clouds. The sun is a major cause of temperature variation on the earth surface as its received radiation changes all the time, This happens largely in cyclical fashion. The number and the lengths in time of sunspots can be correlated very closely with average temperatures on earth, e.g. the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period. Varying intensity of solar heat radiation affects the surface temperature of the oceans and the currents. Warmer ocean water expels gases, some of which are CO2. Solar radiation interferes with the cosmic ray flux, thus influencing the amount ionized nuclei which control cloud cover.

MYTH 6: The UN proved that man–made CO2 causes global warming.

FACT: In a 1996 report by the UN on global warming, two statements were deleted from the final draft. Here they are:

1) “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases.”

2) “No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to man–made causes”

To the present day there is still no scientific proof that man-made CO2 causes significant global warming.

But hey, all those scientists who disagree with the scaremongers are just puppets for the oil companies right?

We need to take a deep breath. Acknowledge that the Kyoto Protocol and proposed "climate protection" laws will not stabilize the climate, even if CO2 is to blame. And recognize that there are reasons more people now support climate "consensus" -- other than concern over climate disasters created by deficient computer models and Hollywood special effects.

In accusing ExxonMobil of giving "more than $19 million since the late 1990s" to public policy institutes that promote climate holocaust "denial," Senate Inquisitors Olympia Snowe and Jay Rockefeller slandered both the donor and recipients. Moreover, this is less than half of what Pew Charitable Trusts and allied foundations contributed to the Pew Center on Climate Change alone over the same period.

It's a pittance compared to what U.S. environmental groups spent propagating climate chaos scares. It amounts to 30 cents for every $1,000 the United States, European Union and United Nations spent since 1993 (some $80 billion in all) on global warming catastrophe research. And it ignores the fact Exxon's grants also supported malaria control, Third World economic development and other efforts.

And we get to the crux of the matter. The scaremongering is being done by people who have an obvious political agenda. It's well known that if a scientist agrees with the political groups philosophy they stand a much better chance of getting the billions upon billions spent by the US every year on global warming. Think that may cause someone to spin their research a certain way?

Activists get money from those they scare the bejesus out of and in so doing their bills and paychecks get paid so they too can buy gas for their SUV and corporate jets.
03-04-2007, 06:36 PM,
Go Green Or Else
Or this:

Climate of Fear
Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence.

Wednesday, April 12, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT

There have been repeated claims that this past year's hurricane activity was another sign of human-induced climate change. Everything from the heat wave in Paris to heavy snows in Buffalo has been blamed on people burning gasoline to fuel their cars, and coal and natural gas to heat, cool and electrify their homes. Yet how can a barely discernible, one-degree increase in the recorded global mean temperature since the late 19th century possibly gain public acceptance as the source of recent weather catastrophes? And how can it translate into unlikely claims about future catastrophes?

The answer has much to do with misunderstanding the science of climate, plus a willingness to debase climate science into a triangle of alarmism. Ambiguous scientific statements about climate are hyped by those with a vested interest in alarm, thus raising the political stakes for policy makers who provide funds for more science research to feed more alarm to increase the political stakes. After all, who puts money into science--whether for AIDS, or space, or climate--where there is nothing really alarming? Indeed, the success of climate alarmism can be counted in the increased federal spending on climate research from a few hundred million dollars pre-1990 to $1.7 billion today. It can also be seen in heightened spending on solar, wind, hydrogen, ethanol and clean coal technologies, as well as on other energy-investment decisions.

But there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.

To understand the misconceptions perpetuated about climate science and the climate of intimidation, one needs to grasp some of the complex underlying scientific issues. First, let's start where there is agreement. The public, press and policy makers have been repeatedly told that three claims have widespread scientific support: Global temperature has risen about a degree since the late 19th century; levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have increased by about 30% over the same period; and CO2 should contribute to future warming. These claims are true. However, what the public fails to grasp is that the claims neither constitute support for alarm nor establish man's responsibility for the small amount of warming that has occurred. In fact, those who make the most outlandish claims of alarm are actually demonstrating skepticism of the very science they say supports them. It isn't just that the alarmists are trumpeting model results that we know must be wrong. It is that they are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right as justifying costly policies to try to prevent global warming.
If the models are correct, global warming reduces the temperature differences between the poles and the equator. When you have less difference in temperature, you have less excitation of extratropical storms, not more. And, in fact, model runs support this conclusion. Alarmists have drawn some support for increased claims of tropical storminess from a casual claim by Sir John Houghton of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that a warmer world would have more evaporation, with latent heat providing more energy for disturbances. The problem with this is that the ability of evaporation to drive tropical storms relies not only on temperature but humidity as well, and calls for drier, less humid air. Claims for starkly higher temperatures are based upon there being more humidity, not less--hardly a case for more storminess with global warming.

So how is it that we don't have more scientists speaking up about this junk science? It's my belief that many scientists have been cowed not merely by money but by fear. An example: Earlier this year, Texas Rep. Joe Barton issued letters to paleoclimatologist Michael Mann and some of his co-authors seeking the details behind a taxpayer-funded analysis that claimed the 1990s were likely the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year in the last millennium. Mr. Barton's concern was based on the fact that the IPCC had singled out Mr. Mann's work as a means to encourage policy makers to take action. And they did so before his work could be replicated and tested--a task made difficult because Mr. Mann, a key IPCC author, had refused to release the details for analysis. The scientific community's defense of Mr. Mann was, nonetheless, immediate and harsh. The president of the National Academy of Sciences--as well as the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union--formally protested, saying that Rep. Barton's singling out of a scientist's work smacked of intimidation.

All of which starkly contrasts to the silence of the scientific community when anti-alarmists were in the crosshairs of then-Sen. Al Gore. In 1992, he ran two congressional hearings during which he tried to bully dissenting scientists, including myself, into changing our views and supporting his climate alarmism. Nor did the scientific community complain when Mr. Gore, as vice president, tried to enlist Ted Koppel in a witch hunt to discredit anti-alarmist scientists--a request that Mr. Koppel deemed publicly inappropriate. And they were mum when subsequent articles and books by Ross Gelbspan libelously labeled scientists who differed with Mr. Gore as stooges of the fossil-fuel industry.

Sadly, this is only the tip of a non-melting iceberg. In Europe, Henk Tennekes was dismissed as research director of the Royal Dutch Meteorological Society after questioning the scientific underpinnings of global warming. Aksel Winn-Nielsen, former director of the U.N.'s World Meteorological Organization, was tarred by Bert Bolin, first head of the IPCC, as a tool of the coal industry for questioning climate alarmism. Respected Italian professors Alfonso Sutera and Antonio Speranza disappeared from the debate in 1991, apparently losing climate-research funding for raising questions.

And then there are the peculiar standards in place in scientific journals for articles submitted by those who raise questions about accepted climate wisdom. At Science and Nature, such papers are commonly refused without review as being without interest. However, even when such papers are published, standards shift. When I, with some colleagues at NASA, attempted to determine how clouds behave under varying temperatures, we discovered what we called an "Iris Effect," wherein upper-level cirrus clouds contracted with increased temperature, providing a very strong negative climate feedback sufficient to greatly reduce the response to increasing CO2. Normally, criticism of papers appears in the form of letters to the journal to which the original authors can respond immediately. However, in this case (and others) a flurry of hastily prepared papers appeared, claiming errors in our study, with our responses delayed months and longer. The delay permitted our paper to be commonly referred to as "discredited." Indeed, there is a strange reluctance to actually find out how climate really behaves. In 2003, when the draft of the U.S. National Climate Plan urged a high priority for improving our knowledge of climate sensitivity, the National Research Council instead urged support to look at the impacts of the warming--not whether it would actually happen.

Alarm rather than genuine scientific curiosity, it appears, is essential to maintaining funding. And only the most senior scientists today can stand up against this alarmist gale, and defy the iron triangle of climate scientists, advocates and policymakers.
Mr. Lindzen is Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT.
03-04-2007, 07:14 PM,
Go Green Or Else
So the concept of environmentalism was created by activists who are the left-tennants of capitalism and the elite, is that what you're saying?

How about something in your own words? I could respond with articles that state your articles are strawman arguments, but that's not what I asked of you. While I'm at it, doesn't it seem convenient to you how the powers that be actually benefit from the paradigm of there being no global warming? TPTB control the energy markets, therefore influencing all markets. They want all nations to use fossil fuels to pollute our environment. Ok, you blame the activists, I blame government. The concept of global warming was not created by the elite, only hard working activists. The conspiracy lies with the fact that the elite have JUMPED on the bandwagon of global warming and using fear as a tool to introduce their fascist measures. They don't give a fuck what the concept is, they're in a win-win situation.
03-04-2007, 07:32 PM,
Go Green Or Else
At last somethings on the table. Good points though I don't agree. I have considered that possibility though. As its the most obvious, agreed?

It would seem that the majority of scientists are jumping on the bandwagon.

Indeed David Bellamy was forced into retracting statements that there simply was no real science backing up the claims.

Regardless I will say that the jury is indeed out. These posts only serve to illustrate what is actually happening in the real world. This is my problem, not global warming but the policies which are being put in place.

The truth is that you nor I can win this debate. Purely due to us not having the complete data.

You want to believe, then fine, but what makes you think that you're qualified to state that these observations by real scientists are indeed falsely fabricated. I don't blame the activists I blame the think tanks and the governments also. Of course it is true that there is cause to worry about siding with the oil corporations.

But this really depends on your own world view. Mine and yours are completely different. Though I try to stay fluid.

But what if the science is wrong. I'm not stating that it is, i'm asking and so far you have done nothing to convince me.

We just don't know. And until we do the jurys out.

I do understand where you're coming from though. But this was never my point. There are flaws in your assertions of my opinions.
03-04-2007, 08:16 PM, (This post was last modified: 03-04-2007, 08:17 PM by cynic.)
Go Green Or Else
Quote:At last somethings on the table
Who asked who?;)

Both sides of the coin present good arguments for and against. Science always fitting each others argument. Science isnt the problem though, it is our understanding of it. Forcing facts to fit theories etc. I agree no one wins, but that isnt my concern. There are many that think the concept of global warming was conceived by the nwo, imo this is dangerous and myopic, also it is another fear tactic used by anti-nwo extremists to rob people of rational thought.
03-04-2007, 08:27 PM,
Go Green Or Else
Good point.

Either way I think this is going to become solidified in policy and the people who deserve the least will pay the most.

I don't think we can do anything about this. Only time will tell.
03-04-2007, 10:49 PM,
Go Green Or Else
Quote:By the way, about 90 percent of all of Earth's ice is in Antarctica -- and it's not shrinking.
But those poor widdle polar bears....oh what will they do?

I might be wrong, but I think polar bears belong in the Northern Hemisphere?

As far as global warming and conspiracies go, isn't it obvious?
Supposedly the Earth is getting warmer from CO2 trapping heat in our atmosphere.

Of the top 5 CO2 producing countries in the world, it is rather noteworthy that China
and India are major CO2 producers on a global scale yet are not bound by any Kyoto
Protocols since they are "developing countries".

In other words, if the Earth was in such dire environmental crisis do you not think that the top
CO2 producing nations would be held to greater account?

Seriously, my godforsaken Kanaduh has about 33 million people. China with a billion people or more is not held to the same standards regarding CO2? The same goes for India. Why?

The Kyoto Protocols ARE a conspiracy designed to drive factories that emit a lot of CO2 into countries that have global exemptions from these rules. This is a global UN derived conspiracy to distribute wealth around the world and bring us all up and down to a common denominator. When the UN speaks of eliminating poverty they don't mean bringing poor people up to 1st world standards, they mean bringing us down to theirs.

Global warming is as great a sham as man on the moon or the jewish holohoax.
03-04-2007, 11:14 PM,
Go Green Or Else
Excellent points Ctrl.

I applaud thee.

Obviously someone doesn't know their polar bear from their elbow;)
03-05-2007, 02:27 AM,
Go Green Or Else
Quote:While I'm at it, doesn't it seem convenient to you how the powers that be actually benefit from the paradigm of there being no global warming? TPTB control the energy markets, therefore influencing all markets. They want all nations to use fossil fuels to pollute our environment. Ok, you blame the activists, I blame government. The concept of global warming was not created by the elite, only hard working activists. The conspiracy lies with the fact that the elite have JUMPED on the bandwagon of global warming and using fear as a tool to introduce their fascist measures. They don't give a fuck what the concept is, they're in a win-win situation.
Exactly, the globalist NWO operates by co-opting movements, turning real threats into situations where they can benefit financially. They've realized there is money to be made on the issue of climate change so they propose taxes, introduce U.N. legislation to restrict rights on travel, etc. This just shows how knivingly evil they are. The underlying movement, the people who care and love the environment and the Earth so much that they've dedicated themselves to preventing climate catastrophre, they are good and honest people. It's these globalists that would use the good-intentioned peoples, spin the facts and numbers, and distribute loads of propaganda & dis-info, they are the liars and manipulators.

And on the issue of Antartica, there was a major report a week or two ago; a team doing extremely deep drilling found that there is a massive body of water below the continent of Antartica.
&Having raised the earth's temperature 1 degree Fahrenheit in the last three decades, we're facing another increase of 4 degrees over the next century. That would imply changes that constitute practically a different planet. It's not something we can adapt to. We can't let it go on another 10 years like this.& - NASA's Goddard Space Institute Director James Hansen

ConspiracyCentral Tracker Style Mod
03-05-2007, 02:41 AM,
Go Green Or Else
Quote:And on the issue of Antartica, there was a major report a week or two ago; a team doing extremely deep drilling found that there is a massive body of water below the continent of Antartica.

I think you're referring to this

They used lasers :wink:

As for the environmental movement, it obviously started with good intentions but all you have to do is look at the Sierra Club to see how co-opted they have become. The only good environmentalists to be found these days are usually at the grassroots level.
The belief in 'coincidence' is the prevalent superstition of the Age of Science.

&I don't understand why you're taking such a belligerant tone when you're obviously the ignorant one here. &

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
Information The Trillions Poured into Multi-National Solar Energy - Green Hope & Epic Boondoggles FastTadpole 8 3,210 06-26-2012, 10:55 PM
Last Post: rsol
  Quit call over blocked green ad --- 7 1,396 03-31-2009, 04:36 PM
Last Post: rsol
  Ice that burns could be a green fossil fuel --- 8 1,062 03-31-2009, 05:49 AM
Last Post: ---
  Californians to pay $600 mln for green think tank rockclimber 3 752 04-12-2008, 09:47 PM
Last Post: TeslaandLyne
  Global Warming - Green Lies And Amazing Truths number23 9 1,261 12-12-2007, 02:26 AM
Last Post: jack
  China Develops First Green Fluorescent Transgenic Pigs Seithan 7 1,985 01-01-2007, 08:29 PM
Last Post: wokensheep
  The Biggest LIE:Global Warming as the Great Reds' Green Hoax 0 302 Less than 1 minute ago
Last Post:

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)