.:SonicBomb:.
    Login or Register
::  Home  ::  Videos  ::  Your Account  ::  Forums  ::  RSS Feed  ::
 
 
::Content::
  • Atomic
  • - Aviation
    - Aircraft
    - Military
    - Explosions
    - WW2
    - Various
    - Hi-Def
    - Photos

    - Wallpaper

    - Nuclear

    - WWI

    - WWII

    Advertisment
    Search
    Custom Search
    User Info
    Welcome, Anonymous
    Nickname
    Password
    (Register)
    Membership:
    Latest: TIN
    New Today: 2
    New Yesterday: 1
    Overall: 695

    People Online:
    Visitors: 0
    Members: 0
    Total: 0

    sonicbomb.com :: View topic - Global Warming - a lie?

    Forum FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

    View next topic
    View previous topic
    Post new topic Reply to topic  sonicbomb.com Forum Index » Political Arena
    Author Message
    Paul3mc
    Fizzle
    Fizzle


    Joined: Nov 24, 2008
    Posts: 4
    Location: Shrewsbury, England

    PostPosted: Wed Nov 26, 2008 1:27 am Reply with quote

    This is not the first time I've encountered strong opinion against the validity of the Climate change threat, though admittedly I have yet to be convinced that it is simply the well orchestrated lie of our age. Confused
    View user's profile Send private message
    Graviton
    Yankee (13.5 mt)


    Joined: Sep 03, 2006
    Posts: 1550
    Location: USA

    PostPosted: Sat Feb 07, 2009 10:30 pm Reply with quote

    Of course. You are in the middle of the HGW babble. Gordy Brown can't seem to talk about any politics at length without pushing the failed idea of human global warming, since he, the EU -- the epitome of elitist socialism with no elections for its parliament except through ruling political parties of governments inclusive to strict political and legal guidelines to EU membership -- and the UN, are all technocratic ideologues.

    I sent this out with the ever-increasing danger of the new US administration's affinity for the disruption of real science, to one of controlling science through politicized funding that is already scaring the scientific community. Even the so-called economic stimulus bill pushes this fraud with hundreds of millions politically tagged as climate change research -- darn it, there always IS climate change, and no evidence (that survived debunking) of human climate change!

    Please do not respond without watching the full content of all the links. Please hear this out in completion for honest debate.

    http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/38574742.html

    See also that there has only in 2008 been alltime record ice monitored in the SOUTHERN pole! This does NOT support Al Gore's highly faulty, technocratic, socialist HGW views seeking selfish economic and political exploitations, and increase in world government trends:

    http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/

    Watch "The Great Global Warming Swindle" profiling leading climate/geophysics scientists exposing the fraud and faulty, exploitative concentration of misused power ideology behind the human global warming swindling. this is NOT corporate funded film!

    http://www.garagetv.be/video-galerij/blancostemrecht/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle_Documentary_Film.aspx

    More, amazingly, from a liberal media group exposing climate change fraud:

    http://www.garagetv.be/video-galerij/blancostemrecht/CBC_Global_Warming_Doomsday_Called_Off_mp4.aspx

    Take careful not that the human global warming scam originated in climate models that CANNOT even predict TODAY'S global climate state with any accuracy, using today's data.

    Also keep your mind on the key points of al gore's fraud, such as his concealing that he shifted his CO2 versus world average temperature was shifted nearly 800 years! lies, lies, lies from Mr. Gore.

    Also notice former IPCC members names were hijacked into the final report, changed highly by political bureaucrats in hardline socialist Kofi Annan's office, as then-secretary general (leadership) of the United Nations. http://edition.cnn.com/2009/BUSINESS/01/28/davos.wef.annan/index.html one can easily see his highly motivated world governance socialism in his views, driving technocracy:

    [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy_(bureaucratic)[/url]

    Be careful of big government! Notice how human rights are in decline with each one of them vastly increasing in size, with increased snooping into our personal lives when such are overmanaged by government! This concentration of power corrupts absolutely in allowing the political system to cover itself by its own corruption overseeing lawmaking and law enforcement at the same time. As an example: notice how democrat charles rangel is getting away with tax violation investigations now that his party is in near supermajority in congress.

    Watch Democrat journalist John Stossel expose the global warming fraud (before ABC became a hardline supporter of this politicized myth, since, conveniently, the oil price spike in 2008):

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y6jjk8BW7M

    Watch leading and recently retired climate scientists give technical exposure of fraud from the gore/climate politics activists:

    1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abd81S-Syzo&fmt=18

    2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPpH2ZF1r1c&fmt=18

    3. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQgdlK8cNj8&fmt=18

    4. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHRx1Mzgs4M&feature=related

    5. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMMIznd5m0M&feature=related

    Another key point is the rise in technocracy ideology increasing over the "scientific community," by increased allocation of ideologically-based funding of science, under control of politicians, that suppresses dissent at a level of graven dishonesty. Soon the aspects of real science, noting objectivity and truth, core to scientific examination following the scientific method, will disappear in the face of silencing inconvenient truths through denying funding to groups working in conflict to government ideological patterns determining funds for scientists. All parties have done this in USA, Democrats and Republicans!

    Listen to this technological giant lead into debunking human global warming scare:

    http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/kary_mullis_on_what_scientists_do.html
    View user's profile Send private message
    Graviton
    Yankee (13.5 mt)


    Joined: Sep 03, 2006
    Posts: 1550
    Location: USA

    PostPosted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 8:38 pm Reply with quote

    http://www.heartland.org/events/NewYork09/newyork09.html


    GLOBAL WARMING -
    WAS IT EVER REALLY A CRISIS?
    THE 2009 INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE
    ON CLIMATE CHANGE

    March 8-10, New York, New York
    Sponsored by The Heartland Institute
    and the George C. Marshall Institute



    Global Warming is Not a Crisis

    Putting an End to Global Warming Alarmism

    Global warming is the most important environmental issue of our time. If those who are sounding the alarm about a possible climate catastrophe are right, then governments must raise energy costs directly, with taxes, or indirectly, with mandates and subsidies, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Hundreds of billions of dollars a year in wealth or economic activity will be sucked up and redistributed by governments.

    Reducing greenhouse gas emissions even modestly is estimated to cost the average household in the U.S. approximately $3,372 per year and would destroy 2.4 million jobs. Electricity prices would double, and manufacturers would move their factories to places such as China and India that have cheaper energy and fewer environmental regulations.

    If global warming is indeed a crisis, billions of dollars taken from taxpayers will flow into the coffers of radical environmental groups, giving them the resources and stature to implement other parts of their anti-technology, anti-business agenda. None of that money will go to actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This explains the paradox that even though the scientific community is deeply divided over the causes and consequences of global warming, every single environmental advocacy group in the U.S. (and probably the world) believes it is a crisis.

    But global warming is not, in fact, a crisis. Here’s how we know this:

    * Since 2007, more than 31,072 American scientists, including 9,021 with Ph.Ds, have signed the a petition which says, in part, "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.”

    * A 2003 international survey of climate scientists (with 530 responding) found only 9.4 percent “strongly agreed” and 25.3 percent “agreed” with the statement “climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes.” Some 10.2 percent “strongly disagreed.”

    * A 2006 survey of scientists in the U.S. found 41 percent disagreed that the planet’s recent warmth “can be, in large part, attributed to human activity,” and 71 percent disagreed that recent hurricane activity is significantly attributable to human activity.

    * A recent review of 1,117 abstracts of scientific journal articles on “global climate change” found only 13 (1 percent) explicitly endorse the “consensus view” while 34 reject or cast doubt on the view that human activity has been the main driver of warming over the past 50 years.

    The mainstream of the scientific community, in other words, does not believe global warming is a crisis.
    View user's profile Send private message
    bueschu
    Cherokee (3.8 mt)


    Joined: Mar 17, 2008
    Posts: 420

    PostPosted: Wed Feb 18, 2009 11:50 am Reply with quote

    You know, just because you post dozens of links about a scam, it won't become more truthful.
    By the way, where'd you get those numbers about these alleged 30000 scientists signing that paper?
    View user's profile Send private message
    Graviton
    Yankee (13.5 mt)


    Joined: Sep 03, 2006
    Posts: 1550
    Location: USA

    PostPosted: Wed Feb 18, 2009 10:36 pm Reply with quote

    bueschu wrote:
    You know, just because you post dozens of links about a scam, it won't become more truthful.
    By the way, where'd you get those numbers about these alleged 30000 scientists signing that paper?


    Seems like you refuse to listen carefully to those links, Bueschu. I really wonder if you watched and or read all of them. Don't use some irrelevant fallacy to try to deflect facts.

    What I presented confronts facts that the human global warming scam cannot. An example is the blatant lie that there is no more science to do on it, while in reality too many of those who were originally included on the original IPCC report -- that was CHANGED by ecobureaucrats AFTER the scientists signed it -- refused in shock to support the changes that ecobureaucrats forced into the politically sullied report.

    Isn't it obvious to ANYone with half a moderate, non-ideological mind, that any political idea (such as human global warming) unable to confront countering facts on their own terms -- avoiding shouting them out with counterfeit propaganda trying to change the subject -- is in deep need of deep changes and likely abandonment?

    To me, only an idiot would listen to the socialist ecobureaucrats, widely known for changing IPCC reports after scientists present work to it. These people continually cite the now totally discredited hockey stick model on which the IPCC ecobureaucrats base their assumptions. This same model, as well as any further developments in simulations on which the human global warming scaremongers thrive, cannot even predict current weather with current data!

    http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2008/10/17/wal-mart-environmentalism.aspx

    Look here at the motivation for centralizing power throughout the UK and Europe, dominated by officials not elected by the European public nor accountable to them, has an overwhelming control over costs and related policies. http://www.openeurope.org.uk/

    Quote:
    EU regulation accounts for 72% of the total cost of regulation in the UK

    Open Europe has published one of the most comprehensive studies ever undertaken of the cost of regulations introduced in the past decade in the UK alone.

    Analysing more than 2,000 Impact Assessments, Open Europe has found that regulations introduced between 1998 and 2008 have cost the UK economy £148.2 billion - of this £106.6 billion, or nearly 72%, had its origin in EU legislation.

    Moreover, the study finds that the cost of regulation is going up all the time. The annual cost of regulation in Britain has gone from £16.5 billion in 2005 to £28.7 billion in 2008 – an enormous increase of 74%.
    View user's profile Send private message
    bueschu
    Cherokee (3.8 mt)


    Joined: Mar 17, 2008
    Posts: 420

    PostPosted: Thu Feb 19, 2009 6:56 pm Reply with quote

    You know, it's kind of difficult to discuss things with people if you call them idiots or political wing-nuts if they don't share your opinion.

    Anyway, now to your links: I watched a few of them (not all, since you always post TONS of'em) and I can't say, I'm convinced, espacially since some actually don't have anything to do with global warming (for example, the one with Kofi Annan - wtf do you wanna prove with that?). Others are the usual crap of concerned "scientists" who are strangely pretty much unknown outside the internet.
    My favourite however is the "documentary" The Great Global Warming Swindle, which seems to be some kind of bible for hgw-sceptics. The film had to be cut for its DVD-release because it got facts wrong, such as volcanoes producing more CO2 than humans and charts ending in the 1980s. On top of it, two of the scientists featured in the film demanded their quotes to be removed, because they felt cheated by the filmmakers.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle

    All in all, it seems to me hgw-sceptics are running out of arguments: First they said, gw didn't exist. When it became clear it did, they doubted humans had anything to do with it. Now that this claim proves to be false as well, they doubt gw has any negative effects on flora and fauna - hence there is no need to cut CO2-production (means burning less oil). Curiously, they seem to forget that our current dependancy on oil has other shortcomings (like scarcity or oilfields beeing located in politically instable countries), even if hgw didn't exist .

    Don't get me wrong. I'm sure some people are trying to profit from the gw-phenomenon. Beeing watchful is an imperative. But if you look around you, you will notice that neither environmental organisations are growing out of proportions, nore that green parties are taking over the political systems. I also don't see climatologists sudenly driving around in nifty sportscars, because they were so over-funded.
    On the other hand important economical actors like the petro-chemical industry have profited greatly of the hgw-sceptics claims, because those claims put enough doubts in the hearts of politicians to prevent any petro-unfriendly regulations to be passed. I heard countries like the US, Australia or Germany were even trying to alleviate the IPCC reports, to appease their pc-industries.
    View user's profile Send private message
    Graviton
    Yankee (13.5 mt)


    Joined: Sep 03, 2006
    Posts: 1550
    Location: USA

    PostPosted: Thu Feb 19, 2009 10:26 pm Reply with quote

    Quote:
    Anyway, now to your links: I watched a few of them (not all, since you always post TONS of'em) and I can't say, I'm convinced, espacially since some actually don't have anything to do with global warming (for example, the one with Kofi Annan - wtf do you wanna prove with that?). Others are the usual crap of concerned "scientists" who are strangely pretty much unknown outside the internet.


    Don't you see the ideology in your statements, Bueschu? You group this group together as simply activists without even attempting to understand the deep problems global warming hoaxers present, such as your avoiding (on their own terms) confronting the facts they present.

    Of course people are idiots when their ideology forces them to refuse to confront countering data from numerous sources having solid facts that go against human global warming conspiracy ideologists. It's simply anti-intellectual of the human global warming hoaxmangers to shout out facts and refuse to confront them with their human global warming propaganda pointing fingers to irrelevancies that dodge specific issues.

    Who are you to know who is big and who is not when some of these faces are giants in climate research?

    Two quick examples from The Great Global Warming Hoax:

    * Dr. Ian Clark, with at least 54 refereed journal papers.

    Not known?? Look at the lead author. You might want to read this letter signed by many climate experts, protesting against the fraud of the human global warming hoax:

    http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Facts&ContentRecord_id=1E639422-7094-4972-83AF-EE40EE302D41

    * Dr. John Christy, in addition to his being a pioneer in high accuracy satellite investigation of global temperatures and changes, he was chief author of the 2001 IPCC report that propels this great hoax to this day!

    Quote:
    Dr. Christy has served as a Contributor (1992, 1994 and 1996) and Lead Author (2001) for the U.N. reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in which the satellite temperatures were included as a high-quality data set for studying global climate change. He has or is serving on five National Research Council panels or committees and has performed research funded by NASA, NOAA, DOE, DOT and the State of Alabama and has published many articles including studies appearing in Science, Nature, Journal of Climate and The Journal of Geophysical Research. Dr. Christy has provided testimony to several congressional committees. SRC: http://science.nasa.gov/ssl/PAD/sppb/NSSTC-CSPAR_Colloquia/FAL-01/christy_bio.html


    Notice his views of climate change -- at the same time he was head of the IPCC report of 2001 -- yet he was the lead author of the IPCC report that was used, after it was changed by ecobureaucrats to suit ecosocialist politics:

    Quote:
    Global Warming Meets Global Data

    by

    John R. Christy 14 September 2001

    The issue of whether humans are having an impact on climate has been given considerable attention in the past few years. Most people think of human attribution when they hear the phrase "global warming". We shall examine the scientific information available now regarding this problem, including the results from microwave radiometers on polar-orbiting spacecraft which show little temperature change at all in the past 22+ years. This contradictory evidence regarding global warming will be presented as will other aspects of the climate change idea. Because there are policy implications (e.g. heavy taxation, or rationing of energy) for dealing with possible causes of a potential change in climate, the issue has found its way to the White House and Capitol Hill. Christy partnered with Dr. Roy Spencer (UAH, formerly of NASA) to produce the satellite temperature record. He has also testified before several House and Senate Committees, served on National Academy Panels and was selected as a Lead Author for the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2001 Report on the science of climate. SRC from NASA site: http://science.nasa.gov/ssl/PAD/sppb/NSSTC-CSPAR_Colloquia/FAL-01/christy.html


    He resigned years ago from the IPCC when he discovered to his horror, that UN ecosocialist politicians (not scientists) changed his report after he finished authoring it, leaving out important science in the paper to solely suit ecopoliticians dominating the EU and UN. The recommendations were also highly changed in that paper

    Yet you think none of these people are known outside of the Internet?? I can go on and on about these experts in climate research who are highly known, globally. You obviously are pushing your skirt-the-issues fallacies again in ignoring the facts in their global science credits, just because you write before you examined the facts. This is another shouting out ideas by ignoring facts that contradict socialist green ideology.

    Al Gore ... of course ... believes in "GREEN" living. He has personally made over 150 million dollars from his pushing global warming hoax.

    Notice how Dr. Christy briefly cited this great problem for motivations of centralized power and therefore inevitable profiteering in his paper cited at the NASA site [Seen above in the Quote box]:

    Quote:
    This contradictory evidence regarding global warming will be presented as will other aspects of the climate change idea. Because there are policy implications (e.g. heavy taxation, or rationing of energy) for dealing with possible causes of a potential change in climate, the issue has found its way to the White House and Capitol Hill.


    Of course British and EU politicians are in love with higher taxation while they get around this mass taxation by internal political access to accelerated, great fortunes made in politics. Notice how all the top politicians of the British government have been deeply involved in Carlyle Group hedge funds, ever since John Major headed the group. Tony Blair got a multimillion dollar loan on his new mansion he secured through Carlyle, while he was prime minister, when he could not have afforded this his self.

    USA has similar problems with the Clintons making over 150 million dollars in personal contributions to Bill's million dollars+ per speech engagements, a workaround to paying back earlier agreements, and suitably equal to delayed bribery payments. He also commands over 500 million in gained contributions to his tax-free foundation, paid by foreign nations and large, private contributors.




    Fact: the British government makes more money per pint of beer than a pub owner.
    View user's profile Send private message
    Blake
    Tewa (5 mt)


    Joined: Jun 25, 2007
    Posts: 680
    Location: Florida

    PostPosted: Thu Feb 19, 2009 11:28 pm Reply with quote

    Fact: State and Federal governments make many times more per gallon of gas sold in the US.

    Let's keep going.
    View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
    bueschu
    Cherokee (3.8 mt)


    Joined: Mar 17, 2008
    Posts: 420

    PostPosted: Sat Feb 21, 2009 11:53 am Reply with quote

    Quote:
    Who are you to know who is big and who is not when some of these faces are giants in climate research?


    Forgive my ignorance, oh, Great Graviton! I have failed to verify every damn name on those countless links you're flooding the thread with.

    Ok, enough of the sarcasm. If you would read my post more carefully, you'd have noticed I also think, some people are trying to profit from hgw. High ranking politicians in particular are giving themselves greener than they are. They're parading around big plans for CO2-reduction, but once they're elected and the industry cracks down on them, all those plans are put on hold or having their teeth pulled.
    A good example is Australias self-appointed environmental Prime Minister Rudds plan for "clean" coal-energy, which defacto gives carte blanche to this powerful industry to pollute the environment as they want (Here a link, just to show you that my statements are actually fact-based and I'm not the idiot you're making out of me.)

    And if you're really so unideological and base your claims solely on facts, you might want to consider this article about the ipcc

    Quote:
    Some critics have contended that the IPCC reports tend to underestimate dangers, understate risks, and report only the "lowest common denominator" findings.

    On February 1, 2007, the eve of the publication of IPCC's major report on climate, a study was published suggesting that temperatures and sea levels have been rising at or above the maximum rates proposed during the last IPCC report in 2001. The study compared IPCC 2001 projections on temperature and sea level change with observations. Over the six years studied, the actual temperature rise was near the top end of the range given by IPCC's 2001 projection and the actual rise was above the top of the range of the IPCC projection.

    An example of scientific research which has indicated that previous estimates by the IPCC, far from overstating dangers and risks, has actually understated them (this may be due, in part, to the expanding human understanding of climate, as well as to the conservative bias, noted above, which is built into the IPCC system,) is a study on projected rises in sea levels. When the researchers' analysis was "applied to the possible scenarios outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the researchers found that in 2100 sea levels would be 0.5–1.4 m above 1990 levels. These values are much greater than the 9–88 cm as projected by the IPCC itself in its Third Assessment Report, published in 2001.

    Political influence on the IPCC has been documented by the release of a memo by ExxonMobil to the Bush administration, and its effects on the IPCC's leadership. The memo led to strong Bush administration lobbying, evidently at the behest of ExxonMobil, to oust Robert Watson, a climate scientist, from the IPCC chairmanship, and to have him replaced by Pachauri, who was seen at the time as more mild-mannered and industry-friendly.


    Oh, and while we're at it: Here a list of the scientists contributing to the 2007 IPCC-report. It has only 620 names on it. And guess what: Those damn eco-socialist beurocrats are actually doing the work for free!

    Quote:
    Scientists who participate in the IPCC assessment process do so without any compensation other than the normal salaries they receive from their home institutions. The process is labor intensive, diverting time and resources from participating scientists' research programs. Concerns have been raised that the large uncompensated time commitment and disruption to their own research may discourage qualified scientists from participating.


    Now, if that isn't fishy... Cool
    View user's profile Send private message
    Graviton
    Yankee (13.5 mt)


    Joined: Sep 03, 2006
    Posts: 1550
    Location: USA

    PostPosted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 2:16 am Reply with quote

    Quote:
    Oh, and while we're at it: Here a list of the scientists contributing to the 2007 IPCC-report. It has only 620 names on it. And guess what: Those damn eco-socialist beurocrats are actually doing the work for free!


    The IPCC signature nonsense goes nowhere while the IPCC reports are colored by politicians AFTER the scientists are done:

    I went to effort to show specifically (at the NASA link above) how the leader of one IPCC report was totally ignored because of the deep politicization of UN ecobureaucrat politicians (who dominate all UN work) after his work was done. I can also provide more example. You can easily notice that the chief author's own conclusions at the same time he made the IPCC report were totally different from the IPCC report after the politicians went to work to remove what they did not like from his report. ... Now, isn't that fishy of the IPCC?! Idea

    Anyone who understands what lead authorship means knows that their conclusions gather great weight in common practice, before the politicians go to work on their documents and start coloring them in changing them to reflect what politicians want people to hear or read, and only that.

    Most sadly, there is also a growing movement of technocrats developing within science, who want technical people to control everything with deep socialist policies. These people can use any technical jargon to allocate or deny others to produce what they want, no matter what. The EU already does this with quotas on which countries can produce what, where, and how much in leading industries. The EU is also trying to ban traditional tar coatings on Finnish skis using some oddball technical plan to overrule individual country laws, which is silly.

    I am not trying to be too personal against you, but I have good reason to be impatient this resistance of yours to acknowledging the downright lie and complete changing of reports like I specifically cited above. You also attack sources that have completely valid denials of any human global warming effect, especially when CO2 comprises about 0.384% of our atmosphere, way too low in concentration for any effect while water has more than 2x the equivalent mass heat capacity of CO2, yet is nearly saturation level in the atmosphere in most tropical locations. Obviously silly Gore is filled with "Venus envy" as always.
    View user's profile Send private message
    bueschu
    Cherokee (3.8 mt)


    Joined: Mar 17, 2008
    Posts: 420

    PostPosted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 11:48 am Reply with quote

    Quote:
    The IPCC signature nonsense goes nowhere while the IPCC reports are colored by politicians AFTER the scientists are done:

    I went to effort to show specifically (at the NASA link above) how the leader of one IPCC report was totally ignored because of the deep politicization of UN ecobureaucrat politicians (who dominate all UN work) after his work was done. I can also provide more example. You can easily notice that the chief author's own conclusions at the same time he made the IPCC report were totally different from the IPCC report after the politicians went to work to remove what they did not like from his report. ... Now, isn't that fishy of the IPCC?!


    Ok, but you've certainly also read the part about Bush & his Exxon-pals trying to tame the IPCC and succesfully pushing an "industry-friendly" man as leader of the last IPCC-report? If one weighs those opinions who think the reports are too conclusive versus the opinions who think they're to mild, I think one can expect that the actual reports to cover a fairly realistic middle-ground.

    Quote:
    I am not trying to be too personal against you, but I have good reason to be impatient this resistance of yours to acknowledging the downright lie and complete changing of reports like I specifically cited above. You also attack sources that have completely valid denials of any human global warming effect, especially when CO2 comprises about 0.384% of our atmosphere, way too low in concentration for any effect while water has more than 2x the equivalent mass heat capacity of CO2, yet is nearly saturation level in the atmosphere in most tropical locations. Obviously silly Gore is filled with "Venus envy" as always.


    Neither am I. But I on the other side can't fathom how you side simply ignore all facts that would speak against your opinion and reject them as part of global über-socialist-conspiracy. As I said: Beeing critical towards information is necessary. Actually (honest) hgw-critics themselves have played an important role to improve the research of gw in the past by putting their fingers on inaccurate data and so on. But after a certain point, you must be careful not to let your criticism turn into pure zealotry.
    It is true that water-vapor is the main greenhouse gas, but as you see in this table CO2 still contributes 9 - 26% to the gh-effect - although it is just a trace-gas. So, you see that if we humans increase its concentration (and the one of Methane, which is often forgotten) even a little it will have an effect on global temperature. It's basically actio = reactio.
    View user's profile Send private message
    Graviton
    Yankee (13.5 mt)


    Joined: Sep 03, 2006
    Posts: 1550
    Location: USA

    PostPosted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 10:46 pm Reply with quote

    Quote:
    Ok, but you've certainly also read the part about Bush & his Exxon-pals trying to tame the IPCC and succesfully pushing an "industry-friendly" man as leader of the last IPCC-report? If one weighs those opinions who think the reports are too conclusive versus the opinions who think they're to mild, I think one can expect that the actual reports to cover a fairly realistic middle-ground.


    This has had no effect overall. Bush's policies were not in effect when the 2001 report was made, and it took some years to get that data that drew his sound conclusions, interestingly enough under the Clinton administration, of which Al Gore was VP. The satellite data also shows the reasons why human global warming is not supported.

    Again, you ignore the more important scientific issues while trying to focus on the money trail, which can dishonestly rationalize any argument for deceitful purposes when there are glaring scientific facts contradicting human global warming. I only mentioned the fact that the former lead cited that serious motivations for coloring science for the sake of political profit is staring down the obvious takeover of the ecobureaucrats at that time, since his later politically corrupted report was ground zero for this econonsense that has taken over Europe and Britain.
    View user's profile Send private message
    bueschu
    Cherokee (3.8 mt)


    Joined: Mar 17, 2008
    Posts: 420

    PostPosted: Tue Feb 24, 2009 9:02 pm Reply with quote

    Quote:
    This has had no effect overall. Bush's policies were not in effect when the 2001 report was made, and it took some years to get that data that drew his sound conclusions, interestingly enough under the Clinton administration, of which Al Gore was VP.


    That was just one example. Do you think, Clinton wasn't also dependent on the petro-chemical industry? He didn't even ratify the Kyoto-protocol.


    Quote:
    The satellite data also shows the reasons why human global warming is not supported.



    Where did you get that from?

    Quote:
    Again, you ignore the more important scientific issues while trying to focus on the money trail, which can dishonestly rationalize any argument for deceitful purposes when there are glaring scientific facts contradicting human global warming. I only mentioned the fact that the former lead cited that serious motivations for coloring science for the sake of political profit is staring down the obvious takeover of the ecobureaucrats at that time, since his later politically corrupted report was ground zero for this econonsense that has taken over Europe and Britain.


    Don't you do the same? It's you who always gets worked up about how evil eco-social-beurocrasists are using the supposed ghw-scam to get our money, right? On the same occasion you ignore scientific facts like CO2 actually beeing a greenhouse gas (see my previous post).
    View user's profile Send private message
    Graviton
    Yankee (13.5 mt)


    Joined: Sep 03, 2006
    Posts: 1550
    Location: USA

    PostPosted: Tue Feb 24, 2009 10:26 pm Reply with quote

    bueschu wrote:
    Quote:
    This has had no effect overall. Bush's policies were not in effect when the 2001 report was made, and it took some years to get that data that drew his sound conclusions, interestingly enough under the Clinton administration, of which Al Gore was VP.


    That was just one example. Do you think, Clinton wasn't also dependent on the petro-chemical industry? He didn't even ratify the Kyoto-protocol.

    Answer: Signing the Kyoto protocol would have meant an immense escalation of costs in energy management (through socialization) after Clinton did by far the most heroic work in stabilizing our national debt in some 80 years previous to his leaving office.

    This deep road to stabilizing of the national debt was subsequently abandoned when the neocons took over both major parties since 2000.

    A fact is that socialization got the world into the global economic nightmare, through both the rise of the EU giving immense political support to the movement, since it itself epitomizes Eurosocialism. On the American side the socialists dominating the Congress since 2004, especially Barney Frank, covered the deep crisis with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (in conflict of interest violation united with his homosexual former lover as among the leading officers of Fannie Mae). Clinton also signed legislation proposed by these same democrats in 1990s, allowing socialist groups like ACORN to force completely unqualified loans to any minority for scapegoat of racism fears instead of sound financial merits having nothing to do with racism issues.

    Later in the 2000s, with the takeover of socialism complete in both parties, we see an escalation with the Obama regime. National free healthcare is not possible at a quality level in large countries with far more global responsibilities in financial and military commitments.


    Quote:
    The satellite data also shows the reasons why human global warming is not supported.



    Where did you get that from?

    Answer: ... The paper cited immediately above (with the NASA data), as well as numerous others in other areas. Again, you appeal to ignorance in doubting what you could already have seen if you checked all the links I provided. You turn around again and ignored what sample of links among far many more I can provide.


    Quote:
    Again, you ignore the more important scientific issues while trying to focus on the money trail, which can dishonestly rationalize any argument for deceitful purposes when there are glaring scientific facts contradicting human global warming. I only mentioned the fact that the former lead cited that serious motivations for coloring science for the sake of political profit is staring down the obvious takeover of the ecobureaucrats at that time, since his later politically corrupted report was ground zero for this econonsense that has taken over Europe and Britain.


    Don't you do the same? It's you who always gets worked up about how evil eco-social-beurocrasists are using the supposed ghw-scam to get our money, right? On the same occasion you ignore scientific facts like CO2 actually beeing a greenhouse gas (see my previous post).


    Answer: Because I know far too many people have no idea of what they are speaking in politics, in terms of long term stability and far stronger democracy (highly at peril with growth in far bigger socialist government intrusions into everyday life), either through the immoderates' great naivete or simply their mentally clouding ideologies that react against the wisely moderate with contempt and disdain. This contempt, elitism, and disdain of political and economic moderacy take forms in partisanship vilifying either side in sweeping condemnations, rather than wisely fostering mutual respect for moderate differences in both parties.
    View user's profile Send private message
    bueschu
    Cherokee (3.8 mt)


    Joined: Mar 17, 2008
    Posts: 420

    PostPosted: Tue Feb 24, 2009 11:16 pm Reply with quote

    Quote:
    Answer: Signing the Kyoto protocol would have meant an immense escalation of costs in energy management (through socialization) after Clinton did by far the most heroic work in stabilizing our national debt in some 80 years previous to his leaving office.

    This deep road to stabilizing of the national debt was subsequently abandoned when the neocons took over both major parties since 2000.

    A fact is that socialization got the world into the global economic nightmare, through both the rise of the EU giving immense political support to the movement, since it itself epitomizes Eurosocialism. On the American side the socialists dominating the Congress since 2004, especially Barney Frank, covered the deep crisis with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (in conflict of interest violation united with his homosexual former lover as among the leading officers of Fannie Mae). Clinton also signed legislation proposed by these same democrats in 1990s, allowing socialist groups like ACORN to force completely unqualified loans to any minority for scapegoat of racism fears instead of sound financial merits having nothing to do with racism issues.

    Later in the 2000s, with the takeover of socialism complete in both parties, we see an escalation with the Obama regime. National free healthcare is not possible at a quality level in large countries with far more global responsibilities in financial and military commitments.


    Fine, but what's Obama, the crisis or ACORN got to do with Clinton not singning Kyoto? Let's stay on topic, ok?

    Quote:

    The paper cited immediately above (with the NASA data), as well as numerous others in other areas. Again, you appeal to ignorance in doubting what you could already have seen if you checked all the links I provided. You turn around again and ignored what sample of links among far many more I can provide.


    I checked out that one and it's basically a preview of a seminary. No scientific evidence is provided, as far as I could see.
    By the way: You still owe me a look at that link about the CO2...


    Quote:
    Answer: Because I know far too many people have no idea of what they are speaking in politics, in terms of long term stability and far stronger democracy (highly at peril with growth in far bigger socialist government intrusions into everyday life), either through the immoderates' great naivete or simply their mentally clouding ideologies that react against the wisely moderate with contempt and disdain.


    I see. Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi, right? Look it up yourself, dude.

    Quote:
    This contempt, elitism, and disdain of political and economic moderacy take forms in partisanship vilifying either side in sweeping condemnations, rather than wisely fostering mutual respect for moderate differences in both parties.


    Sorry, but your ranting against anything remotely ecologist or socialist doesn't really convey much respect for positions others than your own either. Actually, it is even extremely vilifying and condemnating.
    View user's profile Send private message
    Display posts from previous:   
    Post new topic Reply to topic

    View next topic
    View previous topic
    You cannot post new topics in this forum
    You cannot reply to topics in this forum
    You cannot edit your posts in this forum
    You cannot delete your posts in this forum
    You cannot vote in polls in this forum


    Powered by phpBB © 2001 phpBB Group
    | Privacy Policy || Contact us |

    Page Generation: 0.16 Seconds
    :: In the future we will all be robots ::