West Coast Connection Forum
Lifestyle => Train of Thought => Topic started by: Trauma-san on December 21, 2007, 06:07:53 AM
-
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb
Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.
The new report issued by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee’s office of the GOP Ranking Member details the views of the scientists, the overwhelming majority of whom spoke out in 2007.
Even some in the establishment media now appear to be taking notice of the growing number of skeptical scientists. In October, the Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin conceded the obvious, writing that climate skeptics "appear to be expanding rather than shrinking." Many scientists from around the world have dubbed 2007 as the year man-made global warming fears “bite the dust.” (LINK) In addition, many scientists who are also progressive environmentalists believe climate fear promotion has "co-opted" the green movement. (LINK)
This blockbuster Senate report lists the scientists by name, country of residence, and academic/institutional affiliation. It also features their own words, biographies, and weblinks to their peer reviewed studies and original source materials as gathered from public statements, various news outlets, and websites in 2007. This new “consensus busters” report is poised to redefine the debate.
Many of the scientists featured in this report consistently stated that numerous colleagues shared their views, but they will not speak out publicly for fear of retribution. Atmospheric scientist Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, author of almost 70 peer-reviewed studies, explains how many of his fellow scientists have been intimidated.
“Many of my colleagues with whom I spoke share these views and report on their inability to publish their skepticism in the scientific or public media,” Paldor wrote. [Note: See also July 2007 Senate report detailing how skeptical scientists have faced threats and intimidation - LINK ]
Scientists from Around the World Dissent
This new report details how teams of international scientists are dissenting from the UN IPCC’s view of climate science. In such nations as Germany, Brazil, the Netherlands, Russia, New Zealand and France, nations, scientists banded together in 2007 to oppose climate alarmism. In addition, over 100 prominent international scientists sent an open letter in December 2007 to the UN stating attempts to control climate were “futile.” (LINK)
Paleoclimatologist Dr. Tim Patterson, professor in the department of Earth Sciences at Carleton University in Ottawa, recently converted from a believer in man-made climate change to a skeptic. Patterson noted that the notion of a “consensus” of scientists aligned with the UN IPCC or former Vice President Al Gore is false. “I was at the Geological Society of America meeting in Philadelphia in the fall and I would say that people with my opinion were probably in the majority.”
This new committee report, a first of its kind, comes after the UN IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri implied that there were only “about a dozen" skeptical scientists left in the world. (LINK) Former Vice President Gore has claimed that scientists skeptical of climate change are akin to “flat Earth society members” and similar in number to those who “believe the moon landing was actually staged in a movie lot in Arizona.” (LINK) & (LINK)
The distinguished scientists featured in this new report are experts in diverse fields, including: climatology; oceanography; geology; biology; glaciology; biogeography; meteorology; oceanography; economics; chemistry; mathematics; environmental sciences; engineering; physics and paleoclimatology. Some of those profiled have won Nobel Prizes for their outstanding contribution to their field of expertise and many shared a portion of the UN IPCC Nobel Peace Prize with Vice President Gore.
Additionally, these scientists hail from prestigious institutions worldwide, including: Harvard University; NASA; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR); Massachusetts Institute of Technology; the UN IPCC; the Danish National Space Center; U.S. Department of Energy; Princeton University; the Environmental Protection Agency; University of Pennsylvania; Hebrew University of Jerusalem; the International Arctic Research Centre; the Pasteur Institute in Paris; the Belgian Weather Institute; Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute; the University of Helsinki; the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S., France, and Russia; the University of Pretoria; University of Notre Dame; Stockholm University; University of Melbourne; University of Columbia; the World Federation of Scientists; and the University of London.
The voices of many of these hundreds of scientists serve as a direct challenge to the often media-hyped “consensus” that the debate is “settled.”
A May 2007 Senate report detailed scientists who had recently converted from believers in man-made global warming to skepticism. [See May 15, 2007 report: Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics: Growing Number of Scientists Convert to Skeptics After Reviewing New Research – (LINK) ]
The report counters the claims made by the promoters of man-made global warming fears that the number of skeptical scientists is dwindling.
Examples of “consensus” claims made by promoters of man-made climate fears:
Former Vice President Al Gore (November 5, 2007): “There are still people who believe that the Earth is flat.” (LINK) Gore also compared global warming skeptics to people who 'believe the moon landing was actually staged in a movie lot in Arizona' (June 20, 2006 - LINK)
CNN’s Miles O’Brien (July 23, 2007): The scientific debate is over.” “We're done." O’Brien also declared on CNN on February 9, 2006 that scientific skeptics of man-made catastrophic global warming “are bought and paid for by the fossil fuel industry, usually.” (LINK)
On July 27, 2006, Associated Press reporter Seth Borenstein described a scientist as “one of the few remaining scientists skeptical of the global warming harm caused by industries that burn fossil fuels.” (LINK)
Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, Chairman of the IPCC view on the number of skeptical scientists as quoted on Feb. 20, 2003: “About 300 years ago, a Flat Earth Society was founded by those who did not believe the world was round. That society still exists; it probably has about a dozen members.” (LINK)
Agence France-Press (AFP Press) article (December 4, 2007): The article noted that a prominent skeptic “finds himself increasingly alone in his claim that climate change poses no imminent threat to the planet.”
Andrew Dessler in the eco-publication Grist Magazine (November 21, 2007): “While some people claim there are lots of skeptical climate scientists out there, if you actually try to find one, you keep turning up the same two dozen or so (e.g., Singer, Lindzen, Michaels, Christy, etc., etc.). These skeptics are endlessly recycled by the denial machine, so someone not paying close attention might think there are lots of them out there -- but that's not the case. (LINK)
The Washington Post asserted on May 23, 2006 that there were only “a handful of skeptics” of man-made climate fears. (LINK)
UN special climate envoy Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland on May 10, 2007 declared the climate debate "over" and added “it's completely immoral, even, to question” the UN’s scientific “consensus." (LINK)
ABC News Global Warming Reporter Bill Blakemore reported on August 30, 2006: “After extensive searches, ABC News has found no such [scientific] debate” on global warming. (LINK)
# #
Brief highlights of the report featuring over 400 international scientists:
Israel: Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem has authored almost 70 peer-reviewed studies and won several awards. “First, temperature changes, as well as rates of temperature changes (both increase and decrease) of magnitudes similar to that reported by IPCC to have occurred since the Industrial revolution (about 0.8C in 150 years or even 0.4C in the last 35 years) have occurred in Earth's climatic history. There's nothing special about the recent rise!”
Russia: Russian scientist Dr. Oleg Sorochtin of the Institute of Oceanology at the Russian Academy of Sciences has authored more than 300 studies, nine books, and a 2006 paper titled “The Evolution and the Prediction of Global Climate Changes on Earth.” “Even if the concentration of ‘greenhouse gases’ double man would not perceive the temperature impact,” Sorochtin wrote.
Spain: Anton Uriarte, a professor of Physical Geography at the University of the Basque Country in Spain and author of a book on the paleoclimate, rejected man-made climate fears in 2007. “There's no need to be worried. It's very interesting to study [climate change], but there's no need to be worried,” Uriate wrote.
Netherlands: Atmospheric scientist Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, a scientific pioneer in the development of numerical weather prediction and former director of research at The Netherlands' Royal National Meteorological Institute, and an internationally recognized expert in atmospheric boundary layer processes, “I find the Doomsday picture Al Gore is painting – a six-meter sea level rise, fifteen times the IPCC number – entirely without merit,” Tennekes wrote. “I protest vigorously the idea that the climate reacts like a home heating system to a changed setting of the thermostat: just turn the dial, and the desired temperature will soon be reached."
Brazil: Chief Meteorologist Eugenio Hackbart of the MetSul Meteorologia Weather Center in Sao Leopoldo – Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil declared himself a skeptic. “The media is promoting an unprecedented hyping related to global warming. The media and many scientists are ignoring very important facts that point to a natural variation in the climate system as the cause of the recent global warming,” Hackbart wrote on May 30, 2007.
France: Climatologist Dr. Marcel Leroux, former professor at Université Jean Moulin and director of the Laboratory of Climatology, Risks, and Environment in Lyon, is a climate skeptic. Leroux wrote a 2005 book titled Global Warming – Myth or Reality? - The Erring Ways of Climatology. “Day after day, the same mantra - that ‘the Earth is warming up’ - is churned out in all its forms. As ‘the ice melts’ and ‘sea level rises,’ the Apocalypse looms ever nearer! Without realizing it, or perhaps without wishing to, the average citizen in bamboozled, lobotomized, lulled into mindless acceptance. ... Non-believers in the greenhouse scenario are in the position of those long ago who doubted the existence of God ... fortunately for them, the Inquisition is no longer with us!”
Norway: Geologist/Geochemist Dr. Tom V. Segalstad, a professor and head of the Geological Museum at the University of Oslo and formerly an expert reviewer with the UN IPCC: “It is a search for a mythical CO2 sink to explain an immeasurable CO2 lifetime to fit a hypothetical CO2 computer model that purports to show that an impossible amount of fossil fuel burning is heating the atmosphere. It is all a fiction.”
Finland: Dr. Boris Winterhalter, retired Senior Marine Researcher of the Geological Survey of Finland and former professor of marine geology at University of Helsinki, criticized the media for what he considered its alarming climate coverage. “The effect of solar winds on cosmic radiation has just recently been established and, furthermore, there seems to be a good correlation between cloudiness and variations in the intensity of cosmic radiation. Here we have a mechanism which is a far better explanation to variations in global climate than the attempts by IPCC to blame it all on anthropogenic input of greenhouse gases. “
Germany: Paleoclimate expert Augusto Mangini of the University of Heidelberg in Germany, criticized the UN IPCC summary. “I consider the part of the IPCC report, which I can really judge as an expert, i.e. the reconstruction of the paleoclimate, wrong,” Mangini noted in an April 5, 2007 article. He added: “The earth will not die.”
Canada: IPCC 2007 Expert Reviewer Madhav Khandekar, a Ph.D meteorologist, a scientist with the Natural Resources Stewardship Project who has over 45 years experience in climatology, meteorology and oceanography, and who has published nearly 100 papers, reports, book reviews and a book on Ocean Wave Analysis and Modeling: “To my dismay, IPCC authors ignored all my comments and suggestions for major changes in the FOD (First Order Draft) and sent me the SOD (Second Order Draft) with essentially the same text as the FOD. None of the authors of the chapter bothered to directly communicate with me (or with other expert reviewers with whom I communicate on a regular basis) on many issues that were raised in my review. This is not an acceptable scientific review process.”
Czech Republic: Czech-born U.S. climatologist Dr. George Kukla, a research scientist with the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University, expressed climate skepticism in 2007. “The only thing to worry about is the damage that can be done by worrying. Why are some scientists worried? Perhaps because they feel that to stop worrying may mean to stop being paid,” Kukla told Gelf Magazine on April 24, 2007.
India: One of India's leading geologists, B.P. Radhakrishna, President of the Geological Society of India, expressed climate skepticism in 2007. “We appear to be overplaying this global warming issue as global warming is nothing new. It has happened in the past, not once but several times, giving rise to glacial-interglacial cycles.”
USA: Climatologist Robert Durrenberger, past president of the American Association of State Climatologists, and one of the climatologists who gathered at Woods Hole to review the National Climate Program Plan in July, 1979: “Al Gore brought me back to the battle and prompted me to do renewed research in the field of climatology. And because of all the misinformation that Gore and his army have been spreading about climate change I have decided that ‘real’ climatologists should try to help the public understand the nature of the problem.”
Italy: Internationally renowned scientist Dr. Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists and a retired Professor of Advanced Physics at the University of Bologna in Italy, who has published over 800 scientific papers: “Significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming."
New Zealand: IPCC reviewer and climate researcher Dr. Vincent Gray, an expert reviewer on every single draft of the IPCC reports going back to 1990 and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of "Climate Change 2001: “The [IPCC] ‘Summary for Policymakers’ might get a few readers, but the main purpose of the report is to provide a spurious scientific backup for the absurd claims of the worldwide environmentalist lobby that it has been established scientifically that increases in carbon dioxide are harmful to the climate. It just does not matter that this ain't so.”
South Africa: Dr. Kelvin Kemm, formerly a scientist at South Africa’s Atomic Energy Corporation who holds degrees in nuclear physics and mathematics: “The global-warming mania continues with more and more hype and less and less thinking. With religious zeal, people look for issues or events to blame on global warming.”
Poland: Physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, Chairman of the Central Laboratory for the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Radiological Protection in Warsaw: ““We thus find ourselves in the situation that the entire theory of man-made global warming—with its repercussions in science, and its important consequences for politics and the global economy—is based on ice core studies that provided a false picture of the atmospheric CO2 levels.”
Australia: Prize-wining Geologist Dr. Ian Plimer, a professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of Adelaide in Australia: "There is new work emerging even in the last few weeks that shows we can have a very close correlation between the temperatures of the Earth and supernova and solar radiation.”
Britain: Dr. Richard Courtney, a UN IPCC expert reviewer and a UK-based climate and atmospheric science consultant: “To date, no convincing evidence for AGW (anthropogenic global warming) has been discovered. And recent global climate behavior is not consistent with AGW model predictions.”
China: Chinese Scientists Say C02 Impact on Warming May Be ‘Excessively Exaggerated’ – Scientists Lin Zhen-Shan’s and Sun Xian’s 2007 study published in the peer-reviewed journal Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics: "Although the CO2 greenhouse effect on global climate change is unsuspicious, it could have been excessively exaggerated." Their study asserted that "it is high time to reconsider the trend of global climate change.”
Denmark: Space physicist Dr. Eigil Friis-Christensen is the director of the Danish National Space Centre, a member of the space research advisory committee of the Swedish National Space Board, a member of a NASA working group, and a member of the European Space Agency who has authored or co-authored around 100 peer-reviewed papers and chairs the Institute of Space Physics: “The sun is the source of the energy that causes the motion of the atmosphere and thereby controls weather and climate. Any change in the energy from the sun received at the Earth’s surface will therefore affect climate.”
Belgium: Climate scientist Luc Debontridder of the Belgium Weather Institute’s Royal Meteorological Institute (RMI) co-authored a study in August 2007 which dismissed a decisive role of CO2 in global warming: "CO2 is not the big bogeyman of climate change and global warming. “Not CO2, but water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas. It is responsible for at least 75 % of the greenhouse effect. This is a simple scientific fact, but Al Gore's movie has hyped CO2 so much that nobody seems to take note of it.”
Sweden: Geologist Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, professor emeritus of the Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology at Stockholm University, critiqued the Associated Press for hyping promoting climate fears in 2007. “Another of these hysterical views of our climate. Newspapers should think about the damage they are doing to many persons, particularly young kids, by spreading the exaggerated views of a human impact on climate.”
USA: Dr. David Wojick is a UN IPCC expert reviewer, who earned his PhD in Philosophy of Science and co-founded the Department of Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie-Mellon University: “In point of fact, the hypothesis that solar variability and not human activity is warming the oceans goes a long way to explain the puzzling idea that the Earth's surface may be warming while the atmosphere is not. The GHG (greenhouse gas) hypothesis does not do this.” Wojick added: “The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of false alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates.”
# # #
Background: Only 52 Scientists Participated in UN IPCC Summary
The over 400 skeptical scientists featured in this new report outnumber by nearly eight times the number of scientists who participated in the 2007 UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers. The notion of “hundreds” or “thousands” of UN scientists agreeing to a scientific statement does not hold up to scrutiny. (See report debunking “consensus” LINK) Recent research by Australian climate data analyst Dr. John McLean revealed that the IPCC’s peer-review process for the Summary for Policymakers leaves much to be desired. (LINK)
Proponents of man-made global warming like to note how the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the American Meteorological Society (AMS) have issued statements endorsing the so-called "consensus" view that man is driving global warming. But both the NAS and AMS never allowed member scientists to directly vote on these climate statements. Essentially, only two dozen or so members on the governing boards of these institutions produced the "consensus" statements. This report gives a voice to the rank-and-file scientists who were shut out of the process. (LINK)
The most recent attempt to imply there was an overwhelming scientific “consensus” in favor of man-made global warming fears came in December 2007 during the UN climate conference in Bali. A letter signed by only 215 scientists urged the UN to mandate deep cuts in carbon dioxide emissions by 2050. But absent from the letter were the signatures of these alleged “thousands” of scientists. (See AP article: - LINK )
UN IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri urged the world at the December 2007 UN climate conference in Bali, Indonesia to "Please listen to the voice of science.”
The science has continued to grow loud and clear in 2007. In addition to the growing number of scientists expressing skepticism, an abundance of recent peer-reviewed studies have cast considerable doubt about man-made global warming fears. A November 3, 2007 peer-reviewed study found that “solar changes significantly alter climate.” (LINK) A December 2007 peer-reviewed study recalculated and halved the global average surface temperature trend between 1980 – 2002. (LINK) Another new study found the Medieval Warm Period “0.3C warmer than 20th century” (LINK)
A peer-reviewed study by a team of scientists found that "warming is naturally caused and shows no human influence." (LINK) – Another November 2007 peer-reviewed study in the journal Physical Geography found “Long-term climate change is driven by solar insolation changes.” (LINK ) These recent studies were in addition to the abundance of peer-reviewed studies earlier in 2007. - See "New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears" (LINK )
With this new report of profiling 400 skeptical scientists, the world can finally hear the voices of the “silent majority” of scientists.
LINKS TO COMPLETE U.S. SENATE REPORT: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007
Complete Report: (LINK) (Released December 20, 2007)
Complete Report w/out Intro: (LINK)
-
Neo-Cons control people through the fear of terrorism, Neo-Libs control people through a fear of Global Warming.
-
Neo-Cons control people through the fear of terrorism, Neo-Libs control people through a fear of Global Warming.
(http://www.dubcnn.com/connect/Themes/dubcc/images/post/thumbup.gif)
-
Neo-Cons control people through the fear of terrorism, Neo-Libs control people through a fear of Global Warming.
Good Call
-
i don't need no scientist to be telling me about global warming and shit, i can see for myself that climate change is taking place, aint no need for me to read the article, which i didnt
-
Finally.
-
Lyrical G the point of this is not to deny that climate change is taking place bur rather to challenge the assertion that man caused the climate change. The fact that so many scientists challenge this assertion and the fact that governments hand pick those who appear at these world summits, should raise alarm bells.
-
Yeah but how many scientists are also saying that it is true? The truth is that no one knows for sure what is going on.
-
Yeah but how many scientists are also saying that it is true? The truth is that no one knows for sure what is going on.
Most of the scientists that said it was true say man has had "an effect" on it. This usual follows several other factors, like the Sun, but that doesn't get mentioned. That report released a little while back was legit, but it never really said what Gore and the media said it said. The goofs running this campaign are worried because the if the predicted solar cooling cycle of 2019/2020 and the sun cools a bit the Earth will cool and then no one on that side will be happy. But of they make us spend all the money first then they'll say "see, we did it".
-
i don't need no scientist to be telling me about global warming and shit, i can see for myself that climate change is taking place, aint no need for me to read the article, which i didnt
The sad thing is that all the 1st world countries are spending billions and billions of dollars on global warming projects when basically man has little effect at all on the climate, and they're just wasting money that could be better spent on things that really matter. Like feeding the homeless and blowing up Iran.
-
"Lorsque le dernier arbre aura été abattu, la dernière rivière polluée, le dernier poisson péché, les hommes s'apercevront que l'argent n'est pas comestible"
-
I simply could not give two shits for what the article says and I give not a shit for Al Gore either.
The truth is that:
polluted air is shit to breath
and pollution basically makes life shit.
The more we pollute, the shittier the Earth gets.
However, not everybody is of the intellectual or spiritual capacity required to comprehend such basic concepts.
-
I simply could not give two shits for what the article says and I give not a shit for Al Gore either.
The truth is that:
polluted air is shit to breath
and pollution basically makes life shit.
The more we pollute, the shittier the Earth gets.
However, not everybody is of the intellectual or spiritual capacity required to comprehend such basic concepts.
We all agree there but that isn't the problem. Buying hybrids, going solar, nuclear etc are all great because it saves money, but they aren't going after pollution, they are going after carbon dioxide, you know the natural gas that comes out of people? Forget stupid theories like adopting one child policies to reduce population. The real money will be wasted on machines that suck the carbon dioxide out of the gas in factories and plants and planes and those machines will not only cost way too much but they will also create more pollution. The world will not get any cleaner if we go with KYOTO and give in. It'll just get more expensive and less carbon will be produced while the idiots up top get rich and wait for the next scam to pull on the masses.
-
"Only after the last tree has been cut down, only after the last fish has been caught, only after the last river has been poisoned, only then will you realize that money cannot be eaten"
-
Shallow I agree with what you just said except for this notion that using this as a tool for population control is in some way a theory, when the australian medical journals have talked about it, english journals and the broadsheet newspapers, canadian newspapers, state memorandum 200 clearly outlined the plan for population control, green peace talk about it. I was not trying to suggest that it was the only way in which they would try and seize on this CO2 fever but it is one of many ways. Yes profit and greed and monopoly is a big aspect of it to but ultimately when someone like Michael Meacher declares on a recent channel 4 "debate" about global warming that we have only achieved 5% of our goal so far we need another 55%, he is talking about increasing the blanket of fighting CO2 11 fold, that can only be achieved through the complete micro management of every human being. In fact the sort of micro management needed, would make your headspin, in contemplating the type of control freakery which would be implemented.
-
its all about money and politics, fuck that
-
Shallow I agree with what you just said except for this notion that using this as a tool for population control is in some way a theory, when the australian medical journals have talked about it, english journals and the broadsheet newspapers, canadian newspapers, state memorandum 200 clearly outlined the plan for population control, green peace talk about it. I was not trying to suggest that it was the only way in which they would try and seize on this CO2 fever but it is one of many ways. Yes profit and greed and monopoly is a big aspect of it to but ultimately when someone like Michael Meacher declares on a recent channel 4 "debate" about global warming that we have only achieved 5% of our goal so far we need another 55%, he is talking about increasing the blanket of fighting CO2 11 fold, that can only be achieved through the complete micro management of every human being. In fact the sort of micro management needed, would make your headspin, in contemplating the type of control freakery which would be implemented.
The Western world is already losing population growth. I could see them proppng up dictators in the third world. It'd be real easy since it'll all be done in the name of China and 1 Child laws come into play. In the west it's almost taboo to have more than 2 kids these days.
As long as we can wait until 2020 and not over spend, then the sun cools, we cool, and Gore shuts his fat fucking mouth. By then an asteroid will hit Mars and we'll all go into asteroid prevention mode and waste money making orbiting super lasers.
-
The problem is technological advances do not respect the laws of nature. Nature has to balance itself out.
-
*yawn*...
-
Lyrical G the point of this is not to deny that climate change is taking place bur rather to challenge the assertion that man caused the climate change. The fact that so many scientists challenge this assertion and the fact that governments hand pick those who appear at these world summits, should raise alarm bells.
what bout all the calims of the machines and weapons that can change wheaters, make earthquakes and tsunamis? im sure that has an effect on global warming or maybe global warming it self is a weapon
-
Lyrical G the point of this is not to deny that climate change is taking place bur rather to challenge the assertion that man caused the climate change. The fact that so many scientists challenge this assertion and the fact that governments hand pick those who appear at these world summits, should raise alarm bells.
what bout all the calims of the machines and weapons that can change wheaters, make earthquakes and tsunamis? im sure that has an effect on global warming or maybe global warming it self is a weapon
What machines and weapons are you talking about?
-
1 article was posted by virtuoso here and there is freemason youtube video on it too.
-
you know damn well niggaz aint gone read all that shit
-
Lyrical G the point of this is not to deny that climate change is taking place bur rather to challenge the assertion that man caused the climate change. The fact that so many scientists challenge this assertion and the fact that governments hand pick those who appear at these world summits, should raise alarm bells.
what bout all the calims of the machines and weapons that can change wheaters, make earthquakes and tsunamis? im sure that has an effect on global warming or maybe global warming it self is a weapon
are you talking about golden eye?
-
You mean weather modification devices...they have been in existence for a long time. I don't know how that issue got raised when I spoke of man having a minimal impact on global warming, I was referring to the CO2 which are the life force that sustains us, if we didn't breath it out, plants wouldn't exhale oxygen. Now if you are posing the question are the weather modification devices being used for nefarious purposes, well who knows, it's something that can't be proved and so I find it's better to steer away from speculation. It is of course an interesting subject but as there is no definitive answer, you could speculate about it all day because the climate does fluctuate naturally anyway.
-
I simply could not give two shits for what the article says and I give not a shit for Al Gore either.
The truth is that:
polluted air is shit to breath
and pollution basically makes life shit.
The more we pollute, the shittier the Earth gets.
However, not everybody is of the intellectual or spiritual capacity required to comprehend such basic concepts.
We all agree there but that isn't the problem. Buying hybrids, going solar, nuclear etc are all great because it saves money, but they aren't going after pollution, they are going after carbon dioxide, you know the natural gas that comes out of people? Forget stupid theories like adopting one child policies to reduce population. The real money will be wasted on machines that suck the carbon dioxide out of the gas in factories and plants and planes and those machines will not only cost way too much but they will also create more pollution. The world will not get any cleaner if we go with KYOTO and give in. It'll just get more expensive and less carbon will be produced while the idiots up top get rich and wait for the next scam to pull on the masses.
We need solar and alternative energies. I agree with your scepticism though, Im not saying that they are the final solution or that Kyoto will do anything, but its the general move in politics and mainstream thinking that is important before any concrete solutions can take place, all I seem to be getting from the Right of the political spectrum is negativity that I am suspicious of because well founded scientific scepticism may simply be spun and used by the protectorates of the established business corporate beast. I emphasis with your scepticism but what concerns me is that although the scepticism of these scientists is valid, that is simply part of scientific thought to be sceptical and my concern is that this report will be used as a political tool against the movement in mainstream thinking towards environmental concern. People seem to have this mentality that we can just keep finding new shit to use to feed the Beast, fossil fuels fucking up the Earth? Go Nuclear! Mine the Moon! Etc. They are all bullshit solutions, we should be using what God has provided us to use on this Earth with respect, solar, wind, etc are all good because they don't fuck with the Earth's natural cycle of things. Although it is not feasible to only rely on these technologies right now we should be building towards relying on them, its a huge change because it requires a change in the human economic system, a change that will only take place if a drastic change occurs in human thinking thats why the war is political and it is an information war, hence our discussion over the scientific report. It is a war being waged through information, Global Warming is scientifically proven to be caused by us, but it may also be natural, but not ENTIRELY one or the other. It is dangerous to think that our hypothesis is utterly air-tight. The fact is both scientific camps are right, because you gotta be sceptical of your knowledge and your wisdom 24/7 or else it isn't either wisdom or knowledge. I bet you that none of those 400-scientists oppose switching our society over to green energy though, regardless if global warming is caused by human interference or not.
-
I'm not even getting into this argument because it could go on until the cows come home. All I'm gonna say is this:
400 scientists on a worldwide scale is a FRACTION of the total scientific community in terms of just global warming alone.
-
There is no may about it overfiend, if you read through some of the many U.N documents, they admit the impact that the sun is having on climate change. They can not escape it, particularly when the moons of Saturn and Jupiter are also melting. However I disagree with your message, with respect it's steeped in an ideal world undertone. The reality is that no corporation is interested in any form of power which they can not monopolise, or indeed is infinite in resource, as soon as such a possibility came to the fore, it would get shut down because there would be no value to it from their point of view. The long term implications of genetically modified crops are much more horrendous than climate change. As for this idea that you simply segment people into a numbers group, that's a group think mentality, many don't want to go against the grain for fear of the reprisals and consequences. For example every time a Monsanto scientist has gone public trying to do the right thing and point out all of the new cancers which have suddenly spawned from their experimentations on rats they have been swiftly kicked out. After which, a series of new experiments are undertaken by other monsanto scientists who then look to allay all fears and report everything is perfectly safe.
Now who gains from this? the scientist who has nowhere to turn after speaking out, or the giant corporation who are taking over all food production. So the politicians will reassure back benchers that depleted uranium is safe but then will attempt to scare the shit out of everyone by talking about carbon dioxide being the most dangerous force on the planet. Again, if it's a numbers game, a few conglomerates own the entire media and if you control the information flow, then you can control the message. If people question the details of that information you can vilify and denounce them as whatever you like and reinforce that image by playing the numbers game again.
Whatever happened to bird flu?
SARS?
Globlal freezing predicted in the 70's
weapons of mass destruction?
All down the memory plug hole and replaced with something new
-
There is no may about it overfiend, if you read through some of the many U.N documents, they admit the impact that the sun is having on climate change. They can not escape it, particularly when the moons of Saturn and Jupiter are also melting. However I disagree with your message, with respect it's steeped in an ideal world undertone. The reality is that no corporation is interested in any form of power which they can not monopolise, or indeed is infinite in resource, as soon as such a possibility came to the fore, it would get shut down because there would be no value to it from their point of view. The long term implications of genetically modified crops are much more horrendous than climate change.
LOL. Don't think me naive, I place no faith in the government, international community or the business sector to steer humanity and believe me Ive travelled through the depths of darkness before and seen darkness. The only way humanity will ever progress is through changes in human thinking and awareness. Seriously dude thats the only way anything ever happens is when individuals reach a certain level of understanding of life. Think about all the amazing people who have done anytype of good on this earth. It happens. Think how far humanity has come in terms of thinking we were far more ignorant just a few 60 years ago, racism on a WWII scale, we do progress I see it everyday in people. But look at society man, we are at our most technologically advanced in the West and wealth and comfort abounds, yet after it all, what does society promote? To consume and think like an idiot.
I don't blame society or the corporations.
Thats just life. Life is there for those who would grasp it, there are obstacle, distractions and ways to keep you blind.
Our awareness does grow collectively as a species (although it has also been known to recede, Middle Ages, President Bush). What I see with this trend towards climate change concerns, is that that is only the mainstream face of it,psychic changes have been building in people's hearts for a growing concern and awareness of the place we live in.
-
Of course and I agree with you but the route in which the establishment is pushing people down will do nothing to stop the very real environmental catastrophes. Look at the way in which this is all being structured, it's all about being about to regulate more and more of any economic activity which only strengthens the hands of a few and in turn increase taxes. We had uranium levels recorded at 6 times the average level in Britain last year, we are still dealing with the effects of the Chernobyl disaster through massively reduced fertility rates so yes I don't agree that nuclear power is the way forward. We are sitting on the equivalent of thousands of nukes through this incessant drive to splice species and let them enter the food chain. I am all for finding genuine alternatives, all for stemming pollution but the people engineering this drive are criminals. However they are very smart, they have managed to hoodwink the progressives into believing that it's the establishment that is resiisting reducing carbon dioxide and restricting human economic activity when the bildabergers state that is their goal, when the rockefellers sponsor events to focus on climate change. By the way I wasn't saying I don't share your idealistic view of energy and I believe it is more than possible if the desire was there and if the machine was being used for the betterment of humanity.
-
I am all for finding genuine alternatives, all for stemming pollution but the people engineering this drive are criminals.
^
That is why, i said that:
I place no faith in the government, international community or the business sector to steer humanity
The Bilderbergers, Rockefellers, etc will always be here in some form. There will always be shitheads on Earth. Thats why let them play their game, its a game they been playing for decades amongst themselves, but what they think but do not comprehend is that they are people too, they live in the same realm we do, they can be touched by the hand of fate just as easily as us, lightening has just as high a chance of striking them as it does the rest of us. They play a game oblivious to the fact that there is an umpire who watches and judges every move.
You beat 'em with the positive thoughts, you don't need em
Leave him in the dirt, let the blood suckers see him
-Inspectah Deck, "Show & Prove", off Uncontrolled Substance.
Thats just my thoughts though. But word. Keep watching the beast Virtuoso.
-
By that I assume you have a faith in a god?
-
^
not in a traditional sense, no. But in my own sense, yes.
Listen, what I mean is that, in this World, the best you can do is live your life the best you can. If there are people oppressing you or you got it hard, or they fucking up the environment, still, you can only do your best. Thats all God expects of you. God dosn't expect me to find the Bilderbergers and execute them (If they want to execute me, so be it, but i will go down as hard as I can knowing I did the the best I could). However, if I was in a position to right even just a fraction of their evil and I didn't I would be held to answer by God.
Also, you can't explain God or your understanding of God to other people, only try to describe and prompt them to seek for themself....
Some blind men happened to come across an elephant.
Someone told them what it was and asked them to describe it as it seemed to them.
The one who touched the leg said that it was like a column.
The second one felt its ear and said it is like a winnowing fan.
Similarly, those who had touched its trunk or belly, gave different opinions.
So with God, everyone conceives Him according to his experience.
- RamaKrishna.
-
^ i had a religion class and we used that elephant reference. i agree with you tho.
-
^
its very appropriate for a religion class. Many people have said the same thing in different ways. Ramakrishna lived a life in and out of reality.
-
"Only after the last tree has been cut down, only after the last fish has been caught, only after the last river has been poisoned, only then will you realize that money cannot be eaten"
thanks for translating. It's still a stupid post and not really worth an answer, but here's one anyways, in English.
There are no more trees being cut down today than a hundred years ago. For everytree cut down in the U.S. 2 are planted, by law. Fish are in abundance because there are laws in place to restrict that, even when Japan goes to hunt whales the U.S. and Australia bitch so much that Japan caves on that. The water quality in America's rivers and streams has less particulates than 10 years ago which had less particulates than 40 years ago.
So basically, your ignorance is fucking you up.
-
you know damn well niggaz aint gone read all that shit
Niggaz may not but there's a lot of black people here who are educated that will probably read it. "NIGGA"
-
We need solar and alternative energies. I agree with your scepticism though, Im not saying that they are the final solution or that Kyoto will do anything, but its the general move in politics and mainstream thinking that is important before any concrete solutions can take place, all I seem to be getting from the Right of the political spectrum is negativity that I am suspicious of because well founded scientific scepticism may simply be spun and used by the protectorates of the established business corporate beast. I emphasis with your scepticism but what concerns me is that although the scepticism of these scientists is valid, that is simply part of scientific thought to be sceptical and my concern is that this report will be used as a political tool against the movement in mainstream thinking towards environmental concern. People seem to have this mentality that we can just keep finding new shit to use to feed the Beast, fossil fuels fucking up the Earth? Go Nuclear! Mine the Moon! Etc. They are all bullshit solutions, we should be using what God has provided us to use on this Earth with respect, solar, wind, etc are all good because they don't fuck with the Earth's natural cycle of things. Although it is not feasible to only rely on these technologies right now we should be building towards relying on them, its a huge change because it requires a change in the human economic system, a change that will only take place if a drastic change occurs in human thinking thats why the war is political and it is an information war, hence our discussion over the scientific report. It is a war being waged through information, Global Warming is scientifically proven to be caused by us, but it may also be natural, but not ENTIRELY one or the other. It is dangerous to think that our hypothesis is utterly air-tight. The fact is both scientific camps are right, because you gotta be sceptical of your knowledge and your wisdom 24/7 or else it isn't either wisdom or knowledge. I bet you that none of those 400-scientists oppose switching our society over to green energy though, regardless if global warming is caused by human interference or not.
I think the mistake you make is thinking that any move towards this is a good move. Not in the way it's being done. All they would have to do is pitch this differently, and everybody would sign on board. However, they use fear and lies to tell people that the earth is falling apart when in reality, it's not at all.
Look; I don't pollute if I can help it. I drive as little as possible, I never litter, I throw away hardly nothing unless I absolutely cannot use it. I have a friend who recycles everything and in my business I always have construction materials, junk metals, etc. that I have to get rid of, I recycle all of it.
You know why I do that? Not because I feel I'd destroy the earth with it... it's a respect thing, and it's a financial thing. I don't throw trash out the window of my car because I respect the earth that birthed us all more than I respect the floorboard of my car. So I throw it in the floorboard of my car.
I only throw away what I can't possibly use because it saves me money. I recycle things becuase it makes my good friend money. I don't litter because I like the way the clean earth looks.
A good example is the lightbulbs they've invented that are flourescents instead of incadescents. Everybody loves them because they last longer and use less energy, plus are only slightly more expensive. Everybody in the world uses them because it makes sense on a number of levels, and so it lowers power consumption.
If Washington and Ford and Chevy would stop bullshitting with these car prices and make an electric car cost what an electric car should, then you'd get many more people buying them as well. Of course they can't do that because they've got a racket going and the Union's need to pay everybody 35 dollars an hour.
-
We need solar and alternative energies. I agree with your scepticism though, Im not saying that they are the final solution or that Kyoto will do anything, but its the general move in politics and mainstream thinking that is important before any concrete solutions can take place, all I seem to be getting from the Right of the political spectrum is negativity that I am suspicious of because well founded scientific scepticism may simply be spun and used by the protectorates of the established business corporate beast. I emphasis with your scepticism but what concerns me is that although the scepticism of these scientists is valid, that is simply part of scientific thought to be sceptical and my concern is that this report will be used as a political tool against the movement in mainstream thinking towards environmental concern. People seem to have this mentality that we can just keep finding new shit to use to feed the Beast, fossil fuels fucking up the Earth? Go Nuclear! Mine the Moon! Etc. They are all bullshit solutions, we should be using what God has provided us to use on this Earth with respect, solar, wind, etc are all good because they don't fuck with the Earth's natural cycle of things. Although it is not feasible to only rely on these technologies right now we should be building towards relying on them, its a huge change because it requires a change in the human economic system, a change that will only take place if a drastic change occurs in human thinking thats why the war is political and it is an information war, hence our discussion over the scientific report. It is a war being waged through information, Global Warming is scientifically proven to be caused by us, but it may also be natural, but not ENTIRELY one or the other. It is dangerous to think that our hypothesis is utterly air-tight. The fact is both scientific camps are right, because you gotta be sceptical of your knowledge and your wisdom 24/7 or else it isn't either wisdom or knowledge. I bet you that none of those 400-scientists oppose switching our society over to green energy though, regardless if global warming is caused by human interference or not.
I think the mistake you make is thinking that any move towards this is a good move. Not in the way it's being done. All they would have to do is pitch this differently, and everybody would sign on board. However, they use fear and lies to tell people that the earth is falling apart when in reality, it's not at all.
Not really, I don't think you can sum up my whole opinion about the global warming and environmental sentiment as me thinking its all a "good move". The thing is, I just don't think that taking a completely negative view of it all is justified or for that matter a totally positive cheerleader position, as I said before I appreciate your scepticism.
I feel what you saying about respect and throwing shit out your car window. Remember Im Australian, not an American Democrat, I don't think in a Conservative vs Democrat frame of mind or via the type of thinking or argument framework that these sides promote over the other.
Our whole political climate is similar to yours but also very different and probably not as so polarised or as drastically divided. We have had a Conservative government for 11-years, all this time Howard never did ANYTHING for the environment, for 11-years our government denied global warming and probably more significantly denied the country any type of evironmentally focused policy, its only when public pressure grew too much that the Howard government began its "Nuclear power will save us from climate change" policy. During Howard's 11 years in power, I agreed with his argument that the economy should not fall victim to environment concerns and that global warming will not kill us all, however thats where my empathy with Howard's argument ended because for too often his ulterior role was industry salesman and his arguments were basically against things the opposition was not even arguing against, by doing that you can "frame" the opposition into a neat little picture! You were talking about flourescent lightbulbs and the little household things like that, well for 11 years (and even longer) the only people promoting or taking those type of things seriously were the Greens (on the fringes on the left of the Left), the Howad governemnt simply never gave a shit only in its last few days of power. So im saying, we have nothing to disagree about, but for the last decade and a half, the environment has not been taken seriously by my government, thats why I see it as understandable we are seeing a type of political backlash with all the climate change fanfare and enviromental concern, at least in my country, alot of it is high time and justified, however we do most definately require scepticism, although I remain wary of that scepticism in turn, because for 11 years and longer there has been this constant denial in the name of industry. Now, we have a new leader who is making good moves so far, the atmosphere in Australia has never been and is not currently one of fear over climate change, so I fail to see your gripe about the pitch, Gore made his film and his alarmism has been taken seriously, but was never amplified to a fearful pitich, Australians simply fail to let themselves get worked up over foreign films, however, as I see it personally, it was something that needed to be done for the mainstream, so that the more serious poltical elements had an audience. I have seen fear mongering ever since 9/11, Gore's film and the rest of the climate change cheerleaders absolutely pale in comparision.
As for them whales, Japan has never caved, they have never stopped despite what both our governments have been saying. Although now we are finally getting real with it and we will have our navy shadowing them.
-
^ Your next mistake was, you assume I believe Government has a role in this. I don't. I think it's a personal responsibility. I live in America, the land of the free, nobody tells me what kind of lightbulbs to buy. I'm glad you're pissed that Howard didn't make you buy nice lightbulbs, but why didn't you buy them yourself?
-
^ Your next mistake was, you assume I believe Government has a role in this. I don't. I think it's a personal responsibility. I live in America, the land of the free, nobody tells me what kind of lightbulbs to buy. I'm glad you're pissed that Howard didn't make you buy nice lightbulbs, but why didn't you buy them yourself?
^
LOL you are being gay and prentious now.
Its up to both individuals AND the government. In Australia, over those past 11-years it was ONLY people outside the government who were doing anything environmentally conscious, the people the only ones giving a damn, while our government purposefully ignored the issue due to commercial pressure.
I agree with the Republican notions of freedom from government interference and personal responsibility, however, government still needs to play a role, in making laws, policy and regulations in the public and national interest, if there are only people doing things without government backing, changes don't go very far, until elections at least and even then, elections are not always won on issues that entirely represent the national interest, elections may be won on issues specifically highlighted by the major lobby groups and media power-brokers, not issues more related to the actual national interest of the people and the nation. Howard managed to stay elected over issues primarily economic and security related, the environment was an issue overlooked by him, but not the opposition who unfortunately blundered the issue over and over. In Australia, we have water-restrictions, the government tells us when we may water our gardens and how we may use water, from a Republican view, isn't that infringing on people's personal freedom? In some ways it is but, it is government power exercised in the national interest, so it is justified in the people's and the nation's best interest, same goes for the environment in my opinion, it does no good in the national interest to destroy our environment, infact it is in the national interest to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels and reduce our consumption of energy and find more efficient ways to use power and reduce waste of energy, therefore it is/was a government responsibility aswell as a personal one, to use energy saving lightbulbs (which government buildings do anyway) among many many many other things.
It matters little now however, we finally have a government elected to power more conscious of the environment.