| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
ianrcrane
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 12 Nov 2005
Posts: 352
Location: Devon
|
 Posted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 9:52 pm Post subject: Global Cooling is here |
 |
|
Four sources say we are in a period of Global Cooling
January 2008 was an exceptional month for our planet, with a significant cooling, especially since January 2007 started out well above normal.
January 2008 capped a 12 month period of global temperature drops on all of the major well respected indicators. I have reported in the past two weeks that HadCRUT, RSS, UAH, and GISS global temperature sets all show sharp drops in the last year.
See full article, including graphs HERE |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
acrobat74
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 03 Jun 2007
Posts: 836
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James C
Major Poster
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 10:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Although I've read quite a bit about climate change including stuff written by its critics I'm not convinced enough by any data to form a strong opinion as to its cause. Maybe it's because I don't find the subject to be very interesting. What I do accept and I believe the critics do too is that the globe has warmed significantly in the past few decades. In order that others may form an opinion and I know that Ian endorses the idea of individual assessment and research here are a couple of graphs from the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) which show global temperatures over the past 140 years and 1000 years respectively. As you'll see, there have been some real highs and real lows in readings over the years but temperatures have increased since the mid 70's and overall a very major rise has been experienced since the early 1900's. This should therefore put the article Ian has posted into some context even if we are to encounter a cooling period as suggested.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
acrobat74
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 03 Jun 2007
Posts: 836
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 10:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Lol it's funny graphs time I guess 
You forgot the other one that Nobelist Al Gore put up to demonstrate how closely CO2 matches temperature...
Only he compacted 750 million years onto the graph to make it look like the two lines fit exactly...
And forgot to tell his audience that CO2 follows the temperature with a lag of around 400 years
_________________
Summary of 9/11 scepticism: http://tinyurl.com/27ngaw6 and www.911summary.com
Off the TV: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4szU19bQVE
Those who do not think that employment is systemic slavery are either blind or employed. (Nassim Taleb)
www.moneyasdebt.net
http://www.positivemoney.org.uk/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Watcher
Validated Poster
Joined: 09 Aug 2006
Posts: 200
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 21, 2008 11:13 pm Post subject: Global Warming = Political Scam |
|
|
Weather Channel boss calls global warming 'the greatest scam in history'
By Our Foreign Staff
Last Updated: 11:01am GMT 09/11/2007
The founder of the The Weather Channel in the US has described the concept of global warming as 'the greatest scam in history' and accused global media of colluding with 'environmental extremists' to alarm the public.
- The deceit behind global warming
- Climate change is like 'World War Three'
"It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM," John Coleman wrote in an article published on ICECAP, the International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project, which is known for challenging widely published theories on global warming.
The maverick weather forecaster is known for his regular critic of widely accepted global warming theories. The Weather Channel broadcasts weather forecasts and weather-related news in the US 24 hours a day. His views challenge the consensus of the international science community that it is at least 90 per cent certain that temperatures will continue to rise, with average global surface temperature projected to increase by between 1.4 and 5.8ºC above 1990 levels by 2100.
This increase will be accompanied by rising sea levels, more intense precipitation events in some countries, increased risk of drought in others, and adverse effects on agriculture, health and water resources. A recent joint statement by the scientific academies of 17 countries, including the UK's Royal Society, endorsed the theory of climate change and dismissed doubts raised over the need for action to mitigate possible damage caused by climate change. "We do not consider such doubts justified," the group said in a joint statement, urging prompt action to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.
But Mr Colemen slams their views as part of a global conspiracy: "Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create in [sic] allusion of rapid global warming."
"Other scientists of the same environmental whacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the "research" to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going.
Soon they claimed to be a consensus. "Environmental extremists, notable politicians among them, then teamed up with movie, media and other liberal, environmentalist journalists to create this wild "scientific" scenario of the civilization threatening environmental consequences from Global Warming unless we adhere to their radical agenda.
"Now their ridiculous manipulated science has been accepted as fact and become a cornerstone issue for CNN, CBS, NBC, the Democratic Political Party, the Governor of California, school teachers and, in many cases, well informed but very gullible environmental conscientious citizens."Only one reporter at ABC has been allowed to counter the Global Warming frenzy with one 15 minutes documentary segment." He added: "I have read dozens of scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct."There is no run away climate change. The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril."
Source |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James C
Major Poster
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 22, 2008 10:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| acrobat74 wrote: | Lol it's funny graphs time I guess
You forgot the other one that Nobelist Al Gore put up to demonstrate how closely CO2 matches temperature...
Only he compacted 750 million years onto the graph to make it look like the two lines fit exactly...
And forgot to tell his audience that CO2 follows the temperature with a lag of around 400 years |
Did you bother to read what I said?
It doesn't matter what is causing global warming, the data shows it is happening whether that it is to do with CO2, the sun or cloud formation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
elohim
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 27 Nov 2006
Posts: 76
Location: Ipswich
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 22, 2008 12:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I haven't posted for a while here, but wanted to make 3 points here....
1) We can all post fancy computer generated graphs to show data we want, BUT, either way (warming or cooling) the trend cannot be said to be anything other than a natural cycle.
It seems sad I have to say this but the earth has always warmed and always cooled, for if it did not we would either be fried or frozen.
2) It is rather disturbing to read that James C was given the title of "9/11 truth critic" for simply having an opposing view of peak oil.
It is not the first time a poster has complained about this practice.
It leads me to question those who run this forum, are you simply childish or do you have an alternative motive for creating divisions?
3) The "chip In" fund. Great idea, but I am not surprised a grand total of 2 donations amounting to $10 is all you have to show.
What exactly am I supposed to be donating for?
It states you can do so much more, what exactly as a forum are you doing now.
A little more honesty here or clarity might encourage more to "chip in"?
EL |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 22, 2008 12:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | 2) It is rather disturbing to read that James C was given the title of "9/11 truth critic" for simply having an opposing view of peak oil.
It is not the first time a poster has complained about this practice.
It leads me to question those who run this forum, are you simply childish or do you have an alternative motive for creating divisions?
|
Well I was doing a thread clean up here but i'll give up and tackle this straight on: the application of that label to James C was an error that has been recitified, I wouldnt consider the people running this forum to be childish, though I suppose I have my moments, and I can certainly assure you that my motivations are the opposite of creating division
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stefan
Banned
Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 1219
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 22, 2008 12:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Why exactly can it "only be" natural?
People have always died - it doesn't mean they can only die of natural causes? It is a logical fallacy to say that since the climate naturally warms and cools that nothing we can do can influence it in any way.
I use the term "man-INFLUENCED-climate change" because to suggest that CO2 is the only factor seems a radically simplified position to hold.
There are some basic facst though -
CO2 is a green house gas.
By burning solid and liquid carbon we emit more CO2 gas into the atmosphere.
This increases the sum-total of green house gases.
This leads to more heat being trapped in the earths atmosphere.
What am I missing here?
_________________
Peace and Truth |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
acrobat74
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 03 Jun 2007
Posts: 836
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James C
Major Poster
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 22, 2008 1:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| acrobat74 wrote: | | James C wrote: | | It doesn't matter what is causing global warming, the data shows it is happening whether that it is to do with CO2, the sun or cloud formation. |
Fair enough, let's assume for a moment your position is true.
So allegedly the earth is warming up. What is it that you want? |
I don't want anything and as I've said above I don't really care (maybe I should but I don't). I guess I'd rather see some debate which surrounds the data on both sides of the argument rather than rash responses about how silly the graphs may appear. When people don't even know what AGW stands for, which I have found many times on this forum, you have to wonder why those people think they can contribute anything meaningful to the facts.
But if the current global warming is absolutely proven to be man-made (and I happen to think it will be) then I think we all have a duty to respond and not cry or moan about it just for the sake of it. Not everything in the world is a conspiracy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
acrobat74
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 03 Jun 2007
Posts: 836
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stefan
Banned
Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 1219
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 22, 2008 1:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
elohim, my only crime appears to be not putting [pp] after my paraphrasing - I don't see how the meaning of what you wrote has been changed significantly by my lazy wording; but if you genuinley think I have wronged you in some way then I apologise.
I am not suggesting "within my lifespan" btw - I am suggesting from the start of the industrial revolution to the present day with an eye to the future.
Your lengthy cut and paste did not tell me anything I have not heard before and it is as vacuous now as it ever has been. It makes the same strawman argument that has been made a thousand times before -
We need some greenhouse gasses to survive - of course we do - who is deneying this? It is their balance that is the issue.
As I say every time I enter this tiring and migrane forming "debate" - if 9/11 Truthers spent 1/1000th of the energy and time they do looking into the facts of 9/11 that they do looking into the facts of MICC they would surley have a different outlook.
Look into Barrett's links to the "Scientific Alliance" (and the history of that organisation) and it's companionship with the Exxon funded "George C Marshall Institute", and the funding of the many other think tanks which circulate these argumtns to the gullible. You will find neo-cons - you will find energy companies - you will find the new world order.
The con job which has been done on the truth movement is remarkable. The only thing I would ask people here is to look into the backgrounds, histories and funding of the induviduals and think tanks which deny MICC - follow the money to find the truth.
The key facts are perpetuallt ignored by deniers - is carbon a green house gas or not? Are we emmitting it or not?
If the answer to both questions is yes - what exactly is your argument for them not acting to trap more heat in the earth's atmosphere?
_________________
Peace and Truth |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rodin
Validated Poster
Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 2224
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 22, 2008 2:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Technical analysis of the chart of golbal warming
The inverse head and shoulders has fulfilled its temperature objective. Cooling starts soon towards a mini Ice Age
_________________
Belief is the Enemy of Truth www.dissential.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 22, 2008 7:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Look into Barrett's links to the "Scientific Alliance" (and the history of that organisation) and it's companionship with the Exxon funded "George C Marshall Institute", and the funding of the many other think tanks which circulate these argumtns to the gullible. You will find neo-cons - you will find energy companies - you will find the new world order. |
All so true
But the question I then go on to ask myself: did they create the situation or are they trying to manage/spin something outside their control?
I've yet to arrive at a conclusive answer
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stefan
Banned
Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 1219
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 23, 2008 1:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| John White wrote: | | Quote: | | Look into Barrett's links to the "Scientific Alliance" (and the history of that organisation) and it's companionship with the Exxon funded "George C Marshall Institute", and the funding of the many other think tanks which circulate these argumtns to the gullible. You will find neo-cons - you will find energy companies - you will find the new world order. |
All so true
But the question I then go on to ask myself: did they create the situation or are they trying to manage/spin something outside their control?
I've yet to arrive at a conclusive answer |
John,
Very good question. My opinion is this:
It is absolutley documented and concrete that oil companies and automobile companies have paid millions upon millions to journals, think tanks, researchers (conspiciously almost never climate experts - chemists, biologists, engineers - anyone with a "Dr" before their name would do) to deney MICC, that neo con think thanks have deneid it, the US government has denied it - all the people who are our natural enemies. This went on for a looooong time.
Why- because limiting carbon emmissions means limiting growth and growth is necceasery to continue to feed the debt based money system and to feed the bankers at the top.
It is clear that like we are now with 9/11 Truth - grass roots campaigners fought for years to get the issue into the mainstream and faced media blockades.
Now eventually the critical mass has grown and forced their hand - so they're working with it.
"sh*t OK they know it's happening now - so what do we do - we can't slow down carbon emitting industry - the whole system'll be f*cked... if growth slows down - and what about our personal shares and stakes in these companies???>"
"I KNOW! We send THEM on a massive guilt trip - in fact lets even make out its worse than it really is - we can generate a hysteria and tax the living day lights out of them - and the best thing is by taxing THEM - they'll think we're being responsible and doing something - they wont even notice we haven't even politley asked the corporations to stop or slow down emsisions"
"Woohoo!"
"And I'll tell you what as well - the really dangerous ones - the ones who know what we're really up to - they won't beleive for a second it's true if we tell them it is!"
"Yeah!"
Look noone would deny that the PTB are using MICC as a tool of fear and as an excuse to tax the people - but for christs sake they tried to use Madeline McCann as a launch pad for us to chip our children - as transparent as that are people claiming she never went missing - or even that she never existed in the first place?
The saddest thing is - I imagine us working tirelessly for years and finally reaching a critical mass with 9/11 truth only for a new generation to believe it MUST be bullsh*t - because it's generally accepted - and as we all know ANYTHING that's generally accepted MUST be false.
It makes me depressed...
_________________
Peace and Truth |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anthony Lawson
Validated Poster
Joined: 20 Feb 2007
Posts: 370
Location: Phuket, Thailand
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 23, 2008 5:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
Communicating
| James C wrote: | When people don't even know what AGW stands for, which I have found many times on this forum, you have to wonder why those people think they can contribute anything meaningful to the facts.
|
I think people can be forgiven for not knowing what AGW stands for. Here's what one can pick from.
AGW Access Gateway
AGW Accident Generated Water
AGW Actual Gross Weight
AGW All Going Well
AGW Allowable Gross Weight
AGW Alt.Games.Warbirds (forum)
AGW Anganwadi Worker (India)
AGW Anthropogenic Global Warming
AGW Application Gateway (telecom)
AGW Art Gallery of Windsor (Ontario, Canada)
AGW Atmospheric Gravity Waves
AGW Automatic Girth Welder
AGW Autonomous Guided Weapon
"AGW Anthropogenic Global Warming" is the one that fits this topic best, but how many of us use the word "anthropogenic" on a regular basis?
Acronyms and other abbreviations are jargon, and not readily understood by people who do not use them every day.
I once found a British educational website (let's say it was BAEF) and asked them for a translation of the acronyms and initials they used. There were over one thousand of them, but there was one missing.
Their own. (British Adult Education Foundation)
If you are interested in making yourself understood: Spell it out.
_________________
The truth won't set you free, but identifying the liars could help make the world a better place. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blackcat
Validated Poster
Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 2376
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 23, 2008 5:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | how many of us use the word "anthropogenic" on a regular basis?
|
All the sesquipedalians among us!
_________________
"The conflict between corporations and activists is that of narcolepsy versus remembrance. The corporations have money, power and influence. Our sole influence is public outrage. Extract from "Cloud Atlas (page 125) by David Mitchell. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blackcat
Validated Poster
Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 2376
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 23, 2008 6:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_artic le_id=541748&in_page_id=1770
| Quote: | | We're all doomed! 40 years from global catastrophe - and there's NOTHING we can do about it, says climate change expert |
Full story at above link. Its in the Daily mail so it must be true.
_________________
"The conflict between corporations and activists is that of narcolepsy versus remembrance. The corporations have money, power and influence. Our sole influence is public outrage. Extract from "Cloud Atlas (page 125) by David Mitchell. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James C
Major Poster
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 23, 2008 9:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The problem I have with the whole global warming issue is that us, as human beings, are going to carry on burning anything we can find to give us the energy we need until it's all gone - oil, coal, gas, etc, etc. So, if carbon is the problem and it's true that global warming is anthropogenic, then we are all f*cked anyway regardless of how we live our lives. I mean, I could lead the lowest carbon lifestyle possible and all over the globe, the oil, coal and gas will carry on being burnt until there is no more because every country's economy is based upon doing just that. It doesn't really matter if we emit carbon fast or slow (and follow Kyoto agreements) since the carbon already in the atmosphere won't drop for many many decades and so the net amount in the atmosphere will go on increasing regardless. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
acrobat74
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 03 Jun 2007
Posts: 836
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 23, 2008 10:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| James C wrote: | | I mean, I could lead the lowest carbon lifestyle possible and all over the globe, the oil, coal and gas will carry on being burnt until there is no more because every country's economy is based upon doing just that. |
That's the 'my individual actions have no significance' fallacy. Wrong. They do, in more ways than you can imagine.
If you believe in this cause, you should go for it.
On the other hand at the moment I don't, so I'll still go back to my pasta instead (yeah I also have it for breakfast nowadays, making up for lost time, had stopped producing water vapour for a while  ). And hey, I thought you didn't care?
_________________
Summary of 9/11 scepticism: http://tinyurl.com/27ngaw6 and www.911summary.com
Off the TV: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4szU19bQVE
Those who do not think that employment is systemic slavery are either blind or employed. (Nassim Taleb)
www.moneyasdebt.net
http://www.positivemoney.org.uk/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 23, 2008 11:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Stefan wrote: | | John White wrote: | | Quote: | | Look into Barrett's links to the "Scientific Alliance" (and the history of that organisation) and it's companionship with the Exxon funded "George C Marshall Institute", and the funding of the many other think tanks which circulate these argumtns to the gullible. You will find neo-cons - you will find energy companies - you will find the new world order. |
All so true
But the question I then go on to ask myself: did they create the situation or are they trying to manage/spin something outside their control?
I've yet to arrive at a conclusive answer |
John,
Very good question. My opinion is this:
It is absolutley documented and concrete that oil companies and automobile companies have paid millions upon millions to journals, think tanks, researchers (conspiciously almost never climate experts - chemists, biologists, engineers - anyone with a "Dr" before their name would do) to deney MICC, that neo con think thanks have deneid it, the US government has denied it - all the people who are our natural enemies. This went on for a looooong time.
Why- because limiting carbon emmissions means limiting growth and growth is necceasery to continue to feed the debt based money system and to feed the bankers at the top.
It is clear that like we are now with 9/11 Truth - grass roots campaigners fought for years to get the issue into the mainstream and faced media blockades.
Now eventually the critical mass has grown and forced their hand - so they're working with it.
"sh*t OK they know it's happening now - so what do we do - we can't slow down carbon emitting industry - the whole system'll be f*cked... if growth slows down - and what about our personal shares and stakes in these companies???>"
"I KNOW! We send THEM on a massive guilt trip - in fact lets even make out its worse than it really is - we can generate a hysteria and tax the living day lights out of them - and the best thing is by taxing THEM - they'll think we're being responsible and doing something - they wont even notice we haven't even politley asked the corporations to stop or slow down emsisions"
"Woohoo!"
"And I'll tell you what as well - the really dangerous ones - the ones who know what we're really up to - they won't beleive for a second it's true if we tell them it is!"
"Yeah!"
Look noone would deny that the PTB are using MICC as a tool of fear and as an excuse to tax the people - but for christs sake they tried to use Madeline McCann as a launch pad for us to chip our children - as transparent as that are people claiming she never went missing - or even that she never existed in the first place?
The saddest thing is - I imagine us working tirelessly for years and finally reaching a critical mass with 9/11 truth only for a new generation to believe it MUST be bullsh*t - because it's generally accepted - and as we all know ANYTHING that's generally accepted MUST be false.
It makes me depressed... |
Your view seems quite likely to hold a lot of the truth to me
I suppose over the last few years I have steadily moved away from the view of a "they" who control everything to a multiple "them" who desperatly do their best to influence as much of everything as they can, who in part manufacture elements of the Zeitgeist, but who also ride the waves of the Zeitgeist as hard and as far as they can
Underlying both the global warming "anthopogenic" argument and the energy/peak oil/alternative energy argument are the fundamental facts of the state of the ecosystem: facts so fundamental that they are lost in the noise of debate over facets of the symptoms of the problem, not the problem itself. We hide this even further under terms like "loss of biodiversity" when the base line truth is the very matrix of life on this planet is being undone, and regardless of what causes global warming, that comes down 100% to human activity
We still have a society essentially based on the slave mentality of Babylon and Egypt, where the masses must be kept buisy busy busy at all costs. Of course as it has become nessacary to educate the masses more to for a technologucal society it has also become nessacary, in fact, absolutley fundamental essential, to distract the masses
I see most jobs performed in the world today as precisely that: distractions: essential distractions to those in power still carrying a Pharonic ego complex simply becuase that is the one perception they cannot survive the majority becoming consciously aware of
The result is a mass of psychologically manipulated and programmed people 100% engaged in a system whose only purpose is to taek the finite limited resources of the planet, turn it into junk, and then systematically dismantle the ecosystem as a direct result of the waste produced by that process
It is a rational inevitability that in a closed system (like the planetary biosphere) such imbalanced and destructive behaviour can only create escalating imbalance and destruction
It isn't if but when that tipping point will be reached and ultimately the cause of global warming or the nature of the energy crisis/addiction of the human race is irrelevant until that basic perception of who we are and what the f*ck we think we are doing here changes
Ultimately although I hope like buggery that some rennaisance may be inspired throughout humanity there is little I can do but trust and hope in fate that a massive, or maybe even final, catastophy can be avoided
In that James C is right that it makes little difference whether or not i use low energy light bulbs or mid my carbon emmisions
But a little difference is still A difference and no man can see all ends
What else can we do but try?
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
acrobat74
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 03 Jun 2007
Posts: 836
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 23, 2008 12:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| John White wrote: | We still have a society essentially based on the slave mentality of Babylon and Egypt, where the masses must be kept buisy busy busy at all costs. Of course as it has become nessacary to educate the masses more to for a technologucal society it has also become nessacary, in fact, absolutley fundamental essential, to distract the masses
I see most jobs performed in the world today as precisely that: distractions: essential distractions to those in power still carrying a Pharonic ego complex simply becuase that is the one perception they cannot survive the majority becoming consciously aware of |
Right on.
| John White wrote: | The result is a mass of psychologically manipulated and programmed people 100% engaged in a system whose only purpose is to taek the finite limited resources of the planet
|
Just a thought: was uranium considered to be a resource 100 years ago? Is hydrogen finite?
My point is: the list of 'finite limited resources' may be incomplete for all we know. But I see what you're saying. I'd be interested to see how you'd sell your argument to an African kid though.
| John White wrote: | | It isn't if but when that tipping point will be reached and ultimately the cause of global warming or the nature of the energy crisis/addiction of the human race is irrelevant until that basic perception of who we are and what the f*ck we think we are doing here changes |
Agreed, the overall problem is more philosophical than anything else. The challenge is to become who we are.
_________________
Summary of 9/11 scepticism: http://tinyurl.com/27ngaw6 and www.911summary.com
Off the TV: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4szU19bQVE
Those who do not think that employment is systemic slavery are either blind or employed. (Nassim Taleb)
www.moneyasdebt.net
http://www.positivemoney.org.uk/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blackcat
Validated Poster
Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 2376
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 23, 2008 3:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id= 233&Itemid=1
| Quote: | CLIMATE FACTS TO WARM TO
"Whenever there's any sort of weather event that can be linked into the global warming orthodoxy, it's put on the front page. But a fact like that, which is that global warming stopped a decade ago, is virtually never reported, which is extraordinary." - Op-ed in The Australian
Christopher Pearson | March 22, 2008 in The Australian
CATASTROPHIC predictions of global warming usually conjure with the notion of a tipping point, a point of no return.
Last Monday - on ABC Radio National, of all places - there was a tipping point of a different kind in the debate on climate change. It was a remarkable interview involving the co-host of Counterpoint, Michael Duffy and Jennifer Marohasy, a biologist and senior fellow of Melbourne-based think tank the Institute of Public Affairs. Anyone in public life who takes a position on the greenhouse gas hypothesis will ignore it at their peril.
Duffy asked Marohasy: "Is the Earth stillwarming?"
She replied: "No, actually, there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of reference. If you take 2002 as your point of reference, then temperatures have plateaued. This is certainly not what you'd expect if carbon dioxide is driving temperature because carbon dioxide levels have been increasing but temperatures have actually been coming down over the last 10 years."
Duffy: "Is this a matter of any controversy?"
Marohasy: "Actually, no. The head of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has actually acknowledged it. He talks about the apparent plateau in temperatures so far this century. So he recognises that in this century, over the past eight years, temperatures have plateaued ... This is not what you'd expect, as I said, because if carbon dioxide is driving temperature then you'd expect that, given carbon dioxide levels have been continuing to increase, temperatures should be going up ... So (it's) very unexpected, not something that's being discussed. It should be being discussed, though, because it's very significant."
Duffy: "It's not only that it's not discussed. We never hear it, do we? Whenever there's any sort of weather event that can be linked into the global warming orthodoxy, it's put on the front page. But a fact like that, which is that global warming stopped a decade ago, is virtually never reported, which is extraordinary."
Duffy then turned to the question of how the proponents of the greenhouse gas hypothesis deal with data that doesn't support their case. "People like Kevin Rudd and Ross Garnaut are speaking as though the Earth is still warming at an alarming rate, but what is the argument from the other side? What would people associated with the IPCC say to explain the (temperature) dip?"
Marohasy: "Well, the head of the IPCC has suggested natural factors are compensating for the increasing carbon dioxide levels and I guess, to some extent, that's what sceptics have been saying for some time: that, yes, carbon dioxide will give you some warming but there are a whole lot of other factors that may compensate or that may augment the warming from elevated levels of carbon dioxide.
"There's been a lot of talk about the impact of the sun and that maybe we're going to go through or are entering a period of less intense solar activity and this could be contributing to the current cooling."
Duffy: "Can you tell us about NASA's Aqua satellite, because I understand some of the data we're now getting is quite important in our understanding of how climate works?"
Marohasy: "That's right. The satellite was only launched in 2002 and it enabled the collection of data, not just on temperature but also on cloud formation and water vapour. What all the climate models suggest is that, when you've got warming from additional carbon dioxide, this will result in increased water vapour, so you're going to get a positive feedback. That's what the models have been indicating. What this great data from the NASA Aqua satellite ... (is) actually showing is just the opposite, that with a little bit of warming, weather processes are compensating, so they're actually limiting the greenhouse effect and you're getting a negative rather than a positive feedback."
Duffy: "The climate is actually, in one way anyway, more robust than was assumed in the climate models?"
Marohasy: "That's right ... These findings actually aren't being disputed by the meteorological community. They're having trouble digesting the findings, they're acknowledging the findings, they're acknowledging that the data from NASA's Aqua satellite is not how the models predict, and I think they're about to recognise that the models really do need to be overhauled and that when they are overhauled they will probably show greatly reduced future warming projected as a consequence of carbon dioxide."
Duffy: "From what you're saying, it sounds like the implications of this could beconsiderable ..."
Marohasy: "That's right, very much so. The policy implications are enormous. The meteorological community at the moment is really just coming to terms with the output from this NASA Aqua satellite and (climate scientist) Roy Spencer's interpretation of them. His work is published, his work is accepted, but I think people are still in shock at this point."
If Marohasy is anywhere near right about the impending collapse of the global warming paradigm, life will suddenly become a whole lot more interesting.
A great many founts of authority, from the Royal Society to the UN, most heads of government along with countless captains of industry, learned professors, commentators and journalists will be profoundly embarrassed. Let us hope it is a prolonged and chastening experience.
With catastrophe off the agenda, for most people the fog of millennial gloom will lift, at least until attention turns to the prospect of the next ice age. Among the better educated, the sceptical cast of mind that is the basis of empiricism will once again be back in fashion. The delusion that by recycling and catching public transport we can help save the planet will quickly come to be seen for the childish nonsense it was all along.
The poorest Indians and Chinese will be left in peace to work their way towards prosperity, without being badgered about the size of their carbon footprint, a concept that for most of us will soon be one with Nineveh and Tyre, clean forgotten in six months.
The scores of town planners in Australia building empires out of regulating what can and can't be built on low-lying shorelines will have to come to terms with the fact inundation no longer impends and find something more plausible to do. The same is true of the bureaucrats planning to accommodate "climate refugees".
Penny Wong's climate mega-portfolio will suddenly be as ephemeral as the ministries for the year 2000 that state governments used to entrust to junior ministers. Malcolm Turnbull will have to reinvent himself at vast speed as a climate change sceptic and the Prime Minister will have to kiss goodbye what he likes to call the great moral issue and policy challenge of our times.
It will all be vastly entertaining to watch.
THE Age published an essay with an environmental theme by Ian McEwan on March 8 and its stablemate, The Sydney Morning Herald, also carried a slightly longer version of the same piece.
The Australian's Cut & Paste column two days later reproduced a telling paragraph from the Herald's version, which suggested that McEwan was a climate change sceptic and which The Age had excised. He was expanding on the proposition that "we need not only reliable data but their expression in the rigorous use of statistics".
What The Age decided to spare its readers was the following: "Well-meaning intellectual movements, from communism to post-structuralism, have a poor history of absorbing inconvenient fact or challenges to fundamental precepts. We should not ignore or suppress good indicators on the environment, though they have become extremely rare now. It is tempting to the layman to embrace with enthusiasm the latest bleak scenario because it fits the darkness of our soul, the prevailing cultural pessimism. The imagination, as Wallace Stevens once said, is always at the end of an era. But we should be asking, or expecting others to ask, for the provenance of the data, the assumptions fed into the computer model, the response of the peer review community, and so on. Pessimism is intellectually delicious, even thrilling, but the matter before us is too serious for mere self-pleasuring. It would be self-defeating if the environmental movement degenerated into a religion of gloomy faith. (Faith, ungrounded certainty, is no virtue.)"
The missing sentences do not appear anywhere else in The Age's version of the essay. The attribution reads: "Copyright Ian McEwan 2008" and there is no acknowledgment of editing by The Age.
Why did the paper decide to offer its readers McEwan lite? Was he, I wonder, consulted on the matter? And isn't there a nice irony that The Age chose to delete the line about ideologues not being very good at "absorbing inconvenient fact"?
Last Updated ( Saturday, 22 March 2008 ) |
Could the "Global Warming" industry be just as big a pack of lies as the official 9/11 story???
_________________
"The conflict between corporations and activists is that of narcolepsy versus remembrance. The corporations have money, power and influence. Our sole influence is public outrage. Extract from "Cloud Atlas (page 125) by David Mitchell. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
uselesseater
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 21 Sep 2005
Posts: 629
Location: Leeds
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 4:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Stefan wrote: |
There are some basic facst though -
CO2 is a green house gas.
|
I think you are over simpifying Stefan. Simply saying it's a greenhouse gas and then drawing the conclusion that our emmissions must be contributing to global warning is jumping to unsupported conclusions.
You need to know what concentrations translate into what reflection of radiation back towards the earth, if there is a threshold, what negative feedback mechanisms come into play etc...
For example, you might only get a significant greenhouse effect when Co2 concentrations reach 1000ppm.
To simply say Co2 is a greehouse gas therefore human emmissions are contributing is not sound.
_________________
www.wytruth.org.uk
www.myspace.com/truthleeds |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
acrobat74
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 03 Jun 2007
Posts: 836
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2008 7:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
http://www.lindafrum.com/NewsDetail.aspx?newsid=74
| Quote: | This Earth Day, Professor Richard Lindzen, an atmospheric physicist and the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT, wants you to calm down. The Earth, he says, is in good shape. "Forests are returning in Europe and the United States. Air quality has improved. Water quality has improved. We grow more food on less land. We've done a reasonably good job in much of the world in conquering hunger. And yet we're acting as though: "How can we stand any more of this?" A leading critic on the theory of man-made global warming, Professor Lindzen has developed a reputation as America's anti-doom-andgloom scientist. And he's not, he says, as lonely as you might think.
Q You don't dispute that the globe is warming?
A It has never been an issue of whether the Earth is warming -- because it's always warming or cooling. The issue is: What are the magnitudes involved? It's a big difference if it's warming a degree or two or 10, or if it's warming a few tenths of a degree.
Q And it's inconclusive how much it's warming?
A Sure it's inconclusive. It's a very hard thing to analyze because you have to average huge fluctuations over the whole Earth, and 70% of the Earth is oceans where you don't have weather stations. So you get different groups analyzing this. And they're pretty close. One group gets over the last century a warming of about .55 degrees centigrade. Another group says it's .75 degrees.
Q Is there any scenario in which global warming could be beneficial for the planet?
A Of course. Canada looks like it will benefit considerably if it were to happen. And it might very well happen -- but it won't be due to man.
Q You charge that the hysteria that's been created around global warming is an enormous financial scam. It's all about money?
A Well, how shall I put it? It's not all about money, but boy, there's a lot of money floating in it. I mean, emissions trading is going to be a multi-trillion dollar market. Emissions alone would keep small countries in business.
Q Are you suggesting that scientists manipulate their findings to get in on the gravy train?
A You have to differentiate the interests of different groups. In the scientific community, your interest is for your field to be recognized so that it will have priority in government funding.
Q So you are not accusing your scientific colleagues of corruption?
A No, I'm accusing them of behaving the way scientists always behave. In other words, some years ago, when Richard Nixon declared war on cancer, almost all the biological sciences then became cancer research. I mean, I don't call that corruption, I'm saying you orient your research so that it has a better chance to get resources.
Q And i thelps if your findings suggest something catastrophic is about to happen?
A In this case it certainly has helped. First of all, the funding increased so greatly that it exceeded the capacity of the existing field to absorb it. You'll notice that Working Group 2 of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change came up with lots of scary things, but everything was always preceded by could, might, may, all these qualifiers. And the reason it was is those studies start out assuming there's a lot of warming. They assume all the science is in, and then they say, 'Well, how will this impact my field of insect-borne diseases, or agriculture, or health?' So they are almost, by definition, going to generate catastrophic scenarios, but they will never be based on anything other than the hypothesis that this will already happen.
Q I read that you betone of your colleagues that the Earth will actually be colder 20 years from now?
A I haven't bet on it, but I figure the odds are about 50-50.
If you look at the temperature record for the globe over the last six years, it's gone no place. That's usually the way it behaves before it goes down. In fact, I suspect that's why you have this tsunami of exposure the last two years, with Gore's movie and so on. I think that this issue has been around long enough to generate a lot of agendas, and looking at the temperature records there must be a fear that if they don't get the agendas covered now, they may never get them.
Q Did you watch Al Gore ge this Academy Award?
A No! Bad enough I watched his movie.
Q He would appear to have the support of the majority of your scientific colleagues.
A Not really. This is an issue that has hundreds of aspects. The very thought that a large number of scientists all agree on everything is inconceivable. Among my colleagues, I would say, almost no one thinks that Gore's movie is reasonable. But there will be differences. Some believe it is possible that warming could be a serious problem. Others think it's very unlikely. People are all over the place.
Q Some suggest that Roger Revelle, Gore's scientific mentor, would not have agreed with the movie?
A Well, he's dead.
Q Yes. So that makes it harder for him to speak out.
A It's a horrible story. Before he died, Roger Revelle co-authored a popular paper saying, 'We know too little to take any action based on global warming. If we take any action it should be an action that we can justify completely without global warming.' And Gore's staffers tried to have his name posthumously removed from that paper claiming he had been senile. And one of the other authors took it to court and won. It's funny how little coverage that got.
Q How cynical do you think Gore is?
A It's hard for me to tell. I think he's either cynical or crazy. But he has certainly cashed in on something. And 'cash in' is the word. The movie has cleared $50-million. He charges $100,000-$150,000 a lecture. He's co-founder of Global Investment Management, which invests in solar and wind and so on. So he is literally shilling for his own companies. And he's on the on the board of Lehman Brothers who want to be the primary brokerage for emission permits.
Q That sounds more cynical, less crazy.
A I think his aim is not to be president. It's to be a billionaire.
Q What do you find to be the attitude among your MIT undergraduates on global warming?
A I find that they realize they don't know enough to reach judgments. They all realize that Gore's book was a sham. They appreciate that Michael Crichton at least included references.
Q That's encouraging. Because I find the indoctrination at schools to be pretty relentless. On a recent Grade 7 test my daughter was asked something to the effect of, "How are you going to educate your parents about global warming?"
A I know. It's straight out of Hitlerjugend.
Q Having said that, are there any behaviours we should be changing, as a society, in order to protect our planet?
A Yes. We should learn math and physics so we don't get fooled by this idiocy. |
_________________
Summary of 9/11 scepticism: http://tinyurl.com/27ngaw6 and www.911summary.com
Off the TV: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4szU19bQVE
Those who do not think that employment is systemic slavery are either blind or employed. (Nassim Taleb)
www.moneyasdebt.net
http://www.positivemoney.org.uk/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James C
Major Poster
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
acrobat74
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 03 Jun 2007
Posts: 836
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 6:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What utter bol*ks.
You accuse an MIT professor of being an Exxon lackey based on what evidence?
And why don't you address the essence of his position but rather try to call him names? If this isn't an ad-hominem then what is?
So for a moment let's follow your path: let's ignore the essence of Lindzen's claims and let's look at this terrible 'ExxonSecrets' stuff:
#1
| ExxonSecretes wrote: | | His opinions are cited throughout the ExxonMobil funded groups and he regularly appears at events organised by them. |
A. So allegedly his opinions are cited and he attends events. And?
B. Where's the evidence for all this?
#2
| ExxonSecretes wrote: | | Ross Gelbspan reported in 1995 that Lindzen "charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; |
So allegedly he does consulting work for the oil and coal industries.
A. Assuming this is true: so what?
B. Where's the evidence for this?
#3
| ExxonSecretes wrote: | | his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels, |
That's one trip 17 years ago?
And what is Western Fuels?
http://www.westernfuels.org/
| Quote: | | Western Fuels is a not-for profit cooperative that supplies coal and transportation services to consumer-owned electric utilities throughout the Great Plains, |
#4
| ExxonSecretes wrote: | and a speech he wrote, entitled 'Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,' was underwritten by OPEC."
|
So allegedly a speech he wrote was supported by OPEC. And?
Assuming for a moment that all these allegations (for that's what they are) are true, one can hardly accept they are reason to call the man a lackey, no?
How does all this tie up with your claim that...
| James C wrote: | | (Lindzen) is paid a few thousand dollars a day to say whatever the oil companies (particularly Exxon) want him to say. |
Please provide sufficient evidence to prove your claim, otherwise it'd be wise of you to retract; I suggest you also think if you'd utter your claim in the presence of Dr. Lindzen.
_________________
Summary of 9/11 scepticism: http://tinyurl.com/27ngaw6 and www.911summary.com
Off the TV: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4szU19bQVE
Those who do not think that employment is systemic slavery are either blind or employed. (Nassim Taleb)
www.moneyasdebt.net
http://www.positivemoney.org.uk/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James C
Major Poster
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 7:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| acrobat74 wrote: |
What utter bol*ks.
You accuse an MIT professor of being an Exxon lackey based on what evidence?
And why don't you address the essence of his position but rather try to call him names? If this isn't an ad-hominem then what is?
So for a moment let's follow your path: let's ignore the essence of Lindzen's claims and let's look at this terrible 'ExxonSecrets' stuff:
#1
| ExxonSecretes wrote: | | His opinions are cited throughout the ExxonMobil funded groups and he regularly appears at events organised by them. |
A. So allegedly his opinions are cited and he attends events. And?
B. Where's the evidence for all this?
#2
| ExxonSecretes wrote: | | Ross Gelbspan reported in 1995 that Lindzen "charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; |
So allegedly he does consulting work for the oil and coal industries.
A. Assuming this is true: so what?
B. Where's the evidence for this?
#3
| ExxonSecretes wrote: | | his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels, |
That's one trip 17 years ago?
And what is Western Fuels?
http://www.westernfuels.org/
| Quote: | | Western Fuels is a not-for profit cooperative that supplies coal and transportation services to consumer-owned electric utilities throughout the Great Plains, |
#4
| ExxonSecretes wrote: | and a speech he wrote, entitled 'Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,' was underwritten by OPEC."
|
So allegedly a speech he wrote was supported by OPEC. And?
Assuming for a moment that all these allegations (for that's what they are) are true, one can hardly accept they are reason to call the man a lackey, no?
How does all this tie up with your claim that...
| James C wrote: | | (Lindzen) is paid a few thousand dollars a day to say whatever the oil companies (particularly Exxon) want him to say. |
Please provide sufficient evidence to prove your claim, otherwise it'd be wise of you to retract; I suggest you also think if you'd utter your claim in the presence of Dr. Lindzen. |
Oooh, touchy! You're not Professor Lindzen are you?
http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/Lindzen.htm
and there's some good evidence here.
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/4/13/114644/561
Don't forget, this is the man who also claims there is no link between passive smoking and lung cancer which is amazing when you consider he is an atmospheric physicist and not medically trained. Perhaps the (financial) backing of Philip Morris helped his thinking in some way?
One of Lindzen's arguments about climate change science is that it is being funded by those who want to promote global warming! Pot, kettle and black come to mind although I have no proof that his assertion is true. Does Lindzen? Do you?
And as for your comments concerning Western Fuels, your hypocrisy is profound and deeply concerning. I wonder how many times you have made assertions about Cheney and Bush based upon their associations? Well here is a group whose interest is promoting the coal industry. Do you think they want anything to stand in the way of that? Hence the reason they fund the Greening Earth Society of which Lindzen is an advisor. Go check this out for yourself instead of moaning like a child.
Last edited by James C on Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:45 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
zennon
Moderate Poster
Joined: 28 Nov 2006
Posts: 161
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jesus Christ, this thread is chock full of junk science.
For the love of God, please read "Heat" by George Monbiot. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
