9/11, 7/7, Covid-1984 & the War on Freedom :: View topic

FAQ

Memberlist

Chat

Usergroups

Calendar

Profile

Is Climate Change really man-made?
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 15, 16, 17 ... 62, 63, 64 Next

9/11, 7/7, Covid-1984 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> The Bigger Picture

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

item7
Moderate Poster

Joined: 20 Sep 2008
Posts: 641

Posted: Tue May 05, 2009 9:39 am Post subject:

http://www.petitionproject.org/

Quote:

Global Warming Petition Project

31,478 American scientists have signed this petition,
including 9,029 with PhDs

_________________
Tooth Fairy denier
Santa Clause Denier
Man-made Climate Change Denier

GodSaveTheTeam
Moderator

Joined: 30 Nov 2006
Posts: 575
Location: the eyevolution

Posted: Tue May 05, 2009 2:33 pm Post subject:

I'm still undecided about anthropomorphic climate change. But I have to say it's f***ing freezing round 'ere for May.

James C
Major Poster

Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046

Posted: Tue May 05, 2009 3:49 pm Post subject:

item7 wrote:

http://www.petitionproject.org/

Quote:

Global Warming Petition Project

31,478 American scientists have signed this petition,
including 9,029 with PhDs

Keep up item7, this has already been discussed and debunked. The Oregon petition is a scam using Exxon money and most of the so called scientists are merely people with degrees from any discipline (I have one degree and 2 post graduate diplomas from 5 years at university which enables me to see through this rubbish).

http://www.desmogblog.com/oregon-petition

scubadiver
Validated Poster

Joined: 26 Apr 2006
Posts: 1850
Location: Currently Andover

Posted: Thu May 07, 2009 5:49 am Post subject:

http://noteviljustwrong.com/

The true cost of global warming hysteria

Quote:

This is the film Al Gore and Hollywood doesn't want you to see. We are not yet a 501(c)(3) but are asking ordinary Americans to be part of cinematic history by making sure a documentary that finally tells the truth about their lives is shown across the nation. Al Gore has just closed two "green funds" after collecting almost three billion dollars and Barack Obama has raised $280m to promote his message. We have already raised almost $1m to make the documentary and want to set up an Obama style grassroots initiative to collect a further $3.5m so that those who want to use flawed science to raise our taxes and close our factories are made accountable. Send whatever you can to get the truth to our cinemas, newspapers and schools so that an issue that threatens to damage so many lives finally gets the debate it deserves.

_________________
Currently working on a new website

item7
Moderate Poster

Joined: 20 Sep 2008
Posts: 641

Posted: Thu May 07, 2009 6:12 am Post subject:

http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/scared.htm

Quote:

Our Gadarene generation

In every generation there have to be some fools
who will speak the truth as they see it.
Boris Pasternak

Scared to Death by Christopher Booker and Richard North, Continuum UK, 2007, ISBN 0 8264 8614 2.

First, a declaration of interest: this reviewer has in recent years published two books, one of which contains a chapter on “scares” and the other has “scares” in the subtitle. Even worse: he holds these two authors in high regard as heroes of the resistance, who cheerfully accept the obloquy that accompanies that role.

Their latest production is a typically detailed examination of the phenomenon that characterises our age more than any other, and one that returns us to the primitive state of our superstitious ancestors with their witch hunts, the global scare.

Authors such as your reviewer and James Le Fanu have contended that there was a sea change in western society that occurred in about 1982 and, sure enough, that is where this account begins. That was the year that the acronym AIDS was adopted and, by one of those ironic quirks of coincidence, on the very month that this book was issued the UN has finally admitted what the sceptics always knew, that it had grossly exaggerated the scale and nature of the epidemic. From that time on all hell broke loose, with an unending sequence of “disasters” – killer eggs, listeria hysteria, mad cows and human CJD, E. coli, The Millennium Bug, Satanic abuse, speed kills, lead, passive smoking, asbestos and finally the big one – Global Warming. This account spells out the progression, a lengthy tragicomedy of irony, incompetence and sheer perfidy. Each scare is analysed in terms of the pushers and the blockers through various stages.

There were so many factors that were common to these outbreaks, not least in the consequences. There was draconian legislation, the mass closure of viable productive businesses, multiplication of officials supported by the taxpayer, the enrichment of lawyers, stepwise erosion of human liberty etc., all based on little or no evidence. There were mysterious multipliers, in which one case became millions, as with the early scare of salmonella in eggs (in fact, subsequent extensive surveys failed to produce any cases at all).

Beneath it all, like the insistent beat of the ground bass of a poignant passacaglia, is the matter of cost. A billion here, seven billion there, and they are only the direct costs; even more significant is the continual shift of labour and resources from the economically productive sector to the parasitic elements of the regulatory system and the compensation culture. Have no doubt about it: scares have robbed this generation of the age of prosperity and freedom that was their birthright, for which their forefathers fought and died.

As an aside, what are the ingredients of this witches’ brew? Presiding are the international organisations, such as the UN and EU, riddled with fraud and corruption, unanswerable to democratic control or even the simple constraint of audited accounts, yet able to foist their policies on a world population who have no means of resistance. National parliaments are populated by a new generation of professional politicians, most of whom have never done a real job in their lives, hyperactively feathering their own nests, while indolently yielding to the most vocal pressure groups. Journalists, too lazy to gather information for themselves, reproducing without question and virtually unedited the press releases of activists (look at your newspaper and ask yourself: how does, say, the environmental editor justify his pay for a week’s work?). As always, there are the lawyers, particularly in America, who will ruthlessly turn any opportunity to their financial advantage, regardless of the cost to human society. Then, as the driving engine, there are the activists themselves. They are a collection of the amorphous new left; remnants of various groups, such as the anti-war, socially-parasitic hippies, the communists made homeless by the collapse of the Soviet Union, people who simply get their kicks out of ordering others around and many, many others. They have adopted, with great success it has to be admitted, the Trotskyite tactic of entryism. In Britain, almost unbelievably, they have taken control of such bastions of traditional values as the Royal Society and the Conservative Party. They practise the rigorous enforcement of Political Correctness (regulated human behaviour as they alone deem to be appropriate) and their totem is “The Environment”, not the real environment that many of us fought for in the days of real pollution, but a theoretical concept that just happens to conform to their prejudice. This prejudice, above all, is against industry, economic progress and even, at the extreme, humanity itself......................

If there is one area in which your reviewer takes a view that is divergent from that of these authors, it is in the role that Britain played in the Mother of all Scares. Sir Crispin Tickell and Margaret Thatcher just get a passing mention. Tickell, a history graduate and diplomat, closely involved with the European Commission and later permanent representative to the United Nations, author of Climatic Change and World Affairs, 1977, was a close advisor to Thatcher, who, with the unique authority of being a political leader and a science graduate, under the influence of Tickell launched Global Warming into the world political domain. If there is a “Typhoid Mary” that spread the contagion of global warming around the world it can only be Tickell; he was closely involved with the very international institutions that promoted it. Thatcher was at war with the Miners’ union and the oil sheiks and was determined to press the case for nuclear power. As so often happened, her tactical manoeuvres defeated her strategic aims. She fostered the creation of a movement that opposed everything she stood for. Revisionists deny that she was all that enthusiastic in the promotion of global warming. Take it from one who sat it the front row at a major speech she made, this is not so; or, failing that, take it from her then loyal lieutenant, Nigel Lawson. She established the Hadley Centre, designed to manufacture evidence for global warming, at the expense of funds diverted with great damage from real science, and subverted the Royal Society by putting money on the table for the same purpose. The Hadley Centre became a main engine for the UN IPCC, which imposed the global warming religion on the world.

Global warming is the scare that is the climax of this book. It is both unique and typical. It is unique in that economic failure is not just a by-product of the scare, it is the whole raison d’être. It is promoted by interests who oppose everything that would enhance the economic well-being of mankind (for example, realistic sources of energy as opposed to those that are intermittent, impracticable and only sustainable by grotesque levels of subsidy). It is typical in employing all the manoeuvres that have sustained the previous, less durable scares; i.e. selecting favourable data while ignoring more credible adverse data, practising overt and covert censorship, mounting ad hominem attacks on opponents, recruiting “scientists” to serve its purposes with public funds, while without evidence gratuitously accusing critics of receiving handouts from hated industrial sources, putting the frighteners on ill-informed ordinary people and so on. Scientifically this scare is dead in the water, even the measurement evidence of any warming occurring at all fades away on examination, but the weaker their case becomes the more fervently the faithful cling to their belief and the more bitter the bile they direct at infidels.

A notable omission in this treatment is salt, a scare of unusual purity that is based on ignoring not only a mass of scientific evidence but also known human physiology, which appears to serve no purpose other than the glorification of the pushers and their satisfaction in coercing other people.

This is a book that should be compulsory reading for every politician and journalist, but of course it won’t be. People are comfortable with their own acquired prejudices. Those in public life find it easier to go with the flow. They see those who step out of line vilified and ostracised.

John Brignell

November 2007

_________________
Tooth Fairy denier
Santa Clause Denier
Man-made Climate Change Denier

item7
Moderate Poster

Joined: 20 Sep 2008
Posts: 641

Posted: Thu May 07, 2009 6:21 am Post subject:

"31,478 American scientists have signed this petition,
including 9,029 with PhDs "

James C wrote:

The Oregon petition is a scam using Exxon money and most of the so called scientists are merely people with degrees from any discipline (I have one degree and 2 post graduate diplomas from 5 years at university which enables me to see through this rubbish).

What has Exxon money got to do with it? An oil company has an interest in preventing the global warming scam from damaging its interests! Shock horror!! Why don't they just let the "man-made global warming" liars destroy them?

Of course your qualifications enable you to dismiss the views of 9,029 PhDs. Your insight is as wonderful as your proven intellect. Strange that your abilities disappear when faced with the blatant pile of lies that the scammers push to spread the made-up alarm of "climate change".
_________________
Tooth Fairy denier
Santa Clause Denier
Man-made Climate Change Denier

James C
Major Poster

Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046

Posted: Thu May 07, 2009 12:45 pm Post subject:

item7 wrote:

"31,478 American scientists have signed this petition,
including 9,029 with PhDs "

James C wrote:

Exxon doesn't want to have to spend money to deal with the CO2 it creates - that's why!

There's no proof that 9,029 PhD students even completed the form because this petition is a proven scam. Why do you need to use a scam to prove another scam. As usual, you show major desperation.

QuitTheirClogs
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter

Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Posts: 630
Location: Manchester

Posted: Thu May 07, 2009 3:38 pm Post subject:

Exxon -- like all the other oil companies -- will get paid to dispose of CO2. And they’ll enjoy the additional bonus of getting more oil out of their oil wells. So why do you persist with this garbage about the oil companies being opposed to the global warming scam?

James C wrote:

Exxon doesn't want to have to spend money to deal with the CO2 it creates - that's why!

QuitTheirClogs wrote:

James C wrote:

CO2 is used all the time in oil fields all over the world to maintain oil well pressure and increase yields. This is nothing new.

The concept that the CO2 will somehow be used to extract more oil then be stored is largely a myth as much of the CO2 will be blown out along with the oil.

As I said, climate change is in my view real but it is also being used to cover up for energy problems. The reality being that the CO2 is very much needed to obtain more oil which is in decline in the US and UK. The reality also being that trade and economic growth will be reduced once global oil output stops increasing and that's pretty much as of now. Cap and trade will be enforced whether we like it or not and it's about time the nations of the world united to sort this issue out.

Of course there will always be those who consider CO2 and energy problems to be a scam but I'm not one of them and there is no proof that this is the case.

emphasis added

Well at least we know where you stand.

_________________
Simon - http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/

David Ray Griffin - 9/11: the Myth & the Reality
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-275577066688213413

item7
Moderate Poster

Joined: 20 Sep 2008
Posts: 641

Posted: Thu May 07, 2009 6:39 pm Post subject:

James C wrote:

this petition is a proven scam

Proven? Care to provide it? Or as usual, just saying so is good enough.
_________________
Tooth Fairy denier
Santa Clause Denier
Man-made Climate Change Denier

James C
Major Poster

Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046

Posted: Thu May 07, 2009 7:08 pm Post subject:

item7 wrote:

James C wrote:

this petition is a proven scam

Proven? Care to provide it? Or as usual, just saying so is good enough.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2004/05/oregonpetition.php

http://www.desmogblog.com/flawed-oregon-petition-rises-again

James C
Major Poster

Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046

Posted: Thu May 07, 2009 7:18 pm Post subject:

QuitTheirClogs wrote:

Paying the oil companies to store CO2 is a recent concept yet the Oregon petition was started a decade back and Exxons role finished several years ago. Maybe Exxon et al are happy to play a role in dealing with CO2, maybe not. Who knows, since the details of how much they'll be paid hasn't been disclosed. Do you know?

QuitTheirClogs
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter

Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Posts: 630
Location: Manchester

Posted: Thu May 07, 2009 9:40 pm Post subject:

James C wrote:

QuitTheirClogs wrote:

Given that Newt Gingrich described carbon sequestration as “the most important single breakthrough we can make,” I think it’s pretty clear that the oil companies are pushing hard for carbon capture and storage.

If coal-fired, power stations are compelled to capture CO2, they will have to pay the oil companies to dispose of it; with the cost being past on to the electricity consumer. The price per tonne will probably be set by the carbon-credits market -- which is another massive scam in the making.
_________________
Simon - http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/

David Ray Griffin - 9/11: the Myth & the Reality
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-275577066688213413

James C
Major Poster

Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046

Posted: Thu May 07, 2009 10:22 pm Post subject:

QuitTheirClogs wrote:

I think it’s pretty clear that the oil companies are pushing hard for carbon capture and storage.

Not sure about that. Do you have any proof?

item7
Moderate Poster

Joined: 20 Sep 2008
Posts: 641

Posted: Fri May 08, 2009 5:41 am Post subject:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/05/climate-model-predictions-it%E2%80 %99s-time-for-a-reality-check/

Quote:

Climate Model Predictions: It’s Time for a Reality Check
May 2nd, 2009 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

The fear of anthropogenic global warming is based almost entirely upon computerized climate model simulations of how the global atmosphere will respond to slowly increasing carbon dioxide concentrations. There are now over 20 models being tracked by the IPCC, and they project levels of warming ranging from pretty significant to catastrophic by late in this century. The following graph shows an example of those models’ forecasts based upon assumed increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide this century.

While there is considerable spread among the models, it can be seen that all of them now produce levels of global warming that can not be ignored.

But what is the basis for such large amounts of warming? Is it because we know CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and so increasing levels of atmospheric CO2 will cause warming? NO!…virtually everyone now agrees that the direct warming effect from extra CO2 is relatively small – too small to be of much practical concern.

No, the main reason the models produce so much warming depends upon uncertain assumptions regarding how clouds will respond to warming. Low and middle-level clouds provide a ‘sun shade’ for the Earth, and the climate models predict that those clouds will dissipate with warming, thereby letting more sunlight in and making the warming worse.

[High-altitude (cirrus) clouds have the opposite effect, and so a dissipation of those clouds would instead counteract the CO2 warming with cooling, which is the basis for Richard Lindzen's 'Infrared Iris' theory. The warming in the models, however, is now known to be mostly controlled by the low and middle level clouds – the “sun shade” clouds.]

But is this the way nature works? Our latest evidence from satellite measurements says “no”. One would think that understanding how the real world works would be a primary concern of climate researchers, but it is not. Rather than trying to understand how nature works, climate modelers spend most of their time trying to get the models to better mimic average weather patterns on the Earth and how those patterns change with the seasons. The unstated assumption is that if the models do a better job of mimicking average weather and the seasons, then they will do a better job of forecasting global warming.

But this assumption can not be rigorously supported. To forecast global warming, we need to know how the average climate state — and especially clouds — will change in response to the little bit of warming from the extra CO2. Indeed, the model that best replicates the average climate of the Earth might be the worst one at predicting future warming.

This fact gets glossed over – or totally ignored – as the IPCC dazzles us with the level of effort that has been invested in computer modeling of the climate system over the last 20 years. The IPCC can show how many people they have working on improving the models, how many years and how much money has been invested, how big and fast their computers are, and how many peer-reviewed scientific publications have resulted.

But unless we know how clouds change with warming, it is all a waste of time from the standpoint of knowing how serious manmade global warming will be. Even the IPCC admits this is their biggest uncertainty…so why is so little work being done trying to answer that question?

AN APPEAL TO THE DECISION MAKERS

We now have billions of dollars in satellite assets orbiting the Earth, continuously collecting high-quality data on natural, year-to-year changes in climate. I believe that these satellite measurements contain the key to understanding whether manmade global warming will be catastrophic, or merely lost in the noise of natural climate variability.

That is why I spend as much time as I can spare trying to understand those satellite measurements. But we need many more people working on this effort. Despite its importance, I have yet to meet anyone who is trying to do what I am doing.

To be fair, the modelers do indeed compare their models to satellite measurements. But those comparisons have not been detailed enough to answer the most important questions…like how clouds respond to warming.

The comparisons they have done have been confusing and inconclusive, which is part of the reason why they don’t rely on the satellite measurements very much. The modelers claim that the satellite measurements have been too ambiguous, and so they increasingly rely only upon the models.

But I will continue to assert (until I am blue in the face or die, whichever comes first) that their confusion stems from a very simple issue they have overlooked: mixing up cause and effect. The previous satellite observations that showed clouds tend to decrease with warming does not mean that warming causes clouds to decrease!

We have recently submitted to Journal of Geophysical Research a research paper that shows how one can tell the difference between cause and effect — between clouds causing a temperature change, and temperature causing a cloud change. And when this is done during the analysis of satellite data, it is clear that warming causes an increase in the sunshade effect of clouds. (While the data did suggest strong positive water vapor feedback, which enhances warming, that was far exceeded by the cooling effect of negative feedback from cloud changes.)

These results suggest that the climate system has a strong thermostatic control mechanism – exactly opposite to the way the IPCC models have been programmed to behave — and that the widespread concern over manmade global warming might well be a false alarm.

The potential importance of this result to the global warming debate demands a reexamination of all of the satellite data that have been collected over the last 25 years, with the best minds the science community can spare. Simply asserting that ‘Dr. Spencer does not know what he is talking about’ will not cut it any more.

We now have two papers in the peer-reviewed scientific literature that paved the way for this work (here and here), and so one can not simply dismiss the issue based upon some claim that we ‘skeptics’ do not publish our work.

I just presented our latest results at the NASA CERES Team meeting to about 100 attendees, and there were no major objections voiced to my analysis of the results. (CERES is the instrument that monitors how global cloud changes affect the energy balance of the Earth). I was pleased to see that there are still some scientists who are interested in the science.

Rather than simply asserting that I am wrong, why not take a fresh look at the data that have been collected over the years? Given the importance of the issue, it would seem to be the prudent thing to do. A red team-blue team approach is needed here, with the red team specifically looking for evidence that the IPCC has been wrong in their previous evaluation of the satellite data.

I suggested this years ago in congressional testimony, but one thing I’ve learned is that most congressional hearings are not designed to uncover the truth.

Maybe those in control of the research dollars are afraid of what might be found if the research community looked too closely at the satellite measurements. There are now billions — if not trillions — of dollars in future taxes, economic growth, and transfers of wealth between countries that are riding on the climate models being correct.

Scientific debate has all been shut down. The science of climate change was long ago taken over by political interests, and I am not hopeful that the situation will improve anytime soon. But I will continue to try to change that.

_________________
Tooth Fairy denier
Santa Clause Denier
Man-made Climate Change Denier

item7
Moderate Poster

Joined: 20 Sep 2008
Posts: 641

Posted: Fri May 08, 2009 5:55 am Post subject:

James C wrote:

item7 wrote:

James C wrote:

this petition is a proven scam

Proven? Care to provide it? Or as usual, just saying so is good enough.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2004/05/oregonpetition.php

http://www.desmogblog.com/flawed-oregon-petition-rises-again

Like I said - just saying it is good enough - or showing someone else saying it. More liars for the cause of man-made climate change.

http://www.petitionproject.org/frequently_asked_questions.php

Quote:

Who pays for the Petition Project?

The Petition Project is financed by non-tax deductible donations to the Petition Project from private individuals, many of whom are signers of the petition. The project has no financing whatever from industrial sources. No funds or resources of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine are used for the Petition Project. The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine has never received funds or resources from energy industries, and none of the scientists at the Institute have any funding whatever from corporations or institutions involved in hydrocarbon technology or energy production. Donations to the project are primarily used for printing and postage. Most of the labor for the project has been provided by scientist volunteers.

Saying it isn't so is not good enough. If they are lying prove it.

Quote:

Does the petition list contain names other than those of scientist signers?

Opponents of the petition project sometimes submit forged signatures in efforts to discredit the project. Usually, these efforts are eliminated by our verification procedures. On one occasion, a forged signature appeared briefly on the signatory list. It was removed as soon as discovered.

In a group of more than 30,000 people, there are many individuals with names similar or identical to other signatories, or to non-signatories – real or fictional. Opponents of the petition project sometimes use this statistical fact in efforts to discredit the project. For examples, Perry Mason and Michael Fox are scientists who have signed the petition – who happen also to have names identical to fictional or real non-scientists.

Does the petition project list contain duplicate names?

Thousands of scientists have signed the petition more than once. These duplicates have been carefully removed from the petition list. The list contains many instances of scientists with closely similar and sometimes identical names, as is statistically expected in a list of this size, but these signers are different people, who live at different addresses, and usually have different fields of specialization. Primarily as a result of name and address variants, occasional duplicate names are found in the list. These are immediately removed.

Are any of the listed signers dead?

In a group of more than 30,000 people, deaths are a frequent occurrence. The Petition Project has no comprehensive method by which it is notified about deaths of signatories. When we do learn of a death, an "*" is placed beside the name of the signatory. For examples, Edward Teller, Arnold Beckman, Philip Abelson, William Nierenberg, and Martin Kamen are American scientists who signed the Petition and are now deceased.

There are many paid liars attacking those who are trying to expose the global warming scam and posting their "views" (their lies!) is not proof of anything. There are thousands of highly qualified scientists who are on that list and they are genuine. They are listed on the site and can be verified. They are not paid. Like increasing numbers of the public they are sick of the lies spread by the mainstream media and their gullible followers.
_________________
Tooth Fairy denier
Santa Clause Denier
Man-made Climate Change Denier

QuitTheirClogs
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter

Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Posts: 630
Location: Manchester

Posted: Fri May 08, 2009 4:38 pm Post subject:

James C wrote:

QuitTheirClogs wrote:

I think it’s pretty clear that the oil companies are pushing hard for carbon capture and storage.

Not sure about that. Do you have any proof?

You’re confusing the terms “proof” and “evidence.”

I’ve posted evidence on this thread; starting here (28 April 2009):
http://www.911forum.org.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=134025&highlight=#134 025

And on t’other thread; starting here (1 Aug 2008):
http://www.911forum.org.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=123535&highlight=#123 535

I’ll no doubt post some more; as and when...
_________________
Simon - http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/

David Ray Griffin - 9/11: the Myth & the Reality
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-275577066688213413

James C
Major Poster

Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046

Posted: Fri May 08, 2009 5:10 pm Post subject:

QuitTheirClogs wrote:

James C wrote:

QuitTheirClogs wrote:

I think it’s pretty clear that the oil companies are pushing hard for carbon capture and storage.

Not sure about that. Do you have any proof?

No I'm not.

The oil companies may be forced to deal with CO2 and that may net them additional revenue but it could also be a complete pain in the ass with limited profit. That's why I say ask whether you have any proof that the oil companies are eager to be involved?

QuitTheirClogs
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter

Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Posts: 630
Location: Manchester

Posted: Fri May 08, 2009 5:30 pm Post subject:

James C wrote:

That's why I say ask whether you have any proof that the oil companies are eager to be involved?

As I said; you are confusing the terms “proof” and “evidence.” The following may help:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence

I have already posted evidence. The degree of proof established by that evidence is open to debate.
_________________
Simon - http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/

David Ray Griffin - 9/11: the Myth & the Reality
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-275577066688213413

James C
Major Poster

Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046

Posted: Fri May 08, 2009 8:07 pm Post subject:

QuitTheirClogs wrote:

James C wrote:

That's why I say ask whether you have any proof that the oil companies are eager to be involved?

Clearly you didn't read that wiki article.

Quote:

The burden of proof is the burden of providing sufficient evidence to shift a conclusion from an oppositional opinion

Since all you have posted is evidence of people talking about the value of CO2 sequestration but not evidence that the oil companies actively support this then you cannot prove the latter which you state is true. I merely ask for enough evidence to prove your claim.

QuitTheirClogs
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter

Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Posts: 630
Location: Manchester

Posted: Fri May 08, 2009 9:07 pm Post subject:

James C wrote:

Please read the other thread; starting here (1 Aug 2008):

http://www.911forum.org.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=123535&highlight=#123 535
_________________
Simon - http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/

David Ray Griffin - 9/11: the Myth & the Reality
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-275577066688213413

James C
Major Poster

Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046

Posted: Fri May 08, 2009 9:31 pm Post subject:

QuitTheirClogs wrote:

James C wrote:

Please read the other thread; starting here (1 Aug 2008):

http://www.911forum.org.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=123535&highlight=#123 535

But this provides more evidence of the mechanisms by which sequestration will happen. It isn't evidence showing oil company support even though they may be tied to binding contracts to involve them in the process. Just saying they are being paid is only half the picture for it maybe that their profits are so small to be worthless.

QuitTheirClogs
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter

Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Posts: 630
Location: Manchester

Posted: Sat May 09, 2009 10:07 am Post subject:

James C wrote:

So you managed to read the first post, rather than the thread. I don’t think I could be bothered continuing this discussion with you; it’s too painful. As I said before, I’ll post on the other thread as and when.
_________________
Simon - http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/

David Ray Griffin - 9/11: the Myth & the Reality
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-275577066688213413

James C
Major Poster

Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046

Posted: Sat May 09, 2009 11:06 am Post subject:

QuitTheirClogs wrote:

James C wrote:

No, I looked at the whole thread and at no point does it show evidence that the oil companies would be eager to develop the infrastructure necessary to use CO2 generated by other industries such as coal fired power stations.

Many oil companies have been using CO2 injection for enhanced recovery since the 1970's and it works but they have been using the CO2 by-products, usually acid gas, which are formed by the oil well itself. But the conditions have to be right and after almost 40 years the technology isn't wide spread and the benefits are being monitored by various groups (there are many other methods of enhanced recovery). Norway successfully employs the technique in some of its wells using CO2 from other nearby fields. But for the government to say the oil companies must help to provide CO2 sequestration from other industries isn't as easy as you imply since the CO2 has to reach the oil fields and that will be costly in terms of the pipe line infrastructure required. There is therefore little proof that the oil majors will wish to invest in such a programme, especially as oil is currently cheaper than water.

Quote:

In short, you still haven't offered any evidence to back this claim.

Last edited by James C on Sat May 09, 2009 2:29 pm; edited 1 time in total

James C
Major Poster

Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046

Posted: Sat May 09, 2009 2:28 pm Post subject:

Oooops!

Global warming's toll: Glacier in Bolivia is gone

Quote:

Global warming's toll: Glacier in Bolivia is gone

By John Enders, Miami Herald – Fri May 8, 6:20 pm ET

CHACALTAYA, Bolivia — If anyone needs a reminder of the on-the-ground impacts of global climate change, come to the Andes mountains in Bolivia . At 17,388 feet above sea level, Chacaltaya, an 18,000 year-old glacier that delighted thousands of visitors for decades, is gone, completely melted away as of some sad, undetermined moment early this year.
"Chacaltaya has disappeared. It no longer exists,'' said Dr. Edson Ramirez , head of an international team of scientists that has studied the glacier since 1991.
Chacaltaya (the name in Aymara means ''cold road'') began melting in the mid-1980s. Ramirez, the assistant director of the Institute of Hydraulics and Hydrology at the Universidad Mayor de San Andres in nearby La Paz , documented its disappearance in March.
Approximately 35 miles from La Paz , it takes an hour and a half to drive the gravel and rock road up tortuous switchbacks to the top of the mountain of the same name. Visitors on a clear day -- and there are many such days -- can see the Bolivian highland plain, or altiplano, thousands of feet below, and the nearby Huayna Potosi and Illimani mountains, part of the Cordillera Real de los Andes.
Ten years ago Ramirez and his team of researchers concluded that the glacier would survive until 2015. But the rate of thaw increased threefold in the last decade, according to their studies. He believes the disappearance of Chacaltaya is an indication of the potent effects at higher elevations of the interaction of greenhouse gas accumulation and an increase in average global temperatures.
And he thinks other glaciers in the region also may be melting at a rate faster than previously known. Illimani, the colossal 21,200-foot mountain that looms over the city of La Paz and has served as the backdrop for postcard-perfect pictures since film was invented, is the home to several glaciers. They likely will melt completely within 30 years, he said.
''It's very probable that other glaciers are disappearing faster than we thought,'' he said. Researchers fear that Chacaltaya's fate will be shared by other glaciers in other areas of Bolivia , and in Peru and Ecuador as well, he said.
In May, the members of Ramirez's research team will gather here to honor the fallen glacier and to commemorate the end of 18 years of work.
Chacaltaya became well-known long before it started melting. For decades it was declared, and aggressively marketed, as "the highest ski run in the world.''
Despite the melting of the glacier, today a handful of hard-core alpinistas and the occasional adventure tourist still schlep their skis and poles over the summit a few hundred yards from where the glacier used to be. On a lucky day, when a little snow has fallen just below the stony ridge, they can ski for about 600 feet. Then they walk back.
''Very few come to ski now,'' laments Alfredo Martinez , 73, who is one of the founders of the Club Andino de Bolivia , based in La Paz . A lifelong mountaineer, Martinez and a small cadre of mostly young followers keep the ski lodge open, serving tea and soup and burning old wooden boards from a nearby building in the fireplace for warmth. They charge visitors 15 bolivianos, the equivalent of $2.10 , for a clean-up and maintenance fund.
In the good old days, when every tour agency and guide book heralded Chacaltaya's unique altitudinal fame, the Club Andino organized ski competitions and stored the equipment of dozens of its members in the lodge. A large stone-and-wood building housed a winch-and-cable tow operation that dragged skiers to the top of the glacier. The descent was often heart-stopping, and if the skiers didn't stop in time they could end up on the rocks below the snow-topped glacier.
But it's not the end of alpine skiing at Chacaltaya that worries researcher Ramirez, but the death of the glacier and what that means for the people of the Andean cordillera. On the western, mostly arid side of the Andes, millions of people depend on rain, snow run-off and melting glaciers like Chacaltaya, Illimani and Huayna Potosifor their water.
There's another problem, too. Not only are the glaciers melting, but less rain seems to be falling in the Andes, according to recent studies. The big rain-carrying monsoons drifting west from the Amazon basin have declined in size and intensity, another indication of major climactic changes, Ramirez said.
This year, for the first time, the amount of water flowing out of reservoirs serving nearly 2.5 million people in La Paz and its adjacent city, El Alto, will exceed the amount of water flowing into them. This eventually will become a major political issue for leaders in La Paz and El Alto, he said.
To Juan Velazquez , who grew up just over the mountain from Chacaltaya in the now-abandoned mining town Mulluni, and later moved with his family to La Paz , the defunct glacier means less income. As a taxi driver, he can earn the equivalent of 50 U.S. dollars driving tourists from La Paz to the glacier and back. That's the equivalent of a month's wages for some in this impoverished land.
But the loss of the glacier is the saddest part for him, not the lost wages.
As a child, he and his playmates would use paint to darken under their eyes, just like they saw in American movies, then journey up to Chacaltaya to play in fresh snow atop the glacier.
"It's a tragedy,'' he said. "It's as if someone had died.''

Here are some pics.

Just look at the Chacaltaya ski resort now!

Care to explain item7?

item7
Moderate Poster

Joined: 20 Sep 2008
Posts: 641

Posted: Tue May 12, 2009 5:43 am Post subject:

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/dr_goldstein/2009/05/a l-gores-endgame-deniers-are-n.php?ref=recmuck

Realists 1 Liars 0 Very Happy

Quote:

Al Gore's Endgame: "Deniers" are now the majority
May 11, 2009, 2:00AM

The global warming "deniers" and "skeptics" are now the majority. The public is waking up!

Only 34% still believe the myth that "humans cause global warming."The Easter Bunny will soon be polling higher.

SEE: The Latest Rasmussen Poll

Most people now understand natural climate cycles (planetary trends).

See Chart: Climate history of the last 12,000 years.

Holocene Temperature History

1. The temperature history shows clearly that our recent "global warming" is really nothing compared to the many pre-industrial "global warmings."

2. The temperature history shows that temperatures peaked about 8,000 years ago and we are now trending downward to the next ice age.

3. All of these pre-industrial global warmings are 100% natural. They happened before the industrial revolution or automobiles came along.
Did CO2 cause all of these pre-industrial warmings? The only plausible answer is "No" unless you believe Aliens in UFO's came along and beamed down giant cannisters of CO2. But some people think Elvis is still alive, so some people might look at the temperature history and doubt that climate warms and cools naturally.

4. The Holocene is an interglacial (a warm spike between ice ages). These interglacials only last about 12,000 years so we are due for another ice age soon. To deny this is to deny basic Climate History 101.
see: Glacial-Interglacial Graph

It is interesting to note that our current Holocene interglacial (right side of graph) is the coldest interglacial recorded in the last 450,000 years, despite all the global warming bunk in the mainstream media.

Has the next ice age already started?

NASA has discovered that the Sun's output is suddenly dropping, and it is already "13% cooler."
SEE: NASA PRESS RELEASE-SUN LOSING POWER

The public has done their homework and fact checked Al Gore's bogus movie. Fool me once - shame on you. Fool me twice...

...it ain't gonna happen. Sorry Al, once public opinion starts changing rapidly the pendulum never swings back.

People now understand that CO2 is only 0.038% of the atmosphere, and 95% of the greenhouse effect is from natural water vapor.

Follow the Money

People now understand that Al Gore is Chairman of the for-profit Generation Investment Management(GIM), PROOF which is all about money ($$ Billions 'invested'). Gore is also a business partner in KPCB , another for-profit operation.

"Global warming" is about making windfall profits from "carbon trading", "cap and trade", etc. Certainly a non-profit organization could be created to handle "carbon markets" if it was not about making money.

When Al Gore goes to D.C. he should be treated like any other businessman or lobbyist trying to make a buck for his corporations. Either that, or he needs to walk away from these corporations.

Bogus "Computer Models" are totally unreliable.

Here is what an IPCC scientist had to say: Kevin Trenberth is head of the US National Centre for Atmospheric Research and one of the advisory scientists on the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

"None of the models used by IPCC is initialized to the observed state and none of the climate states in the models corresponds even remotely to the current observed climate."

We used to call this type of computer-abuse "garbage in-garbage out."

_________________
Tooth Fairy denier
Santa Clause Denier
Man-made Climate Change Denier

item7
Moderate Poster

Joined: 20 Sep 2008
Posts: 641

Posted: Tue May 12, 2009 5:52 am Post subject:

Quote:

Care to explain item7?

The climate is constantly changing? It gets warmer and it gets cooler. Sometimes we have ice ages and sometimes we have warm periods. Man has no discernible effect. Warm is good by and large as it is better for human life even if not so good for skiers. I could post pictures of parts of the USA under their worst winter in living memory but it proves nothing just as your picture proves nothing. It is a perfect example of "garbage in-garbage out." There are no conclusions to be drawn from your "evidence".
_________________
Tooth Fairy denier
Santa Clause Denier
Man-made Climate Change Denier

chek
Mega Poster

Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland

Posted: Tue May 12, 2009 8:50 am Post subject:

item7 wrote:

Quote:

Care to explain item7?

And that is about as good a self-description of your own grasp of the subject as could be expected.

That you see no difference between seasonal cold weather and the erasure of an 18,000 year old glacier, together with some glib tosh about inconvenienced skiiers when the real human importance of glaciers is the fresh water they supply to huge numbers of the world's population demonstrates a profound ignorance on your part.

In exactly the same way as your bogus oil company PR releases try to excuse the loss of 100,000 year old ice shelves in West Antarctica by claiming seasonal sea ice increased.

The conclusion to be drawn is that fools want to be fooled.
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.

It's them or us.

item7
Moderate Poster

Joined: 20 Sep 2008
Posts: 641

Posted: Tue May 12, 2009 9:37 am Post subject:

Chek wrote:

The conclusion to be drawn is that fools want to be fooled.

Not any more. They are getting wise to your scam. All they needed was an alternative to the steady pack of lies they were being fed by the likes of yourself. You might as well pack in now. You are well and truly rumbled.
_________________
Tooth Fairy denier
Santa Clause Denier
Man-made Climate Change Denier

chek
Mega Poster

Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland

Posted: Tue May 12, 2009 9:52 am Post subject:

item7 wrote:

Far from it - the outpouring of industry drivel hasn't worked.
And no wonder with the collection of PR clowns even with their nest of blog echo chambers they put their faith in to swing it for them.

The Waxman-Markey Bill is at least a start to undo the damage wrought by the globalists' own short-sighted, short-term greed, for all your weeks of ineffectual huffing and puffing on their behalf.

A tip for the future item7: if you find yourself palling up to repugnicans and their hired right wing cranks like Morano and Monckton and their ilk, you know you picked the wrong side. But, although they may have lost this battle, they're aware now that out there, there are willing know-nothings who will believe anything - if it's marketed to them correctly.
The uneducated underclass continues to grow, so they'll be back to exploit their crop. Thanks for nothing item7.

Although you could fight them by, y'know, God forbid, actually learning summink. Your ignorance is their strength.
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.

It's them or us.

item7
Moderate Poster

Joined: 20 Sep 2008
Posts: 641

Posted: Wed May 13, 2009 4:36 am Post subject:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/530108 2/Climate-change-The-elements-conspire-against-the-warmists.html

Quote:

Climate change: The elements conspire against the warmists
An international team of scientists has used the latest electro-magnetic induction equipment to discover that the Arctic ice is in fact "twice as thick" as they had expected, says Christopher Booker.

By Christopher Booker, Last Updated: 6:15PM BST 09 May 2009

As the clock ticks down towards December's historic UN Copenhagen conference on climate change, the frenzied efforts of the warmists to panic us over all that vanishing Arctic and Antarctic ice are degenerating into farce.

That great authority Ban Ki-moon, the UN's Secretary-General, solemnly tells us that the polar ice caps are "melting far faster than was expected just two years ago". Yet the latest satellite information from the US National Snow and Ice Data Center (passed on by the Watts Up With That blog) shows that, after the third slowest melt of April Arctic ice in 30 years, the world's polar sea ice is in fact slightly above its average extent for early May since satellite records began in 1979.

This news came as the skiinfo.com website was reporting "It's snowing all over the world". Snow was still falling in the Alps after a record winter, while in the southern hemisphere the skiing season was starting "five weeks early".

Meanwhile, up in the Arctic, after yet another delay for bad weather, the hapless Catlin trio, sponsored by an insurance firm which hopes to make money out of alarm over global warming, continue their painful progress towards the distant North Pole, measuring the ice with an old tape measure and assuring Prince Charles by satellite telephone that it is "thinner than expected".

When the trio heard a passing aircraft, which they hoped was bringing much-needed supplies, they little realised it was a DC-3 carrying an international team of scientists, using the latest electro-magnetic induction equipment to discover rather more efficiently that the ice was in fact "twice as thick" as they had expected.

A last symbolic drama was the fate of another three-man expedition aiming to publicise the effects of climate change. Followed by schools across Britain, they were aiming to reach Greenland in a "carbon-free" boat powered only by wind and the sun. Last week, after running into appalling weather, they were rescued by – it had to be – a US oil tanker. I wonder whether the schoolchildren were told.

_________________
Tooth Fairy denier
Santa Clause Denier
Man-made Climate Change Denier

Display posts from previous:

	9/11, 7/7, Covid-1984 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> The Bigger Picture	All times are GMT Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 15, 16, 17 ... 62, 63, 64 Next
Page 16 of 64

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum