| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Leiff
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 23 May 2006
Posts: 509
|
 Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 11:48 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Thanks for the link.
| johndoe wrote: | | it is best to remember something, if the sun is getting progressively substantially hotter over time what caused the ice age? |
Is it not possible that the Sun goes through a cycle that causes the ice ages?
| johndoe wrote: | | is is of course getting hotter, but what effect does that have on us? |
So you admit that the sun is getting hotter.
This entry from Wikipedia is quite interesting as sunspot activity is linked to solar flairs and the Beryllium-10 concentrations in the atmosphere suggest an increase in solar wind striking the Earth's atmosphere...........warming it perhaps?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Solar_Activity_Proxies.png
When the media come up with phrases such as 'man-made global warming' it looks as though we are right to be sceptical...
_________________
"Democracy is sustained not by public trust but by public scepticism"
George Monbiot |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
johndoe
Wrecker
Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 181
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 12:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
"Is it not possible that the Sun goes through a cycle that causes the ice ages?"
the sun undoubtedly goes through cycles outwith it's constant heating.....but the question is how much of an impact does this have on earth? an increase in solar heat does not always lead to an increase of heat on earth.
there are points in time when this is especially true. early earth for instance when the sun was at 70% of it's current output. if this had led to a direct difference of temperature on earth (of course obeying the inverse square law) then the temperature would be below freezing. but it wasn't and a good thing too because this was when life started to develop.
how was that possible? well back then we had lots of co2. and then the sun started to get hotter.
more heat - more erosion = more co2 getting locked up
also those new organisms had a healthy appetite for co2 and belched out oxygen.
and so slowly we were left with the planet we know today.
yes there have been fluctuations, but that's what you would expect from a planet whose orbit isn't perfect in anyway (mars has it worse as i noted earlier)
and it continues much as it did, when it gets hotter, erosion speeds up and we get rid of that nasty co2 and the planet cools down again.
now what isn't very nice if you add more co2 into this because getting rid of it is alot harder
the converse happens if it gets a little too cold absorption slows down so co2 builds up (abit of ice helps too to stop the weathering).
now of course this isn't instant and so the whole thing yo-yos up and down.
this would happen even if we were to orbit around a perfectly stable star. and the orbit was perfect.
so could it be purely one of these atmospheric cycles? yes. but what it certainly doesn't need is more co2. that is not a clever idea at all. the earth has done a perfectly good job at keeping the temperature pretty much on average stable through the carbon cycle with just the right amount of co2.
more co2 in the atmosphere undoubtedly raises the temperature. but not only that it but it will ruin the equilibrium of the carbon cycle. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
QuitTheirClogs
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Posts: 630
Location: Manchester
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 8:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Wikipedia:
Methane in the Earth's atmosphere is an important greenhouse gas with a global warming potential of 23 over a 100 year period. This means that a 1 tonne methane emission will have 23 times the impact on temperature of a 1 tonne carbon dioxide emission during the following 100 years. Methane has a large effect for a brief period (about 10 years), whereas carbon dioxide has a small effect for a long period (over 100 years). Because of this difference in effect and time period, the global warming potential of methane over a 20 year time period is 63. The methane concentration has increased by about 150% since 1750 and it accounts for 20% of the total radiative forcing from all of the long-lived and globally mixed greenhouse gases.[6]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane#Methane_in_Earth.27s_atmosphere
The UN:
Livestock a major threat to environment - Remedies urgently needed
29 November 2006, Rome - Which causes more greenhouse gas emissions, rearing cattle or driving cars?
Surprise! According to a new report published by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, the livestock sector generates more greenhouse gas emissions as measured in CO2 equivalent – 18 percent – than transport. It is also a major source of land and water degradation.
http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/index.html
Johndoe:
well first and foremost the methane thing is a common mistake, methan isn't really a greenhouse gas, it's a little bit too reactive for it's own good and so gets dis-associated in the atmosphere very quickly. we could pump out as much methane as we want and the sun would take care of it.
…hmm
_________________
Simon - http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/
David Ray Griffin - 9/11: the Myth & the Reality
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-275577066688213413 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rodin
Validated Poster
Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 2224
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 8:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| johndoe wrote: | "Is it not possible that the Sun goes through a cycle that causes the ice ages?"
the sun undoubtedly goes through cycles outwith it's constant heating.....but the question is how much of an impact does this have on earth? an increase in solar heat does not always lead to an increase of heat on earth.
there are points in time when this is especially true. early earth for instance when the sun was at 70% of it's current output. if this had led to a direct difference of temperature on earth (of course obeying the inverse square law) then the temperature would be below freezing. but it wasn't and a good thing too because this was when life started to develop.
how was that possible? well back then we had lots of co2. and then the sun started to get hotter.
more heat - more erosion = more co2 getting locked up
also those new organisms had a healthy appetite for co2 and belched out oxygen.
and so slowly we were left with the planet we know today.
yes there have been fluctuations, but that's what you would expect from a planet whose orbit isn't perfect in anyway (mars has it worse as i noted earlier)
and it continues much as it did, when it gets hotter, erosion speeds up and we get rid of that nasty co2 and the planet cools down again.
now what isn't very nice if you add more co2 into this because getting rid of it is alot harder
the converse happens if it gets a little too cold absorption slows down so co2 builds up (abit of ice helps too to stop the weathering).
now of course this isn't instant and so the whole thing yo-yos up and down.
this would happen even if we were to orbit around a perfectly stable star. and the orbit was perfect.
so could it be purely one of these atmospheric cycles? yes. but what it certainly doesn't need is more co2. that is not a clever idea at all. the earth has done a perfectly good job at keeping the temperature pretty much on average stable through the carbon cycle with just the right amount of co2.
more co2 in the atmosphere undoubtedly raises the temperature. but not only that it but it will ruin the equilibrium of the carbon cycle. |
You and Pixells are doing us a great service. Watching you guys is like intercepting enemy intelligence (or lack of it). The MO of the (sh*** you now who) is becoming ever more obvious to posters everywhere. Now this claptrap you just spouted... Do you really think that after supporting life for all these millions of years Earth is going to peg it just because of a bit of CO2? Earth is riddled with all these N-E-G-A-T-I-V-E feedback mechanisms (unlike Socialism which is replete with the more politically correct but ultimately destructive P-O-S-I-T-I-V-E feeback mechanisms which generate runaway moral and fiscal debauchery). The cabon cycle is one such. Push it out of equilibrium and it will just bounce back. Plants algae etc will grow more vigorously in a CO2 rich atmosphere. A few animals will get anaerobic disease & croak. Try doing your bit to help the environment. Stop blowing such hot air!
_________________
Belief is the Enemy of Truth www.dissential.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ZUCO
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Feb 2007
Posts: 179
Location: Manchester
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 10:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The theory of man made greenhouse gases affecting the atmosphere has just been blown to kingdom come on channel 4. If by any chance anybody didn't see it I suggest you try to track down a copy, great documentary in my opinion.
_________________
"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither" --Benjamin Franklin--
ZUCO |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James C
Major Poster
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 11:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ZUCO wrote: | | The theory of man made greenhouse gases affecting the atmosphere has just been blown to kingdom come on channel 4. If by any chance anybody didn't see it I suggest you try to track down a copy, great documentary in my opinion. |
I have to say that this was a well presented documentary and the roll call of scientists offering proof against man made global warming was impressive. It certainly made me take notice. A few words of warning though. The director of this film, Martin Durkin, is not adverse to environmentalist bashing whenever possible, it forms part of his following of Marxism. You may want to read this article (apologies for the George Monbiot connection).
One of the contributors, Paul Reiter, who was the guy talking about malaria and mosquitos works for several organisations who are funded by Exxon. A quick Google check will confirm these allegations. He's not even a climatologist. In fact there weren't many climatologists at all.
Still, there were many different contributors on this programme and someone has to be telling the truth so this was quite compelling viewing. The graph showing CO2 lagging behind temperature was very interesting since we are told it is the other way round. This has been debunked on many occasions though so it's hard to tell who is speaking the truth.
| Quote: | The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about 5000 years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data.
The 4200 years of warming make up about 5/6 of the total warming. So CO2 could have caused the last 5/6 of the warming, but could not have caused the first 1/6 of the warming.
It comes as no surprise that other factors besides CO2 affect climate. Changes in the amount of summer sunshine, due to changes in the Earth's orbit around the sun that happen every 21,000 years, have long been known to affect the comings and goings of ice ages. Atlantic ocean circulation slowdowns are thought to warm Antarctica, also. |
To say this documentary is a complete debunking would be wrong. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
johndoe
Wrecker
Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 181
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 09, 2007 10:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
fact is clogs that if we were to stop excess methane emissions they excess in the atmosphere would disappear within 10 years. co2 doesn't do that, it sticks around. we can deal with methane, stop pumping it out and it will go away.
"Do you really think that after supporting life for all these millions of years Earth is going to peg it just because of a bit of CO2?"
no but it will ruin it as we know it.
"Plants algae etc will grow more vigorously in a CO2 rich atmosphere."
wow algae, that's something to look forward to. i'm sure the rest of the animals well be really happy at that prospect.
but while a layman such as yourself is spouting such ignorance how about you tell me this...... what does algae do to the organisms below it? and what do dead organisms release? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Abandoned Ego
Moderate Poster
Joined: 23 Sep 2005
Posts: 288
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 09, 2007 12:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ZUCO wrote: | | The theory of man made greenhouse gases affecting the atmosphere has just been blown to kingdom come on channel 4. If by any chance anybody didn't see it I suggest you try to track down a copy, great documentary in my opinion. |
Ive believed for quite some time now, that this Global warming hype, and the Greenhouse Gas industry that grew out of this hype ( helped by 2billion in research grants by none other than Bush 41, (Racist, genocidal murderer) was actually a front for ensuring that the rich get more, and the poor get it in the neck as usual.
That isnt to say that the Earth isnt warming. Its just that the "official" reasons for this are hokus pokus
For me, the most in your face indication of the lie that is the official line, if the facts cited are to be believed is the actual "carbon" footprint of humanity, which the programme suggested was approx 6.3 gigatons p.a.
Decaying plants meanwhile produce 153 gigatons p.a., whilst the Oceans produce infinitely more, not to mention natural phenomena such as Volcanos etc. 
And equally as poignantly, is the fact ( as stated by last nights programme) that despite all of this, the actual percentage of Co2 in the atmosphere is still quite literally minute. Whether or not this is because it subsequently dissapears having done its damage, Im not sure. It will be interesting to read the Substance ( I say substance, not spin) of those who argue against the claims of last nights programme
I wonder what Mr George "campaigner for truth" Monbiot made of it all ?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James C
Major Poster
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 09, 2007 2:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Abandoned Ego wrote: | | I wonder what Mr George "campaigner for truth" Monbiot made of it all ? |
As I ponted out in my post above, George Monbiot isn't a fan of the programme maker, Martin Durkin. Durkin is a member of the Revolutionary Communist Party and doesn't like environmentalists. The RCP will do anything to promote capatilism - a bit like the US government! The report on Africa at the end of the programme revealed Durkin's real intentions, to show how capatilism is being restricted. Actually, the greed of corporations is what is restricting growth in Africa, not environmentalists.
Although the programme made some good points like the fact the sun plays a massive part in global warming, it did have its own agenda and some of the so called experts were not as they seem. Paul Reiter is payed by Exxon and the Republican party (indirectly), Patrick Moore (formerly of Greepeace) is paid by the logging industry, Lord Lawson is a former Tory chancellor - need I say anymore, and many others such as Nigel Calder (New Scientist editor in the 1960's!) are not even climatologists.
The bit about rotting vegetation is classic spin. What they don't say is how much CO2 was taken out of the system by the vegetation when it was alive. Ever heard of the CO2 cycle - that means there is a balance. Pumping masses of CO2 into the air is altering that balance, especially as we are cutting down the trees which absorb the CO2.
As for the lead lag issue over CO2 and temperature as shown by Durkin as proof of lies he failed to tell us that athough temperature rises always occured naturally first (until this century) followed by CO2 rises later, the CO2 increases have then fueled a further rise in the temperature effectively causing a loop back in the cycle. If the CO2 hadn't risen, then the tempearutures would have fallen. We are now raising the CO2 level artificially. Mmmm, I wonder what that might do?
Beware of the figures on that programme. Much of it was spin. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Abandoned Ego
Moderate Poster
Joined: 23 Sep 2005
Posts: 288
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 09, 2007 4:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| James C wrote: | | Abandoned Ego wrote: | | I wonder what Mr George "campaigner for truth" Monbiot made of it all ? |
As I ponted out in my post above, George Monbiot isn't a fan of the programme maker, Martin Durkin. Durkin is a member of the Revolutionary Communist Party and doesn't like environmentalists. The RCP will do anything to promote capatilism - a bit like the US government! The report on Africa at the end of the programme revealed Durkin's real intentions, to show how capatilism is being restricted. Actually, the greed of corporations is what is restricting growth in Africa, not environmentalists.
Although the programme made some good points like the fact the sun plays a massive part in global warming, it did have its own agenda and some of the so called experts were not as they seem. Paul Reiter is payed by Exxon and the Republican party (indirectly), Patrick Moore (formerly of Greepeace) is paid by the logging industry, Lord Lawson is a former Tory chancellor - need I say anymore, and many others such as Nigel Calder (New Scientist editor in the 1960's!) are not even climatologists.
The bit about rotting vegetation is classic spin. What they don't say is how much CO2 was taken out of the system by the vegetation when it was alive. Ever heard of the CO2 cycle - that means there is a balance. Pumping masses of CO2 into the air is altering that balance, especially as we are cutting down the trees which absorb the CO2.
As for the lead lag issue over CO2 and temperature as shown by Durkin as proof of lies he failed to tell us that athough temperature rises always occured naturally first (until this century) followed by CO2 rises later, the CO2 increases have then fueled a further rise in the temperature effectively causing a loop back in the cycle. If the CO2 hadn't risen, then the tempearutures would have fallen. We are now raising the CO2 level artificially. Mmmm, I wonder what that might do?
Beware of the figures on that programme. Much of it was spin. |
James. Have a read of your own post, and then try and work out how an objective person would read it ?
Couple of Ad hominem attacks, followed by some speculation.
About the only thing that made sense to me was the deforestation argument. Which begs the question to my mind at least, why arent we talking about why we really shouldnt be taking oil from the ground, and destroying the rainforests ?
All we hear is its because of our Carbon footprint, and what we consume.
Why dont any of them tell the real truth do you think ?
And finally, Al Gore or Martin Durkin ?......ermm ......hmmm to quote you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James C
Major Poster
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 09, 2007 5:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Abandoned Ego wrote: | | James C wrote: | | Abandoned Ego wrote: | | I wonder what Mr George "campaigner for truth" Monbiot made of it all ? |
As I ponted out in my post above, George Monbiot isn't a fan of the programme maker, Martin Durkin. Durkin is a member of the Revolutionary Communist Party and doesn't like environmentalists. The RCP will do anything to promote capatilism - a bit like the US government! The report on Africa at the end of the programme revealed Durkin's real intentions, to show how capatilism is being restricted. Actually, the greed of corporations is what is restricting growth in Africa, not environmentalists.
Although the programme made some good points like the fact the sun plays a massive part in global warming, it did have its own agenda and some of the so called experts were not as they seem. Paul Reiter is payed by Exxon and the Republican party (indirectly), Patrick Moore (formerly of Greepeace) is paid by the logging industry, Lord Lawson is a former Tory chancellor - need I say anymore, and many others such as Nigel Calder (New Scientist editor in the 1960's!) are not even climatologists.
The bit about rotting vegetation is classic spin. What they don't say is how much CO2 was taken out of the system by the vegetation when it was alive. Ever heard of the CO2 cycle - that means there is a balance. Pumping masses of CO2 into the air is altering that balance, especially as we are cutting down the trees which absorb the CO2.
As for the lead lag issue over CO2 and temperature as shown by Durkin as proof of lies he failed to tell us that athough temperature rises always occured naturally first (until this century) followed by CO2 rises later, the CO2 increases have then fueled a further rise in the temperature effectively causing a loop back in the cycle. If the CO2 hadn't risen, then the tempearutures would have fallen. We are now raising the CO2 level artificially. Mmmm, I wonder what that might do?
Beware of the figures on that programme. Much of it was spin. |
James. Have a read of your own post, and then try and work out how an objective person would read it ?
Couple of Ad hominem attacks, followed by some speculation.
About the only thing that made sense to me was the deforestation argument. Which begs the question to my mind at least, why arent we talking about why we really shouldnt be taking oil from the ground, and destroying the rainforests ?
All we hear is its because of our Carbon footprint, and what we consume.
Why dont any of them tell the real truth do you think ?
And finally, Al Gore or Martin Durkin ?......ermm ......hmmm to quote you. |
I am being objective, as objective as Martin Durkin anyway.
Sorry if you don't like what I say but obviously you don't know enough about climate change to be able to discuss the programme properly.
And what is the truth about all of this because Durkin sure as hell didn't make it clear?
Oh, and the speculation I apparently talk about is openly available on the internet and is argued by more climatologists than were on that film. The long and short of it being there are two valid sides to this argument and to dismiss one because a producer with a grudge makes a few statements is frankly rather stupid. This documentary is to the climate change lobby what the BBC 'Conspiracy Files' programme is to the 9/11 truth movement; full of propaganda. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 09, 2007 8:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| James C wrote: |
...
The bit about rotting vegetation is classic spin. What they don't say is how much CO2 was taken out of the system by the vegetation when it was alive. Ever heard of the CO2 cycle - that means there is a balance. Pumping masses of CO2 into the air is altering that balance, especially as we are cutting down the trees which absorb the CO2.
...
|
Exactly. We're unearthing and burning at a furious rate carbon stores that took nature millions of years to tuck safely out of the way. And we've done it (doing it) in the span of a few hundred years.
Some energy-saving light bulbs are a part of the solution, but they're a damn small part. Big changes are coming, and the nature of those changes might still be under our control.
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ian neal
Angel - now passed away
Joined: 26 Jul 2005
Posts: 3140
Location: UK
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
andrewwatson
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Feb 2006
Posts: 348
Location: Norfolk
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 09, 2007 11:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ignatz wrote: | | James C wrote: |
...
The bit about rotting vegetation is classic spin. What they don't say is how much CO2 was taken out of the system by the vegetation when it was alive. Ever heard of the CO2 cycle - that means there is a balance. Pumping masses of CO2 into the air is altering that balance, especially as we are cutting down the trees which absorb the CO2.
...
|
Exactly. We're unearthing and burning at a furious rate carbon stores that took nature millions of years to tuck safely out of the way. And we've done it (doing it) in the span of a few hundred years.
Some energy-saving light bulbs are a part of the solution, but they're a damn small part. Big changes are coming, and the nature of those changes might still be under our control. |
I realise I am in a minority over this , but I find it almost incredible that people could fall for this scam.
First, why would we not be affecting the earth's fragile and very thin protective layer of life-giving gases with the unprecedented assault it has taken in the last few decades from increasing fossil fuel burning, forest cover depletion, air travel, aerosols, yes, methane , chemical pollution and the internal combustion engine?
Second, what possible reason would 'they' have for inventing such a scare? 'Their' interests are in oil and getting control of the Middle East oil reserves. The last thing 'they' want is to prompt research and development of alternative, cheap and non-polluting energy sources. Why else did Bush refuse to ratify Kyoto?
It is not man-made global warming that is the con, it is this insane suggestion that it is all because of the sun and not due to our greedy and foolish actions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Abandoned Ego
Moderate Poster
Joined: 23 Sep 2005
Posts: 288
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 09, 2007 11:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Can I ask you Ian, what is your appraisal of the article ?
Before I offer mine that is.
It should really be glaringly obvious  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Abandoned Ego
Moderate Poster
Joined: 23 Sep 2005
Posts: 288
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2007 12:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Ignatz"] | James C wrote: |
...
Exactly. We're unearthing and burning at a furious rate carbon stores that took nature millions of years to tuck safely out of the way. And we've done it (doing it) in the span of a few hundred years.
|
Ignatz,
Im just wondering,
when do you expect these dinosaur bones and other fossils to run out ?
Weve been burning this stuff intensely for over 150 years. In the past ten years, weve extracted trillions of tons of these "fossils"
Meanwhile, Coal fires have been burning underground for thousands of years - ever since. We wont discuss how many countless Zillions of tons of "fossils" have burned up there.
So when does the supply of "fossil fuels" end ?
in 1974, it was the year 2000.
When does it happen in your book ? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James C
Major Poster
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2007 12:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Abandoned Ego"] | Ignatz wrote: | | James C wrote: |
...
Exactly. We're unearthing and burning at a furious rate carbon stores that took nature millions of years to tuck safely out of the way. And we've done it (doing it) in the span of a few hundred years.
|
Johnny,
Im just wondering,
when do you expect these dinosaur bones and other fossils to run out ?
Weve been burning this stuff for over 150 years.
Coal fires have been burning underground ever since
So when does the supply end ?
in 1974, it was the year 2000.
When does it happen in your book ? |
I'm not sure who this question is directed to but I'll try and answer it.
The supply is dependent upon usage. At our current rates of consumption we have about 30-40 years of oil and 200 years of coal. If peak oil theory is true however, then as oil becomes harder to extract over the next decade, the pressure will be on nuclear and coal. This will likely lead to a shortage of uranium within 30 years (goodbye nuclear) and coal within about 50 years (since its consumption will rise exponentially). So, if you are of an age where you expect to live for a few more decades then you can expect to see dramatic falls in our energy availability. No wonder the Neo-cons are so desparate to control the resources of the Middle East; the CIA has been tracking reserves versus consumption for years.
Of course, if coal use increases by great amounts then assuming AGW is true, this will lead to major problems for us all. We'll be stung by global warming problems then we'll all run out of energy. Exciting huh!
I'd be interested to know where you got your figure for 1974 from. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
scar
Moderate Poster
Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Posts: 724
Location: Brighton
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
scubadiver
Validated Poster
Joined: 26 Apr 2006
Posts: 1850
Location: Currently Andover
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2007 7:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
I was convinced by that documentary that the threat of global warming has been exaggerated. I am currently reading a book by Alexander Niles in which he argues that we are slowly moving towards one world Government in which financial power is concentrated into the hands of the few and we will be subjected to dictatorship.
(I was astounded to find out that Karl Marx was paid by Rothschild to write the Communist Manifesto and Communism is based on Illuminati principles)
If his argument has any kind of validity, does global warming play any part in preventing third world countries from developing so to keep the money in the hands of the few financiers?
Just a thought! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
scar
Moderate Poster
Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Posts: 724
Location: Brighton
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2007 8:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| scubadiver wrote: |
I was convinced by that documentary that the threat of global warming has been exaggerated. I am currently reading a book by Alexander Niles in which he argues that we are slowly moving towards one world Government in which financial power is concentrated into the hands of the few and we will be subjected to dictatorship.
(I was astounded to find out that Karl Marx was paid by Rothschild to write the Communist Manifesto and Communism is based on Illuminati principles)
If his argument has any kind of validity, does global warming play any part in preventing third world countries from developing so to keep the money in the hands of the few financiers?
Just a thought! |
Someone posted this in another thread on GW here. Interesting info that relates to what you just said somewhat:
Extracts from -
HOW THE WORLD REALLY WORKS
Alan B. Jones
Chapter 8 'The Greening'
(The Iron Mountain report was eventually declared a hoax by the people who wrote it. But many of the report's proposals are nonetheless with us today. Iron Mountain was the analysis and proposals of a secret, influential study group in the 1960s. It was said to be commissioned by wealthy and powerful elites who operate behind the scenes. It looked at how to maintain social control without war. War was thought to: i. give governments power over people; ii. maintain social stratification; iii. waste money so as the poor don’t get it; iv. reduce populations etc. Proposals to replace war included: the space race; social spending; the cold war and the environment.)
p149
'The subtitle of (Larry) Abraham's book ('The Greening', 1992) is 'The Environmentalists' Drive for Global Power', and describes how the war-substitute that appeared most feasible to the Iron Mountain study group has been converted into an action program.'
p150
'The environmental issue has clearly been selected as the major policy initiative to be developed. Recall that the Iron Mountain report expressed doubt that this issue would prove to be viable if dealt with only on its inherent merits, since the public would not likely view a sullied environment as a sufficiently severe threat to justify spending massive amounts of money on it, much less give up one's life in such a cause. It might be possible, however, to enhance the environmental threat, or even to invent a fake issue if an appropriate real one could not be found, though the conferees thought it better not to further discuss such possibilities in their written report.'
'In the first few pages of his book, Abraham plainly states his fundamental thesis. The real goal of the secret elites, he says, "is nothing less than to control natural resources worldwide. The Insiders of Environmentalism realise - even if many innocent bystanders do not - that the wealth of the world consists of the things that men take form the earth, and they want to control it all... For what is now being unleashed in the name of 'saving the earth' is nothing less than the most historic grab for power in all of human history."
p151
'In April 1970 there also appeared an article by insider George F Kennan in the Council on Foreign Relations' journal 'Foreign Affairs', entitled 'To Prevent a World Wasteland...A Proposal'. The article, no doubt written for the edification of the worker bees in the fields of the elites, was nothing less than the concrete plan for implementing the environmental project suggested by the Iron Mountain Special Study Group...'
p153
'...Just in case the Establishment workers still don't get it, Kennan specifically spells out the environmental issue is to replace society's fixation on the then-current Cold War, of which Kennan was a major architect, as Abraham clearly document. Kennan emotes: "Not only the international scientific community but the world at large has great need, at this dark hour, of a new and more promising focus of attention. The great communist and Western powers, particularly, have need to replace the waning fixation for the cold war with interests which they can pursue in common and to everyone's benefit. For young people the world over, some new opening of hope and creativity is becoming an urgent spiritual necessity. Could there, one wonders, be any undertaking better designed to meet these needs, to relieve the great convulsions of anxiety and ingrained hostility that now rack international society, than a major international effort to restore the hope, the beauty, and the salubriousness of the international environment in which man has his being?"'
p154
It appears in a 1991 book by Jim MacNeil called Beyond Interdependence: 'The Meshing of the World's Economy and the Earth's Ecology', published by the Trilateral Commission, and containing a foreword by David Rockefeller himself. The book lays out the major goal to be sought at the 1992 Rio Earth Summit meeting then being planned: "The major purpose of this conference is to launch a global transition to sustainable development."
"Sustainable growth" says Abraham is "Insider jargon for Green de-industrialisation, global cartelisation of natural resources, and international control of the world's economy... It is a new synonym for Iron Mountain's 'stability', i.e., perpetuating Insider control." We have referred to the same term as "social stability", meaning "keeping the Low's in poverty and the High's in power, forever."
p155
"Politically," says Abraham, "MacNeill teaches that environmental interdependence means the end of national sovereignty. It will provide the 'external necessity' for a world government with new laws and regulations aplenty." And if some nations don't rush to relinquish their sovereignty, remember erosion by the "steady encroachment on their sovereignty by the forces of economic interdependence."
p157
'Dominating the leadership of the US Establishment was the Wall Street lawyer for both Andrew Carnegie and JP Morgan, Elihu Root. Root was both chairman of the Carnegie Endowment and the first honorary chairman of the CFR. Orbiting Root were Morgan bank partners John W. Davis (CFR president 1921-33), Dwight Morrow, Thomas Lamont and Henry Davison, along with other legal powerhouses such as Paul Cravath, Norman Davis, Russell Leffifngwell, and Root's special protégé, Col. Henry L. Simson (FDR's Secretary of War)."
p160
'In September 1987, in Denver, Colorado, there occurred a conference called the Fourth World Wilderness Conference. The 1500 delegates from 60 countries found upon arriving that a conference Declaration had been written for them, stating in part that, because more funding was needed for expanding conservation activities, "a new conservation banking program should be created to integrate international aid for environmental management into coherent common programs for recipient countries based on objective assessments of each country's resources and needs."
These words clearly were not written by whale lovers and tree huggers in attendance, but more likely by the most major of the several major actors that were found in attendance, who included not only David Rockefeller of the Chase Manhattan Bank, but even the seldom seen (in public) Baron Edmund de Rothschild, representing the interests of his 200-year-old international banking family. Abraham suggests that we best pay close attention.'
p161
'In the Third World, we hark back to the fact of the Third World's unpayable debts, and listen to the conference's plan. It proposes that the WCB "act as intermediary between certain developing countries (e.g. Brazil) and multilateral or private banks (e.g. Chase) to transfer a specific debt (Brazil's debt to Chase) to the World Conservation Bank, thus substituting an existing doubtful debt on the bank's books (Brazil owes Chase) for a new loan to the WCB (WCB owes Chase) in return for having been relieved of its debt obligation, the debtor country (Brazil) would transfer to the WCB natural resource assets of 'equivalent value'..."
p162
'The elites wish to reduce the targeted Third World populations to a bare subsistence level in order to reduce to a minimum the costs of producing the raw materials on the lands which the elites are presently trying to wrest from those target countries in the name of world environmentalism.'
p164
'He (Abraham) notes that we should notes that we should not be surprised to find that the figures at the helm of each and every one of the major environmental foundations (such as the World Wildlife Fund, the Heritage Trust, the Nature Conservancy, the National Wildlife Federation, the Sierra Club, the World Wilderness Congress, Conservation International, and the Center for Earth Resource Analysis) are key members of the elite political organsations previously and repetitiously identified (i.e. the Royal Institute of International Affairs, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Bilderberg Group, the Club of Rome, and the Trilateral Commission).'
p168
'By and large the environmental groups are active and moving into education. Abraham notes that these environmental groups involve not only private organisations, such as the National Audubon Society, but large corporate entities as well, including Dow Chemicals, AT&T, Exxon, and 3M. "Is it only an accident," asks Abraham, "that all (of these corporate entities) are also members of the National Wildlife Federation's Corporate Conservation Council as well as Maurice Strong's Business Council for Sustainable Development?"
_________________
Positive...energy...activates...constant...elevation. (Gravediggaz) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gibson
Minor Poster
Joined: 01 Dec 2006
Posts: 62
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
insidejob
Validated Poster
Joined: 14 Dec 2005
Posts: 475
Location: North London
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2007 5:18 pm Post subject: Global warming hoax |
|
|
First, why would we not be affecting the earth's fragile and very thin protective layer of life-giving gases with the unprecedented assault it has taken in the last few decades from increasing fossil fuel burning, forest cover depletion, air travel, aerosols, yes, methane , chemical pollution and the internal combustion engine?
There is an inherent silliness about the man-made global warming theory. The Earth has been in existence for millions of years. It has experience massive changes in its climate. It has been an ice ball on five occasions, according to some scientists. Greenland supported crops and humans. Britain was in the tropics.
Yet we are supposed to believe that pollution pumped out over two centuries in relatively small part of the Earth will irrevocably alter the climate of the planet!!???
Could those people who believe this oddity point out the scientific research tell us:
how much greenhouse gasses have been man-made?
what proportion of man-made gasses are there in the atmosphere?
what proportion of man-made gasses in the atmosphere would lead to noticeable changes in the global climate?
what proportion of man-made gassess in the atmospere would lead to permanent change in the climate?
of the greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, how important are man-made gasses?
These are basic questions that those people who regard themselves as informed and support the man-made climate warming theory ought to be able to answer. The reality of course, is that the vast majority of people who support man-made global warming are totally clueless concerning these questions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
johndoe
Wrecker
Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 181
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2007 6:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
insidejob before i do the wee bit of calculation for you can i ask you to refine your question.
when you say "what proportion of man-made gasses are there in the atmosphere?" am i to limit that to co2? or all man-made gasses like ozone and the like? because that would be a real pain in the ass.
"what proportion of man-made gasses in the atmosphere would lead to noticeable changes in the global climate? "
what are we calling "noticeable"?
"of the greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, how important are man-made gasses?"
is that not really just asking for the percentage again?
but it certainly can be worked out. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
uselesseater
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 21 Sep 2005
Posts: 629
Location: Leeds
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2007 10:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about 5000 years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data.
This, from Real Climate is a classic non-debunking. Oh it could have caused it? Really, not what the evidence suggests I'm afraid.
There is no consensus on the main cause of climate change as for the IPCCs view? You might as well ask the Church if God exists.
Also, Communism and Environmentalism dovetail in the Neo-Feudal agenda. Communists are on the record saying how they would use environmentalism to further their agenda.
Co2 hype is a phoney environmentalism diversion, while the environment is getting destroyed by GM, Uranium etc...
Soon they will make climate change denial a thought crime and further push us towards full blown Eco-Totalitarianism / Neo-Feudalism. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
insidejob
Validated Poster
Joined: 14 Dec 2005
Posts: 475
Location: North London
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 5:20 pm Post subject: Global warming hoax |
|
|
| johndoe wrote: | insidejob before i do the wee bit of calculation for you can i ask you to refine your question.
when you say "what proportion of man-made gasses are there in the atmosphere?" am i to limit that to co2? or all man-made gasses like ozone and the like? because that would be a real pain in the ass.
"what proportion of man-made gasses in the atmosphere would lead to noticeable changes in the global climate? "
what are we calling "noticeable"?
"of the greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, how important are man-made gasses?"
is that not really just asking for the percentage again?
but it certainly can be worked out. |
Not sure why you're having to do calculations. My point is, why do people believe in man-made global warming if they don't know the answers to these questions? They are basic questions.
In terms of which man-made gassess, either CO2 or all will do.
what proportion of man-made gasses in the atmosphere would lead to a SIGNIFICANT IMPACT on the global climate?
"of the greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, how important are man-made gasses?"
It could be that people argue that comparatively small amounts of man-made gas is making a big difference. That is, the Earth naturally produces CO2 but there is a natural equilibrium that means there is no significant, harmful global warming. Man-made CO2 could unbalance the equilibrium and lead to significant, harmful global warming.
It also could be that there are other natural greenhouse gasses that are in far greater volume than man-made greenhouse gasses.
I still think you shouldn't be doing any calculations. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
James C
Major Poster
Joined: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1046
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 9:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Last time Martin Durkin made a Channel 4 film he was criticised by some of the contributors who felt they had been duped. He ended up having to make a public apology. Well, it looks like it's happening again. Here's a couple of articles describing Professor Wunsch's reaction to his protrayal in the film.
Climate scientist 'duped to deny global warming'
Climate change: An inconvenient truth... for C4
| Quote: | Professor Wunsch said: "I am angry because they completely misrepresented me. My views were distorted by the context in which they placed them. I was misled as to what it was going to be about. I was told about six months ago that this was to be a programme about how complicated it is to understand what is going on. If they had told me even the title of the programme, I would have absolutely refused to be on it. I am the one who has been swindled."
When told what the commission had found, he said: "That is what happened to me." He said he believes it is "an almost inescapable conclusion" that "if man adds excess CO2 to the atmosphere, the climate will warm".
He went on: "The movie was terrible propaganda. It is characteristic of propaganda that you take an area where there is legitimate dispute and you claim straight out that people who disagree with you are swindlers. That is what the film does in any area where some things are subject to argument."
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Newspeak International
Validated Poster
Joined: 18 Apr 2006
Posts: 1158
Location: South Essex
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2007 12:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
Lord Lawson of whatever believes the GW THREAT is exagerated by scientists quick to pounce on the economic gains to be had in such speculation.
It was stated CO2 emissions are 95% natural and 5% man made,no one disputed that alleged fact.
So do you beleve we are heading for GLOBAL WARMING CATASTROPHY (SP ) on the extra 5%?
I don't,but it will affect the nations taxpayers in GREEN TAXES. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ian neal
Angel - now passed away
Joined: 26 Jul 2005
Posts: 3140
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2007 1:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 5:45 pm Post subject: Posted by Johndoe
Deleted because johndoe is a critic posting off limts. Reinstated to allow John to use in any related thread he may wish to start in critics corner
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------
" My point is, why do people believe in man-made global warming if they don't know the answers to these questions? They are basic questions. "
the joys of having scientists work things out for you. the same reason why people will happily believe in gravity, electrons and the sun being a big ball of gas.
if everyone had to go around making scientific observations from scratch then we wouldn't get very much done.
"In terms of which man-made gassess, either CO2 or all will do."
well we'll do just co2 because it makes it alot easier.
"how much greenhouse gasses have been man-made?
over 30% of the current co2 in the atmosphere is man made. <- the calculation you were after.
yes that is a massive amount.
"what proportion of man-made gasses in the atmosphere would lead to noticeable changes in the global climate?"
well we can have a little looksee with some nice graphs from simulations.
the first shows temperature anomalies against the simulation with only natural changes taken into account:
http://www.mediamatters.org/static/img/limbaugh-20050816-1.jpg
the second shows temperature anomalies against the simulation with both natural changes and all the nasty stuff we've chucked out in the last hundred years:
http://www.mediamatters.org/static/img/limbaugh-20050816-2.jpg
notice the massive difference in prediction. also note that the second prediction is correct. the first one isn't.
so in answer to your question..... about 30% seems to be doing a fine job. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2007 9:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ian - to settle this once and for all - can you make a clear statement of forum rules?
Is the General Forum totally off-limits to 9/11 sceptics, or does that just apply to 9/11 subjects within the GF? The moderators/admins attitude seems to change daily.
I have to say it appears (from the outside) that creating a "Non-9/11 controversies" sub-forum ought to be a piece of cake and would settle all this nonsense. What have I missed? Is it really hard to create another forum?
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ian neal
Angel - now passed away
Joined: 26 Jul 2005
Posts: 3140
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2007 10:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
Critics should post only in critics corner even on non-9/11 issues. If this changes I will stick a prominent notice in critics corner to notify critics of this.
The forum structure is to be revised. There is a plan awaiting implementation by forum administrators (of which I'm not one) which will see some new areas for non-9/11 discussion created. However even under this plan, critics would still be required to post in critics corner. I do not see this as an issue of censorship, since supporters of the OCT have almost limitless opportunities to promote their message (that the Kean report is effectively the final word on what happened on 9/11) across all media including loads of other web forums.
As this thread shows and as I have said frequently in the past, I do not say that critics have nothing of value to say or that your insights are without merit especially on non 9/11 issues. My personal opinion is that on the issue of global warming, you and other critics here are probably correct in siding with mainstream science: namely that humanity is the primary cause of recent global warming, but I keep an open mind and do not see the debate as closed.
However your support for the Kean Commission Report in the face of overwhelming evidence that 9/11 needs reinvestigation frankly makes me question your judgement and/or motivation, hence the less than open welcome to your wider participation here. This is the view of the majority of users I have asked on this.
I can only guess that your desire to post outside critics corner reflects a certain frustration in this area as a platform to communicate your message. If critics wish to see this area moderated or structured differently I'm happy to listen to alternative suggestions.
However rather than derail discussion on this thread, I suggest critics such as yourself ignatz could start a thread in suggestions (as a one-off exception to the posting only CC rule) to discuss the rules of this forum regarding critics and the moderation of CC.
Thanks
Ian |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
