Climate Denial is a "Mental Disorder"!

[gilly]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/4953981/Climate-denial-is-know-a-mental-disorder.html

Climate 'denial' is now a mental disorder :eek:

Christopher Booker is bemused by the wild rhetoric of the climate change lobby.

By Christopher Booker
Last Updated: 6:06PM GMT 07 Mar 2009

How odd that, last Monday, none of our media global warming groupies should have bothered to report what was billed to be "the largest ever demonstration for civil disobedience over climate change". There was talk of hundreds of thousands of protestors converging on Washington to hear Jim Hansen, the scientist who talks of coal-fired power stations as "factories of death", call yet again for all coal plants to be closed. Perhaps the lack of coverage was due to the fact that, before Hansen arrived to address a forlorn group of several hundred hippies, Washington was blanketed in nearly a foot of snow.

It was generally another bad week for the warmists. The Met Office, which has been one of the chief pushers of the global warming scare for 20 years, had to admit that this has been "Britain's coldest winter for 13 years", despite its prediction last September that the winter would be "milder than average". This didn't of course stop it predicting that 2009 will be one of "the top-five warmest years on record".

US climate sceptics such as those on the Watts Up With That website, for whom the predictions of the UK Met Office have become a regular source of amusement, recalled its forecast that 2007 would be "the warmest year on record globally", just before global temperatures dived by nearly a full degree Celsius, cancelling out the entire net warming of the past 100 years.

Ever wilder wax the beleaguered warmists in their rhetoric. Our science minister Lord Drayson said last week he was "shocked" to find how many of the captains of industry he meets are "climate deniers". This was the same Lord Drayson who, as our defence procurement minister, assured Parliament in 2006 that Snatch Land Rovers afforded "the level of protection we need". The continuing death toll of soldiers in these unprotected vehicles approaches 40.

Even Drayson is outbid, however, by the groupies in The Guardian, who now suggest that people like Christopher Booker should no longer be compared to "Holocaust deniers" but consigned to even more outer darkness by branding them as climate "Creationists", the dirtiest word they know. Meanwhile at the University of the West of England in Bristol this weekend, a conference of "eco-psychologists", led by a professor, are solemnly exploring the notion that "climate change denial" should be classified as a form of "mental disorder".

I myself am off this weekend to New York, to join all the top "deniers", "creationists" and victims of psychic disorder at a conference organised by the Heartland Institute. It is an honour to be asked to speak alongside such luminaries as Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT, Dr Fred Singer, founder of the US satellite weather forecasting service, and the Czech President, Vaclav Klaus (not to mention those two revered climate bloggers, Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit and Anthony Watts). I shall report on this historic event next week

[dreamweaver]

US climate sceptics such as those on the Watts Up With That website, for whom the predictions of the UK Met Office have become a regular source of amusement, recalled its forecast that 2007 would be "the warmest year on record globally", just before global temperatures dived by nearly a full degree Celsius, cancelling out the entire net warming of the past 100 years.

Watts Up With That is a brilliant website btw :cool:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/

[gilly]

I expect there'll be compulsory medication soon for anyone who dares to verbally challenge any such lies, on the grounds that we're all suffering from a medical disorder.

Is anyone else surprised by this kind of article appearing in the Telegraph?

[deca]

hmm
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/922/1006922/addiction-internet-mental

also I don`t like how they are claiming teenagers are driven to commit suicide by the internet ? I think these teenagers have to use google (search engines ) like every one else so they would be interested or all ready thinking about suicide in the first place, people should find the cause`s of this and promote positive things or places were to get help not "hype these sites" and drive more teenagers towards them.


Addiction to the InterWeb is a mental illness
Mad World Wide Web
By Sylvie Barak
Tuesday, 18 March 2008, 10:12

ACCORDING TO the Ottawa Citizen, obsessive e-mailing and text messaging could soon be classed as an official mental disorder. The notion stems from a soon to be published editorial in the American Journal of Psychiatry which makes the case that Internet addiction is a common compulsive-impulsive disorder which should be classed by physicians as a brain illness.

Apparently, Internet addiction can include "excessive gaming, sexual pre-occupations and e-mail/text messaging". If you find that all of the above apply to you on a daily basis, please check yourself into your nearest mental health clinic immediately.

A psychiatrist at the Oregon Health and Science University in Portland, Dr Jerald Block, reckons that, like alcohol and drug addicts, Internet junkies get cravings, urges, withdrawal symptoms, and are always looking for bigger and better quality hardware and software to feed their appetites and increase their buzz. The doc says that about 86 per cent of Internet junkies have a form of mental sickness, characterised by users losing track of time spent online and neglect of "basic drives," like eating or sleeping.

Not all psychiatrists agree with Doc Block though. Last year, British psychiatrists writing in the Advances in Psychiatric Treatment journal, reckoned that only between five and ten per cent of Internet users were actually addicted, with the majority of hardcore addicts being middle aged desperate housewives.

Block also notes that the problems are at their most severe in Asia, namely in China and South Korea. He claims that there have already been several Internet gaming related deaths in cyber cafes caused by heart and lung failures [lung failure? - Ed] and that the Korean government has trained over 1,000 counsellors to help people deal with their addictions.

Beating an Internet addiction is apparently not something to be taken lightly though. People often relapse into their old Web habits and some could even require medication or hospitalisation. µ

L'Inqs
The Ottawa Citizen
Lost Online: an overview of Internet addiction (Advances in Psychiatric Treatment)

[clozaril]

hi i am a clozaril and i am a climate denier

*group says hello and applauds clozaril for his honesty*

[jimmi]

I don't believe in climates either.

[dreamweaver]

I expect there'll be compulsory medication soon for anyone who dares to verbally challenge any such lies, on the grounds that we're all suffering from a medical disorder.

Is anyone else surprised by this kind of article appearing in the Telegraph?
I think the tide is turning on the "climate change" crap, gilly, and has been for quite some time. The shrill hysteria is a sign of how desperate they're getting.

It's not that the warming is even anything to worry about even if human-caused CO2 really does make a difference. Bjorn Lomborg, author of the Skeptical Environmentalist, believes there is a small warming effect from human-produced CO2 - but that the cost of trying to "stop climate change" far outweighs the benefits. It is at the very best a King Canute gesture. If the planet is warming long-term (we're going through a cold phase at the moment because of factors like low sunspot activity, La Nina and the North Atlantic Oscillation), then we'd be better off building new flood defences etc to deal with it, not throw trillions of pounds trying to change something we can't change.

[nectars]

This must be the Mad hatters tea party then eh.. Tea anyone? :D

[adbasque]

hmm
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/922/1006922/addiction-internet-mental

also I don`t like how they are claiming teenagers are driven to commit suicide by the internet ? I think these teenagers have to use google (search engines ) like every one else so they would be interested or all ready thinking about suicide in the first place, people should find the cause`s of this and promote positive things or places were to get help not "hype these sites" and drive more teenagers towards them.

These people are cleverer than we give them credit, they've always used the same method when they want to promote something on the main stream media but they want to appear as if they are doing a good thing.

Examples:

They tried for years to show that they are anti gambling, but psychologically they know it will have a deeper impact on people, especially knowing human nature is driven by curiosity

Even if someone is not interested in gambling, by using repetition technique more and more people will
turn into gambling.

they were promoting and informing people on gambling, they casinos will be built everywhere, and they know that a lot of people will be tempted to try at least once

same thing with alcohol, with crimes, with stabbings, gun fights, drugs dealing, they talk about it as if they are outraged but in fact they are

sending messages to the wider audience go out there and sell drugs and use drugs, it's the new era, it's fashion, if you want to belong to society you must do all of these things, and everything will appear as if they are fighting it.

teenagers are lead to commit suicide not because they are using the internet, but what drives them there in the first place, like exposure to various drugs that we don't even know about

Remember teenagers are vulnerable at that age because of the hormone imbalance and so on.

Anyway it's quiete simple, I don't have all the answers on how they do these things, because it involves, science, technology, treatments, chemistry, biology etc... I am not an expert in these fields.

But the point I am making, they have all the means they need against us and our children.

Crime is rising because they want it to rise

Stabbing (at a very young age they carry knives)
Gun Crimes (as young as 16 years old carry guns)
Burglaries (as young as 12 years old now break into homes)
Attacks on teachers (can't discipline children anymore) parents can't either
Drug consumption (exposed drugs more than ever before)
Alcohol comsumption (exposed to alcohol more than never before

Sexually transmitted diseases (kids are exposed to sex now than never before)

Pregnancies (as young as 12/13 years old fall pregnant)

If you think all of these things happen by chance then you are a fool.

They don't care one bit about us or our kids, we can all die for all they care

[killmicrosoft]

This must be the Mad hatters tea party then eh.. Tea anyone? :D

coffee please

[dreamweaver]

coffee please

White, no sugar.

[hugolast]

is it me or is my coffee getting warmer..............;)

[adbasque]

I think the tide is turning on the "climate change" crap, gilly, and has been for quite some time. The shrill hysteria is a sign of how desperate they're getting.

It's not that the warming is even anything to worry about even if human-caused CO2 really does make a difference. Bjorn Lomborg, author of the Skeptical Environmentalist, believes there is a small warming effect from human-produced CO2 - but that the cost of trying to "stop climate change" far outweighs the benefits. It is at the very best a King Canute gesture. If the planet is warming long-term (we're going through a cold phase at the moment because of factors like low sunspot activity, La Nina and the North Atlantic Oscillation), then we'd be better off building new flood defences etc to deal with it, not throw trillions of pounds trying to change something we can't change.

But that doesn't necessarily mean we can simply keep sending crap into the air, we could protest against car industry, Aviation industry and so on.

Even though the global warming is loads of BS, we still need to breath clean air, don't you agree?

The technology is here to make electric cars, trains, planes and so on.
For instance the technology of Maglev trains has been tested for the last 30+ years and it's proven reliable, stable, powerful, clean, and very efficient

But it has a downside to it :( it's not very profitable for the greedy oil tycoons
and of course the Elite are not happy.

Electric cars been around for at least 25+ years, if people simply think a little, first cars used to run on water, so why are they not making them?

Well again not very profitable, people might fill up from a river or something lol
and it will let them dry of cash ;)

Maglev technology has been around for many decades already, but most people never heard of it, and that is because they didn't want people to know a bout it.

Global warming

the global warming is not only a big scam to further tax humanity but it's also one of the many excuses to bring in the one world government ;)

in order to reach an agreement between nations they will suggest a solution, one world order and government:

Problem reaction solution as David Icke puts it in a nutshell:
Anyway I am glad that more people at least are aware of this, but are we doing enough to stop them>? humm not sure

[pacoquerak]

man if it wasn't 5:34 in the morning I would write a lot more

you people don't know fucking shit about global warming

neither does Al Gore

I won't disagree with you that most of global warming stuff out there is bunk in every way possible, for example the inconvenient truth inconveniently doesn't ever bother to bring up the truth...

The thing is just because they are mostly wrong about global warming, doesn't mean that it doesn't actually exist.

Also, using the rational that because it got colder in the winter this year debunks global warming is just plain ridiculous, when we first started hearing about global warming one of the first things they said was (paraphrasing) that

"global warming is just a term used to help describe the situation of climate change. though scientists still are theorizing the outcomes, it is generally excepted that we will have much warmer summers and much colder winters, the equator will be much warmer in the summer and the poles will be much colder. Global warming causes all kinds of bizare whether patterns and the eventual outcome is totally unknown in truth."

or something like that. Now that is imperfect too, for instance how does that have anything to do with the poles melting if the caps are colder? I don't know, mabee it is the eventual outcome or something... I will not lay claim myself to be any sort of expert on the matter.


but here is where you guys miss the boat. Cars aren't the main cause of global warming. Agriculture is.
C02 isn't the main greenhouse gas, Methane is.

I haven't heard anyone talking about global warming, proponent or denier ever bring up the topic of methane since the late 90's.

it's not in inconvenient truth haha!

I can talk a great deal more in depth about this, no time now however!

but seriously, you guys don't know shit about it, stop pretending like you do.

[kde_]

man if it wasn't 5:34 in the morning I would write a lot more

you people don't know fucking shit about global warming

neither does Al Gore

I won't disagree with you that most of global warming stuff out there is bunk in every way possible, for example the inconvenient truth inconveniently doesn't ever bother to bring up the truth...

The thing is just because they are mostly wrong about global warming, doesn't mean that it doesn't actually exist.

Also, using the rational that because it got colder in the winter this year debunks global warming is just plain ridiculous, when we first started hearing about global warming one of the first things they said was (paraphrasing) that

"global warming is just a term used to help describe the situation of climate change. though scientists still are theorizing the outcomes, it is generally excepted that we will have much warmer summers and much colder winters, the equator will be much warmer in the summer and the poles will be much colder. Global warming causes all kinds of bizare whether patterns and the eventual outcome is totally unknown in truth."

or something like that. Now that is imperfect too, for instance how does that have anything to do with the poles melting if the caps are colder? I don't know, mabee it is the eventual outcome or something... I will not lay claim myself to be any sort of expert on the matter.


but here is where you guys miss the boat. Cars aren't the main cause of global warming. Agriculture is.
C02 isn't the main greenhouse gas, Methane is.

I haven't heard anyone talking about global warming, proponent or denier ever bring up the topic of methane since the late 90's.

it's not in inconvenient truth haha!

I can talk a great deal more in depth about this, no time now however!

but seriously, you guys don't know shit about it, stop pretending like you do.

Isn't water vapor a big greenhouse gas? Don't worry I don't know shit.

[adbasque]

I can talk a great deal more in depth about this, no time now however!

Well so can we ;)


but seriously, you guys don't know shit about it, stop pretending like you do.


And of course you do

Methane is a natural gas, has it ever occur to you that they are deliberately screwing the climate, so they can prove their point?

Has it occur to you that this planet of ours goes through cycles, who can tell for sure, what it was a thousand years ago?

and if you could debate instead of using S*** and less arrogant too, you want to impress but, you missed, Mr know it all.

I don't care how , why and when, All I know it's a huge scam to tax smart people like you.

on what grounds you base your theory that global warming is happening? can you go back long enough since the records began to compare? No
So stop being pretencious, you will certainly not impress me.

Everything you said here I've heard it before from many people, and if I did so did you, which make you nothing but a repeater.
No basis whatsoever.

My theory is that these bastards are screwing the climate deliberately, the same way they have been tampering with everything else, from our food, water, air and son.

And another thing Mr smart for the last 50+ years they've been tampering with our climate, starting from the cloud seeding, if you don't know what that is look it up:

Or maybe you need to look up (HARRP) High frequency active auroral research programme:
All of a sudden we are having more violent hurricanes, hot dry summers, they are screwing our planet just to prove a point and to exterminate as many of us as they can at one time.

But thank god we have smart people to lecture us and tell us we got it all wrong, we know S*** about it.

I cannot stand arrogant pretentious people, my advice to you is get real be humble, it's the greatest thing a human being can do:

Keep your feet on the ground, even if you knew it all, it's just a small advice

from a stranger ;)

[gilly]

I've read a whole lot on the subject of global warming, and even the top scientists who don't seem to be NWO are in disagreement.

The dramatic sun-flare activities are persuasive evidence of non-manmade warming, while some speculate (no proof), that the melting polar ice-caps are consistent with regular small detonations, and we're actually on our way in vast areas, to being hit by an ice-age.

Anyway, the point here is that they're planning to accommodate us with straightjackets, and small padded cells for voicing dissent for their lies!

[dreamweaver]

I don't care how , why and when, All I know it's a huge scam to tax smart people like you.
I think the tax scam aspect of it is the least of our worries - it's the control freakery surrounding it that is far worse in my opinion.

Also, using the rational that because it got colder in the winter this year debunks global warming is just plain ridiculous,
I agree with you. I've tried to explain this several times in these threads. One swallow doesn't make a summer and one cold winter doesn't debunk the greenhouse effect. It makes our side look retarded to be so simplistic. There are some credible scientists who challenge the IPCC 'official story' and I've tried to point people towards some of them - the Watts Up With That blog is one good example.

Is anyone else surprised by this kind of article appearing in the Telegraph?
Gilly, sorry if I've misunderstood you here but are you saying that the Telegraph has endorsed the "climate change deniers are mad" line? Because if you are, the article actually does the exact opposite. Or are you surprised that the Telegraph has published this article because it's previously toed the IPCC line?

[element]

Climate change is an observable fact. Idiots confuse it with global warming. (which is questionable)

[gilly]

I think the tax scam aspect of it is the least of our worries - it's the control freakery surrounding it that is far worse in my opinion.


I agree with you. I've tried to explain this several times in these threads. One swallow doesn't make a summer and one cold winter doesn't debunk the greenhouse effect. It makes our side look retarded to be so simplistic. There are some credible scientists who challenge the IPCC 'official story' and I've tried to point people towards some of them - the Watts Up With That blog is one good example.


Gilly, sorry if I've misunderstood you here but are you saying that the Telegraph has endorsed the "climate change deniers are mad" line? Because if you are, the article actually does the exact opposite. Or are you surprised that the Telegraph has published this article because it's previously toed the IPCC line?

The latter ..."I myself am off this weekend to New York, to join all the top "deniers", "creationists" and victims of psychic disorder at a conference organised by the Heartland Institute. It is an honour to be asked to speak alongside such luminaries as Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT, Dr Fred Singer, founder of the US satellite weather forecasting service, and the Czech President, Vaclav Klaus (not to mention those two revered climate bloggers, Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit and Anthony Watts). I shall report on this historic event next week".

I'm surprised that a Telegraph journalist siding with those of us with a "mental disorder".

[dreamweaver]

The latter ..."I myself am off this weekend to New York, to join all the top "deniers", "creationists" and victims of psychic disorder at a conference organised by the Heartland Institute. It is an honour to be asked to speak alongside such luminaries as Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT, Dr Fred Singer, founder of the US satellite weather forecasting service, and the Czech President, Vaclav Klaus (not to mention those two revered climate bloggers, Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit and Anthony Watts). I shall report on this historic event next week".

I'm surprised that a Telegraph journalist siding with those of us with a "mental disorder".

Ah, fair enough then Gilly. Yes, it does seem a welcome development. Mind you, the Telegraph has published climate change skeptic articles before, especially those famous ones by Christopher Monckton:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1533312/The-sun-is-warmer-now-than-for-the-past-11400-years.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1533912/Wrong-problem-wrong-solution.html

[dreamweaver]

Oh, talking about the Telegraph, there's obviously a subversive sub-editor there. Check out this story on the Guido blog about this little gem:

http://www.order-order.com/2009/03/telegraph-it-was-only-little-bit-of.html

Basically there was a story about Gordon Brown running for a couple of days where the URL was /Gordon-Brown-is-a-cunt.html :D

They've changed it now unfortunately but it really was there, I was going to post about it yesterday but forgot.

[gilly]

Oh, talking about the Telegraph, there's obviously a subversive sub-editor there. Check out this story on the Guido blog about this little gem:

http://www.order-order.com/2009/03/telegraph-it-was-only-little-bit-of.html

Basically there was a story about Gordon Brown running for a couple of days where the URL was /Gordon-Brown-is-a-cunt.html :D

They've changed it now unfortunately but it really was there, I was going to post about it yesterday but forgot.

Very pleasing. :)

[ownoiz]

Climate 'denial' is now a mental disorder :eek:

Cool, more proof that im nucking futs.

I want my meds, where do i sign...
.
__________________
"98% of us will die at some point in our lives" - Will Ferrell - Talladega Nights

[ndc777]

The much colder freshwater from the polar icecaps lowers the temperature of the oceans, deactivating the turbos that push the warm-water currents around the world. The polar icecaps are really a sort of fuse or safety device protecting the Earth from overheating. When enough of the icecaps have melted, the earth will soon enter another Ice Age.

CO2 emissions have indeed done great damage to Earth, but there is no great "global warming" in process.

[pduffy4]

Then I'm as mad as a hatter.

Al Gore is the NWOrder's bitch.

[motleyhoo]

The much colder freshwater from the polar icecaps lowers the temperature of the oceans, deactivating the turbos that push the warm-water currents around the world. The polar icecaps are really a sort of fuse or safety device protecting the Earth from overheating. When enough of the icecaps have melted, the earth will soon enter another Ice Age.

CO2 emissions have indeed done great damage to Earth, but there is no great "global warming" in process.

In the event that global warming was real/true, the theory is that the melted fresh water (different density and specfic gravity) would interrupt the main ocean currents (eg, the Gulf Stream), which would indeed freeze upper latitudes, but this would happen while the lower latitudes baked like deserts. Indeed we are already seeing most of the world's great glaciers (many that some countries rely on for water) disappearing, a few almost completely over the last 15 years or so. Whole ice shelfs are breaking off in Antarctica, while the Arctic nearly melted all the way across this past summer. AND this is occuring at a time when Sun activity is curiously very low.

It's not just CO2, but a toxic soup of SOX, NOX, and heavy metals, and the fact that what it took Mother Earth millions of years to sequester, we have dug up and pumped back into the atmosphere in a scant 100 years. We can clearly see this in the bleaching of coral reefs all over the globe, as well as the heavy metal buildup in our soils (which goes right into the foods we eat).

I'm not say'n global warming is real. I'm just say'n.

[cruise4]

"Climate change is an observable fact. Idiots confuse it with global warming."

No they don't. The propoganda term was originally 'CO2 led Global Warming' then 'Global warming' then 'Man Made Global Warming' then 'Anthropomorphic' and now 'Climate Change'. If anyone confuses it, it's the liars. Climate Change is known as 'The Weather'. It varies according to Sun Activity. And there may be NO Greenhouse Effect, even ignoring the fact that we don't live in a Greenhouse...

http://globalwarmingnot.blogtownhall.com/2009/02/03/greenhouse_theory_disproved_a_century_ago.thtml

http://www.warmingscaretactics.com/Greenhouse_Theory.php

Climate Change as a man made CO2 issue is TOTAL and COMPLETE Bullshit.

[armchair philosopher]

What a strange coincidence (or is it?). I was absolutely disgusted to find a 'Climate Change Denier Trump Cards' article on the Guardian of all places(!):

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/mar/06/climate-change-deniers-top-10

This article effectively ridicules several people who have 'dared' to question man-made climate change. Anyone who understands how media reporting can influence public opinion will recognise quite how serious this is.

Now climate change is a debatable point, and I for one think that whatever the case, we should all be doing our best to prevent even the possibility of it occurring. But this is the Guardian, which I had previously thought was a fairly neutral, liberal, left-wing publication? This is tabloid stuff! And, as it happens, I have noticed a hell of a lot of tabloid-esque opinion creeping into many of the Guardian's articles recently.

Truly a disgrace.

[kingmonkey]

Christopher Booker is a lone voice there i would think. If it's the same guy who wrote this book (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Scared-Death-Global-Warming-Costing/dp/0826486142), he seems like he's one of the few "real" journalists.

[and justice for all]

I think the tide is turning on the "climate change" crap, gilly, and has been for quite some time. The shrill hysteria is a sign of how desperate they're getting [...]

I agree. They know people are not buying it. They’re throwing their best curbed balls and all the weight of their brought and paid for media manipulation and mass mind control, and they’re realizing people are still not swallowing it.

First they used the ‘ridicule approach’ by coining the term; “global warming deniers” and using it on people that refuses to acknowledge their climate brainwashing, and now, since the clock is ticking and they see they’re not doing any progress... they’re going all out threatening people with the nut house if they voice their opposition to their ludicrous propaganda.

This is out right psychological bulling and fear-inducing blackmail. It just shows the true nature of the shadowy figures that are usually behind this type of criminal social engineering tactics; which are of course nothing but mobsters and crooks of the highest order.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wStc-gKtxY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQHXrTgmPbo

[and justice for all]

(Oh and I forgot this one):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfHW7KR33IQ

[and justice for all]

What a strange coincidence (or is it?). I was absolutely disgusted to find a 'Climate Change Denier Trump Cards' article on the Guardian of all places(!):

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/mar/06/climate-change-deniers-top-10

This article effectively ridicules several people who have 'dared' to question man-made climate change. Anyone who understands how media reporting can influence public opinion will recognise quite how serious this is.

Now climate change is a debatable point, and I for one think that whatever the case, we should all be doing our best to prevent even the possibility of it occurring. But this is the Guardian, which I had previously thought was a fairly neutral, liberal, left-wing publication? This is tabloid stuff! And, as it happens, I have noticed a hell of a lot of tabloid-esque opinion creeping into many of the Guardian's articles recently.

Truly a disgrace.

LoL :D, now you see why I told you (oh, several weeks back)... that if I have to read the Guardian I stick strictly to the financial section...and even then is only for monitoring/cross checking purposes. ;)

[dreamweaver]

What a strange coincidence (or is it?). I was absolutely disgusted to find a 'Climate Change Denier Trump Cards' article on the Guardian of all places(!):

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/mar/06/climate-change-deniers-top-10

This article effectively ridicules several people who have 'dared' to question man-made climate change. Anyone who understands how media reporting can influence public opinion will recognise quite how serious this is.

Now climate change is a debatable point, and I for one think that whatever the case, we should all be doing our best to prevent even the possibility of it occurring. But this is the Guardian, which I had previously thought was a fairly neutral, liberal, left-wing publication? This is tabloid stuff! And, as it happens, I have noticed a hell of a lot of tabloid-esque opinion creeping into many of the Guardian's articles recently.

Truly a disgrace.

Monbiot is a bit of a tit, it has to be said. And a hypocrite when he mocks Christopher Monckton (Viscount Monckton of Brenchley) for being posh. Monbiot isn't exactly a horny-handed son of toil himself.

[noesis]

Thanks for that, i'll add that to the list of disorders i have/supposedly have :D

A colleague of mine said i was in a growing minority yesterday for being sceptical about man made climate change.

I have no problem with us being more environmentally sustainable; i think we have lost our way when it comes to living in harmony with the planet.

However i am in no way going to sit back and be spoon fed informaton from a "carefully" selected panel of experts in the IPCC and accept it as fact, particularly when the findings are "agreed upon".

[dreamweaver]

I've made a list of some of the best resources that challenge the science of the climate change 'official story': http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=57134

[oiram]

The only "Mental Disorder" we have are the Bankers & the once running around in our Governments!


http://www.besafeplus.net/images/ice-bear.jpg

[noesis]

I've made a list of some of the best resources that challenge the science of the climate change 'official story': http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=57134

Thanks Dreamweaver, everytime i'm challenged on this my brain "inconveniently" locks away all my debate material, this will come in very handy.

[adzboarder]

Climate deniers are scum, I mean, look what is left of the Arctic - how can you deny this?

http://www.guy-sports.com/fun_pictures/polar_bear_iceberg.jpg

Clear evidence of climate change right there :D

[dreamweaver]

Climate deniers are scum, I mean, look what is left of the Arctic - how can you deny this?

http://www.guy-sports.com/fun_pictures/polar_bear_iceberg.jpg

Clear evidence of climate change right there :D

Ah, climate porn. :rolleyes:

Dunno if you're being serious or not. But if you are, do you know that the polar bear population is increasing? And that polar bears often travel on ice floes, and they can swim easily in open water for 60 miles? http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0503/p13s01-wogi.html

[ownoiz]

http://www.guy-sports.com/fun_pictures/polar_bear_iceberg.jpg


If Al Gore wanted to join the forum and choose an avatar...that would be it.
.
__________________
"98% of us will die at some point in our lives" - Will Ferrell - Talladega Nights

[anthony65]

The thread below is massively relevant to the climate denial thread...

David Bellamy not only calls global warming a scam, he tells how he and others were sacked from the BBC in 1996 for refusing to tow the official line and tell lies!

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=57145

[grenadene]

They've made a mental health disorder out of every differing point of view. Children are sometimes diagnosed with O.D.D (oppositional defiance disorder!) when the doc can't tick all the boxes for ADHD. A lot of the people with symptoms of Morgellon's are dismissed as having a mental problem causing you to imagine parasites under your skin. Alternative points of view are 'insanity', Conspiracy theories are turned into films so the message can't be conveniently stored in the brain as 'fiction'.

That said, I find discussing 'global warming' makes me kind of twitchy, because I feel it's been lumped in with every other environmental issue and we are in danger of rejecting a whole host of legitimate issues such as deforestation, land degradation and overflowing landfill sites filled by all of us that keep throwing that plastic crap into our trolleys. This may not be causing man made global warming but our thoughtless consumption habits and wasteful ways doesn't make for a healthy planet. Far too many people seem to think 'ah green issues...it's all a load of bullshit - so fly us a burger in from Argentina?'

I don't want the planet to be any worse off as a result of my visit here :)

[adbasque]

Then I'm as mad as a hatter.

Al Gore is the NWOrder's bitch.

Not just him, they are all the new world order's whores
every single one of them, politicians, scientists, media tycoons, corporations, and so on...

of course there are very few exceptions

[anthony65]

They've made a mental health disorder out of every differing point of view. Children are sometimes diagnosed with O.D.D (oppositional defiance disorder!) when the doc can't tick all the boxes for ADHD. A lot of the people with symptoms of Morgellon's are dismissed as having a mental problem causing you to imagine parasites under your skin. Alternative points of view are 'insanity', Conspiracy theories are turned into films so the message can't be conveniently stored in the brain as 'fiction'.

That said, I find discussing 'global warming' makes me kind of twitchy, because I feel it's been lumped in with every other environmental issue and we are in danger of rejecting a whole host of legitimate issues such as deforestation, land degradation and overflowing landfill sites filled by all of us that keep throwing that plastic crap into our trolleys. This may not be causing man made global warming but our thoughtless consumption habits and wasteful ways doesn't make for a healthy planet. Far too many people seem to think 'ah green issues...it's all a load of bullshit - so fly us a burger in from Argentina?'

I don't want the planet to be any worse off as a result of my visit here :)

Excellent point! :)

[pacoquerak]

Well so can we ;)



And of course you do

Methane is a natural gas, has it ever occur to you that they are deliberately screwing the climate, so they can prove their point?

Has it occur to you that this planet of ours goes through cycles, who can tell for sure, what it was a thousand years ago?

and if you could debate instead of using S*** and less arrogant too, you want to impress but, you missed, Mr know it all.

I don't care how , why and when, All I know it's a huge scam to tax smart people like you.

on what grounds you base your theory that global warming is happening? can you go back long enough since the records began to compare? No
So stop being pretencious, you will certainly not impress me.

Everything you said here I've heard it before from many people, and if I did so did you, which make you nothing but a repeater.
No basis whatsoever.

My theory is that these bastards are screwing the climate deliberately, the same way they have been tampering with everything else, from our food, water, air and son.

And another thing Mr smart for the last 50+ years they've been tampering with our climate, starting from the cloud seeding, if you don't know what that is look it up:

Or maybe you need to look up (HARRP) High frequency active auroral research programme:
All of a sudden we are having more violent hurricanes, hot dry summers, they are screwing our planet just to prove a point and to exterminate as many of us as they can at one time.

But thank god we have smart people to lecture us and tell us we got it all wrong, we know S*** about it.

I cannot stand arrogant pretentious people, my advice to you is get real be humble, it's the greatest thing a human being can do:

Keep your feet on the ground, even if you knew it all, it's just a small advice

from a stranger ;)

I said I don't know a great deal on the subject, I am in no means an expert.

I fucking know it is deliberate and I wouldn't argue with that ever.

It is called the green revolution and global warming is only one way that it threatens us

[anthony65]

Not just him, they are all the new world order's whores
every single one of them, politicians, scientists, media tycoons, corporations, and so on...

of course there are very few exceptions

Scientists: There are 34,000 exceptions who called global warming for the scam it is. :)

And David Bellamy of course! And David is a scientist! :)

politicians: very few exceptions... :(

Media tycoony: no exceptions... :mad:

corporations: no exceptions... :mad:

[gilly]

Scientists: There are 34,000 exceptions who called global warming for the scam it is. :)

And David Bellamy of course! And David is a scientist! :)

politicians: very few exceptions... :(

Media tycoony: no exceptions... :mad:

corporations: no exceptions... :mad:

I didn't know David Bellamy was still around. I really love that man. :)

[anthony65]

I didn't know David Bellamy was still around. I really love that man. :)

Hi Gilly,

He's not just still around, he's standing up for truth at the age of 76!

I posted this already this morning, but nobody has commented on it yet...

Please take a look Gilly! David is magnificent and the interviewer is sooooo fair and constructive!

The thread below is massively relevant to the climate denial thread...

David Bellamy not only calls global warming a scam, he tells how he and others were sacked from the BBC in 1996 for refusing to tow the official line and tell lies!

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=57145

[gilly]

Hi Gilly,

He's not just still around, he's standing up for truth at the age of 76!

I posted this already this morning, but nobody has commented on it yet...

Please take a look Gilly! David is magnificent and the interviewer is sooooo fair and constructive!

The thread below is massively relevant to the climate denial thread...

David Bellamy not only calls global warming a scam, he tells how he and others were sacked from the BBC in 1996 for refusing to tow the official line and tell lies!
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=57145

Just watched it Anthony65 -the clip also explains why I didn't know he was still around.

He's a hero!

[anthony65]

Just watched it Anthony65 -the clip also explains why I didn't know he was still around.

He's a hero!

Yes, he truly is. :)

Thank you David Bellamy for your moral integrity, your courage, your good humour and your determination.

[adzboarder]

Ah, climate porn. :rolleyes:

Dunno if you're being serious or not. But if you are, do you know that the polar bear population is increasing? And that polar bears often travel on ice floes, and they can swim easily in open water for 60 miles? http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0503/p13s01-wogi.html

Dude! It's me!!

I was hoping the :D part would explain that I am joking.

...and yes actually, I did know that.

[pacoquerak]

In the event that global warming was real/true, the theory is that the melted fresh water (different density and specfic gravity) would interrupt the main ocean currents (eg, the Gulf Stream), which would indeed freeze upper latitudes, but this would happen while the lower latitudes baked like deserts. Indeed we are already seeing most of the world's great glaciers (many that some countries rely on for water) disappearing, a few almost completely over the last 15 years or so. Whole ice shelfs are breaking off in Antarctica, while the Arctic nearly melted all the way across this past summer. AND this is occuring at a time when Sun activity is curiously very low.

It's not just CO2, but a toxic soup of SOX, NOX, and heavy metals, and the fact that what it took Mother Earth millions of years to sequester, we have dug up and pumped back into the atmosphere in a scant 100 years. We can clearly see this in the bleaching of coral reefs all over the globe, as well as the heavy metal buildup in our soils (which goes right into the foods we eat).

I'm not say'n global warming is real. I'm just say'n.

ugh... you didn't mention methane...ahhaha

[pacoquerak]

"Climate change is an observable fact. Idiots confuse it with global warming."

No they don't. The propoganda term was originally 'CO2 led Global Warming' then 'Global warming' then 'Man Made Global Warming' then 'Anthropomorphic' and now 'Climate Change'. If anyone confuses it, it's the liars. Climate Change is known as 'The Weather'. It varies according to Sun Activity. And there may be NO Greenhouse Effect, even ignoring the fact that we don't live in a Greenhouse...

http://globalwarmingnot.blogtownhall.com/2009/02/03/greenhouse_theory_disproved_a_century_ago.thtml

http://www.warmingscaretactics.com/Greenhouse_Theory.php

Climate Change as a man made CO2 issue is TOTAL and COMPLETE Bullshit.

your right, it's methane

[pacoquerak]

Ah, climate porn. :rolleyes:

Dunno if you're being serious or not. But if you are, do you know that the polar bear population is increasing? And that polar bears often travel on ice floes, and they can swim easily in open water for 60 miles? http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0503/p13s01-wogi.html

LOL WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS A LINK TO THE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE WEBSITE BAHAHAHAHAHAH


man i hope you guys have some shred of regret when all the polar bears actually are dead

[element]

Climate may change due to human activity aswell. Deforestation in African countries are an example, which results in increase of deserts, the Sahara. (Nigeria is a good example). So the climate there changes.

[pacoquerak]

I agree with you. I've tried to explain this several times in these threads. One swallow doesn't make a summer and one cold winter doesn't debunk the greenhouse effect. It makes our side look retarded to be so simplistic. There are some credible scientists who challenge the IPCC 'official story' and I've tried to point people towards some of them - the Watts Up With That blog is one good example.




ok, so let me drop the little bit of knowledge I have on the subject

at one time, everywhere in the middle east was forests. Iraq, Iran, the whole boat, even Egypt and the great Saharan desert were at one time massive forests. Almost all deserts in the world are man made. This is something that has been going in for over 10k+ years. It is in the earliest known story, the epic of Gilgamesh, where Gilgamesh starts cutting down the forests on the carpathian mountains (i think in what is now present day Iraq)

now here is where the problem sets in, forests get on average 90% more rainfall than non forested regions. Why is this?

http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/news/2008/02/bacteria_clouds

from what I understand, these bacteria primarily form in forested areas.

Ever read Credo Mutwa? He said that at one time on earth all the world was covered in mist all the time. Reminds me a bit of what it is like in a lot of forests, always cool and misty and wet.

Now here is where it gets really dangerous and our "friend" al gore never even bothered to bring up
Rice Paddies in china are freaking massive methane producers
United States, most vial global warming contributor, eats 25% of the worlds meat. 2% of the population of the world eats 25% of the meat.

This meat is grown in giant factories fed an unnatural diet of corn and soy that causes them to develop more methane. Their dung is seen as waste and the way it is used allows it to decompose and breath off into the atmosphere creating tons and tons of methane. Cows fart methane constantly, it can cause an explosion. Now picture this. 90% of all plants we grow goes into feeding animals. When you have monocultures that are over fertilized you are adding methane to the air. The sandy dirt covered in petrochemical and herbicide leak methane like squeezing a sponge in hot summer days.

Now, you got all this shit, and it gets picked up in the rainwater, the sewage systems overflow into the river... the mouth of the Mississippi river, a giant dead zone of over nutrionated water the size of New Jersey. Any fish that swims in this zone is unable to get oxygen, sinks to the ocean floor and dies. MORE METHAN from dying fish!!

now here is where America takes the cake. you know 33% of all harvested natural gas is turned into petrochemical fertilizer? 50% of that is used to fertilize people's lawns. 90% of all fertilized lawns are OVER fertilized. On top of that, lawn mowers are completely unregulated and are some of the worst polluting machines that exist.

So no, your car isn't destroying the planet, the food you eat is. And believe me, global warming is just one of the many ways that the "Green" revolution will see the end of our planet.

I pray for your souls

[adbasque]

Climate may change due to human activity aswell. Deforestation in African countries are an example, which results in increase of deserts, the Sahara. (Nigeria is a good example). So the climate there changes.

You know something, deforestation that took place in the ancient times has no comparison with today's deforestation.

Let me give you few examples if I may:

Before the coal

in the olden days, wood was used on almost everything you can think of.

People used wood to cook, to heat up water, to heat up their homes, to build their homes, to build bridges, and the list goes on.

Now we are using other different sources for all of these, less houses are built with wood.
homes are no longer heated from wood
wood is usually recycled to use again for carpentry

and one major element we all seem to forget, in the olden days, when there is a fire, they coudn't control it the same way it is controlled nowdays.

So I hardly see that as valuable argument, yes we need those trees, that doesn't mean it's ok we can cut trees and there wouldn't be no consequences.

Of course we need to save our forest and trees, they are the lungs of this planet, but I won't put it down as "the cause" of this whole BS global warming, which I don't believe anyway.

And I pretty sure they are doing something to the N & S Poles to melt the ice so they can prove that global warming is taking place.

Remember one thing these people always lied to us, and they will always BS us and lie to us.

And it's obvious why they are doing this, one is to control what we do, to introduce more laws and regulations, and the second thing is to give them another excuse to impose more taxes on us.

500 scientists met in NY in 2007 and they have concluded that there's no evidence of any global warming, have they been televised? nooo nobody heard about them until they were mentioned on the web.

Then some major news channels mentioned the meeting on the fly without giving any details of the outcome of their meeting ;) very convenient isn't it?

The media that never misses anything all of sudden they went deaf and blind.

This is a huge conspiracy after, the Titanic, pearl harbor, world war 1 and 2, vietnam, korea, 9/11, 7/7 gulf war, gulf war 2, and so on...

That's what it all boils down

[kingmonkey]

LOL WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS A LINK TO THE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE WEBSITE BAHAHAHAHAHAH


man i hope you guys have some shred of regret when all the polar bears actually are dead


Probably some end-timer type thing...

[pacoquerak]

You know something, deforestation that took place in the ancient times has no comparison with today's deforestation.

Let me give you few examples if I may:

Before the coal

in the olden days, wood was used on almost everything you can think of.

People used wood to cook, to heat up water, to heat up their homes, to build their homes, to build bridges, and the list goes on.

Now we are using other different sources for all of these, less houses are built with wood.
homes are no longer heated from wood
wood is usually recycled to use again for carpentry

and one major element we all seem to forget, in the olden days, when there is a fire, they coudn't control it the same way it is controlled nowdays.

So I hardly see that as valuable argument, yes we need those trees, that doesn't mean it's ok we can cut trees and there wouldn't be no consequences.

Of course we need to save our forest and trees, they are the lungs of this planet, but I won't put it down as "the cause" of this whole BS global warming, which I don't believe anyway.

And I pretty sure they are doing something to the N & S Poles to melt the ice so they can prove that global warming is taking place.

Remember one thing these people always lied to us, and they will always BS us and lie to us.

And it's obvious why they are doing this, one is to control what we do, to introduce more laws and regulations, and the second thing is to give them another excuse to impose more taxes on us.

500 scientists met in NY in 2007 and they have concluded that there's no evidence of any global warming, have they been televised? nooo nobody heard about them until they were mentioned on the web.

Then some major news channels mentioned the meeting on the fly without giving any details of the outcome of their meeting ;) very convenient isn't it?

The media that never misses anything all of sudden they went deaf and blind.

This is a huge conspiracy after, the Titanic, pearl harbor, world war 1 and 2, vietnam, korea, 9/11, 7/7 gulf war, gulf war 2, and so on...

That's what it all boils down

deforestation causes climate change and more harmful weather patterns

methane causes global warming

when it heats up, the largest source of stored energy in the world, the tundra is going to be releasing so much methane there will be no turning back or lessening of the damage

hopefully if you still live in a forested area you won't be so bad off...

[adbasque]

ok, so let me drop the little bit of knowledge I have on the subject

at one time, everywhere in the middle east was forests. Iraq, Iran, the whole boat, even Egypt and the great Saharan desert

No Absolutely not, the middle east was mostly desert, Sahara was desert and still is, as a matter of fact a lot of these places became green in the last 20+ years.

If you read history and descriptions of those places, the travellers, the nomads and so on what they were wearing, you'd see that those places were always rocks and sands and baking sun.

[element]

If you read history and descriptions of those places, the travellers, the nomads and so on what they were wearing, you'd see that those places were always rocks and sands and baking sun.
The Egyptians speak about it and it was more of a savannah in those days. It's scientifically proven that Egypt was mostly a savannah, only becoming a desert around 4000/3000 bc. But I believe most of the sahara is not man-made, but today is a different story. There are also caves with giraffe paintings etc. in the Saharah.

[pacoquerak]

No Absolutely not, the middle east was mostly desert, Sahara was desert and still is, as a matter of fact a lot of these places became green in the last 20+ years.

If you read history and descriptions of those places, the travellers, the nomads and so on what they were wearing, you'd see that those places were always rocks and sands and baking sun.

false
There was no "history" 10k years ago

[edix911]

I am not a climate expert, but it is so obvious that the Sun is first thing to blaim. Just immagine if our Sun would just dissapear. I guess in some 36 hours our planet would probbably freeze completely. Or just go naked in the night outside and try to stay there all night(I'm saying here to globalist rats).

Should we execute all these scammers this way? Should we simply fit them all naked in the camp during the winter time and let them freeze there?

[pacoquerak]

don't you guys see that you are trying to be the opposite of what you see as the problem, but the real truth lies somewhere in the middle

[cruise4]

"but the real truth lies somewhere in the middle"

No it doesn't. It's all rubbish. As is your Methane hypothesis...

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image269.gif

As illustrated in this chart of the data in Table 3, the combined greenhouse contributions of CO2, methane, N2O and misc. gases are small compared to water vapor!

Total atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) -- both man-made and natural-- is only about 3.62% of the overall greenhouse effect-- a big difference from the 72.37% figure in Table 2, which ignored water!

Water vapor, the most significant greenhouse gas, comes from natural sources and is responsible for roughly 95% of the greenhouse effect (4). Among climatologists this is common knowledge, but among special interests, certain governmental groups, and news reporters this fact is under-emphasized or just ignored altogether.

Conceding that it might be "a little misleading" to leave water vapor out, they nonetheless defend the practice by stating that it is "customary" to do so!

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

You will also notice, from the information above, what a paltry contribution to this imagined problem stopping ALL Man Made CO2 emmissions would make. It's totally negligible. A waste of time. Nonsense.

Combined with an 'open to space' globe, a known and discredited IPCC political body, serious questions over whether the Greenhouse theory is even factual, let alone all the lies the Global Warming enthusiasts are consistently caught out on... and I wonder how anyone entertains this bogus garbage for more than 2 seconds. Any earnest and unbiased look at the evidence uncovers the scam almost immediately.

[pacoquerak]

"but the real truth lies somewhere in the middle"

No it doesn't. It's all rubbish. As is your Methane hypothesis...

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image269.gif

As illustrated in this chart of the data in Table 3, the combined greenhouse contributions of CO2, methane, N2O and misc. gases are small compared to water vapor!

Total atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) -- both man-made and natural-- is only about 3.62% of the overall greenhouse effect-- a big difference from the 72.37% figure in Table 2, which ignored water!

Water vapor, the most significant greenhouse gas, comes from natural sources and is responsible for roughly 95% of the greenhouse effect (4). Among climatologists this is common knowledge, but among special interests, certain governmental groups, and news reporters this fact is under-emphasized or just ignored altogether.

Conceding that it might be "a little misleading" to leave water vapor out, they nonetheless defend the practice by stating that it is "customary" to do so!

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

You will also notice, from the information above, what a paltry contribution to this imagined problem stopping ALL Man Made CO2 emmissions would make. It's totally negligible. A waste of time. Nonsense.

Combined with an 'open to space' globe, a known and discredited IPCC political body, serious questions over whether the Greenhouse theory is even factual, let alone all the lies the Global Warming enthusiasts are consistently caught out on... and I wonder how anyone entertains this bogus garbage for more than 2 seconds. Any earnest and unbiased look at the evidence uncovers the scam almost immediately.

thank you for providing a faulty graph. C02 doesn't cause global warming as much as methane. period.

[cruise4]

Gold is heavier than a feather.... but if I have 2 ton of feathers and 1 ton of Gold....

[pacoquerak]

Gold is heavier than a feather.... but if I have 2 ton of feathers and 1 ton of Gold....

when so much of the world is concentrated in the creation of methane gas and expelling it strait into the air. C02 gets reabsorbed by plants extremely fast. Methane doesn't.

[cruise4]

Methane remains in the atmosphere for 11-12 years - less time than most other greenhouse gases.

Methane is removed from the atmosphere through a natural process to form water.

[motleyhoo]

Regardless of whether of not man-made global warming is real, our activities, including the massive amounts of CO2 that we are pumping into the atmosphere, are killing our planet in ways that have nothing to do with temperature. THAT is the only thing that matters to me. But hey, lets just continue to fight over who is right about global warming (which could be a complete red herring) while the globalists keep doing what they're doing. They like it that way.

You cannot dig up the amount of resources that it took the Earth millions of years to sequester and pump it back into the atmosphere in less than 100 years without adverse consequences. That should be mere common sense, or has flouride robbed everyone of that too.

And besides all of that, the Sun theory just does not hold water. If we had been seeing increased Sun activity over the last 10 years there'd be a case for that theory, but in reality the Sun has been curiously inactive while temperatures have increased. Either there is something wrong with our atmosphere or all the melting glaciers, crumbling ice sheets, and dying reefs are in our imaginations. The global elite do not want you to think about that. They want you postering and fighting amongst yourselves so that they will be left alone to do their "work".

Now, as for that water vapor chart above, it does not jive at all with the scientific record held in our ice caps, which clearly shows going back over 100K years that changes in CO2 and global temperature are in concert with one another. The real debate should be about which came first, did rising temps raise CO2, or did rising CO2 raise temps.

We could maybe throw in the Earth's axial precession as the cause. The problem with that theory is that we have a good scientific understanding of its cycle. The changes we are seeing in our global climate are at a rate much greater than what can be explained by precession, but there is indeed a directly proportional correlation between global temperature and human industrial activity. What that means you be the judge.

The bottom line is, we are treating our Earth (I weep for her) like a sewer, and rather than face that fact and come to grips with the fact that we are all to blame everyone wants to turn this into a blame game in order to deflect from what's really going on. Even cats do not crap where they eat, but homo sapiens are seemingly too psychotic to figure that simple tip from the animal world out. Unfortunately, when we go down we're gonna take the cats and every other living thing down with us.

[cruise4]

CO2 CLEARLY goes up AFTER the temperature rises... NOT BEFORE. There is a suggested theoretical effect on temperature decrease rate afterwards related to release of sink carbon, absorption rates and (theoretically again) a possible Greenhouse effect... NONE of which is clearly understood by anyone, let alone all the other myriad of complexities involved in Climate Modelling.

Climate Change effects are reported on all the Solar System planets. maybe the seas are warming up because the centre of the planet is somehow active.

One thing's for sure...

any idea that the political goons and those feeding at their trough have the slightest concern for our well being or the well being of this planet is laughably naive and the IPCC and Greenpeace are up there with the best of them.

And as for the 'we' have done this or that blame game you talk about... MOST of the world are NOT to blame at all. The leaders and corporations are and that's where the blame lies and where the solution lies. Nowhere else and certainly not via fraudulent and useless CO2 taxes or policies designed around this blatant lie. I want to do something about the polution and rape of the earth, not ensure it carries on by supporting the lunatics and their think tank psyops leading everyone away from the real target yet again. It's the Green's that will help nothing and nobody. We'll STOP those responsible.

Your attempt at 'reasonable' based on outright falsehoods is absolutely typical.

"directly proportional correlation between global temperature and human industrial activity"

I can walk down a hill at the same time as a car but it doesn't prove cause and effect. The time scale is ludicrously small and again it's disingenuous to suggest the length of time records have been kept proves a correlation. It doesn't.

"Now, as for that water vapor chart above, it does not jive at all with the scientific record held in our ice caps"

Well it wouldn't as they have nothing to do with each other. It shows the percentage of so called Greenhouse gases present in our atmosphere... comprising a rough total of 3%... that's all of them. You can see yourself from that chart, and the figures aren't really disputed, CO2 is a negligible factor, water vapour is a massive factor and removing ALL Co2 emmissions achieves diddly squat. The CO2 stuff is just wasting everyone's time. It's the Co2 issue that's divisive, because we cannot unite behind lies, even though we mostly all do want the same thing. If I want to change my tyre I don't set about taking the engine out. The problem is as clear as day... the elite and their practises.

I am completely happy to get the criminals behind bars and let the earth take care of itself after we get the suppressed tech out. History shows a correlation between the earth, temperature and a long period of time. The earth, I trust. People, and especially these people, I don't. And neither should anyone else. Liars.

[dreamweaver]

LOL WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS A LINK TO THE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE WEBSITE BAHAHAHAHAHAH
Attack the medium rather than its message? Sounds about par for the course.

What specific claims made by the scientists quoted in the article do you dispute?

Here is some more info from Dr Mitchell Taylor: http://www.fcpp.org/main/publication_detail.php?PubID=2571

For the record, I'm an atheist. And I think much of the IPCC/Gore "official story" has more in common with "creation science" than that article does.

man i hope you guys have some shred of regret when all the polar bears actually are dead

No regrets whatsoever, since the polar bears actually are not dying.

[grenadene]

Regardless of whether of not man-made global warming is real, our activities, including the massive amounts of CO2 that we are pumping into the atmosphere, are killing our planet in ways that have nothing to do with temperature. THAT is the only thing that matters to me. But hey, lets just continue to fight over who is right about global warming (which could be a complete red herring) while the globalists keep doing what they're doing. They like it that way.

You cannot dig up the amount of resources that it took the Earth millions of years to sequester and pump it back into the atmosphere in less than 100 years without adverse consequences. That should be mere common sense, or has flouride robbed everyone of that too.

And besides all of that, the Sun theory just does not hold water. If we had been seeing increased Sun activity over the last 10 years there'd be a case for that theory, but in reality the Sun has been curiously inactive while temperatures have increased. Either there is something wrong with our atmosphere or all the melting glaciers, crumbling ice sheets, and dying reefs are in our imaginations. The global elite do not want you to think about that. They want you postering and fighting amongst yourselves so that they will be left alone to do their "work".

Now, as for that water vapor chart above, it does not jive at all with the scientific record held in our ice caps, which clearly shows going back over 100K years that changes in CO2 and global temperature are in concert with one another. The real debate should be about which came first, did rising temps raise CO2, or did rising CO2 raise temps.

We could maybe throw in the Earth's axial precession as the cause. The problem with that theory is that we have a good scientific understanding of its cycle. The changes we are seeing in our global climate are at a rate much greater than what can be explained by precession, but there is indeed a directly proportional correlation between global temperature and human industrial activity. What that means you be the judge.

The bottom line is, we are treating our Earth (I weep for her) like a sewer, and rather than face that fact and come to grips with the fact that we are all to blame everyone wants to turn this into a blame game in order to deflect from what's really going on. Even cats do not crap where they eat, but homo sapiens are seemingly too psychotic to figure that simple tip from the animal world out. Unfortunately, when we go down we're gonna take the cats and every other living thing down with us.

Good post.

I'm not sure what the scientific background is of our board members, but I know mine wouldn't be up to interpreting the nitty gritty of climate change data. I watched the great global warming swindle and it was certainly food for thought, but as I later found out it made some misleading comments on the sources of C02 and the amounts that are released by volcanoes etc...

What worries me is the ditching of environmental awareness in the 'truth movement', due to some crappy disputable Al gore film. We have 2 diametrically opposed viewpoints which is always good for hiding over the truth that may lie somewhere in the middle.

Noses are firmly turned up at 'green' protesters.... well all protesters infact. We are under instruction from DI not to riot? I wouldn't dream of rioting but I would like to feel my right to peacefully protest was supported. If they shit hits the fan.... stay at home and behave yourself?

I'm starting to wonder if this is all just a big game :confused:

[tothestars]

Tea anyone? :D



Is it with or without ?

[tothestars]

Climate Change effects are reported on all the Solar System planets. .

There must be CO2 leak from Earth to other planets then! ;)

I observe that the climate is a bit "jumpy" these days but I have a hard time believing CO2 causes this.

Sun/Cosmic "radiation"/rays affecting Earth might be a explaination to this.

EDIT: And of course HAARP

[motleyhoo]

CO2 CLEARLY goes up AFTER the temperature rises... NOT BEFORE. There is a suggested theoretical effect on temperature decrease rate afterwards related to release of sink carbon, absorption rates and (theoretically again) a possible Greenhouse effect... NONE of which is clearly understood by anyone, let alone all the other myriad of complexities involved in Climate Modelling..

That is debatable, which was my point. The only people who can say for sure which comes first, CO2 or temp rise, are people firmly entrenched in their own stubborn ideologies. The rest of us believe it's something we should look at more closely in order to get at the real truth. Not your truth, and not any one person's ideological truth.

Climate Change effects are reported on all the Solar System planets. maybe the seas are warming up because the centre of the planet is somehow active.

Who is telling you about all of these solar system effects? Do you have your own satellites up there or something, or are you relying on data from the very same people who are deemed to be part of the very conspiracy you're balking at? Point being, we have very little knowledge of what is going on in the solar system. We can't even agree on what is happening on the ground we're standing on right now.


One thing's for sure...

any idea that the political goons and those feeding at their trough have the slightest concern for our well being or the well being of this planet is laughably naive and the IPCC and Greenpeace are up there with the best of them.

You are right, the goons don't give a shit about us, and yes they'll find any way they can to tax us, and so on, and so forth. But my point was, by denying the adverse affects of CO2 on our planet, regardless of whether or not it causes global warming, you are jumping in bed with the goons and helping to promote the destruction of our Earth. They may want to tax carbon or whatever, but they still want to burn as much of it as they can because energy is money and energy is power. To them, more CO2 = more $$$, regardless of whether or not it is taxed more.


And as for the 'we' have done this or that blame game you talk about... MOST of the world are NOT to blame at all. The leaders and corporations are and that's where the blame lies and where the solution lies. Nowhere else and certainly not via fraudulent and useless CO2 taxes or policies designed around this blatant lie. I want to do something about the polution and rape of the earth, not ensure it carries on by supporting the lunatics and their think tank psyops leading everyone away from the real target yet again. It's the Green's that will help nothing and nobody. We'll STOP those responsible.

I did not say most of the world was to blame for anything. I said the "goons" are hoping that we are so involved in disputing this and that about CO2 that they go unnoticed while they implement their plans. You say you want to stop the raping of the Earth, well, what is your plan then? Cause you're certainly not gonna accomplish much by siding with the energy, oil, and coal companies in their marketing campaign of how benign CO2 is and how it has nothing to do with changes to our planet.


Your attempt at 'reasonable' based on outright falsehoods is absolutely typical.

Exactly what falsehoods would that be?


"directly proportional correlation between global temperature and human industrial activity"

I can walk down a hill at the same time as a car but it doesn't prove cause and effect. The time scale is ludicrously small and again it's disingenuous to suggest the length of time records have been kept proves a correlation. It doesn't.

The facts are that there is a direct pattern between the beginning of the industrial age with the amount of CO2 being produced with the rise in global and localized temperatures over that time period. You can't just throw that bit of data out simply because it only encompasses a 100 year time period or because it doesn't jive with your arguement.


"Now, as for that water vapor chart above, it does not jive at all with the scientific record held in our ice caps"

Well it wouldn't as they have nothing to do with each other. It shows the percentage of so called Greenhouse gases present in our atmosphere... comprising a rough total of 3%... that's all of them. You can see yourself from that chart, and the figures aren't really disputed, CO2 is a negligible factor, water vapour is a massive factor and removing ALL Co2 emmissions achieves diddly squat. The CO2 stuff is just wasting everyone's time. It's the Co2 issue that's divisive, because we cannot unite behind lies, even though we mostly all do want the same thing. If I want to change my tyre I don't set about taking the engine out. The problem is as clear as day... the elite and their practises.

You can't say that because CO2 only comprises 3.5% of the atmosphere that it can only have a possible 3.5% effect. And that chart does not stipulate what the relationship between water vapor and CO2 is. Different gases behave differently in how they block the infrared energy reflected back up into the atmosphere. CFCs are much less than 1% of the atmosphere, but as we know, pumping more CFCs into the air can have severe adverse effects. You can't just say that since CO2 is only 3.5% that we could double it and still only have 7% and therefore CO2 is meaningless. It doesn't work that way.


I am completely happy to get the criminals behind bars and let the earth take care of itself after we get the suppressed tech out. History shows a correlation between the earth, temperature and a long period of time. The earth, I trust. People, and especially these people, I don't. And neither should anyone else. Liars.

On that we clearly agree, but money runs everything in this world and people vote with their wallets. This new technology isn't gonna spring up on its own. There has to be a financial motivation behind it. We're already seeing in the US, with fuel back down below $2/gal, people hopping back into their ginormous guzzlers. Most people do not care all that much about Mother Earth when it comes to money, because money is the #1 priority over everything. If electricity was cheaper they'd use more of it, just like they use more fuel when that's cheaper. None of us like that, but that's the way human nature is, and I don't have the answer to that problem, nor an answer to climate change.

[cruise4]

What worries me is the ditching of environmental awareness in the 'truth movement', due to some crappy disputable Al gore film.

It's 'environmental awareness' that means we know this Man made GW stuff is garbage. Ditching the lie to do something about the truth IS 'awareness'.

"That is debatable, which was my point."

It's not debateable. It's crystal clear unless you can't look properly.

"Who is telling you about all of these solar system effects?"

So now the argument is 'believe nothing'? So now unless I have my own satellites I can't comment? Of course I have very little direct experience... just like everyone else. If that's the basis of your argument I expect to hear not another peep as you, and everyone else is as gulty as 'everyone' and I mean 'everyone'. No-one has across the board direct experience of everything. Another fraudulent argument.

"by denying the adverse affects of CO2 on our planet, regardless of whether or not it causes global warming, you are jumping in bed with the goons and helping to promote the destruction of our Earth."

It's just endless garbage and faulty logic.

Cause you're certainly not gonna accomplish much by siding with the energy, oil, and coal companies in their marketing campaign of how benign CO2 is and how it has nothing to do with changes to our planet.

An enemy of my enemy does NOT make them my friend. Another strawman 'in bed with big oil' bullshit argument.

"You can't just throw that bit of data out simply because it only encompasses a 100 year time period"

You really do have ZERO logic, don't you?

"pumping more CFCs into the air can have severe adverse effects"

Are you SURE YOU know this? Maybe check out CFC patents?

You REALLY need to actually investigate this subject.

CO2 is NOTHING to do with any problem. Tackling CO2 will do nothing to help anything, in fact the opposite, Carbon Trading schemes... have you looked at who owns what? Human Nature?

I give up. No sense to be had here.

[hank_scorpio]

http://climate.jpl.nasa.gov/images/normPage-2.jpg

Climate change is very real. Look outside mate! This planet is going to be fine it will evolve. Hopefully NOT into something like Venus. Sulfiric acid rain. Whats in Venus atmosphere? CO2.

[motleyhoo]

I have been investigating this subject since 1972. So, please...

What myself and I believe grenadene are trying to get across is that just because there are some globalists, or govts, or conspirators, or whatever you want to call them attempting to profit from global warming does not make global warming any less real. There are plenty of people profiting on cancer to the detriment of all of mankind. In fact, they have built an entire industry of profit around it. That doesn't mean cancer isn't real.

What I know is real is, we can see with our own eyes the major glaciers of the world disappearing, we can see the Arctic melting, we can see whole ice sheets that are thousands of years old breaking off and fallng into the sea, we can see coral reefs all over the globe bleaching and dying. These things are happening at an alarming rate that does not correlate with anything we can find in the geologic record. What does correlate, over time periods that we can easily measure, is that the acceleration of the changes is in direct relation with manmade activity. We can see it, we can measure it, and we can hypothesize about it. And like I said, we KNOW that in under 100 years we have pumped the same amount of CO2, SOX, and NOX into the atmosphere that it took the Earth millions of years to sequester under the ground. Millions of years worth in less than a hundred. That's an undisputable fact! I am dismayed that anyone would ignore that simply for the sake of taking a stand in an arguement.

I really hate that some people would exploit what's happening for their own economic gain by slapping some kind of controls and taxes on us, but that doesn't mean that it isn't happening. I also really hate that these same types of people financially prey on a society that suffers from cancer. That doesn't mean they made it all up. They're opportunists, they'll jump on whatever they can jump on for profit and control.

[cruise4]

Ahhh...the old discredited 'paste a graph with a short time period' deception. Now paste one with a 65 million or more timeframe, (Come on... where's the acidification scare tactic? Keep up. I'll give you a chance... check change in PH level).

It’s possible to look at a graph of the past century and conclude: “Oh, my God, the planet is burning up!” After all, the temperature has been rising, more or less, since the 1850’s, with a dip from the 1940’s to the mid-1970’s. The chart to the right shows temperature and carbon dioxide levels from 1860 to now.4

But what if we take a longer view? That presents quite a different picture.

http://www.paulmacrae.com/?p=62

Only 400 years ago, the planet was quite cold, a period known as the Little Ice Age (roughly 1300-1850). Before that, though, during the Medieval Warm Period (roughly 1000-1300), the planet was a degree or two Celsius warmer than today, to the point where Greenland was warm enough for settlement by the Vikings. The Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age were clearly a natural occurrences since industrial carbon emissions weren’t yet a factor. Figure 1 is a graph of the last thousand years based on work by climatologist H.H. Lamb.
Temperatures over the last 1,000 years: H.H. Lamb
Figure 1. Lamb graph of temperature over the past 1,000 years

Curiously, the temperature graph preferred by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the famous “hockey stick,” smooths out the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age to create an impression that twentieth-century warming is “the warmest in 1,000 years” (Figure 2). Faced with the flaws in this graph, the IPCC has since dropped it and now claims the climate is the coldest in 400 years, which isn’t that impressive given that we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age.
IPCC hockey stick graph
Figure 2. IPCC hockey stick graph of the past 1,000 years

Over the past 4,000 years, the planet has also experienced warm and cool periods, again quite naturally. In fact, warm times seem to recur on a cycle of about 1,000-1,500 years, as Figure 3 shows.5 The 20th century’s warming appeared pretty much in line with this millennial cycle.
Warming every 1,000 years
Figure 3. Warming every 1,000 years or so. Source: R.M. Carter

Going back 8,000 years or so, we encounter the Holocene Optimum, which was 2-3 degrees Celsius warmer than today’s temperatures — naturally.

Let’s expand our view once again, to the past 450,000 years (Figure 4). What do we see? A roller-coaster ride of glacials (cold times) and interglacials (warm times), on a cycle of about 100,000 years.
A glacial cycle every 100,000 years
Figure 4. A glacial cycle every 100,000 years

By the way, this is the chart, based on ice core readings taken in Antarctica, that Gore uses in his film An Inconvenient Truth. Gore doesn’t try to explain why this roller coaster has occurred, since if changes in carbon dioxide levels were causing the cycle of glaciations and interglaciations, as Gore implies, then the logical question is what caused the changes in carbon dioxide levels?

Gore doesn’t say, because to do so would destroy his case, but here’s what science says: temperature changes precede carbon dioxide level changes by several hundred years, and temperature changes are caused by changes in solar intensity called the Milankovitch Cycles, not carbon dioxide. The Milankovitch Cycles, based on the earth’s changing position in relation to the sun, appear to be the ultimate drivers of climate over the past few million years.

[motleyhoo]

We don't need to go back 65 million years to establish a pattern. That is a red herring.

That Macrae website even says, right at the top, that 45% of a group of geologists believe global warming is at least partly caused by man, and 86% believe the jury is still out. In other words, that's not even close to being a proof or a consensus that global warming is some kind of hoax. But even still, what these types of diatribes fail to mention is how many of those geologists actually specialize in climate theory. I'm not sure I would be relying on geologists who spend their days studying granite, or hydrology, or oil reserves. Therein lies the rub.

The other fallacy is to say global warming does not exist because scientists can see that the Earth is not unusually warm right now. That seems like a benign statement on the surface, but what they fail to justify or debunk is the speed at which conditions are changing at the moment, and that that increase in speed seems to directly correlate with industrialization. That's a real head-scratcher that always gets left out of that side of the debate.

This guy Macare says, hey if we go really far back, say millions of years the data smooths out. Well of course it does. That's because anomolies get gobbled up in the data, just like harmonics in a waveform. We can't see rocks on the moon either from here because we're too far away. BUT, his own graph, when you stretch things out to only the last 1,000 years, shows a striking increase in CO2 and temperatures since around 1960. This isn't something you would want to smooth out in a curve unless you were tryng to hide that fact. And it isn't something we see happening at any other time in the measurable past.

To say that temperatures have been falling over the last 65 million years is a superfulous arguement. First of all, we didn't exist back then, and second, maybe we didn't exist because of the climate at that time. It only means that over many millions of years the Earth and its climate evolved and eventually reached a point that was less volatile and that would sustain human life. That DOES NOT mean that said humans do not have the ability to now f*ck that up with our stupid ways.

The little ice age itself may just be an anomoly, and as such may have been caused by any number reasons. Just off the top of my head - a spurious Solar event, a volcano, a meteor/comet strike (eg, Tanguska), or something that happened farther out in our solar system. BUT, people like Macrae never mention this. They just say "Well, we had an ice age, so that means all climate change is natural". It's pretty laughable when you really sit down and think about it.

In other words, Macrae's speculations can easily be dubunked with the simplest of critical thinking. He doesn't even mention what is physically happening right now, things we can see with our own eyes and measure with even simple devices. If he did it would debunk his entire arguement.

[hank_scorpio]

Why do people blame science? Science is a tool. A very good tool when used properly. If people used it...the potential is limitless we are a space civilszation if we come together. The monetary system creates a very bad environment. A resource based economy is the only sane thing right now.

How much are you educated on peak oil or is thats some NWO plan because you assume it is? Demand is rising so if you destroy the demand less people will be buying oil. It's been the stem of the financial and enegry crisis for how long now? It's been crisis mode since the USA peaked oil in 1970. Cuba peaked and survived.

Global carbon tax is how they will fund government. how else? They will evolve the system by stealth and since many peolpe do not believe in evolution such words have no meaning...

Problem, reaction, solution.



Aside from the nonsense if the earths population will be 9billion in 2050 like the UN says which is a lie it will probably be higher we won't have any metals, any good drinking water, no food, no people, no life. Do you realize how many "free" asteroids roam in the inner solar system, sometimes, one of them may come close to or hit the earth. The only way to ensure life for every living thing on this planet is a global society. We need to get resources from space here on earth to build that global society, not government/tyranny. If they get their hands on it it will only ensure destruction of our species. We HAVE a choice.

[motleyhoo]

Hey hank, here's a thought...

People keep using the "this winter has been colder all over, so it can't be global warming" to debunk the global warming theory. Well guess what...carbon emissions have dropped 30% over the last year because of the global economic collapse. OPEC can barely cut back production fast enough to keep up with the falling demand. The oceans are almost devoid of cargo ships. Colder winter? Well yeah, it probably was.

But hey, this spike downard in atmospheric carbon could not have been caused by man. It must be a lack of volcanic activity or a sign that the magnetic pole shift is gonna happen any day now.

[hank_scorpio]

Yes ive noticed and I've debunked many people and their diluted thoughts on global warming.

http://thezeitgeistmovement.com/joomla/

[cruise4]

31,478 American scientists have signed this petition...

http://www.petitionproject.org/

You have the nerve to mention critical thinking... after stating this ludicrous crud...

"We don't need to go back 65 million years to establish a pattern. That is a red herring."

I would guess you haven't considered the meaning of environmentalism...

"I'm not sure I would be relying on geologists who spend their days studying granite, or hydrology, or oil reserves."

"That's because anomolies get gobbled up in the data"

Perhaps ask yourself... what is an anomoly.

"To say that temperatures have been falling over the last 65 million years is a superfulous arguement."

Good grief.

"That DOES NOT mean that said humans do not have the ability to now f*ck that up with our stupid ways."

Now that I agree with... but it's certainly not by CO2 emmissions. So lets stop harping on about CO2. It's garbage and wastes the time of us that want to do something REAL. Like arrest the IMF, CFR and Bilderbergers. That's the ONLY thing needed to get a real environmental cleanup program going and until such a time you can do nothing but make token gestures... and in your case, based on phony bullshit. If ALL Co2 emmissions, 'ALL' were stopped, the effect would be unnoticable. But do you understand how many would starve enforcing such a complete ban? Have you worked out what the actual Man made contribution to the overall CO2 contribution actully is? How can you NOT see the truth. It's bullshit. It's obvious bullshit.

"The little ice age itself may just be an anomoly"

How did data smoothing miss that one eh?

"a spurious Solar event, a volcano, a meteor/comet strike (eg, Tanguska), or something that happened farther out in our solar system."

What??? Solar events being quoted. Have you got your own satellite system? An admission that Volcano's and Solar events may impact Climate Change???

"all climate change is natural". It's pretty laughable when you really sit down and think about it."

Something is. But it's not 'natural climate'.

"that that increase in speed seems to directly correlate with industrialization."

Tell me some similar things that WOULDN'T correlate with industrialisation over the same time... you could relate ANYTHING to it on that basis. Correlation is not proven cause and effect.

As for peak Oil. I don't think it's real, No. Abiotic Oil is an interesting concept and there appear to be many untapped oilfields aroung the place. But there does seem to be a deliberate throttling of production at the refinery side. Lindsey Williams does make a compelling witness after predicting oil down to $50.

Comments as if I want to carry on my polluting and greedy ways are irrelevant. I want no cars, airplanes or roads, or electrics, animal rights, independant water, food, organic etc. etc. I am against the CO2 argument because it's lies and untrue and a tool of the elite to aid in the introduction of fascism. And it will do diddly squat about the environment. I agree with tackling ALL the environmental issues... but adopting lies to make me 'feel' like I'm involved in a 'worthy cause' and 'helping the planet', when these people are doing no such thing is self delusion, egotism and bad research and you HELP this 'change nothing' false solution.

You are enemies of the environment!

[motleyhoo]

You mean like the 51,000 Canadian Geologists? Most of whom work for the oil or coal industry extracting oil from the Canadian oil sands? An industry that is more destructive than any other on the planet? Oh yeah, now there's a real neutral lot. This is just like all the other so-called debunking scientists - you find out later that they're funded by, or their job relies on the very industries that are producing the carbon.


If CO2 is level around a particular cyclical movement, meaning it's going up and down at a regular, predictable pattern, then that pattern breaks and the rate suddenly spikes and begins to shoot above the chart, and the spike happens at excatly the same time as modern industrialization, are you really saying there's no important correlation there? And no correlation with the planetary changes we have seen occur since then?

Good lord!!!

[grenadene]

http://i219.photobucket.com/albums/cc27/poppingjay/smokingdoctor.jpg

I love the way the experts always get it right :D

[motleyhoo]

I love the way the experts always get it right :D

Ok, now that is funny! LOL!!!

And how ironic.

[tabea_blumenschein]

A lot of members here are global warming skeptics.

So are George Bush, Dick Cheney, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, most of the Republican party, and the army of lobbyists for Big Oil. :eek:

Obviously, those members must all be neocon shills or disinfo agents. :mad:

Global Warming deniers are neocon/NWO propaganda agents who are infiltrating the David Icke forums! It's a conspiracy, I tell you, a conspiracy! ;)

[livelife]

I just think we have Shit Scientists today. The Worst in the history of humanity....

The greatest scientists in the world involved religion history and mathematics in there research that meant great leaps in human understanding.

Todays Scientist pursue Technology Not truth.....

[deca]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_the_Earth%27s_atmosphere

Carbon dioxide forms approximately 0.04% of the Earth's atmosphere. It is essential to photosynthesis in plants and other photoautotrophs, and is also a prominent greenhouse gas.

Carbon dioxide forms approximately 0.04% of the Earth's atmosphere
It is essential to photosynthesis in plants and other photoautotrophs

so they can fuck off with their doom about it, and stop blaming us and putting up our fuel bills

its easy when most of us live in towns and city to tells us CO2 damaging the climate and its man fault
Stop wrapping our perception
http://www.ecospace.cc/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/coal-station-1.jpg

yeah the planet looks really fucked!!!!!
http://wwwdelivery.superstock.com/WI/223/1598/PreviewComp/SuperStock_1598R-51790.jpg

also
http://www.coloradotrees.org/benefits.htm

Planting trees remains one of the cheapest, most effective means of drawing excess CO2 from the atmosphere. (15)
# A single mature tree can absorb carbon dioxide at a rate of 48 lbs./year and release enough oxygen back into the atmosphere to support 2 human beings. (10)
# Each person in the U.S. generates approximately 2.3 tons of CO2 each year. A healthy tree stores about 13 pounds of carbon annually -- or 2.6 tons per acre each year.

stop cutting trees down you arseholes and not replace them!!!!!!

[largejack]

I think the tide is turning on the "climate change" crap, gilly, and has been for quite some time. The shrill hysteria is a sign of how desperate they're getting.

It's not that the warming is even anything to worry about even if human-caused CO2 really does make a difference. Bjorn Lomborg, author of the Skeptical Environmentalist, believes there is a small warming effect from human-produced CO2 - but that the cost of trying to "stop climate change" far outweighs the benefits. It is at the very best a King Canute gesture. If the planet is warming long-term (we're going through a cold phase at the moment because of factors like low sunspot activity, La Nina and the North Atlantic Oscillation), then we'd be better off building new flood defences etc to deal with it, not throw trillions of pounds trying to change something we can't change.

Excellent news, that means we can all unclench and fart again! :D

[largejack]

I just think we have Shit Scientists today. The Worst in the history of humanity....

The greatest scientists in the world involved religion history and mathematics in there research that meant great leaps in human understanding.

Todays Scientist pursue Technology Not truth.....

No, it's just we only hear about the shit ones, the ones which are told by the government what lies to invent.

[largejack]

[QUOTE=adbasque;855232]But that doesn't necessarily mean we can simply keep sending crap into the air, we could protest against car industry, Aviation industry and so on.

Even though the global warming is loads of BS, we still need to breath clean air, don't you agree?

Totally agree, we shouldn't advocate pollution just because CO2 based climate changed is BS

[palomino]

Yep I agree pollution is a separate issue.
Global warming/cooling/change is a con

By the way

SOME ICEBERGS ARENT MELTING - THEY'RE GETTING BIGGER



MASSIVE ICEBERG GETS BIGGER

and have a read on how they try to justify it

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2009/02/04/2482286.htm?site=science&topic=latest

[markomac]

What I love the most about this whole debate is how ignorant the mainstream 'media' are. When Sky Snooze post climate related articles on their website, people swarm to post comments about saving polar bears, recycling, driving gas guzzler cars, etc etc, then they argue at great length about it. They always do this in a very selfish, me, me, me way.

However, on EVERY occassion that I have tried to post a comment about global warming being caused in part by the SUN, or that it's a pack of BS, they refuse to upload my comments.

I dont swear, I am not condesending, I am very factual and I put my point across well. But they are happy to post comments from people calling Mr Brown all the names under the sun, people calling Muslims all the names under the sun. They will, however, post any of my 'conforming' comments, because I have tested this, it's tried and tested.

My point, and I do have one, is that this is blatent evidence that they know something else is going on, or that they are told that they are not allowed to approve comments on certain subjects. In a nut shell, IT PROVES THEY ARE HIDING SOMETHING AND THAT THEY ARE VERY BIAS.

Try it for yourself. Post one comment against the main stream view and one in line with it, and you will see EVERYTIME, which one gets approved. I am working on a whole heap of evidence supporting my claim and I will be sending the documented proof to SKY and posting it on other public forums.

MM

[keithm]

Prince charles said today that the financial crisis and job losses are nothing compared to climate change,

but then he would wouldn't he,

with untold wealth and no worries about where his next meal is coming from,or wether he will have a roof over his head tomorrow.

[adbasque]

Prince charles said today that the financial crisis and job losses are nothing compared to climate change,

but then he would wouldn't he,

with untold wealth and no worries about where his next meal is coming from,or wether he will have a roof over his head tomorrow.

Yes i read that, and of course he wouldn't care, he is only interested in pushing the agenda further.

So we can get taxed even further, that's how he gets his meals and roof over his head.

He is so slimy, well to be honest they are all slimy, if I spend one hour with him I will commit suicide, he stands for everything that is slimy, and that goes for his sons, his mother and father, the only person in that family that I have some respect for, is Diana.

They all look alike anyway, I am certain they intermarry, she is the richest person on the planet can you believe that?

Second Rothschilds, 3 the Vatican and 4th Rokefellers
They are filthy rich and filthy full stop.

The most racist institution in the world the royal family, they could kill millions of people and they will make jokes about it.

[gilly]

Disregard Charlie, as the carbunkle on a veruca that he is.

[adbasque]

Disregard Charlie, as the carbunkle on a veruca that he is.

Lol :p

[motleyhoo]

Carbon dioxide forms approximately 0.04% of the Earth's atmosphere
It is essential to photosynthesis in plants and other photoautotrophs

I don't suppose arsenic comprises a great percentage of the atmosphere either, but that doesn't mean we won't all die if we start increasing it. One aspirin won't do anything to you either, so why not eat a whole handful.

How about Mercury? Not a whole lot of that spewing out of the power plants, so lets just all eat and drink a lot more of it. Nevermind the 100s of 1,000s of birth defects and mental disabilities it's causing.

Yeah, lets just continue treating our Earth like a sewer and see how that turns out. If you'd like to see the answer ahead of time, go spend a week living down in a sewer. Then get back to us and let us know how that worked for you.

[cruise4]

There is another non-climate related reason to distrust the CO2 Global Warming brigade and that's the sheer number of lies and disinformation that they have been caught out on from Polar Bears to CGI. Some of you CO2 proponents appear to KNOW the issues with world leadership and the NWO etc. Doesn't that alone give you pause for thought? Here's a synopsis of the 11 lies Gore put out, but there's plenty of other examples...


In order for the film to be shown, the Government must first amend their Guidance Notes to Teachers to make clear that 1.) The Film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument. 2.) If teachers present the Film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination. 3.) Eleven inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children.

How marvelous. And what are those inaccuracies?

* The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.
* The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
* The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events to global warming.
* The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that this was not the case.
* The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.
* The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.
* The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
* The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.
* The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.
* The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.
* The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.

In the end, a climate change skeptic in the States must hope that an American truck driver files such a lawsuit here so that a U.S. judge can make similar determinations.

Of course, even if one could find such an impartial jurist, our media wouldn't find it newsworthy, would they?

[deca]

I don't suppose arsenic comprises a great percentage of the atmosphere either, but that doesn't mean we won't all die if we start increasing it. One aspirin won't do anything to you either, so why not eat a whole handful.

How about Mercury? Not a whole lot of that spewing out of the power plants, so lets just all eat and drink a lot more of it. Nevermind the 100s of 1,000s of birth defects and mental disabilities it's causing.

Yeah, lets just continue treating our Earth like a sewer and see how that turns out. If you'd like to see the answer ahead of time, go spend a week living down in a sewer. Then get back to us and let us know how that worked for you.

my point is when you ask people about how much co2 there is in the atmosphere they normal say about 20-30% , they are amazed when you say 0.04% also they realize there's more important things to worry about starving kids, poverty, pollution etc...
they like global warming because they can blame us and tax us more ....simple

[motleyhoo]

And there's plenty reason to distrust the debunkers as it almost always turns out that they are being funded in some way by the oil or coal industry, or they are invested in it in some way.

As for the logic that since CO2 only makes up a tiny % of the atmopshere so that means it's inconsequential, that just makes no sense, and the flaw in that logic is still supported by my previous post. The reason people are "amazed when you say 0.04% also they realize there's more important things to worry about..." is because people get dumb when you present it to them in that way. It is not a genuous way to make a case and hides the fact that, just because it is a small % does not mean we can just ignore it and add more and more with impunity. We have no idea what would happen if we went from .04% to .08%, but we have a lot of emperical and scientific evidence that tells us what would likely happen.

If everyone would stop listening to the frothing at the mouth crowd on boths sides and use their own eyes and brains to see what's happening right in front of our faces maybe we could move forward and start taking better care of the incredible home that God made for us.

We KNOW there are possibly 2 factions attacking us. There are the carbon producers on the oil and coal side who want to maximize profit all cost. They don't give a shit about us, our welfare, or the welfare of the planet. We KNOW that this side has spent, and is continuing to spend millions of $$$ on marketing and public relations in an attempt to brainwash the public into believing 1) that their oil and coal carbon pollution is harmless, and 2) that global warming is a hoax. We already know that they have been caught red-handed paying off certain scientist to read from their script. We already KNOW that they have spent a lot money putting up deceptive websites. Do you trust them? If not then why side with them.

On the other side we also suspect that there are govts, possibly govts working together, and possibly even a cabal of NWO folks who want to enslave us under a system of global carbon taxation. And we KNOW that these types always find ways to exploit us for some reason. This absolutely does not mean global warming isn't real. It only means that they will use it to exploit us in the same way that they use many other real things to exploit us. And, there are plentry of real things left to exploit us with without having to create some grand climate conspiracy that encompasses the whole of the global scientific community. For instance, it would be much easier to enslave us under a global banking system, and likely much, much more lucrative. In fact they're a lot farther along at doing that already. They're even much farther along at controlling us thru food and famine.

By saying we have to fight against one of those sides is a false choice that has been orchestrated by both sides, and is designed to make us step over to one of those sides in order to fight the other. This creates what I call perception deception among the general population who becomes so confused about what to do and who is right that they become paralyzed about it. The real solution is right in front of us - stop producing atmospheric carbon and you not only defeat both sides, but you clean a large part of the Earth up right along with it. It really is that simple. It's so simple in fact, that people can't seem to see it.

[dreamweaver]

And there's plenty reason to distrust the debunkers as it almost always turns out that they are being funded in some way by the oil or coal industry, or they are invested in it in some way.

Exxon now supports carbon taxes...

[dreamweaver]

What I love the most about this whole debate is how ignorant the mainstream 'media' are. When Sky Snooze post climate related articles on their website, people swarm to post comments about saving polar bears, recycling, driving gas guzzler cars, etc etc, then they argue at great length about it. They always do this in a very selfish, me, me, me way.

However, on EVERY occassion that I have tried to post a comment about global warming being caused in part by the SUN, or that it's a pack of BS, they refuse to upload my comments.

I dont swear, I am not condesending, I am very factual and I put my point across well. But they are happy to post comments from people calling Mr Brown all the names under the sun, people calling Muslims all the names under the sun. They will, however, post any of my 'conforming' comments, because I have tested this, it's tried and tested.

My point, and I do have one, is that this is blatent evidence that they know something else is going on, or that they are told that they are not allowed to approve comments on certain subjects. In a nut shell, IT PROVES THEY ARE HIDING SOMETHING AND THAT THEY ARE VERY BIAS.

Try it for yourself. Post one comment against the main stream view and one in line with it, and you will see EVERYTIME, which one gets approved. I am working on a whole heap of evidence supporting my claim and I will be sending the documented proof to SKY and posting it on other public forums.

MM

That's an excellent project, Markomac. Keep us informed!

[motleyhoo]

Exxon now supports carbon taxes...

Of course they do, because they get govt subsidies in the billions. That still doesn't mean CO2 is benign. Until we find a way to stop polluting, these debates will continue and the earth will get sicker and sicker.

What these people want us to do is to decide between spewing carbon or paying carbon taxes. That's a false choice.

[adbasque]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_the_Earth%27s_atmosphere



Carbon dioxide forms approximately 0.04% of the Earth's atmosphere
It is essential to photosynthesis in plants and other photoautotrophs

so they can fuck off with their doom about it, and stop blaming us and putting up our fuel bills

its easy when most of us live in towns and city to tells us CO2 damaging the climate and its man fault
Stop wrapping our perception

yeah the planet looks really fucked!!!!!
also
http://www.coloradotrees.org/benefits.htm



stop cutting trees down you arseholes and not replace them!!!!!!

The people who are cutting the trees down and never replant new ones, are the housing developers, it's a multi billion dollar business, they don't even renovate, like demolishing old buildings and rebuild houses there, no, they target green spaces and get the all clear from the corrupt governent because they pay them handsomely, if the people object to it, they simply keep coming back until they take that piece of land, sometimes they offer good money to land owners or use some other means, I'll explain.

Let's say you hve acres of land right? they will approach you and ask you to sell it and you say no, couple months later you get a huge increase in your taxes through the corrupt government they force you to sell it and then couple months later they come back and offer to buy it from you again, and this time for a lot less.

It's unbelievable how devious and evil they can be, corporation and big guys can buy and do anything they want through the government.

So one solution comes to mind is, when you get into this situation you need to speak to the locals to buy pieces of land but with a condition NOT to resell it to any developer.

they did it for many years now, even approached people asking them to sell their back gardens.

[adbasque]

What I love the most about this whole debate is how ignorant the mainstream 'media' are.

The main stream is not ignorant, the main stream media is owned, it is the NWO's tool, they own every single TV network, News Papers, so they are not ignorant, they are part of it

[hey_jude]

I posted on a radiohead forum because I was really irked by the whole Friends of the Earth bull and most 'if not all' their fans contribute to FotE without knowing anything 'real' about global warming!

They did actually listen even though I fired off - a bit over zealous at times because of the refusal to acknowledge they could be wrong ...but they were very interested in things like Al Gore and his profitable business and the Quatar refridgerated swimming pools at least I think I got some of them thinking - maybe :rolleyes: lol

[adbasque]

I posted on a radiohead forum because I was really irked by the whole Friends of the Earth bull and most 'if not all' their fans contribute to FotE without knowing anything 'real' about global warming!

They did actually listen even though I fired off - a bit over zealous at times because of the refusal to acknowledge they could be wrong ...but they were very interested in things like Al Gore and his profitable business and the Quatar refridgerated swimming pools at least I think I got some of them thinking - maybe :rolleyes: lol

Lol do you quote yourself?
Anyway I liked the "Fighting for peace is Like F*** for virginity"
Yes some people don't need much to get them react some others are much tougher to get through to them.

Should I say perhaps thicker or is it nasty? lol
Anyway one thing I am not sure, if the entire world population is aware, would they ever do anything about it?

I will not hold my breath to be perfectly honest, and that is even if few of us do start the movement, I am not sure they will follow, the best they can do is to sit back and wait for a good result.

Sometimes I lose faith in the human race, maybe they are dumbed down too deep to react to anything.

[hey_jude]

hi adbasque,

yeah I know some people are fast asleep - I was too in a way, my awakening only really kicked in bigtime last summer.

I've always been a rebel and champion for the underdog - I got bullied out of a bank for whistle-blowing lol and have always had a healthy suspicion of authority lol

I quote myself because I was pleased with the comment which was said without thinking really on another thread and a few people liked it :D

[dreamweaver]

George Carlin on "saving the planet"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw

:cool:

[adbasque]

hi adbasque,

yeah I know some people are fast asleep - I was too in a way, my awakening only really kicked in bigtime last summer.

I've always been a rebel and champion for the underdog - I got bullied out of a bank for whistle-blowing lol and have always had a healthy suspicion of authority lol

I quote myself because I was pleased with the comment which was said without thinking really on another thread and a few people liked it :D

I agree it's a good line, you should add it as your signature, that way it will appear on every comment and post you make :D

Good one mate

[miracles]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/4953981/Climate-denial-is-know-a-mental-disorder.html

Climate 'denial' is now a mental disorder :eek:

Christopher Booker is bemused by the wild rhetoric of the climate change lobby.

By Christopher Booker
Last Updated: 6:06PM GMT 07 Mar 2009

How odd that, last Monday, none of our media global warming groupies should have bothered to report what was billed to be "the largest ever demonstration for civil disobedience over climate change". There was talk of hundreds of thousands of protestors converging on Washington to hear Jim Hansen, the scientist who talks of coal-fired power stations as "factories of death", call yet again for all coal plants to be closed. Perhaps the lack of coverage was due to the fact that, before Hansen arrived to address a forlorn group of several hundred hippies, Washington was blanketed in nearly a foot of snow.

It was generally another bad week for the warmists. The Met Office, which has been one of the chief pushers of the global warming scare for 20 years, had to admit that this has been "Britain's coldest winter for 13 years", despite its prediction last September that the winter would be "milder than average". This didn't of course stop it predicting that 2009 will be one of "the top-five warmest years on record".

US climate sceptics such as those on the Watts Up With That website, for whom the predictions of the UK Met Office have become a regular source of amusement, recalled its forecast that 2007 would be "the warmest year on record globally", just before global temperatures dived by nearly a full degree Celsius, cancelling out the entire net warming of the past 100 years.

Ever wilder wax the beleaguered warmists in their rhetoric. Our science minister Lord Drayson said last week he was "shocked" to find how many of the captains of industry he meets are "climate deniers". This was the same Lord Drayson who, as our defence procurement minister, assured Parliament in 2006 that Snatch Land Rovers afforded "the level of protection we need". The continuing death toll of soldiers in these unprotected vehicles approaches 40.

Even Drayson is outbid, however, by the groupies in The Guardian, who now suggest that people like Christopher Booker should no longer be compared to "Holocaust deniers" but consigned to even more outer darkness by branding them as climate "Creationists", the dirtiest word they know. Meanwhile at the University of the West of England in Bristol this weekend, a conference of "eco-psychologists", led by a professor, are solemnly exploring the notion that "climate change denial" should be classified as a form of "mental disorder".

I myself am off this weekend to New York, to join all the top "deniers", "creationists" and victims of psychic disorder at a conference organised by the Heartland Institute. It is an honour to be asked to speak alongside such luminaries as Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT, Dr Fred Singer, founder of the US satellite weather forecasting service, and the Czech President, Vaclav Klaus (not to mention those two revered climate bloggers, Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit and Anthony Watts). I shall report on this historic event next week

Excellent thanks.

[adbasque]

I just think we have Shit Scientists today. The Worst in the history of humanity....

The greatest scientists in the world involved religion history and mathematics in there research that meant great leaps in human understanding.

Todays Scientist pursue Technology Not truth.....

Yes but depends which scientists you are referring to, lol
The 500 world scientist that had a meeting in NY, that unanimously declared after their long meeting and after comparing their finding, that there's absolutely no evidence under the sun to support the global warming fiasco

And guess what? The media never covered the meeting nor reported about it, it was mentioned on the Big Brother Corporation also known as BBC, on the fly, but they never mentioned what was the outcome of their meeting until it appeared on the internet a week later by one of the scientists involved.

Mind you scientists around the world, not just one country.

The scientists that you are referring to, are the ones the GLOBALISTS put forward to confirm their lies "As the truth"

There you are

[adbasque]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/4953981/Climate-denial-is-know-a-mental-disorder.html

Climate 'denial' is now a mental disorder :eek:

Christopher Booker is bemused by the wild rhetoric of the climate change lobby.

By Christopher Booker
Last Updated: 6:06PM GMT 07 Mar 2009

How odd that, last Monday, none of our media global warming groupies should have bothered to report what was billed to be "the largest ever demonstration for civil disobedience over climate change". There was talk of hundreds of thousands of protestors converging on Washington to hear Jim Hansen, the scientist who talks of coal-fired power stations as "factories of death", call yet again for all coal plants to be closed. Perhaps the lack of coverage was due to the fact that, before Hansen arrived to address a forlorn group of several hundred hippies, Washington was blanketed in nearly a foot of snow.

They did the exact same thing, last year when the 500 world scientists, true scientists, that are not ran by the Elite and the Globalists, that they had a meeting in NY, the main stream media turned the blind eye on their meeting and the outcome, they didn't even cover it.


It was generally another bad week for the warmists. The Met Office, which has been one of the chief pushers of the global warming scare for 20 years, had to admit that this has been "Britain's coldest winter for 13 years", despite its prediction last September that the winter would be "milder than average". This didn't of course stop it predicting that 2009 will be one of "the top-five warmest years on record".

Now they lie openly, they don't even bother to present any evidence of their claims.


US climate sceptics such as those on the Watts Up With That website, for whom the predictions of the UK Met Office have become a regular source of amusement, recalled its forecast that 2007 would be "the warmest year on record globally", just before global temperatures dived by nearly a full degree Celsius, cancelling out the entire net warming of the past 100 years.


To be honest even an idiot would know by now it's a bleeding scam
but those who still asleep, they'll never wake up, even my 11 year old son told me Dad this is a big lie ;) I am not kidding you.


"Holocaust deniers" but consigned to even more outer darkness by branding them as climate "Creationists", the dirtiest word they know. Meanwhile at the University of the West of England in Bristol this weekend, a conference of "eco-psychologists", led by a professor, are solemnly exploring the notion that "climate change denial" should be classified as a form of "mental disorder".

For the Zionists agenda, they created ADL to silence any objection, and for Global warming they will class it as a mental disorder, to intimidate people, if

you dare to speak out against the Global warming, anywhere in your entourage, you would think twice, because you will afraid to be classed as mentally deranged.


I myself am off this weekend to New York, to join all the top "deniers", "creationists" and victims of psychic disorder at a conference organised by the Heartland Institute. It is an honour to be asked to speak alongside such luminaries as Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT, Dr Fred Singer, founder of the US satellite weather forecasting service, and the Czech President, Vaclav Klaus (not to mention those two revered climate bloggers, Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit and Anthony Watts). I shall report on this historic event next week

Deep inside they know that they are losing the batal on this front, because almost everybody I know, knows people who completely reject this global warming charade.

But it's wise to be very cautious, remember one thing these guys don't stop at nothing, they won't take a "NO" for an answer.
So it is more than possible, they will inject chemicals into the icebergs and to the two poles to melt the ice or to break the ice, just to prove a point.

Do you know howmany Elite's scientists are actually lurking in those areas?

They don't care about the planet, all that matters to them is their agenda to be completed and fulfilled.

So they can go to any length, even if it means they kill nature, humans, and animals, they'll do it.

[adbasque]

They did the exact same thing, last year when the 500 world scientists, true scientists, that are not ran by the Elite and the Globalists, that they had a meeting in NY, the main stream media turned the blind eye on their meeting and the outcome, they didn't even cover it.


Now they lie openly, they don't even bother to present any evidence of their claims.



To be honest even an idiot would know by now it's a bleeding scam
but those who still asleep, they'll never wake up, even my 11 year old son told me Dad this is a big lie ;) I am not kidding you.


For the Zionists agenda, they created ADL to silence any objection, and for Global warming they will class it as a mental disorder, to intimidate people, if

you dare to speak out against the Global warming, anywhere in your entourage, you would think twice, because you will afraid to be classed as mentally deranged.



Deep inside they know that they are losing the batal on this front, because almost everybody I know, knows people who completely reject this global warming charade.

But it's wise to be very cautious, remember one thing these guys don't stop at nothing, they won't take a "NO" for an answer.
So it is more than possible, they will inject chemicals into the icebergs and to the two poles to melt the ice or to break the ice, just to prove a point.

Do you know howmany Elite's scientists are actually lurking in those areas?

They don't care about the planet, all that matters to them is their agenda to be completed and fulfilled.

So they can go to any length, even if it means they kill nature, humans, and animals, they'll do it.

Don't forget however that this article is on, the Telegraph news paper website, they allowed it for a purpose, because they need to see, what they are dealing with, howmany people are buying their B***S***, otherwise they won't let it appear ;)

[jesuitsdidit]

surely if the argument was backed by strong facts, the facts wd spk 4 themselves
i wonder if there isnt a certain amount of coercion going on..