500 Dead In Southern Europe Heatwave

[chattanova]

Southern Europe sizzled in record-breaking temperatures yesterday with the heatwave being blamed for deaths in Hungary and Romania, power cuts in Macedonia and forest fires from Serbia to Greece.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/weather/Story/0%2C%2C2134034%2C00.html

[phoenixchilde]

Thank you for posting that. How long are people going to pretend that global warming doesn't exist?

[king]

Thank you for posting that. How long are people going to pretend that global warming doesn't exist?
how long are people going to ignore HAARP and chemtrails?

HAARP is also known as ionospheric heat5er, and in addition to heating certain area to scorture -- it can also cause fires if enough heat is directed to a sopot via l;ens effect.

In Balkans usualtemperature BEFORE HAARP were in range of 30 -- 33 degrees during summer's hottest days. Now, temperatures are in mid 40's, and thgis is only 5 or 6 years later. do you think that mother nature will jump more than 10 degrees within less than a decade?
fat chance.
and, why do you believe those who are pushing gllobal warming as a part of their plan?
afterall, Club of Rome admitted in their own publication that they will use global warming to bring people in one world government.

Richard Haass, the current president of the Council on Foreign Relations, stated in his article "State sovereignty must be altered in globalized era," that a system of world government must be created and sovereignty eliminated in order to fight global warming, as well as terrorism. "Moreover, states must be prepared to cede some sovereignty to world bodies if the international system is to function," says Haass. "Globalization thus implies that sovereignty is not only becoming weaker in reality, but that it needs to become weaker. States would be wise to weaken sovereignty in order to protect themselves..."

Gordon Brown, the potential future Prime Minister of the UK, stated recently that a 'new world order' must be created in order to combat global warming.

Dr. Eric R. Pianka, a professor at the University of Texas who has a following of dedicated environmentalists, made startling comments regarding population reduction to a group of students and other scientists in April of 2006. Because of the negative effects of overpopulation on the earth, Pianka proposed that the Ebola virus be used as a tool of population reduction. Pianka also praised China's one child policy, saying that, "China was able to turn the corner and become the leading world super power because they have a police state and they are able to force people to stop re-producing."

Everyone, regardless of your position on global warming or the environment, must take into consideration the solutions that we are being given, as well as the forces behind them which seek to create a global system of domination and control.

[chattanova]

how long are people going to ignore HAARP and chemtrails?

HAARP is also known as ionospheric heat5er, and in addition to heating certain area to scorture -- it can also cause fires if enough heat is directed to a sopot via l;ens effect.

In Balkans usualtemperature BEFORE HAARP were in range of 30 -- 33 degrees during summer's hottest days. Now, temperatures are in mid 40's, and thgis is only 5 or 6 years later. do you think that mother nature will jump more than 10 degrees within less than a decade?
fat chance.
and, why do you believe those who are pushing gllobal warming as a part of their plan?
afterall, Club of Rome admitted in their own publication that they will use global warming to bring people in one world government.

Richard Haass, the current president of the Council on Foreign Relations, stated in his article "State sovereignty must be altered in globalized era," that a system of world government must be created and sovereignty eliminated in order to fight global warming, as well as terrorism. "Moreover, states must be prepared to cede some sovereignty to world bodies if the international system is to function," says Haass. "Globalization thus implies that sovereignty is not only becoming weaker in reality, but that it needs to become weaker. States would be wise to weaken sovereignty in order to protect themselves..."

Gordon Brown, the potential future Prime Minister of the UK, stated recently that a 'new world order' must be created in order to combat global warming.

Dr. Eric R. Pianka, a professor at the University of Texas who has a following of dedicated environmentalists, made startling comments regarding population reduction to a group of students and other scientists in April of 2006. Because of the negative effects of overpopulation on the earth, Pianka proposed that the Ebola virus be used as a tool of population reduction. Pianka also praised China's one child policy, saying that, "China was able to turn the corner and become the leading world super power because they have a police state and they are able to force people to stop re-producing."

Everyone, regardless of your position on global warming or the environment, must take into consideration the solutions that we are being given, as well as the forces behind them which seek to create a global system of domination and control.





Thanks for the information king.
You're post is speaking for itself, they're fuc*ing with the nature and they've been doing it for a long time.
And the 'global warming' can be a pretty good 'cover' as they perform their de-population!

[emerald]

Im from Romania and I can tell u that for some while sahara or atacama have moved here. Well today is a little bearable compared to last days, breathable I can say. Yes, of course, its a matter of global warming but rather of weather weapons (if needed to say). From our territory Americans plane to attack Iran (which I hope it wont happen yet, we are between hammer and anvil so to say), they are coming over and over, they already have caused many damages to the population of the cities and villages next to the airport they have their base located. And Russians/Putin doesnt like that. But we are much too damm sheeple since 17 years and nothings gonna change. In worse yes, never in good, lets be realistic. A people acting like sheep will end up in beading led by the wolves...

[cruise4]

"Thank you for posting that. How long are people going to pretend that global warming doesn't exist?"

Another stupid stupid comment... who says global warming doesn't exist?

The issue is whether CO2 led Global warming exists.... and the evidence is overwhelming that it doesn't and its a unneccessary tax to fund the NWO One world government you fool.

By the way your idiot mates have now changed the term to 'Climate Change' as we found it too easy to debunk their first set of lies. Get with the program. You may need a top-up off your controller.

[kooo]

I am sick and tired of the whole global warming issue, it's all I ever here in the media. Nearly every article has some kind of reference to global warming, even articles on fashion for christs sake. And now supermarkets want to charge for carrier bags, if they were so concerned about the damage plastic carrier bags cause why don't they offer some kind of instore recycling system but no, they want us to pay for them. I was in Boots the other week, when paying for my goods the spotty kid behind the counter asked me if I wanted a bag, I told him straight, you either give me a bag or give me a refund. That is now my standard response when asked that question, it works every time.

[ashyr]

theres keys right here.

weapons from the sky, "scorchers" man i can see the lenghts some arses will go to in order to face obliteration.

just imagine what it will be like when it travels from COVERT OPERATION to
OVERT OPERATION and the nation is at war and they are allowed to openly use this new tech, show us your COCTAIL, your PeaCOCKTAIL. feather display. so to speak.

now that reality is scary am i right?

[kooo]

Heard on the radio earlier that in some of the flooded areas in England people are actually fighting and threatening each other with iron bars over drinking water. There are two camps, those with community spirit that are helping each other and those that only care about themselves, this is happening only after a few days of water shortages imagine what it would be like after weeks of this!? The saying we are only three meals away from total anarchy springs to mind (or something like that). Frightening. I feel so sorry for those people that have been flooded.

[cruise4]

They accuse some people of taking more than their fair share... and guess which people they concentrated on... thats right middle eastern gents. Now for all I know there's some truth there... but knowing the media I doubt it.

[hagbard_celine]

Thank you for posting that. How long are people going to pretend that global warming doesn't exist?

It exists all right (But not in western Europe at the moment. Britain is experiencing the coolest, wetest summer ever!), few people dispute that. What many people dispute, including me, is that it's primary cause is man-made carbon emissions.

I'm sure this bloke's heart is in the right place, but he's chasing a red herring:

http://www.lewispugh.com/

This fixation on carbon is leading people away from the dangers of other, very real environmental problems. It's also being used by the elite to justify a whole array of freedom-destroying laws.

[mariag]

Thank you for posting that. How long are people going to pretend that global warming doesn't exist?

Lol just as long as there are sceptic people I guess

[phoenixchilde]

This fixation on carbon is leading people away from the dangers of other, very real environmental problems. It's also being used by the elite to justify a whole array of freedom-destroying laws.

I hear this argument all the time, but it's the elite that not only deny that global warming exists, but are also the ones telling us to create more pollution. You know all those SUV commercials? Who do you think is behind that? It's not the environmentalists like myself, it's the same people who want to enslave you.

[phoenixchilde]

The issue is whether CO2 led Global warming exists.... and the evidence is overwhelming that it doesn't and its a unneccessary tax to fund the NWO One world government you fool.

You might not want to call me a fool when you're getting everything wrong. There is no evidence that global warming isn't being caused by CO2, which is why there's still such a large debate over the subject. Second, this unneccessary tax that you talk about, doesn't exist, and the world governments continue to refuse to impose it, even though the intelligent people of the world keep asking them to.

[hagbard_celine]

I hear this argument all the time, but it's the elite that not only deny that global warming exists, but are also the ones telling us to create more pollution. You know all those SUV commercials? Who do you think is behind that? It's not the environmentalists like myself, it's the same people who want to enslave you.

I know, but the elite don't care about pollution. They are using climate change as an excuse to enslave us. In a way it makes no difference to the point whether man-made climate change is true or not.

[king]

I am sick and tired of the whole global warming issue, it's all I ever here in the media. Nearly every article has some kind of reference to global warming, even articles on fashion for christs sake. And now supermarkets want to charge for carrier bags, if they were so concerned about the damage plastic carrier bags cause why don't they offer some kind of instore recycling system but no, they want us to pay for them. I was in Boots the other week, when paying for my goods the spotty kid behind the counter asked me if I wanted a bag, I told him straight, you either give me a bag or give me a refund. That is now my standard response when asked that question, it works every time.

i like that!

[king]

It exists all right (But not in western Europe at the moment. Britain is experiencing the coolest, wetest summer ever!), few people dispute that. What many people dispute, including me, is that it's primary cause is man-made carbon emissions.

I'm sure this bloke's heart is in the right place, but he's chasing a red herring:

http://www.lewispugh.com/

This fixation on carbon is leading people away from the dangers of other, very real environmental problems. It's also being used by the elite to justify a whole array of freedom-destroying laws.


it is very simple -- if there is a global warming in one area -- then other area of planet would experience opposite effects.

around last Christmas, a friend of mine whom i picked up from a local airport after his visit to Canada said to me that Canada had mildest winter in history, almost spring time like and no snow.
I knew then that some state in US would get that cold weather a few days later, because i am always observing chemtrailing operations and scalar activity.
and, so it was -- Northern California experienced frost conditions, very unusual conditions indeed.

so, when they create extreme heat on one place will create extreme cold on other place.
for example, if you chemtrail the West Coast and use lots of barium salts in chemtrail mix -- the water vapor rivers above West Coast will become absorbed in man made chem clouds. Then, all you need to do is 'drive' those clouds in a day or two to say Texas and open them up full throttle when you wish. I have seen this torrential rain being poured on us as with buckets.
So much rain in a such short time that ground is munable to soak it.
it was as during the great flood.

and, of course, during about the same time another parts of the U.S.experienced very dry weather, which was very unusual for that time of year.
therefore, i think of HAARP as a weather "moving machine".

those mofos have been fucking with weather for la ong time.

[cruise4]

You might not want to call me a fool when you're getting everything wrong. There is no evidence that global warming isn't being caused by CO2, which is why there's still such a large debate over the subject. Second, this unneccessary tax that you talk about, doesn't exist, and the world governments continue to refuse to impose it, even though the intelligent people of the world keep asking them to.

There is plenty of evidence... look up proxies, look up what the other planets are doing lately, look at sun activity data, look at temperature data, look at ice core data, IPCC -who funds them? You obviously don't know the first thing about it. I do... I've looked at the issue in considerable detail.

A tax on CO2 emmissions has been suggested. You know this. Pay per mile is one example... and you are certainly not one of the intelligent people.

I guess you are aware of the huge carbon footprint left by Live earth? Are you aware of the numerous lies that Al Gore and Inconvenient Truth have been caught out on?

Are you aware that polar Bears can swim 300 miles and regularly swim 100 miles for food?

Are you aware CO2 comprises but 0.038% of the atmosphere?

Have you seen The great global warming swindle or Global Warming Doomsday called Off? Google them then watch them.

Are you aware that its the third world countries and the poor that would suffer most under proposed reduction schemes?

Hang on I'll save you some trouble:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/archives/global_warming/index.htm

Then come back and we'll have a debate if you still want one.

Is Climate Change occurring? Yes. Is CO2 the cause? No.
Do I think we should do something about REAL pollution? Yes!

[friendsinthesky]

Lol just as long as there are sceptic people I guess

Lol, I love your sig "Love is illusion, everything else is reality" (celtic) Lol

[cheesedanish]

I am sick and tired of the whole global warming issue, it's all I ever here in the media. Nearly every article has some kind of reference to global warming, even articles on fashion for christs sake. And now supermarkets want to charge for carrier bags, if they were so concerned about the damage plastic carrier bags cause why don't they offer some kind of instore recycling system but no, they want us to pay for them. I was in Boots the other week, when paying for my goods the spotty kid behind the counter asked me if I wanted a bag, I told him straight, you either give me a bag or give me a refund. That is now my standard response when asked that question, it works every time.

we have been paying for our plastic bags here for a long time!
just another government tax....

[william_mac]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/weather/Story/0%2C%2C2134034%2C00.html

Shit, Florida, Southern Georgia (my favorite place, with tons of wildlife reserves, and the most beautiful city in the world: Savannah), areas in North Georgia near Atlanta (I don't mind if Atlanta burns, horrible city, plus it's been burnt before, It's used to it!), Southern California, Hollywood Hills, Nevada, and Texas are all ON FIRE!

Besides that, freak rains all throughout the northeast and southeast, flash floods all throughout Texas and the midwest, and Georgia is in an extreme drout. What?

Hah, I never imagine European areas being on fire or really hot. I always picture Europe as overcast, cold, rainy, and a lot of sheep and cobble stone streets. Of course, I've never been, and I know this isn't true for all areas, but I always have that initial view in my head.



-William-Mac.com

[friendsinthesky]

we have been paying for our plastic bags here for a long time!
just another government tax....

Plastic bags or buy a re-useable bag? I will take plastic, the re-useable bag pollutes the air when being made, so what's the friggin diff? If they are really serious, then they would pay $1000- and get some chinese community to make 1000,000,000 string carry bags. Please, we all know where nike make their runners. (exploit them I say)

[phoenixchilde]

There is plenty of evidence... look up proxies, look up what the other planets are doing lately, look at sun activity data, look at temperature data, look at ice core data, IPCC -who funds them? You obviously don't know the first thing about it. I do... I've looked at the issue in considerable detail.

Other planets and sun activity? Can you measure those with your own eyes? No, which means that you're taking someone else's word for it. How can you state, with 100% assurance that they're not being paid to lie by those that want you to use the earth's fossil fuels?

By the way, the ice core data shows some interesting things about how dangerous global warming can be. Maybe you should watch those CBC documentaries again.

A tax on CO2 emmissions has been suggested. You know this. Pay per mile is one example... and you are certainly not one of the intelligent people.

Yes, and you know as well as I do that the world governments refuse to act on it.

Are you aware of the numerous lies that Al Gore and Inconvenient Truth have been caught out on?

Would those be the "lies" that the oil companies are finding? Prove that they really are lies. I never saw An Inconvenient Truth by the way. I didn't need Al Gore to tell me that global warming is happening, I know it from what's in front of my own eyes. The rising temperatures, the increasing amounts of smog filled afternoons, those I experience first hand, so I know they're not lies.

Are you aware CO2 comprises but 0.038% of the atmosphere?

And you measured this yourself, or did the government tell you that?

Have you seen The great global warming swindle or Global Warming Doomsday called Off? Google them then watch them.

A 16 year old can put a video on google, it has less credibility than wikipedia. You might believe everything you hear, but I don't.

Hang on I'll save you some trouble:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/archives/global_warming/index.htm


Why can't you post a credible link? Why is it that people in a conspiracy theory forum can only post links from conspiracy theory websites. Show me something with some real references.

[phoenixchilde]

Plastic bags or buy a re-useable bag? I will take plastic, the re-useable bag pollutes the air when being made, so what's the friggin diff? If they are really serious, then they would pay $1000- and get some chinese community to make 1000,000,000 string carry bags. Please, we all know where nike make their runners. (exploit them I say)

The plastic bags also pollute the air when being made. The disgusting thing is that they can make biodegradeable bags but refuse to use them in stores. If you want a biodegradeable bag, you have to go out and buy it yourself. Is that retarded or what?

[cruise4]

phoenixchilde... what can I say? You have dissapointed me, descredited yourself and done a disservice to humanity. Must be dark down there in the sand.

[phoenixchilde]

phoenixchilde... what can I say? You have dissapointed me, descredited yourself and done a disservice to humanity. Must be dark down there in the sand.

I've descredited myself? You can't even counter my arguments, so you just try to insult me instead? Why don't you give me something I can beleive? If you're going to say that global warming is a hoax perpetuated to enslave us, why don't you do what no one has done yet, give a motive. No one has yet been able to give me a way that global warming could be used to enslave people. Now on the other hand, if we do use up all our fossil fuels, and pollute the atmosphere in the process, that gives them a way to enslave us. Can you say charging people for the air they breathe? If you keep driving your SUV, that's not gonna be a joke anymore, it'll be real.

Who's got their head in the sand?

[chattanova]

Much weird weather these days. Now it's snowing in Buenos Aires for the first time in 90 years!

First Snow In Buenos Aires In 90 years

Argentina's capital Buenos Aires witnessed snowfall on Monday for the first time in 90 years. Wet snow fell for hours without accumulating. A cold snap caused by freezing air from Antarctica caused two exposure deaths, RBC reported.

The snow followed a bitter cold snap in late May that saw subfreezing temperatures, the coldest in 40 years in Buenos Aires, Associated Press reported. That cold wave contributed to an energy crisis and 23 deaths from exposure. Argentina's National Weather Service said such weather phenomena occur once in one hundred years in average and can hardly be predicted. Road police urged motorists to avoid driving and restricted the speed to 40 kmh.

http://english.newslab.ru/news/226837

[chattanova]

China's Storm Death Toll Nearly 700

The death toll from floods, lightning and mud and rock slides across China this summer has risen to nearly 700 after fierce storms killed 17 people over the weekend, state media said on Monday.

Ten deaths occurred in the central province of Hubei, where rain and hail have added to swollen waters along the country's longest river, the Yangtze, and its main tributary, the Han.

In the northwestern province of Shaanxi, five died in floods caused by heavy rain that cut off roads and telecommunications around Shangluo, Xinhua news agency said.

A hail storm on Saturday hit parts of the eastern Anhui province, where millions of residents have been grappling with the threat of the swollen Huai River for the past month, killing one person and injuring three, Xinhua said.

Flood waters on the Huai have begun to retreat, but 268,000 people, including 8,000 troops, remained stationed along its embankments to prevent any breaches, it added.

One person died in a lightning strike in weekend storms in the flood-battered southwestern province of Sichuan, Xinhua said.

Floods have affected 119 million people, or nearly one tenth of China's 1.3 billion population, and caused economic losses of 52.5 billion yuan (3.5 billion pounds), Xinhua said.

Farmers have borne the brunt of the damage and casualties, underscoring the vulnerability of the huge rural population to natural disasters.

Forecasters said torrential rain was likely to hit parts of the southwestern provinces Guizhou, Yunnan and Sichuan as well as Hubei in the coming days. Storms could also soak the country's dry north on Monday.

Other parts of China are suffering meteorological misery of different kinds.

More than 1 million people faced shortages of drinking water in several southern provinces as a heatwave compounded weeks of drought.

http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=1187702007

[phoenixchilde]

Ok Cruise, I've taken a look at some of the stuff on the prisonplanet link that you showed me. So far, I'm not swayed. Specifically, I wanted to look at the arguments that all the planets in the solar system are also experiencing global warming.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2006/161106suvjupiter.htm

I read the article on the new red spot on Jupiter, and how it points to an increase in temperatures. The Seventh paragraph indicates that the rise in temperatures is a result of other things that are occuring in the atmosphere, not the cause.

I also took a look at the article that mentions temperature rises in Pluto. They even state in this article that it is likely as simple as a change in season for Pluto. It takes time for the planet to warm up, which is why it's experiencing summer after it moves away from the sun, just like Earth.

The most interesting article is the one that says that the sun is getting hotter. This is very puzzling because our sun is a yellow star. Those who understand astronomy know that a yellow star is slowly cooling down. A star is at it's hottest when it's blue, then it slowly starts to age. Our sun's age is equivalent to a man in his 40s. He's starting to slow down, age is starting to take it's toll.

The second article that says that the sun is getting hotter also says that it's not enough to explain all the climate changes that we're going through. Look at this excerpt of the comments on the scientist in charge of that breakthrough.

He says that the increased solar brightness over the past 20 years has not been enough to cause the observed climate changes but believes that the impact of more intense sunshine on the ozone layer and on cloud cover could be affecting the climate more than the sunlight itself.

Below all the links, which ironically don't do much to help the cause of the guy who wrote it, he wrote this ignorant paragraph.

Global warming is cited as an excuse to meter out further control and surveillance over our daily lives, RFID chips on our trash cans, GPS satellite tacking and taxation by the mile, as well as a global tax at the gas pump.

I'm an environmentalist, and I've never heard of any of this garbage. In North America, people don't even have trash cans, so I don't know where he expects his RFID chips to go. As it is, the environmentalists(myself included) want a lower limit on how much garbage a person can put on the curb to be picked up.

His comment about taxation by the mile is truly ignorant. I'm wondering how he doesn't already know that the gas he buys from the pump is already taxed. Here in Canada, we all know that the majority of the money we pay at the pump is taxes, and as the US gas prices are similar, I highly doubt that he's not already taxed on his gas. What the hell is he talking about?

[cruise4]

Just came across the thread again phoenixchilde... he's British and talking about the UK, where today we have had the introduction of £25 tax on Gas guzzler cars. Remember your comments about 'and taxes won't happen'?

Switching between terms like Global Warming, Climate Change or CO2 led or Anthropogenic, Industry led... does no-one any good and confuses the issue we are talking about... so to clarify we are talking about CO2 led... only.

Total CO2 in atmosphere = 0.038ppm
Man's contribution = 3%

3% of 0.038 = 0.00114 <- a staggeringly small amount would you not say?

Just came across this page by accident. Seems decent on first glance.
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm


Just to recap my position... I am an environmentalist. Tackling Pollution and every other thing you probably want, I do too... but CO2 led Global Warming is totally false science and its wrong.

1. The NWO certainly want to base taxes on this myth. You may not know much about this aspect in the USA but over here they are endlessly talking about how they can do it and what comes here will come there, like Kyoto.

Also bear in mind if they start this, it snowballs, especially by the use of the term Climate Change which is, of course, always happening.

2. The NWO wish to carry on their Global Corporate Ravaging of the planet with no regard to environmental issues whatsoever. If they can fool the people into thinking its CO2 led, then they will achieve this.

Therein lies the problems, with this CO2 garbage.

I'm actually past caring about this issue. Any half decent research soon uncovers the truth for someone genuinely seeking the truth. The planets is only suggestive obviously. And don't just look at Sun temp but also Sun Flares etc. RFID is in bins over here. We have the highest petrol taxes on earth I think. Pay per Mile is coming for certain unless we can somehow stop it. New cars have been built for sometime with the necessary connectors for the tracking boxes needed. We have congestion charge zones which are really exclusion zones and they initially cut congestion, but have now risen to previous levels again et. etc. There's even stuff being put in bridges.

TOTAL RACKET and doing nothing to help OUR environmental cause.
We could cut world wide CO2 emmissions to Zero and have No appreciable effect.

[phoenixchilde]

Just came across the thread again phoenixchilde... he's British and talking about the UK, where today we have had the introduction of £25 tax on Gas guzzler cars. Remember your comments about 'and taxes won't happen'?

I never said taxes won't happen. I said that a carbon tax isn't a bad thing. Don't you realize that the only people who can afford those expensive gas guzzler cars are the rich elite? Maybe I missed something, but those are the guys we're supposed to be fighting in this.

Switching between terms like Global Warming, Climate Change or CO2 led or Anthropogenic, Industry led... does no-one any good and confuses the issue we are talking about... so to clarify we are talking about CO2 led... only.

I've never made that statement, and never will. We're talking about all the damage that the human race is doing to the environment.

Total CO2 in atmosphere = 0.038ppm
Man's contribution = 3%

3% of 0.038 = 0.00114 <- a staggeringly small amount would you not say?

I'd like to know your source on this.

Just came across this page by accident. Seems decent on first glance.
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

Some of that article is good. But he says that greenhouse gases cause plant life. Well, that's not true. Plant life does feed off CO2, it's part of photosynthesis. Unfortunately though, we keep destroying more and more plants on this planet, which leaves more CO2 in the atmosphere, which in turn leads to the greenhouse effect.

1. The NWO certainly want to base taxes on this myth. You may not know much about this aspect in the USA but over here they are endlessly talking about how they can do it and what comes here will come there, like Kyoto.

In case I wasn't clear previously, you have to spend money on creating carbon emissions. That means that the rich create more carbon emissions than the poor. This in turn means that a carbon tax will take more money from the rich, than from the poor. Now tell me, how is that a bad thing?

And since you clearly can't remember this one, let me repeat it in caps.

I'M NOT AMERICAN!

And don't just look at Sun temp but also Sun Flares etc.

Well actually, the current cycle of solar flares, which is expected to peak around 2012 started in 2005. I don't know about there, but we had a record number of smog warnings in 2004. We also had the highest gas prices ever that summer. Coincidence? I doubt it.

Pay per Mile is coming for certain unless we can somehow stop it. New cars have been built for sometime with the necessary connectors for the tracking boxes needed.

Pay per KILOMETER already exists. It's called paying for gasoline. The more we travel, the more gas we use, the more we have to pay. Since it's mostly tax, where do you think it's going?

We have congestion charge zones which are really exclusion zones and they initially cut congestion, but have now risen to previous levels again et. etc. There's even stuff being put in bridges.

I've heard about that. They charge people for driving into the city instead of using public transit. They're talking about doing it here and I'm all for it. The only reason that people drive into the city during rush hour is because they think they're above taking public transit. It's almost like charging someone for their ego. It's a rather nice bit o' karma.

[cruise4]

"I never said taxes won't happen. I said that a carbon tax isn't a bad thing. Don't you realize that the only people who can afford those expensive gas guzzler cars are the rich elite? Maybe I missed something, but those are the guys we're supposed to be fighting in this."

They rely on people like you to say exactly this. But then it starts to spread into other areas and before long the poor are being hit. The rich are never hit. £25 to them is nothing. But this is how they phase the introduction in. I'm sure you were capable of working this out just fine without me pointing it out.

"I've never made that statement, and never will. We're talking about all the damage that the human race is doing to the environment."

No... I'm making that statement so we stick to the subject. Everything I have been saying is against CO2 led Global Warming. Thats the Rubbish bit. You know this full well also.

"I'd like to know your source on this."

Well get onto google and look for it!!!

"Some of that article is good. But he says that greenhouse gases cause plant life. Well, that's not true. Plant life does feed off CO2, it's part of photosynthesis. Unfortunately though, we keep destroying more and more plants on this planet, which leaves more CO2 in the atmosphere, which in turn leads to the greenhouse effect."

Not going to bother with this one other than to say the greenhouse gas effect can be shown to be scientifically wrong and I certainly am not in favour of corporate vandalism either.

"In case I wasn't clear previously, you have to spend money on creating carbon emissions. That means that the rich create more carbon emissions than the poor. This in turn means that a carbon tax will take more money from the rich, than from the poor. Now tell me, how is that a bad thing?"

This is just wrong on all counts.

I think you are agreeing that Solar Flares affect Climate.

"Pay per KILOMETER already exists. It's called paying for gasoline. The more we travel, the more gas we use, the more we have to pay. Since it's mostly tax, where do you think it's going?"

Well thats obvious as you well know. 'Pay per Mile' is the termed used for an extra and new tax based on CO2 emmission. This can only be acceptable if CO2 is a major player in Climate Change. Unfortunately for them it isn't... so this then becomes an additional tax burden for government spending purposes. It works by having a tracking device linked to a Satellite in your car. So invasion of privacy concerns come into play also.

"I've heard about that. They charge people for driving into the city instead of using public transit. They're talking about doing it here and I'm all for it. The only reason that people drive into the city during rush hour is because they think they're above taking public transit. It's almost like charging someone for their ego. It's a rather nice bit o' karma."

The public Transport network is not able to take this burden over here, and due to the way the workplace has been removed from the living areas many have no choice in the matter. Whilst called a Congestion Charge, it really should be seen as an Exclusion Zone. The rich are unaffected and it hits the poor hardest. There are also Government Security issues involved here further down the line.


"I'M NOT AMERICAN!" Yep... you got me there then:D Must have been all the talk about Gas. What do you call the state of matter that isn't a Liquid, Solid or Plasma? Where are you from again?

[phoenixchilde]

They rely on people like you to say exactly this.

No, the fact is, they rely on people like you to say exactly that. All this supposed "science" to disprove global warming is being funded by the oil companies. As much as you hate to admit it, you're playing right into their hands.

No... I'm making that statement so we stick to the subject. Everything I have been saying is against CO2 led Global Warming. Thats the Rubbish bit. You know this full well also.

Let's get one thing straight. You don't tell me what I'm talking about, I tell you what I'm talking about. These things are all connected when we're talking about the environment. You know this full well.

We destroy more of the brazilian rainforest, and more of the forests in the northern hemisphere, which leaves less trees to process the CO2 that we're putting into the atmosphere. This CO2 sits in the upper atmosphere and reflects heat back into the lower atmosphere. Sometimes however, the humidity is so high that we get smog, which is when the CO2, along with other gases hangs just above the city in that big yellow cloud that you can see with your own two eyes.

Well get onto google and look for it!!!

Why would I waste my time looking up a statement of yours that you can't back up? I have better things to do with my time.

Not going to bother with this one other than to say the greenhouse gas effect can be shown to be scientifically wrong and I certainly am not in favour of corporate vandalism either.

The greenhouse effect has never been shown to be scientifically wrong. The more statements you make without any facts to back them up, the less credibility I give you. The fact is that the planet venus is an example of an extreme case of the greenhouse effect. This has been scientifically proven.

This is just wrong on all counts.

This statement makes me think that you live in a fantasy world. Since I'm an open minded person, I'll give you a chance. Prove to me that a person who buys less gasoline creates more pollution.

Well thats obvious as you well know. 'Pay per Mile' is the termed used for an extra and new tax based on CO2 emmission. This can only be acceptable if CO2 is a major player in Climate Change. Unfortunately for them it isn't...

Which is something that you have yet to prove. You know, you argue just like Icke. You make a statement, don't provide any factual evidence, and then go on and attempt to use that unproven statement to back up other statements. Do you bother to think long enough to realize that you should prove a point before using it to back up other arguments?

You're making less and less sense with every post you make. Do you have any interest at all in proving a point, or are you just trying to argue for the sake of arguing?

[fccool]

It is certainly not the effect of global warming as the temperatures on average only rose 1 degree. Can 1 degree variation cause such devastation? Global warming IMHO is just another ploy to push toward the Global Solution, in which everything you do will be monitored for our protection.
To say that humans produce enough CO2 to cause this is simply idiotic. Take for example all of the forests when these are shedding leaves and these just rot on the ground. These dwarf the human produced Co2 to a fraction of a percent! So let's do away with trees... as they are killing this planet!!!!:D
I do believe that human cause global warming does exist. Do some research on microwaves heating impact on ionosphere. Now, all of these just happened to coincide with Live Earth concerts to give even more "proof" of the GW. It's gonna get worse. I would not exclude possibility of arsons here too, but maybe the GW is true....



Naaah...

[cruise4]

There is only so much self-indulgent stupidity I can put up with. Its actually become embarrassing talking to you!

[fccool]

For people who still think that cars and factories are responsible for global warming... take a read. Maybe you should walk less :)

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article2195538.ece

[phoenixchilde]

For people who still think that cars and factories are responsible for global warming... take a read. Maybe you should walk less :)

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article2195538.ece

You missed it fccool. People are already talking about this stupidity in another thread. Just because one guy says it, doesn't mean it's true, and doesn't mean that he represents all people who want to put an end to global warming.

If you think that rotting leaves produce more CO2 than people, consider that the average Canadian produces 5 metric tons a year of greenhouse gases. I can't say for certain, but I'm pretty sure that number is similar for all of the G8 nations. That's a lot of people.

By the way, forests don't produce carbon dioxide. Forests use carbon dioxide. All those plants feed on carbon dioxide via this process called Photosynthesis. This uses carbon dioxide, breaks it down, and creates oxygen. The problem exists because we are not only destroying plants all over this earth, while we are each creating more carbon dioxide. The end result is that there is more carbon dioxide than the world's plant can deal with, and it's building up.

If plants created more carbon dioxide than people, don't you think the greenhouse effect would have been there when there were more plants on earth than there are now?

[phoenixchilde]

There is only so much self-indulgent stupidity I can put up with. Its actually become embarrassing talking to you!

Thank god! That's the best thing I've read all day.

[fccool]

Just because one guy says it, doesn't mean it's true, and doesn't mean that he represents all people who want to put an end to global warming.

Don't make me use your own argument against you here :). You draw your data from the same type of people as in the source I've provided. Although average Canadian may produce all of that C02. As I point out in the article, your body produces much more than your car does because it never shuts down.
I know that you've never stated so, but CO2 is not a pollutant. It's just another gas, like oxygen. Plants need CO2 (as you've mentioned), people need oxygen... so it is a symbiotic relationship. I believe that Global Warmings exist, but I don't believe that they are caused by CO2 emmisions, simply because CO2 makes out 9-30% of total greenhouse effect, and human produced CO2 only constitutes only 4% of total (some believe this figure is inflated).

If you think that rotting leaves produce more CO2 than people, consider that the average Canadian produces 5 metric tons a year of greenhouse gases. I can't say for certain, but I'm pretty sure that number is similar for all of the G8 nations. That's a lot of people.

You are right about alot of people. There are 6.5 billion of people on this planet and they all breathe. Non-stop. Simply by breathing you are producing somewhere in range of 350-600 kg of CO2 per year. More in 3rd world, because they have to slave day and night just to get some food (sarcasm, not fact). Now do the numbers. So roughly we exhale 4 billion tonnes of CO2 per year. Other human emmissions (none breathing ones)... are near twise as much 8 billion tonnes. Now, this is just breathing, and just humans. In India there's 290 cows and buffalos alone. Now, I'm sure you heard about such thing as Methane. Methane is much more of a heat sink than CO2 and animals produce huge chunk of it outside of breathing. So, as you can see, if you add the numbers up... breathing and digestion process alone amounts to more produced CO2 than burning of Coal for electicity (the major chunk of CO2 emission) and other fuel burning. Now, volcanic activity dwarfs the amount of the CO2 that animals and humans produce. So Even if our emission of CO2 was raised by 25% to a whooping 5% of the total, it would still be a minute amount in the whole 30% that the CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas, while water vapor will still be 70%.

By the way, forests don't produce carbon dioxide. Forests use carbon dioxide. All those plants feed on carbon dioxide via this process called Photosynthesis. This uses carbon dioxide, breaks it down, and creates oxygen. The problem exists because we are not only destroying plants all over this earth, while we are each creating more carbon dioxide. The end result is that there is more carbon dioxide than the world's plant can deal with, and it's building up.

I'm well aware of that fact. I am not aware of the fact, but you might now aware that the more CO2 is emmited, the faster the plants grow and swollow the CO2. It's their food when mixed with sunlight. The problem is, during the winter much of the plants go to sleep, while their remains decompose create enormous amount of CO2 with plant's photosynthesis slowed down. Yet, during the winter the temperatures drop, punch a hole in that argument (sarcasm).

If plants created more carbon dioxide than people, don't you think the greenhouse effect would have been there when there were more plants on earth than there are now?

Yes, and the history shows it to be so. If you date back enough you will see that the climate was much warmer than it is now. We find remains of tropical plants where they could not exist today. In fact all throughout the middle ages the climate was much wormer than it is today.

Hope I've answered some of your questions, and perhaps you can ask yourself some questions too. Like .. could this global warming caused by CO2 thing be a manipulated public opinion? Peice.

[phoenixchilde]

Don't make me use your own argument against you here :). You draw your data from the same type of people as in the source I've provided. Although average Canadian may produce all of that C02. As I point out in the article, your body produces much more than your car does because it never shuts down.

Well actually, what the article refers to is the CO2 created during food production, and how the beef required to give you energy to walk to the store created more CO2 in production than your car will create driving you there. Unfortunately, his logic is severely flawed in many ways, not the least of which is the fact that he specifically refers to beef, and there are vegetarians on this planet, who eat no beef.

[QUOTE=fccool;93747]I know that you've never stated so, but CO2 is not a pollutant. It's just another gas, like oxygen. Plants need CO2 (as you've mentioned), people need oxygen... so it is a symbiotic relationship. I believe that Global Warmings exist, but I don't believe that they are caused by CO2 emmisions, simply because CO2 makes out 9-30% of total greenhouse effect, and human produced CO2 only constitutes only 4% of total (some believe this figure is inflated).

I'd like to see your source on this number. In order to determine what percentage of the CO2 is human produced, they'd have to know the total amount of CO2 on this planet, which I don't see any way of them being able to calculte. Way too many variables in that equation. They would have to factor in all plant and animal life, as well as every factory, car and whatever coal power plants still exist.

I'm aware that CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas. That's why things like the One Tonne Challenge and Kyoto target all greenhouse gasses, not CO2 in particular. Kyoto specifically targets what it calls the top six greenhouse gasses; carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulfur hexafluoride, HFCs, and PFCs. CO2 and methane do happen to be the only ones there that I know anything about, so please don't ask me what the others are.


You are right about alot of people. There are 6.5 billion of people on this planet and they all breathe. Non-stop. Simply by breathing you are producing somewhere in range of 350-600 kg of CO2 per year. More in 3rd world, because they have to slave day and night just to get some food (sarcasm, not fact). Now do the numbers. So roughly we exhale 4 billion tonnes of CO2 per year. Other human emmissions (none breathing ones)... are near twise as much 8 billion tonnes. Now, this is just breathing, and just humans. In India there's 290 cows and buffalos alone. Now, I'm sure you heard about such thing as Methane. Methane is much more of a heat sink than CO2 and animals produce huge chunk of it outside of breathing. So, as you can see, if you add the numbers up... breathing and digestion process alone amounts to more produced CO2 than burning of Coal for electicity (the major chunk of CO2 emission) and other fuel burning. Now, volcanic activity dwarfs the amount of the CO2 that animals and humans produce. So Even if our emission of CO2 was raised by 25% to a whooping 5% of the total, it would still be a minute amount in the whole 30% that the CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas, while water vapor will still be 70%.

Actually, the burning of coal for electricity is a minor producer of CO2 in the G8 nations. Most electricity in the northern hemisphere currently comes from nuclear power. My earlier statistic of 5 tonnes a year refers to all greenhouse gasses, not just CO2. The fact is, the mass majority of those 5 tonnes aren't coming from breathing. Consider just how much most people use their cars. The average SUV creates more 5 tonnes a year based on the average yearly driving of a north american family.

I'm well aware of that fact. I am not aware of the fact, but you might now aware that the more CO2 is emmited, the faster the plants grow and swollow the CO2. It's their food when mixed with sunlight. The problem is, during the winter much of the plants go to sleep, while their remains decompose create enormous amount of CO2 with plant's photosynthesis slowed down. Yet, during the winter the temperatures drop, punch a hole in that argument (sarcasm).

Ideally, that is the case. Unfortunately though, we're killing the plants faster than they can grow. The result is that the carbon cycle is being unbalanced. Between having less plants and having more internal combustion engines, we are creating more CO2 than the forests of the world can deal with. It's all math.

Yes, and the history shows it to be so. If you date back enough you will see that the climate was much warmer than it is now. We find remains of tropical plants where they could not exist today. In fact all throughout the middle ages the climate was much wormer than it is today.

Perhaps you missed the science report that global temperatures are at the highest they've been in the last 100 years? 100 years ago there were a lot more plants on this earth.

By the way, I've never heard before that the climate was warming in the middle ages was warmer than today. Do you have a source on that?

Hope I've answered some of your questions, and perhaps you can ask yourself some questions too. Like .. could this global warming caused by CO2 thing be a manipulated public opinion? Peice.

I've heard it theorized that the CO2 thing could be manipulated public opinion, but it doesn't add up, because there's just no benefit to the rich people who are in control.

[fccool]

Well actually, what the article refers to is the CO2 created during food production, and how the beef required to give you energy to walk to the store created more CO2 in production than your car will create driving you there. Unfortunately, his logic is severely flawed in many ways, not the least of which is the fact that he specifically refers to beef, and there are vegetarians on this planet, who eat no beef.



You are right about vegitarians, but the numbers are pretty low. Vegitarians do not contribute to lesser beef production in the world. I am a vegitarian. I do agree that he approaches the subject from a different perspective which may attack a strawmen argument. Nevertheless, I think his argument is logical nevertheless.

I'd like to see your source on this number. In order to determine what percentage of the CO2 is human produced, they'd have to know the total amount of CO2 on this planet, which I don't see any way of them being able to calculte. Way too many variables in that equation. They would have to factor in all plant and animal life, as well as every factory, car and whatever coal power plants still exist.

It's obviously an approximation by sampling, but the data used to debate GW, either pro or against is essentially the same data. Here's an example of the research with refferences. And scientific method used (look at refferences at the bottom).

http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

But essentially you can see that if you include water vapor, our total contribution to green house gases is less than 1% according to that source. Even if you quintuple that amount to give the argument a benifit of the doubt... I think it's still too little of impact to produce such drastic results.

I'm aware that CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas. That's why things like the One Tonne Challenge and Kyoto target all greenhouse gasses, not CO2 in particular. Kyoto specifically targets what it calls the top six greenhouse gasses; carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulfur hexafluoride, HFCs, and PFCs. CO2 and methane do happen to be the only ones there that I know anything about, so please don't ask me what the others are.

Yes, but it seems to me they have missed the biggest one of them all - vaporized H2O. It's by far the biggest in volume green house gas... approximated to be 70% of all of them.

Actually, the burning of coal for electricity is a minor producer of CO2 in the G8 nations. Most electricity in the northern hemisphere currently comes from nuclear power. My earlier statistic of 5 tonnes a year refers to all greenhouse gasses, not just CO2. The fact is, the mass majority of those 5 tonnes aren't coming from breathing. Consider just how much most people use their cars. The average SUV creates more 5 tonnes a year based on the average yearly driving of a north american family.

People in Europe don't use their cars nearly as much as people in US. European cities are much more public friendly. Much of them utilize electric transportation. And hey, I'm all for cleaner air in the cities and solar and wind power, yet as the data shows... even at our peak production of CO2... it's still pretty small percentage. As far as plant life..., don't forget that there's enormous amounts of mplant life in oceans and these dissolve CO2 also (when these are cooler :)).


Ideally, that is the case. Unfortunately though, we're killing the plants faster than they can grow. The result is that the carbon cycle is being unbalanced. Between having less plants and having more internal combustion engines, we are creating more CO2 than the forests of the world can deal with. It's all math.

Worry not, the plant life exceeds human faaaar beyond what you can imagine it to be. If the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere would cause such drastic outcomes as described in this post... then the change in concentration would have to be drastic also... yet research shown that there's none such drastic leap... at least the ones that I've seen. Also, it is interesting to note that some of the sampling was done in HAWAI, place with high volcanic activity.



Perhaps you missed the science report that global temperatures are at the highest they've been in the last 100 years? 100 years ago there were a lot more plants on this earth.

We've had one of the most coldest winters here in Iowa in last 5 years. So is the warming consistantly Global, or should we call it a regional warming?

By the way, I've never heard before that the climate was warming in the middle ages was warmer than today. Do you have a source on that?

http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/earth/climate/medieval_warm_period.html

Although it is debatable, but you can't grow grapes in colder parts of the europe... as they did back then.

I've heard it theorized that the CO2 thing could be manipulated public opinion, but it doesn't add up, because there's just no benefit to the rich people who are in control.

You think? The whole point of GW IMO is to keep the developing countries from developing. All kinds of standards has been passed, yet these seem to be enforced only on third world. They are in poverty... and the elites are saying that if you will start owning cars and burn fuel then the earth is going to die.. which partly true. Our way of life is unsustainable, but hell... Those scientists with all of that research money which measures in billions could have easily put forward clean technology... this debate went on for years now...but that does not happen. Why? The only things that are proposed is to keep third world on the leash and increasing taxation on energy. I'm all for cleaner environment, but it will be us who will eventually suffer. We are dead broke without ever increasing taxes... the corporations and businesses will pass on the costs as part of the product costs. So you and I will end up paying for it... thus keeping us on the leash. Almost any low cost energy technology is being suppressed.

Here's example of what kids can do...

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/17/eveningnews/main1329941.shtml

These are C students doing stuff for after school project. So it pisses me off that the best Ford can come up with is 40 mpg at the lates autoshow I went to... and the costs of it are far beyond for me to afford. What happens here? Here's another link.

http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/2007/03/07/state-makes-big-fuss-over-local-couples-vegetable-oil-car-fuel/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.herald-review.com%2Farticles%2F2007%2F03%2F01%2Fnews%2Flo cal_news%2F1021491.txt&frame=true

Anything to encorage the usage of the fossil fuel which in fact literaly holds world's economy by the balls.

It reminds me of "war on canser" scenario. It started some decades ago and it get more money... billions over the years. Yet there are more people with canser today than when this war started, and the "solutions" that this this research brought about has only 5% success rate and will likely to result in giving you a different kind of cansers in the future. Nevertheless... enough ranting. This is my last post in this thread ... promice :).

[phoenixchilde]

You are right about vegitarians, but the numbers are pretty low. Vegitarians do not contribute to lesser beef production in the world. I am a vegitarian. I do agree that he approaches the subject from a different perspective which may attack a strawmen argument. Nevertheless, I think his argument is logical nevertheless.

I still find it difficult for him to draw a conclusion like that. Another argument is that depending on the person's physical health condition, the amount of food he must eat to make that walk would vary greatly. Someone who's overweight and doesn't exercise often would probably need to eat a lot in order to cover a city block, but someone like me could walk it with the energy from as little as a chocolate bar.

It's obviously an approximation by sampling, but the data used to debate GW, either pro or against is essentially the same data. Here's an example of the research with refferences. And scientific method used (look at refferences at the bottom).

http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

But essentially you can see that if you include water vapor, our total contribution to green house gases is less than 1% according to that source. Even if you quintuple that amount to give the argument a benifit of the doubt... I think it's still too little of impact to produce such drastic results.

Yes, but it seems to me they have missed the biggest one of them all - vaporized H2O. It's by far the biggest in volume green house gas... approximated to be 70% of all of them.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142

Take a look at this website. It states that water vapour does amount to 98% of GHGs by volume, but not by effect. Among the arguments that water vapour isn't significant is the fact that water vapour is exchanged at a higher rate than any of the other major GHGs.

People in Europe don't use their cars nearly as much as people in US. European cities are much more public friendly. Much of them utilize electric transportation. And hey, I'm all for cleaner air in the cities and solar and wind power, yet as the data shows... even at our peak production of CO2... it's still pretty small percentage. As far as plant life..., don't forget that there's enormous amounts of mplant life in oceans and these dissolve CO2 also (when these are cooler :)).

I'm glad to hear that Europe is much better at using public transit. There's a still a ridiculous stigmata in North America that there's something wrong with public transit.

The thing about that plant life in the oceans is that it's underwater plant life. That CO2 has to get into the water before the plants can consume it.

Worry not, the plant life exceeds human faaaar beyond what you can imagine it to be. If the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere would cause such drastic outcomes as described in this post... then the change in concentration would have to be drastic also... yet research shown that there's none such drastic leap... at least the ones that I've seen.

Just because there's more plants than humans, doesn't mean they're able to compensate for our CO2 production. Consider that we are, quite literally, "mass producing" CO2 with all the fossil fuels that we're burning, between cars and factories.

Also, it is interesting to note that some of the sampling was done in HAWAI, place with high volcanic activity.

To be honest, that's why I don't take it very seriously. We're talking about Hawaii here, the middle of the ocean, not densely populated, and hardly an industrial hotbed. I'm more interested in seeing the samples taken in Europe or North America, where there is a far more signifant human presence.

We've had one of the most coldest winters here in Iowa in last 5 years. So is the warming consistantly Global, or should we call it a regional warming?

You bring up a very good point. It's called Global Warming because the average temperature of the planet is increasing, which we have been told is happening. A lot of people don't think it's much, but to say that the average temperature of our planet is 1 degree celcius higher, is significant. The thing about it is though that with global warming comes a lot of other climate change effects. We've recently seen snow in, I think it was Buenos Aires, which hasn't seen snow in 90 years, you've had some colder than usual winters the last five years, and you're in a generally warm climate. There are all sorts of odd side effects of global warming, and I honestly don't have the meteorology background to understand them all.


http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/earth/climate/medieval_warm_period.html

Although it is debatable, but you can't grow grapes in colder parts of the europe... as they did back then.

That's an interesting article. He states that it was caused by higher than usual activity from the sun, but I don't see how we could know what the sun was doing back when they thought the earth was flat.

The chart he posts shows temperatures dropping after this "Medieval Warm Period" for a couple of hundred years before spiking dramatically in the last two decades, which he confirms in the text of his page. This still brings up the question of man-made global warming, since forests aren't expanding in this day and age.

You think? The whole point of GW IMO is to keep the developing countries from developing. All kinds of standards has been passed, yet these seem to be enforced only on third world. They are in poverty... and the elites are saying that if you will start owning cars and burn fuel then the earth is going to die.. which partly true. Our way of life is unsustainable, but hell... Those scientists with all of that research money which measures in billions could have easily put forward clean technology... this debate went on for years now...but that does not happen. Why? The only things that are proposed is to keep third world on the leash and increasing taxation on energy. I'm all for cleaner environment, but it will be us who will eventually suffer. We are dead broke without ever increasing taxes... the corporations and businesses will pass on the costs as part of the product costs. So you and I will end up paying for it... thus keeping us on the leash. Almost any low cost energy technology is being suppressed.

I don't know where you're getting some of this information from. The foremost push for the halting of global warming right now is the Kyoto accord. This accord calls for a 20% reduction in production of GHGs by the countries that sign it. Signing the Kyoto accord is completely voluntary, which means that they can't force the third world countries to sign it. Hell, the US still refuses to sign it.

As it is, there is no way for the G8 nations to impose anything on the third world, and that includes efforts to stop global warming. The UN charter states that every member country must be allowed to govern itself.

Your comment about corporations and businesses passing along the costs to the consumer is one that I've heard before, and I don't deny it. But here's something to consider. Wouldn't they rather pass just raise prices for no reason, thereby increasing their profit margin, than to just pass along their expenses to the consumer? Yes, they would. Passing along a cost of business to the customer doesn't make them any richer, it just keeps their profit margin the same.

[fccool]

Many valid points. Appreciate your view and I have not looked at it that way.

[infinitely free]

"Thank you for posting that. How long are people going to pretend that global warming doesn't exist?"

Another stupid stupid comment... who says global warming doesn't exist?



Erm... I do (for instance)!

[cruise4]

I'll bite: What flavour of Global Warming are you not a believer in exactly?

[king]

Plastic bags or buy a re-useable bag? I will take plastic, the re-useable bag pollutes the air when being made, so what's the friggin diff? If they are really serious, then they would pay $1000- and get some chinese community to make 1000,000,000 string carry bags. Please, we all know where nike make their runners. (exploit them I say)

exactly!
sharp observation.
as usual we are given a "choice" that in actuality is NO CHOICE, just like 'the choice' of political party is.

the energy that goes in either plastic or recycled paper bag and pollution is about the same.

decades ago people used to carry their own reusable bags
any time they went shopping.
that was a REAL solution.
but, then again -- what did our grandmothers know, they did not have the media to "teach" them.

[montag]

decades ago people used to carry their own reusable bags
any time they went shopping.
that was a REAL solution.
but, then again -- what did our grandmothers know, they did not have the media to "teach" them.
Same goes here, I remember you used to take your own pots to the Chinese take-away and they would put your food in those instead of plastic containers..

If you go to Japan they use ridiculous amounts of packaging for everything, packets inside packets inside packets, they justify this by saying it keeps their economy booming and provides jobs..:rolleyes:

[mightiswrong]

Even if CO2 emissions did cause global warming the idea that a global (or national) government should impose taxes is obscene.

1) All the readily available oil WILL get burn't in any case in a relatively short period of time.
2) Vehicles are to be fitted with a tracking device and these taxes are an excuse to track peoples movements.
3) It is illogical to argue that taxes would take money from the rich when it is government i.e. the rich who would receive the taxes.
4) Money raised by taxation is spent on war, and the construction of an industrial society. Canada are in Afganistan and every dollar payed in taxes is is spent on various schemes that harm the environment
5) The government has no right to STEAL the property of sovereign persons.
6) You have no right to elect persons to STEAL from other persons.
7) It is harmful to society to indoctrinate people into believing that a cohersive authority can solve problems.

The solutions always come from within. A local self sufficient community in harmony with nature is a solution you can show people by example and without promoting violence and theft.

[infinitetruth]

When people start saying that driving a car is better for the environment that walking, you gotta think somethings up.

[mightiswrong]

LOL

Have you seen this? One of my favourite links.
www.simondale.net/house/

[infinitetruth]

Even if CO2 emissions did cause global warming the idea that a global (or national) government should impose taxes is obscene.

1) All the readily available oil WILL get burn't in any case in a relatively short period of time.
2) Vehicles are to be fitted with a tracking device and these taxes are an excuse to track peoples movements.
3) It is illogical to argue that taxes would take money from the rich when it is government i.e. the rich who would receive the taxes.
4) Money raised by taxation is spent on war, and the construction of an industrial society. Canada are in Afganistan and every dollar payed in taxes is is spent on various schemes that harm the environment
5) The government has no right to STEAL the property of sovereign persons.
6) You have no right to elect persons to STEAL from other persons.
7) It is harmful to society to indoctrinate people into believing that a cohersive authority can solve problems.

The solutions always come from within. A local self sufficient community in harmony with nature is a solution you can show people by example and without promoting violence and theft.

A self sufficient community is practically illegal in the UK. (hmm another red flag eh?) you need proper planning permission and this is hard to find, unless you have a lot of money. But I agree that a self sufficient, low impact, lifestyle is what we should all aspire too. Its the only way. Unfortunatly for the govt that means no more taxes for them. HAHAHAHAHA!!!(evil cackling laugh)