Reply Sat 28 Mar, 2009 11:37 am
Here are some videos on global warming by one of my favorite ppl on youtube- Potholer54. It's a fascinating subject, albeit one i don't know much about.

YouTube - 1. Climate Change -- the scientific debate

YouTube - 2. Climate Change -- the objections

YouTube - 3 - Climate Change anatomy of a myth
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 5,256 • Replies: 49
No top replies

 
Numpty
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Apr, 2009 04:30 am
@NotHereForLong,
NotHereForLong;64779 wrote:
Here are some videos on global warming by one of my favorite ppl on youtube- Potholer54. It's a fascinating subject, albeit one i don't know much about.

YouTube - 1. Climate Change -- the scientific debate

YouTube - 2. Climate Change -- the objections

YouTube - 3 - Climate Change anatomy of a myth


I do believe it is no longer referred to as global warming, but Climate Change. Bottom line is that lots of predictions and models have been developed, most suggest incease in temperature, but some maybe more worryingly indicate the dawn of a new ice-age.
Anton Artaud
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Apr, 2010 08:54 pm
@NotHereForLong,
NotHere,

It is confusing with politics entering the interpretation of science and scientific communities being funded by governmental agencies with an agenda.

Warming or cooling is doesn't matter, it's been amply proven that there are natural powers at work that dwarfs any participation we have in climate change.

How about the current volcano? That one explosion negated all of our efforts to reduce carbons emissions. Try to compare your "footprint" to the tons of debris emitted from that single explosion.

European scientist point to sun spots as one main cause of global climate change. In fact, current studies show that the heating and cooling of the earth is directly correlated with sun spots activity over the past several centuries. Big Al Gore doesn't want anyone to know that.

While conservation has been addressed for decades, notice the rise in "concern" that escalated in the late 1980's? That is also when the Soviet Union broke up. Is there a link--absolutely. If we cannot unit against a physical country we can over an idea. It's called the development of national capital through patriotism.

And look at all the money that will be generated from global warming. Oh and by the way over 95% of the "green house gas" is WATER. That came from big Al Gore himself.

I may or may not agree that we are engaged in global warming but we can't effectively make a difference nor did we cause it ---and that is a proven fact.

Watch the "Green Movement" and the money they generate--that's the key.
kynaston
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 May, 2010 06:03 am
@Anton Artaud,
Anton Artaud;71495 wrote:
NotHere,

It is confusing with politics entering the interpretation of science and scientific communities being funded by governmental agencies with an agenda.

Warming or cooling is doesn't matter, it's been amply proven that there are natural powers at work that dwarfs any participation we have in climate change.

How about the current volcano? That one explosion negated all of our efforts to reduce carbons emissions. Try to compare your "footprint" to the tons of debris emitted from that single explosion.

European scientist point to sun spots as one main cause of global climate change. In fact, current studies show that the heating and cooling of the earth is directly correlated with sun spots activity over the past several centuries. Big Al Gore doesn't want anyone to know that.

While conservation has been addressed for decades, notice the rise in "concern" that escalated in the late 1980's? That is also when the Soviet Union broke up. Is there a link--absolutely. If we cannot unit against a physical country we can over an idea. It's called the development of national capital through patriotism.

And look at all the money that will be generated from global warming. Oh and by the way over 95% of the "green house gas" is WATER. That came from big Al Gore himself.

I may or may not agree that we are engaged in global warming but we can't effectively make a difference nor did we cause it ---and that is a proven fact.

Watch the "Green Movement" and the money they generate--that's the key.


Only mad Americans believe governments have any conceivable reason to lie about the great and dangerous increase in global temperature, whereas polluting firms have the most obvious reasons to bribe scientists to lie. I'd prefer NOT to have my great-grandchildren curse my name myself!
Fatal Freedoms
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 May, 2010 11:08 am
@Numpty,
Numpty;65093 wrote:
I do believe it is no longer referred to as global warming, but Climate Change.


This is due to the input of politics.
0 Replies
 
Fatal Freedoms
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 May, 2010 12:19 pm
@Anton Artaud,
Anton Artaud;71495 wrote:
NotHere,

It is confusing with politics entering the interpretation of science and scientific communities being funded by governmental agencies with an agenda.

Warming or cooling is doesn't matter, it's been amply proven that there are natural powers at work that dwarfs any participation we have in climate change.

How about the current volcano? That one explosion negated all of our efforts to reduce carbons emissions. Try to compare your "footprint" to the tons of debris emitted from that single explosion.


So because a volcanoes can cause climate shifts therefore humans can't? Where is the logic in that? We don't need to approach the contribution of a major volcano to affect the atmosphere.

People used to believe that that seas and oceans were too big to be affected by the trash we throw in them, today we know better. You must realize things add up.

The effects of a volcano, will subside, but as long as human activity is sustained, we are poisoning our own environment.

Quote:

European scientist point to sun spots as one main cause of global climate change. In fact, current studies show that the heating and cooling of the earth is directly correlated with sun spots activity over the past several centuries. Big Al Gore doesn't want anyone to know that.


Well when you have more heat trapping gases in the air, of course sunspots are going to play a large role.

Quote:
While conservation has been addressed for decades, notice the rise in "concern" that escalated in the late 1980's? That is also when the Soviet Union broke up. Is there a link--absolutely. If we cannot unit against a physical country we can over an idea. It's called the development of national capital through patriotism.


Are you saying that Global warming was invented, so that the US would have a common enemy to unite against? That is some wild speculation, if you ask me. And something that would be incredibly difficult to prove.

The US has always had some threat to rail against whether it's unfair brittish rule, Indians, Immigrants, Nazis, european imperialism, communism, drug wars, stock market crash, rogue states, women's rights, degradation of natural resources, Islamic extremism etc...

To my understanding we are in no shortage of enemies (either physical or ideological) to rally against. This also ignores the fact that there are many other countries that are fighting global warming.



Quote:

And look at all the money that will be generated from global warming.


Look at all the money generated by oil companies....point being?


Quote:
by the way over 95% of the "green house gas" is WATER. That came from big Al Gore himself.


5% is more than enough to dramatically change the climate of the earth. Raise the temperature of the ocean only a few degrees and we will have some major problems.

The ice caps reflect a lot of the sun's light back into space, so the hotter it gets the smaller ice-caps we have, and thus it gets even hotter because less light is being reflected. So the warming of the earth only needs a slight push to gain momentum.


Quote:


Watch the "Green Movement" and the money they generate--that's the key.


Or the Oil lobbyists' influence on politicians. The United States is an Oil country, oil plays a huge role in our economy, we use many times more oil than any other country, so is it any coincidence that we are also the country that is most skeptical of climate change?
0 Replies
 
Anton Artaud
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 May, 2010 09:00 pm
@kynaston,
kynaston;71496 wrote:
Only mad Americans believe governments have any conceivable reason to lie about the great and dangerous increase in global temperature, whereas polluting firms have the most obvious reasons to bribe scientists to lie. I'd prefer NOT to have my great-grandchildren curse my name myself!



Only "mad" Americans continue to ignore proven governmental conspiracies. Here are two examples among dozens: "Human Radiation Experiments" that occurred from 1944 to 1974. This information was released in 1995.

Also, "Operation Paper Clip" was designed to smuggle ex-Nazi scientists into the country after WWII. By 1955 we had given citizenship to over 760 Germans.

Notice how we don't talk about the diminishing ozone layer? Why? Because it was proven that the ozone moves from natural causes.

How about the diminishing forests in Madagascar? I thought we were losing an acre a day? No one talks about that either.

Now, as far as the "great and dangerous increase in global temperature," most scientist agree that we are seeing natural cycles and we have no appreciable impact: 95% of the greenhouse "gases" is water. That is a fact. The next 2.7% is carbon from seaweed and vegetation.

We are said to contribute to the rest of the carbon or 2.3 %. If we spent billions of dollars to reduce carbon emissions, we would have between .5% and 1.2 % reduction at most. If we eliminated all of the 2.3% there would be 97.7% remaining unaffected.

Studies will vary but the fact remains--we do not cause global warming.

Where are these scientists that make such claims?--anywhere in the world but here.

Why--Global Warming is a US money maker.

World governments want the majority control over the gross national product. Other countries maintain control through Socialism and forms of totalitarianism. We rely on justified taxes. The government invents issues then increase our taxes until they want more money and invent another issue so we pay yet another tax.

Other countries will participate in Global Warming issues provided they receive US funding. Otherwise they will follow economically viable natural conservation.

Look up "Global Warming Swindle."

Look at education. How can hundreds of politicians win elections on education reform for decades and it just gets worse? Obviously, another lie.

Look at the Lottery--what a joke--on us. While they said the money was going to education, it ultimately went to pet projects and education is getting worse. I'm not surprised! Are you?


So, if you follow history, it is obvious that the government will lie over anything that makes them money. And when it is discovered that the majority of the European scientific community is being censored, you must ask why.
0 Replies
 
kynaston
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 May, 2010 09:53 am
@NotHereForLong,
'Now, as far as the "great and dangerous increase in global temperature," most scientist agree that we are seeing natural cycles and we have no appreciable impact.'

If you think that, you probably believe President Obama is behind it all. You are exactly the kind of nutter I was talking about.
Anton Artaud
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 May, 2010 07:30 pm
@kynaston,
kynaston;71558 wrote:
'Now, as far as the "great and dangerous increase in global temperature," most scientist agree that we are seeing natural cycles and we have no appreciable impact.'

If you think that, you probably believe President Obama is behind it all. You are exactly the kind of nutter I was talking about.


Well--do some real research rather than be a walking billboard for the Liberals. Your intelligent--think on your own. Reach out to conflicting evidence and ask why" Why are scientific communities at odds here? Answer-- follow the money and search sources out of this country.

It is that simple.
Fatal Freedoms
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 May, 2010 10:41 pm
@Anton Artaud,
Anton Artaud;71580 wrote:
Well--do some real research rather than be a walking billboard for the Liberals. Your intelligent--think on your own. Reach out to conflicting evidence and ask why" Why are scientific communities at odds here? Answer-- follow the money and search sources out of this country.

It is that simple.


They aren't.

97% of climatologists (People who actually study climate for a living) agree that not only is the earth warming, but that this warming is influences by humans.
kynaston
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 May, 2010 03:26 am
@Anton Artaud,
Anton Artaud;71580 wrote:
Well--do some real research rather than be a walking billboard for the Liberals. Your intelligent--think on your own. Reach out to conflicting evidence and ask why" Why are scientific communities at odds here? Answer-- follow the money and search sources out of this country.

It is that simple.


I don't spend much time finding out whether the world is not really flat either. 'Scientists' can be anyone you choose, but as FF has pointed out, climatologists, who are the ones who know about the matter, are pretty universally agreed. As an academic of sorts I have always found it difficult to believe in my entirely-normal colleagues' being engaged in dark plots, though I also know that some work for companies and prove - insofar as they more-or-less honestly can - what those companies want. You should always look very seriously into real and likely motive before you start believing in these complicated plots of yours.
Anton Artaud
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 May, 2010 09:04 am
@Fatal Freedoms,
Fatal_Freedoms;71582 wrote:
They aren't.

97% of climatologists (People who actually study climate for a living) agree that not only is the earth warming, but that this warming is influences by humans.


Remember, even I said we contribute to the production of carbon--that's not the point. When our contribution is less than 3% and we, as a global community, cannot make any significant impact on its reduction, then what is the point? Except follow the money.

Also, the function of a greenhouse, in the floral industry, is to FIRST raise the temperature. This INITIAL light and heat concentration then causes an acceleration in photosyntheses and other plant processes. From this, carbon is THEN released in larger quantities, contributing to the overall heating process--and not the other way around.

The carbon does NOT initially cause the heat as the left-wing government funded scientists would have you believe.

And, remember the volcano? You see, we contribute next to nothing and even if we could reduce all of what we contribute--one volcano eliminates all our effort and damages even further. But a lot of people can get new jobs and make that money.

Also, remember Kuwait? Remember when our "scientists" said that if they lite the hundreds of oil rigs on fire the smoke would cause a "global shroud?" This shroud could block the sun and eventually cause global cooling. One said it could trigger another ice age. Wow--what propaganda.
Well, they lite the rigs and nothing never happed.

This is called "Fear Mongering."

Now either their calculations are terribly wrong or they used this opportunity to perpetuate the myth concerning the components of global warming. Do you really think these "scientists" are that stupid?

Oh and by the way, since you mentioned Obama, are you liking the "Change." Wait a few years for your taxes to go up. There are now thousands of people organizing to block "Mr Change." I wonder why?

Again, research other countries. Do you know that Al Gore is being sued by 30,000 scientists for "Global Warming fraud. Oh yea! That eats away at your 97%.

Look up Global Warming Fraud on Google. It's just that easy. You'll find that while science admits to subtle Global Warming, it is a natural cycle and we did not cause it.
Anton Artaud
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 May, 2010 09:23 am
@kynaston,
kynaston;71586 wrote:
I don't spend much time finding out whether the world is not really flat either. 'Scientists' can be anyone you choose, but as FF has pointed out, climatologists, who are the ones who know about the matter, are pretty universally agreed. As an academic of sorts I have always found it difficult to believe in my entirely-normal colleagues' being engaged in dark plots, though I also know that some work for companies and prove - insofar as they more-or-less honestly can - what those companies want. You should always look very seriously into real and likely motive before you start believing in these complicated plots of yours.


Right now Al Gore is being sued by 30,000 scientist for Global Warming Fraud. Global Warming promotes the Global Community mindset and it makes a lot of money. My question is why are the scientist suing the politician?

The grass roots of most movements are dedicated, honest and devoted to excellence. But as an "academic of sorts" you must know that universities promote the "politically correct." What would happen if a university sociologist wanted to write a book on "Darwin Got It Wrong' or
"The Male/Female Financial Inequity Myth." Even if there was ample proof for these claims, these researchers would never be funded. You know this.

Science is about political funding today. I personally know of how project proposals must be geared toward that political climate. That is my point.
kynaston
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 May, 2010 10:02 am
@Anton Artaud,
Anton Artaud;71589 wrote:
Right now Al Gore is being sued by 30,000 scientist for Global Warming Fraud. Global Warming promotes the Global Community mindset and it makes a lot of money. My question is why are the scientist suing the politician? .


Presumably because the various polluters are putting up anyone who wants some extreme-right credibility in, say, Egyptology or Animal Husbandry to be a nuisance, just as they paid people to persecute the staff in East Anglia.

Anton Artaud;71589 wrote:
The grass roots of most movements are dedicated, honest and devoted to excellence..


Name three. The grass roots of right-wing movements have always been nastily nuts.

Anton Artaud;71589 wrote:
But as an "academic of sorts" you must know that universities promote the "politically correct." What would happen if a university sociologist wanted to write a book on "Darwin Got It Wrong' or
"The Male/Female Financial Inequity Myth." Even if there was ample proof for these claims, these researchers would never be funded. You know this..


Nobody except right-wing nutters has ever experienced any such thing as this alleged 'political correctness' - it is a sort of urban myth made up by people who want to go on being racist, homophobic or whatever in a changed world. As to the second bit, I know no such thing: it is nonsense, though why a sociologist should be writing about biology or economics is another question.

Anton Artaud;71589 wrote:
Science is about political funding today. I personally know of how project proposals must be geared toward that political climate. That is my point.


The US is dominated by big business, as you know, which is why you are being fed all this nonsense. The 'political climate' is roughly that of late-mediaeval Spain, as far as I can make out.
Anton Artaud
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 May, 2010 12:38 pm
@kynaston,
kynaston;71592 wrote:
Presumably because the various polluters are putting up anyone who wants some extreme-right credibility in, say, Egyptology or Animal Husbandry to be a nuisance, just as they paid people to persecute the staff in East Anglia.

Thank you for the East Anglia reference. Look up Climategate and it's all there. There is no global warming and they have been hiding the facts. Why? As I said--alternate fuels will be big business one day. And Al Gore is a major share holder to be sure.


Name three. The grass roots of right-wing movements have always been nastily nuts.

Don't confuse conservatives with the religious right.

Nobody except right-wing nutters has ever experienced any such thing as this alleged 'political correctness' - it is a sort of urban myth made up by people who want to go on being racist, homophobic or whatever in a changed world.

Actually, a major figure who brought political correctness to the 20th Century was a man named Karl Marx. The lefties seem to miss this point.


As to the second bit, I know no such thing: it is nonsense, though why a sociologist should be writing about biology or economics is another question.

Your reference to East Anglia, proves my point. Scientists were arranging how to eliminate those who did not agree with the "understood agenda." I don't think you read your reference through. It really does prove my point in many ways.


The US is dominated by big business, as you know, which is why you are being fed all this nonsense. The 'political climate' is roughly that of late-mediaeval Spain, as far as I can make out.


After you read Climategate referencing East Anglia, you will see how it is the government and not big business running the show. The government wants alternate systems for tax and geopolitical reasons. Exxon is not paying these scientists.
0 Replies
 
Fatal Freedoms
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 May, 2010 03:33 pm
@Anton Artaud,
Anton Artaud;71588 wrote:

Again, research other countries. Do you know that Al Gore is being sued by 30,000 scientists for "Global Warming fraud. Oh yea! That eats away at your 97%.





30,000 is not even 1% of the total scientific community. And I am talking about people who are scientists in CLIMATOLOGY, 97% of whom believe humans significantly contribute to climate change. I really don't give a damn what a social scientist has to say about climate change. That would be like asking a dentist to perform surgery.


Quote:
Look up Global Warming Fraud on Google. It's just that easy. You'll find that while science admits to subtle Global Warming, it is a natural cycle and we did not cause it.


Well of course if you look up, "Global warming fraud" your going to find websites that believe that. You could also look up "Holocaust is a lie" and probably find a lot of websites that believe that as well... :rollinglaugh:

Please demonstrate a little common sense here.
kynaston
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 May, 2010 06:06 am
@NotHereForLong,
'Actually, a major figure who brought political correctness to the 20th Century was a man named Karl Marx. The lefties seem to miss this point.'

This seems to me typical of the bizarre quality of this discussion. What on earth can you possibly mean? What has Marx got to do with these fantasized notions?

'Thank you for the East Anglia reference. Look up Climategate and it's all there. There is no global warming and they have been hiding the facts.'

The scientists were so fed up and bored with the extremist sabotage that they didn't behave entirely like saints. Nobody was 'hiding facts' as part of a plot. This is all on the level of President Obama's being born on Mars or whatever it is. If you read only right-wing codwallop everything you read will tell you the codswallop is true.
Anton Artaud
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 May, 2010 08:03 am
@NotHereForLong,
You said

"Nobody except right-wing nutters has ever experienced any such thing as this alleged 'political correctness' - it is a sort of urban myth made up by people who want to go on being racist, homophobic or whatever in a changed world."

The first par is in response to our "politically correct" issue which is above your East Anglia reference. Political Correctness origination is earlier than Marx. But the point is, the Right got the term from Karl. Karl Marx who is not a right-wing nutter was fully embraced in the idea.

You handed me the cite as evidence for your position. Did you give me right-wing codwallop? If you can't believe your own evidence--I have no hope.
0 Replies
 
Anton Artaud
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 May, 2010 08:08 am
@kynaston,
kynaston;71635 wrote:
'Actually, a major figure who brought political correctness to the 20th Century was a man named Karl Marx. The lefties seem to miss this point.'

This seems to me typical of the bizarre quality of this discussion. What on earth can you possibly mean? What has Marx got to do with these fantasized notions?

'Thank you for the East Anglia reference. Look up Climategate and it's all there. There is no global warming and they have been hiding the facts.'

The scientists were so fed up and bored with the extremist sabotage that they didn't behave entirely like saints. Nobody was 'hiding facts' as part of a plot. This is all on the level of President Obama's being born on Mars or whatever it is. If you read only right-wing codwallop everything you read will tell you the codswallop is true.


You said "Nobody except right-wing nutters has ever experienced any such thing as this alleged 'political correctness' - it is a sort of urban myth made up by people who want to go on being racist, homophobic or whatever in a changed world."

That explains why I brought up Marx.

And are you saying your own reference is now codwallop? If you can't give credence to your own reference then no one has a chance explaining an alternate way of looking at this.
kynaston
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 May, 2010 07:08 am
@Anton Artaud,
Anton Artaud;71642 wrote:
You said "Nobody except right-wing nutters has ever experienced any such thing as this alleged 'political correctness' - it is a sort of urban myth made up by people who want to go on being racist, homophobic or whatever in a changed world."

That explains why I brought up Marx.

And are you saying your own reference is now codwallop? If you can't give credence to your own reference then no one has a chance explaining an alternate way of looking at this.


Sorry - I don't understand this at all. 'Political Correctness' seems to mean that some all-powerful being (God? Murdoch? the Pope? Mrs Palin?) prevents people from calling other people rude or disgusting things as a jolly jest, thus destroying all American free speech. Marx is not this all-powerful being - in fact he is just a historical figure constantly lied about by people who haven't read him - so what have the two in common please?
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Global warming
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/07/2020 at 04:01:13