Majority Of Scientists Do Not Support Man Made Warming Theory

Author Topic: Majority Of Scientists Do Not Support Man Made Warming Theory  (Read 28061 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

JTCoyoté

  • Guest
Majority Of Scientists Do Not Support Man Made Warming Theory
« on: August 30, 2007, 10:53:08 pm »
We know the pending Carbon tax that is to be imposed on the world by the UN, as a result of the scientifically fraudulent IPCC conference last February, and is a bunch of BS... and here is more proof...

Definitive Proof: Majority Of Scientists Do Not Support Man Made Warming Theory

Survey of peer reviewed studies reveals less than 50% of published scientists believe global warming is man made. More skeptics than advocates among scientific community while IPCC claim majority endorse the theory.
      
By Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Thursday, August 30, 2007
   
   

A new survey of over 500 peer reviewed scientific research papers on climate change, written between 2004 and 2007, has concluded that less than half endorse what has been dubbed the "consensus view," that human activity is contributing to considerable global climate change.

In direct conflict with assertions by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that a scientific consensus agrees it is 90% likely that man is responsible for warming, Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte's survey contends that only 45% support the theory and that is only if you include papers that merely lean towards endorsement.

Though the survey has not yet been released, the results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment, and science blog DailyTech has obtained a pre-publication copy which states:

    Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."
    The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here. Not only does it not require supporting that man is the "primary" cause of warming, but it doesn't require any belief or support for "catastrophic" global warming. In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results.

(Article continues below)

Man made warming proponents have often pointed to a similar survey that was conducted by history professor Naomi Oreskes on peer-reviewed papers published on the ISI Web of Science database from 1993 to 2003 which found that a majority of scientists supported the theory.

Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte sought to update the research and according to DailyTech, used the same database and search terms as Oreskes but reached a radically different conclusion.

The introduction and the summary of the IPCC's report was written entirely by politicians under the mandate of the UN, the input of actual scientists was minimal. In addition, all sections that were written by selected scientists were edited to comply with the report summary.

Some of the scientists involved even admitted that the IPCC models failed to accurately predict climate change and that "none of the climate states in the models corresponds even remotely to the current observed climate".

By contrast, the ISI Web of Science database covers 8,700 journals and publications, including every leading scientific journal in the world and is not directly influenced by any governmental body.

Schulte's survey confirms the claim that the climate change momentum has shifted among prominent scientists who are now benefiting from a greater depth of research. A spate of new research papers has significantly chilled fears of global warming.

The new survey provides undeniable proof that the world is being sold a lie on climate change by a group of politicians and elite lobbyists who wish to seize on the opportunity to hype the global warming threat and use it as a means of social manipulation for political and corporate gain.

As we have extensively reported, it is the elites, the establishment and big business interests that are pushing these fears, not the scientific community.

People who still trust the platitudes of politicians and elitists who implore us to change our way of life, cough up more tax money, and get on board with the global warming religion save being linked with Holocaust denial, are as deluded and enslaved as the tribes of Mesoamerica who, unaware of the natural phenomenon of a solar eclipse, thought their high priests could make the sky snake eat the Sun, and therefore obeyed their every demand.

Politicians are professional liars, they make careers out of deceiving people and twisting reality to fit pre-conceived agendas, yet a cascade of otherwise rationally minded people are eager to blindly trust everything they have to say about climate change, no matter how delusional it sounds.

They are also willing to comply with the ridiculous overbearing "solutions" to climate change that will just coincidentally restrict mobility and freedom of travel, regulate personal behavior, empower and expand global government and reinvigorate the surveillance state - everything Big Brother ever wanted - but surely they wouldn't lie to us about global warming to achieve it, would they?

For a wealth of information on the man made global warming hoax check our archive which has scores of articles and multimedia files relating to the science of global warming as well as the agenda behind the hype.


http://infowars.net/articles/august2007/300807Warming.htm

JTCoyoté

In my opinion, it will not cease until a crises shall have been reached...
"A house divided against itself cannot stand."

~Abraham Lincoln




Offline Killuminati

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 6
Re: Majority Of Scientists Do Not Support Man Made Warming Theory
« Reply #1 on: August 30, 2007, 11:46:54 pm »
Do you know that Du Pont owns the patent for C.F.C.'s and its up soon? That basically implies that Du Pont doesn't want another company re-patenting and profiting from them, so theyre blaming mankind on global warming in an effort to get people to bycott C.F.C.'s

Anyways, its impossible really. What about when the earth's volcanic activites were in their prime? A time when most of the worlds mountain ranges were formed and thousands of active volcanoes dotted around plates were spewing toxins into the atmosphere? Shouldnt that have made a huge hole in the ozone before we even started?

JTCoyoté

  • Guest
Re: Majority Of Scientists Do Not Support Man Made Warming Theory
« Reply #2 on: August 31, 2007, 03:28:21 am »
Dupont does this... as do many of the other multinationals. They create a formulation for a product... In the case of Dupont they created a Cloro-Fluoro-Carbon refrigerant in the early 50's it was called "Freon" and was patented.

When it's patent and extensions were about to run out... miraculously it was found to affect the ozone layer... this was in the late 70's... but luckily, Dupont had a NEW, patented, "clean", CO2 refrigerant in waiting to replace it... So the Freon formula was outlawed... Now, Dupont's patents are about to run out on the new stuff, but wait... CO2 is about to be severely restricted or outlawed... how convenient for Dupont!

--Oldyoti

When my country, into which I had just set my foot,
was set on fire about my ears, it was time to stir.
It was time for every man to stir."

~Thomas Paine, Common Sense


Offline NoCorporatePersonhood

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 7
Re: Majority Of Scientists Do Not Support Man Made Warming Theory
« Reply #3 on: August 31, 2007, 12:55:31 pm »
Who cares about global warming at this point since it can't be proven either way.   We all do know that man made corporations and activity is responsible for the air being so dirty in parts of the country that you can not even see a mountain range 25 miles away. 

Can we all agree as human beings that we would like to have clean air and water?

JTCoyoté

  • Guest
Re: Majority Of Scientists Do Not Support Man Made Warming Theory
« Reply #4 on: August 31, 2007, 03:55:32 pm »
Who cares about global warming at this point since it can't be proven either way.   We all do know that man made corporations and activity is responsible for the air being so dirty in parts of the country that you can not even see a mountain range 25 miles away. 

Can we all agree as human beings that we would like to have clean air and water?

That isn't the point... it is the world wide "breathing tax" they are pushing to as a result of the IPCC conference that is the problem... Fantasy is being proselytized in order to implement a deadly REALITY...

You exhale CO2 from each breath you take...

--Oldyoti

When my country, into which I had just set my foot,
was set on fire about my ears, it was time to stir.
It was time for every man to stir."

~Thomas Paine, Common Sense

Offline NoCorporatePersonhood

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 7
Re: Majority Of Scientists Do Not Support Man Made Warming Theory
« Reply #5 on: August 31, 2007, 07:40:24 pm »
You have a point but I think the bigger point is that human activity (mostly corporations) are screwing up the world's air and water.  I don't know anyone who would dispute that.  So instead of trying to solve that problem we can all argue about the temperature.

JTCoyoté

  • Guest
Re: Majority Of Scientists Do Not Support Man Made Warming Theory
« Reply #6 on: August 31, 2007, 10:26:45 pm »
You have a point but I think the bigger point is that human activity (mostly corporations) are screwing up the world's air and water.  I don't know anyone who would dispute that.  So instead of trying to solve that problem we can all argue about the temperature.

The importance of this issue comes from the idea that the political shackles that would be placed upon individual human beings as a result of the prescription laid out under Kyoto and the recent IPCC conference would do nothing at all to stop the wholesale corporate polluting of the air and water... that is the point... what it will do is much worse.

It would be de-facto population control... one of the tried and true controls used by the global corporate/state cabal, is the institutionalized metered polluting of the worlds water supply with corporate waste products such as Sodium-Fluoro-silicate and chlorine both are routinely administered at the well head by law in most municipalities...

If they get this Carbon tax... then any possibility of fighting the polluters becomes moot... They can then manipulate any individual breathing carbon polluter as a matter of law, say one word against it and you will have become an excess polluter and forfeit... The idea that you could fight and protest the corporation then would be a non-starter... My God, calling Carbon dioxide a pollutant that is like calling oxygen a pollutant...

That is why this is such a big issue.

--Oldyoti

When my country, into which I had just set my foot,
was set on fire about my ears, it was time to stir.
It was time for every man to stir."

~Thomas Paine, Common Sense

Offline NoCorporatePersonhood

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 7
Re: Majority Of Scientists Do Not Support Man Made Warming Theory
« Reply #7 on: August 31, 2007, 10:45:45 pm »
Are you saying that they could tax people for breathing?

JTCoyoté

  • Guest
Re: Majority Of Scientists Do Not Support Man Made Warming Theory
« Reply #8 on: August 31, 2007, 11:59:52 pm »
Carbon dioxide is the culprit, in this Al Gore driven, corporate sign-on.  The whole idea is to get carbon dioxide labeled a pollutant and dangerous greenhouse gas, which is what they are working toward NOW. 

With every breath you take you exhale carbon dioxide ... under this law you would become a taxable carbon polluter subject to all of the provisions of the global law ... it doesn't take much imagination to see where this could very easily lead. 

--Oldyoti

"To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason
is like administering medicine to the dead."

~Thomas Paine


Offline NoCorporatePersonhood

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 7
Re: Majority Of Scientists Do Not Support Man Made Warming Theory
« Reply #9 on: September 01, 2007, 06:57:09 am »
I guess still have enough faith in people that they would never put up with a tax on breathing.  Be sensible.

I am not for the right to pay to pollute like Al Gore and corporations do.

I am looking at dirty air and water and wonder why that is not talked about here.  Maybe people here are too concerned with "free" markets?

JTCoyoté

  • Guest
Re: Majority Of Scientists Do Not Support Man Made Warming Theory
« Reply #10 on: September 01, 2007, 01:27:25 pm »
I guess still have enough faith in people that they would never put up with a tax on breathing.  Be sensible.

I am not for the right to pay to pollute like Al Gore and corporations do.

I am looking at dirty air and water and wonder why that is not talked about here.  Maybe people here are too concerned with "free" markets?



It really isn't a question of having faith in people so much, it actually boils down to how much faith you have in government. 

With all the talk of a consumption tax, serious talk I might add, the vile "pay to pollute" scenario on an individual level is not beyond sensibility. 

What you are looking at here with the Rio summit in 1992, Kyoto under Clinton, and the more recent IPCC... are not environmental pollution conferences at all.  What you see in these international conferences is a method for implementing a soviet style global government. 

Instead of addressing pollution at local levels where they occur, and working to affect meaningful and lasting environmental change, change in manufacturing practices, and technological upgrades in manufactured systems, to make them less damaging to the environment ... the globalists have taken the easy way out... they implemented treaties and agreements that have removed this country's vital manufacturing infrastructure and placed it in the Third world where no one cares about pollution, slavery, or human misery... witness the destructive practices in China...

You cannot solve the problem by moving the Trash into the neighbor's yard! Which is exactly what we have allowed to be done.  The environmental community has been duped into thinking that carbon dioxide is the culprit, which is pure obfuscational tripe at the very best.  This idea has been signed on to by many of the leaders in the global environmental community, linked arm in arm with large corporate entities and manufacturing cartels in order to obfuscate the problem by moving it out of sight and out of mind, and placing the blame for it all on CO2 ...

Getting the carbon dioxide myth out into the open and thoroughly debunked is the most important thing we can do right now in order to diffuse wasted energy and refocus it on the real problems ... This means thouroghly debunking Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" and his Oscar accolades all of which were based upon this myth.

It is time for new Guards to come to the forefront, people who have seriously looked at this problem, not only from an environmental perspective but from a cultural and political perspective as well ... Our Environment, our Constitution, our free will, and the future American Honor, Truth, Justice, and Liberty, as the model for the world, depends upon it.

--Oldyoti

"Freedom had been hunted round the globe; reason was considered as
rebellion; and the slavery of fear had made men afraid to think. But
such is the irresistible nature of truth, that all it asks, and all it wants,
is the liberty of appearing."
~Thomas Paine

Offline kap25

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 29
Re: Majority Of Scientists Do Not Support Man Made Warming Theory
« Reply #11 on: September 01, 2007, 02:13:48 pm »
Dupont does this... as do many of the other multinationals. They create a formulation for a product... In the case of Dupont they created a Cloro-Fluoro-Carbon refrigerant in the early 50's it was called "Freon" and was patented.

When it's patent and extensions were about to run out... miraculously it was found to affect the ozone layer... this was in the late 70's... but luckily, Dupont had a NEW, patented, "clean", CO2 refrigerant in waiting to replace it... So the Freon formula was outlawed... Now, Dupont's patents are about to run out on the new stuff, but wait... CO2 is about to be severely restricted or outlawed... how convenient for Dupont!

--Oldyoti

When my country, into which I had just set my foot, was set on fire about my ears, it was time to stir. It was time for every man to stir." -- Thomas Paine, Common Sense


Something else I didn´t know. Thanks for the info. :)

JTCoyoté

  • Guest
Re: Majority Of Scientists Do Not Support Man Made Warming Theory
« Reply #12 on: September 01, 2007, 07:32:57 pm »
This kind of thing goes on all the time between corporations, government agencies, and lobby groups, like the environmental lobby.  In my opinion the best negotiators were the big oil companies with their global reach.  

Most of the large manufacturing companies have become an oil subsidiary, as well as our federal government unfortunately.  As it stands now the government is run very much like a corporation rather than as the representative of the people of America on the world stage that the founding Fathers had envisioned.

What we have now is very close to what was envisioned by no less an individual than Mussolini in his governmental form that was based upon the 1895 book written by Italian author Raffaello Viglione called "The Corporate State"... a copy of which could be found in the library's of not only Winston Churchill, but Franklin Roosevelt as well.  

--Oldyoti

"To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason
is like administering medicine to the dead."

~Thomas Paine


Offline Bossgator

  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 432
  • Patriot in Arizona
Re: Majority Of Scientists Do Not Support Man Made Warming Theory
« Reply #13 on: September 02, 2007, 05:06:43 am »
While I have not followed the "Global Warming" thing much, there was one point that made me really raise an eyebrow about the Kyoto Treaty, and that is the provision for the trading of "credits". As I understand it, this trading of credits allows third world developing countries to, in effect, bypass the treaty, and thus crank out pollution at full speed. The really insane part of that is both China and India, among others, would be able to keep on increasing their pollution output till at some point they reach the levels of the major industrial countries.

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but that sounds completely contradictory to the spirit of the treaty! If they were actually serious about cutting greenhouse gases, there would be NO exceptions for anyone, seeing they claim things are so serious they feel the need for a treaty in the first place.

Smells like a capitalistic rat to me!
In the end, all that's left is the truth! - Bossgator

When in politics and faced with two men who are both evil, do you choose the lesser of those two evils? NO! Execute them both and find someone who is *not* evil.

Offline kap25

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 29
Re: Majority Of Scientists Do Not Support Man Made Warming Theory
« Reply #14 on: September 02, 2007, 07:02:56 am »
JT, do you have any links to articles about Dupont, my husband wants to write about it on his blog. thanks. K

JTCoyoté

  • Guest
Re: Majority Of Scientists Do Not Support Man Made Warming Theory
« Reply #15 on: September 02, 2007, 08:39:46 pm »
Most of the stuff I refer to is from old news articles in the 70's... Freon was patented originally in 1930 or so and then was extended with reformulations until it was outlawed...

Google "Freon refrigerants propellants CO2" without the quotes and he can read to his heart's content...

--Oldyoti

"A thing moderately good is not so good as it ought
to be. Moderation in temper is always a virtue, but
moderation in principle is always a vice."

"The Rights of Man", 1792
~Thomas Paine

Offline kap25

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 29
Re: Majority Of Scientists Do Not Support Man Made Warming Theory
« Reply #16 on: September 03, 2007, 06:32:33 am »
thanks for the google hint :)

Offline Dan

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 946
  • Change? YOU BE THE CHANGE! Don't HOPE others will
    • Wake Up People
Re: Majority Of Scientists Do Not Support Man Made Warming Theory
« Reply #17 on: September 05, 2007, 06:47:42 pm »
I understand what the point is within this argument.  I would like to thank you for explaining it well enough for me to get it.  I used to read the headlines about Global Warming scams and say to myself, These people are crazy.  How can you dispute the fact that the earth is heating up.  But I understand now that that is not what you are saying. 

I have for a while pointed out to people that the political arguments have always been one side or the other.  global warming is man made or not.  But the argument should be how much is mankind increasing global warming.  The earth has a natural cycle of warming and cooling, but with all of the pollutants that CORPORATIONS are expelling every day, how does that effect it. 

I do agree with your argument that the governments have decided to capitalize on the idea though.  Take GW for example,  He was steadfast against the idea of global warming until about two years ago when he made it public that the world governments should regulate emissions to battle global warming.  Why the 180 degree turnaround?  Probably because Cheney told him they could make money and gain power from this idea.

Dan
My freedom is more important than your good idea.

When only cops have guns, it's called a "police state". - Claire Wolfe

You know why there's a Second Amendment? In case the government fails to follow the first one. -Rush Limbaugh

The militia is the dread of tyrants and the guard of freeme

Offline Karmakaze

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3
Re: Majority Of Scientists Do Not Support Man Made Warming Theory
« Reply #18 on: September 06, 2007, 07:53:51 am »
I wonder how long it's going to be before this article is posted on Prison Planet:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/sep/04/climatechange

The Arctic ice cap has collapsed at an unprecedented rate this summer and levels of sea ice in the region now stand at record lows, scientists have announced.

Experts say they are "stunned" by the loss of ice, with an area almost twice as big as the UK disappearing in the last week alone.

-snip-

Mark Serreze, an Arctic specialist at the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre at Colorado University in Denver, said: "It's amazing. It's simply fallen off a cliff and we're still losing ice."

The Arctic has now lost about a third of its ice since satellite measurements began thirty years ago, and the rate of loss has accelerated sharply since 2002.

-snip-

The new figures show that sea ice extent is currently down to 4.4m square kilometres (1.7m square miles) and still falling.

The previous record low was 5.3m square kilometres in September 2005. From 1979 to 2000 the average sea ice extent was 7.7m square kilometres.


I'm not holding my breath, because articles like the above don't help the "deniers" as much as phony studies by medical researchers on whether or not there is a "consensus" on climate change theory. For some reason, when it comes to climate change, Alex Jones et al are on the side of the elites... maybe they aren't as trustworthy as many people think..

JTCoyoté

  • Guest
Re: Majority Of Scientists Do Not Support Man Made Warming Theory
« Reply #19 on: September 06, 2007, 04:57:52 pm »
Karmakaze,

We, Alex and his friends, are on the side of rational provable science, I would say... seems to me that the elite are on the side of Kyoto, Rio, the IPCC... and the idea of the Carbon tax... and carbon sharing...

A rudimentary test: Put 2 ice cubes into a clear glass and fill it with water then mark with a marker the water level... Walk away for a couple of hours and come back when the ice is melted note the water level...

Algore and his wealth is Occidental Oil... and you should do some homework... the test will be rough...

--Oldyoti

"To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason
is like administering medicine to the dead."

~Thomas Paine

Offline Karmakaze

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3
Re: Majority Of Scientists Do Not Support Man Made Warming Theory
« Reply #20 on: September 06, 2007, 10:28:51 pm »
"We, Alex and his friends, are on the side of rational provable science, I would say... "

Is this the rational provable science that shows that the arctic ice cap has lost 1/3 of its size in 30 years? Or the science where a medical researcher cherry picked data to "prove" that only 6% of papers published in the last two years disagree with climate change theory, while 49% agreed with it, but that this somehow shows that climate change theory is wrong, and in fact a fraud?

"seems to me that the elite are on the side of Kyoto, Rio, the IPCC"

Is this the Kyoto, that the elite have been fighting against ratifying since it was signed? They are on the side of THAT Kyoto?

"Algore and his wealth is Occidental Oil... and you should do some homework... the test will be rough..."

Who cares? Al Gore is one man - thousands of scientists agree with what he is saying. Climate Change theory was around long before "An Inconvenient Truth" was made. So what does referring to Al Gore accomplish except perhaps trying to muddy the waters some more, just like the "deniers" are always trying to do.

"A rudimentary test: Put 2 ice cubes into a clear glass and fill it with water then mark with a marker the water level... Walk away for a couple of hours and come back when the ice is melted note the water level..."

Yes very rudimentary, and also very (I woulds suggest, intentionally) misleading.

If you want to demonstrate what will happen as the polar ice caps melt, there needs to be a slight change to your "test". Take a glass of water now add 2 ice cubes, then add 2 more, keep going until the ice is piled about half a foot above the rim of the glass...

That is what the ice caps are REALLY like. unlike an ice cube in a glass of water, not ALL the ice is supported in the water itself, in fact in the antarctic, the vast majority of the ice is miles thick resting on a bed of rock and is not in the water at all. Where do you think all those thousands of feet deep ice cores come from?

But thats not all, what about all those snow peaked mountains and glaciers? They aren't in the ocean, and they are melting too. But hey "rational provable science" always ignores facts like that in favor of cheap stunts that serve to mislead.

"On the side of rational provable science"? What a joke.

In any case, if you are as you claim "on the side of rational provable science", then I assume the article I quoted will be appearing on the homepage some time soon? After all, if you are only seeking the "truth" then actual climate studies must be part of that search, right?

Like I said, I won't hold my breath.

strgzr

  • Guest
Re: Majority Of Scientists Do Not Support Man Made Warming Theory
« Reply #21 on: September 07, 2007, 05:32:53 am »
Quote
Is this the rational provable science that shows that the arctic ice cap has lost 1/3 of its size in 30 years? Or the science where a medical researcher cherry picked data to "prove" that only 6% of papers published in the last two years disagree with climate change theory, while 49% agreed with it, but that this somehow shows that climate change theory is wrong, and in fact a fraud?
The climate is changing, it always has. I live in a place where 25 or 30 thousand years ago the ice was a mile thick. Did people cause that ice to melt? No. SUVs and power plants had nothing to do with it.
Quote
Who cares? Al Gore is one man
I do. I hate hypocrites. Al and his daddy made millions off coal and oil. Now he's cashing in on being a critic of what got him to where he is. Do I think he had a change of heart and now sees the light. No. I think he's a global warming pimp.
So whatever. Let's say we institute a global tax on carbon emissions. What will that tax pay for? What can we buy with that money to slow or stop "global warming"?
What a global tax is is another camel nose under the tent for global control of you and me.
And I say "from my cold dead hands" will you pry my muscle car.

Offline Karmakaze

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3
Re: Majority Of Scientists Do Not Support Man Made Warming Theory
« Reply #22 on: September 07, 2007, 07:31:21 am »
"The climate is changing, it always has. I live in a place where 25 or 30 thousand years ago the ice was a mile thick. Did people cause that ice to melt? No. SUVs and power plants had nothing to do with it."

Too true. Natural processes that occurred over tens of thousands of years changed climate quite dramatically. Of course, the operative phrase is TENS OF THOUSANDS OF YEARS. Not HUNDREDS. The point is, we humans are accelerating and exacerbating natural processes to a point where we endanger our very existence. Of course the few extra dollars you might save is all that matters to YOU right?

"I do. I hate hypocrites. Al and his daddy made millions off coal and oil."

What's wrong with that? You seem to think burning coal and oil is perfectly safe, and that it has not harmed the environment, so why should that bother you? Or are you a hypocrite?

In any case I checked out Gore's history and what do I find? Al Gore Junior never worked for any oil company. It was his father who worked for Occidental Petroleum. Thing is, Al Gore Junior was married the same year Senior went to work for Occidental. I dunno about you, but I don't count that as Junior "making millions" off oil and coal.

Was that more of that "rational provable" type of research on your behalf?

"Do I think he had a change of heart and now sees the light. No. I think he's a global warming pimp."

That's right, the guy who never worked for any oil company couldn't have had a change of heart - because his heart never seems to have been in the "destroy the world for fun and profit" camp. Unlike yours.

"So whatever. Let's say we institute a global tax on carbon emissions. What will that tax pay for? What can we buy with that money to slow or stop "global warming"?"

Oh I agree with you on the tax - mainly because the tax is actually a bullshit distraction by the elites to avoid actually making any changes. "The price of doing business" so to speak. They know it will be you and I that ends up paying for them to continue destroying the world. The alternative is NOT to deny climate change however.

"What a global tax is is another camel nose under the tent for global control of you and me."

Maybe so, doesn't mean climate change isn't real and isn't dangerous. I find it ridiculous that people that claim to be aware of the way the elites try to rule us don't see that the current climate change "debate" is actually being played by the elites to turn you against yourself. You know the tax is bad, so you assume that the science must be bad, rather than wondering if the tax has been suggested as a means of tricking you into doing what they want by denying the real danger.

They give you two options and tell you to pick from them, and you just assume those two options are the only options, without thinking perhaps those are only the options the elites want you to consider. Perhaps a smarter way to deal with it is not to play their game.

Accept the reality of climate change, but deny that carbon taxes are the cure, and demand REAL change. For example fuel mileage standards. Not only do you not end up paying more for your gas, but because you use less of it you end up saving money. How can that NOT be good for you? It isn't good for THEM however, so down the memory hole that sort of suggestion goes. And you fall for it.

"And I say "from my cold dead hands" will you pry my muscle car."

I don't know how old you are, but with that attitude, you might just get your wish...

JTCoyoté

  • Guest
Re: Majority Of Scientists Do Not Support Man Made Warming Theory
« Reply #23 on: September 07, 2007, 01:16:51 pm »
KarmaKaze

Let's be clear here ... we're talking about anthropogenic global warming, specifically that which is caused by human generated carbon dioxide.  We're not talking about climate change in general here, which has been established as the norm in our dynamic system.

Your exaggeration of my glass of water experiment to justify your point shows the ridiculousness of your argument so far... since if you continued to stack up ice cubes in a glass as you suggest, in order to properly scale, the ice-pack in the Arctic would have to extend above the troposphere, ionosphere, and out into space... as well as, push aside all of the waters of the Arctic Ocean as the mass comes to rest on the ocean floor under the incredible weight... Such is the sheer size of your hyperbole, when given the scale of my initial experiment... 

It is quite obvious that you are here to push the overall "Man is the culprit" global political agenda ... You start by dividing your argument into two camps using Kyoto, hoping to make one side of the perceived Enviro-political paradigm the globalists, while the "other side", your side, you paint as the corporation fighters and savers of the earth.  You will have no luck with that argument here. 

Now would you care to show proof that supports the idea that a global carbon-tax and the huge bureaucratic regulatory system that would be needed to implement such tax, would be a good thing? Then relate your argument upon a justification for such regulation, Perhaps basing it upon what is scientifically understood, given the history of carbon dioxide through measurable fluctuations over the last 10,000 years or so.  As distinct from your here-to-fore touting of the dubious consensus numbers of purchased "experts" whose "Research Grants" are approved and qualified because of a subtext such as, "...and how it relates to climate change/global warming and/or greenhouse gas production."

--Oldyoti

Give a troll one piece of straw, and he will try to build an entire straw-army from it...Coyoté

Offline SpaceCommand

  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 440
Re: Majority Of Scientists Do Not Support Man Made Warming Theory
« Reply #24 on: September 10, 2007, 01:48:17 am »
Posted to http://www.algorelabs.com/blog/2006/09/my-new-book.html


SpaceCommand said...

    Good Golly, its "global warming," all over again!

    It would be fine to illustrate well the scientific theory behind these things, but the real problem is not simply C02 but oxygen depletion. Only plant life can process this stuff while the Amazon is losing rain forest. There should be abundant tree plantings.

    Now politically the real problem is the cross impacts of so called solutions. Presenting the challenge of normative proposals, you get land grabbing developers who say "you got wetlands," when it rains heavily.

    This is documented, but current environmentalism is a tool of exploitation in the wrong hands. Understand this bizzaro planet of unseen obviation, free speech zones, and an unresponsive government. Bent on the wrong agenda, we face the aftermath.

    Concurrent with reading of Wayne Boucher's The Study of the Future: An Agenda for Research, should make one aware of the dimensions of how governments act in the political process. Cross impacts are a deep terrain, and made worse by a non-responsive media. The book is dated but the techniques are abundantly evident, and too often neglected.

    President Gore sir, one could worry more about the dentist bill right now than almost anything else. But thanks for the idea, after all the major part of politics at the highest level is the one occasion when people addressing it have the capacity to "reduce one another's loneliness without asking anything in return." (Henry S. Kariel)

    While we nurture nature, let's remember people too.

    7:34 AM

Comment:

I just thought more people could address this more easily by blogging directly. People could point out the flawed methodologies, lack of scientific agreement, and manufacturing consent to a global tax on carbon, the life giving molecule. Al Gore seems to have abandoned his web site though, but you never know. He has enlisted the company there of many celebrities. On a side note, he claims to be the "45th President," on his blog, so I address him as "Mr. President," in case anyone was wondering. I am not sure if this blog was on the level, as the Patrick Fitzgerald blog was supposed to have been a parody but many people had posted seriously.
And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe—the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God.

John F. Kennedy Inaugural Address

JTCoyoté

  • Guest
Re: Majority Of Scientists Do Not Support Man Made Warming Theory
« Reply #25 on: September 10, 2007, 05:56:11 am »
KarmaKaze

Yes... You are exaggerating... to the point of absurdity I am afraid. You are "herring dragging" as well... I will entreat you this LAST time.  I am sorry to have to tell you this, but your obvious lack in understanding of the Arctic, and how this particular ecosystem functions, is only exceeded by your inability to grasp the basic concept of "illustration"... such as the glass of water illustration in this case, the point of which was to show that when the ice melts, the water level is exactly the same as it was when the ice was solid and floating in the water! 

Yes, as you point out the deepest part of the ocean is indeed over 35,000 ft. deep, it is a relatively small area, a long narrow trench off of the Mariannas islands in the South Western Pacific, a considerable distance from the Arctic Ocean don't you think?!

The average depth of the Arctic Ocean is 3407 ft. or so. The deepest point is in the Eurasian Basin, at 17881 ft., again it is a long relatively narrow continental boundary trench.

In any case the Arctic Ocean pack ice remains fairly constant at 35 to 40 percent of the total Arctic ice.  This ice-float varies in thickness from 3' to 40' and covers an area roughly the size of the United States... shrinking in the summer months and growing during the winter. There is constant ocean water dilution from the summer melts, and constant fresh water replenishment occurs each summer as a result of lighter specific gravity fresh water run-off that essentially floats onto the denser brine of the ocean proper, and freezes.

This fresh water comes from the many rivers that flow from the continents that ring the Arctic. Glacier break-off of the slow flowing glaciers adds to the melt water as well.  When this run-off/break-off is low, the reduced fresh water causes a reduction in formation of new pack ice... this raises the albedo slightly and over time increases the run-off by localized warming trends in the region... Virtually all of this run-off comes from precipitation created glaciers that form the remaining 60 to 65 percent of the Arctic ice. This fresh water slowly flows as rivers and break-offs of these glacier fields that cover the land masses that skirt the Arctic ocean.

Another of these natural fluctuations that one can see in its maximums and minimums, that affect arctic temperatures, is the slow warming and cooling that roughly mirror the 22 year sun-spot cycle which affects solar irradiance... It is the shortest of the extra annual cycles that can be seen several times in an average life span, that is... if one pays attention...

As to your unqualified self eating watermelon statement... 

"The tax is actually a bullshit distraction by the elites to avoid actually making any changes."

This is ludicrous... since by imposing the provisions of these conferences, that IS "changes".  The changes made would alter what is or is not concidered as pollution in order to benefit THEM, which is the case with Carbon Dioxide... when all three of the large climate agreements are dovetailed, they create international law.  Law that would curtail any protest against THEM... all dissent would be moot... In effect they will have created the legal framework whereby they NEED NOT do anything ever again... since there would be no one to stop them from doing everything they want, which I pointed out a previous post.

Be this as it may... All of this Arctic talk is "red herring", to the original question... which is... will imposing a world wide anthropogenically caused global warming, carbon tax, ala IPCC... as well as the carbon sharing provisions in Kyoto, and the Agenda 21 provisions set forth in Rio... stop global warming?.. This is after all the gist of the article we are discussing here...

I have posed a return to the premise of this thread to you twice now... at which point you just call the premise a "bullshit distraction"... with no logic to support your statement.  Your stance, hell bent on winning the discussion without addressing with verifiable facts THE question, is further exacerbated by the fact you will not state your position with regard to the slight warming trend we are in... You just nip around the edges with statements like the one above... and drag "arctic herrings" replete with condescending ad-homs. 

How about trying to get to the truth of this current warming trend instead... how about instead of blanket statements touted as specifics, why not drag in a few verifiable facts to support your assertions.  Instead of herring dragging, and well spiking... I suggest that you state your position to begin with, as regards the anthropogenic question ASAP, if you would be so kind... you see, you are dancing on thin ice here...


--Oldyoti

"If ever time should come, when vain and aspiring
men shall possess the highest seats in Government,
our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots
to prevent its ruin."

~Samuel Adams



Offline Overcast

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,136
Re: Majority Of Scientists Do Not Support Man Made Warming Theory
« Reply #26 on: September 11, 2007, 11:48:49 am »
Dupont does this... as do many of the other multinationals. They create a formulation for a product... In the case of Dupont they created a Cloro-Fluoro-Carbon refrigerant in the early 50's it was called "Freon" and was patented.

When it's patent and extensions were about to run out... miraculously it was found to affect the ozone layer... this was in the late 70's... but luckily, Dupont had a NEW, patented, "clean", CO2 refrigerant in waiting to replace it... So the Freon formula was outlawed... Now, Dupont's patents are about to run out on the new stuff, but wait... CO2 is about to be severely restricted or outlawed... how convenient for Dupont!

--Oldyoti

When my country, into which I had just set my foot, was set on fire about my ears, it was time to stir. It was time for every man to stir." -- Thomas Paine, Common Sense


I was employed at a particular government agency and learned some very interesting info there.

Freon *IS* harmful to the ozone - without doubt.....
however....

It's too heavy to get further than two foot off the ground. By the very most simple of laws of physics, it's impossible for Freon to actually hurt the ozone - afterall, you have to get there first.

Just to back that up...

Every chemical or element has an atomic weight mass in g/mol. The weight of oxygen is 15.9 and the weight of ozone is 48. There are 7 elements lighter than oxygen: Hydrogen (1.0079), Helium (4.0026), Lithium (6.941), Beryllium (9.0122), Boron (10.811), Carbon (12.0107) and Nitrogen (14.0067). Somewhere between 15 and 48 the molecules will be too heavy and cease to rise. Chlorine weight is about 35.4 so its lighter than ozone, nitrous oxide (44), and nitric acid (63). The longer the chemical formula the more atomic weight is added. EPA states the ozone-depleting substances above also have an atomic weight. The chlorofluorocarbons, hydro-chlorofluorocarbons from Freon are heavy along with methyl bromide (94.95), carbon tetrachloride (153.82), and methyl chloroform (133.4). They all seem to be heavier than ozone, so the question is how do they rise to the upper atmosphere to deplete the ozone layer? EPA must have some newly created scientific information other than real common sense scientific information.

Plus you know - you hear all this talk about global warming, yada, yada...
But - how much historical data do we REALLY have?


Hell, let's round it off - at 2,000 years. Fair enough. More than adequate. We all know damn well, that humanity hasn't been keeping good environmental data for even 25% of that...
 
Scientifically... Modern geologists consider the age of the Earth to be around 4.54 billion years

That means - over the course of the planet's history we have about 0.000044052863436123345% of possible data.
Now.... in ANY other scientific study - ever.. would that be a good number to base an argument on?

Well - many people are.

What if I said that you have a 0.000044052863436123345% chance of dropping dead if you take an aspirin? Would you risk it or are the odds just too much out of your favor?

LOL!!!

And don't forget - I'm basing that number on 2000 years of statistical environmental data. When in reality - I bet we've only REALLY been doing a fair job at monitoring it for the last 100 years, if that.

If you base it on 100 years...

0.0000022026431718061673%

Let's use this number in other context, just for fun:

You have a 0.0000022026431718061673% chance of getting that job.
You have a 0.0000022026431718061673% chance of getting sick today. (wouldn't that be nice)
And dying in your beds, many years from now, would you be willin' to trade ALL the days, from this day to that, for one chance, just one chance, to come back here and tell our enemies that they may take our lives, but they'll never take... OUR FREEDOM!

JTCoyoté

  • Guest
Re: Majority Of Scientists Do Not Support Man Made Warming Theory
« Reply #27 on: September 11, 2007, 01:45:08 pm »
Back in the early days when the environmental damaging effects of Freon was first touted... I was working at a service center for auto air conditioning...

We had "freon detectors" installed to detect leaks from the discharge and recharging equipment... these sensors were placed on the walls and support posts of the shop about 6" from the floor... Since the freon molecule is so large and heavy, the gas is much heavier than air and a leak could only be detected early, at floor level ...

In order to be lighter than air... in order to do its damage... it has to be broken down to it's basic carbon-fluorine-chlorine and trace components in order to even approach being light enough to make its way to the upper atmosphere... This threw up red-flags for me back then, that the CFC/Ozone theory was BS... this was 25 years ago.

--Oldyoti

"An Unconstitutional Act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed." -- U.S. Supreme Court Norton V. Shelby County 118 U.S. 425, 442

Offline Dan

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 946
  • Change? YOU BE THE CHANGE! Don't HOPE others will
    • Wake Up People
Re: Majority Of Scientists Do Not Support Man Made Warming Theory
« Reply #28 on: September 11, 2007, 06:02:48 pm »
Not to sound like I don't agree but...Co not forget that in the outside world with the air currents and all other wind, atomic weight doesn't really hold up to criticism that much.  Your point is not lost on me though.

Dan
My freedom is more important than your good idea.

When only cops have guns, it's called a "police state". - Claire Wolfe

You know why there's a Second Amendment? In case the government fails to follow the first one. -Rush Limbaugh

The militia is the dread of tyrants and the guard of freeme

Offline hooky

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 35
Re: Majority Of Scientists Do Not Support Man Made Warming Theory
« Reply #29 on: September 11, 2007, 10:58:03 pm »
I'm not holding my breath, because articles like the above don't help the "deniers" as much as phony studies by medical researchers on whether or not there is a "consensus" on climate change theory. For some reason, when it comes to climate change, Alex Jones et al are on the side of the elites... maybe they aren't as trustworthy as many people think..

Now thats what I call an inconvenient truth.

Offline hooky

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 35
Re: Majority Of Scientists Do Not Support Man Made Warming Theory
« Reply #30 on: September 11, 2007, 11:22:17 pm »
Here's another one, unless stories like this are false, it's clear that the global warming debate is fake and that one side is bought and paid for ...

Scientists' Report Documents ExxonMobil’s Tobacco-like Disinformation Campaign on Global Warming Science
http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html

The Global Warming Denial Lobby
http://thetyee.ca/Mediacheck/2006/05/02/PaidtoDenyGlobalWarming/

Scientists: ExxonMobil Paid Groups to Mislead Public on Global Warming
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,241120,00.html

Scientists fear new attempts to undermine climate action
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2006/apr/21/greenpolitics.environment               

Offline hooky

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 35
Re: Majority Of Scientists Do Not Support Man Made Warming Theory
« Reply #31 on: September 12, 2007, 08:51:26 am »
And that is exactly what I'd expect based on the research I've done in other areas.  The oil companies are notorious for funding research that "muddies the water" on the affects of their pollution.  They have founded entire research associations...that are given titles to appear to be a non biased group of scientists...whose only job is to spit out propoganda. 

So I'm not really sure what to think on this issue.

Oh its easy, there are only 2 sides to the argument.
One of them is bought and paid for - this will be the false position, you can ignore it and anyone who promotes it.

Offline hooky

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 35
Re: Majority Of Scientists Do Not Support Man Made Warming Theory
« Reply #32 on: September 12, 2007, 12:11:45 pm »
But Alex Jones is saying that the human-caused side is being funded by the NWO.

What would happen, for example, if some people did come out with bad research which in same way conflicted with the Oil companies interests.  Their research firms would no doubt put out rebuttals.  I also did a search on the scientists who were interviewed in the documentry and sourewatch.org, and their names did not come up (one may have, but nothing alarming).

I can't put it beyond the realm of possibility that the oil companies happen to be right this time.

Yes, Alex Jones does say that, trouble is they can't be funding both sides and we already know they fund the side Alex has taken - see above. Its a tough one eh.

It's like 911, do you believe some talking head or your own lying eyes?

I'd have liked to have said Alex Jones must be genuinely mistaken on this issue, until I heard the interview with Rothschild the other day. It was similar to the treatment a 911 truther would get from Bill O'Reilly. Pretty shocking really.

And then there was the big deal AJ made over Rothschilds stupid remark about the order of the planets.
It's a shame he made that remark, but how it ended up as a headline news item on PrisonPlanet about Global warming I'll never know, especially as AJ claimed in the same interview that Mercury doesn't spin and was half molten. :) That gets forgotten, along with all the global warming discussion. I think he milked it for weeks. If Rothshilds statements merit a headline story calling him a lying fool, doesn't this deserve the same ...?

http://www.fileden.com/files/2006/9/11/214131/Stranger%20Than%20Fact%20with%20Alex%20Jones.mp3

Which fool do you listen to?
I'd say neither, work it out yourself.

Offline Cruise4

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,386
Re: Majority Of Scientists Do Not Support Man Made Warming Theory
« Reply #33 on: September 13, 2007, 03:54:50 pm »
Mixing up Pollution, CO2 led Global Warming, Climate Change, anthropogenic climate change and a number of other issues again. Being as they have to keep changing their terminology I have to conclude they have a definite need for obscurification.

Its always the same with these GW people. You can't get them to define their terms or stick to a discussion on said terms.

Offline chris jones

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,186
Re: Majority Of Scientists Do Not Support Man Made Warming Theory
« Reply #34 on: September 13, 2007, 04:07:37 pm »
Take 20% of the money we have used for war, and devote it to alternative energy sources and a good clean up of this planet. This global warming theory is a scam for what, money, money, money, at who's expense, the ol taxpayer.
You must admit they come up with the ideas to buffalo the public, what saddens me is the silent majority eat their shit.

Offline Ray

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 37
Global Warming: Could it be HAARP?
« Reply #35 on: September 13, 2007, 04:50:55 pm »
After reading this article on PP about HAARP I did a bit of searching.  This project is totally insane.  Seeing what this technology can do, I would not be surprised that the Global Warming is in fact a by-product of their experimentation or even maybe the result they wanted.  This is a technology that must be exposed to the masses and destroyed before it destroys the earth.

Offline username

  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 370
  • A distorted reality is now a necessity to be free
Re: Global Warming: Could it be HAARP?
« Reply #36 on: September 13, 2007, 05:13:43 pm »
Download "HAARP:Holes in Heaven"  by clicking me!

You can also download various videos pertaining to HAARP via a torrent client (click me to learn more) and the torrents attached to this post ( look below )
"The observer who has thoroughly understood one link in a series of incidents, should be able accurately to state all the other ones, both before and after." Sherlock Holmes in "The Five Orange Pips" - Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

JTCoyoté

  • Guest
Re: Majority Of Scientists Do Not Support Man Made Warming Theory
« Reply #37 on: September 13, 2007, 06:42:34 pm »
Karmakaze,

Quote from: karmakaze
(Oldyoti) "Yes... You are exaggerating... to the point of absurdity I am afraid."

OK, let me dumb this down for you... A drinking glass is about 6 inches tall. Half a foot is 6 inches. Therefore, piling the ice half a foot above the glass would be a doubling in height.

As you point out only a very small part of the ocean is actually 35,000 feet deep, and a small part of the antarctic has ice piled 15000 feet above sea level. However the average thickness of ice on the antarctic continent - that is ON LAND - is 7000 feet. So you suggesting that polar melting is the equivalent of two ice cubes in a glass of water is BY FAR more exaggerated than my revision of your example.

Your first eight words, are just another thinly veiled ad hominem, Tsk tsk...  As I stated before, you continue to fail in seeing the basic concept of my illustration, which was originally floated as an entreating aside. You also miss the concept of scaling an illustration, in order to get a somewhat accurate representation of the point of the illustration.   You chose to alter my two ice-cube float-ice experiment by piling "6 inches" of ice-cubes on top of the original two cubes to represent the increase in water level that YOU assert will result in the event of a complete Arctic melt-down...  As a matter of record, and as I stated in my last post, float-ice represents 35 to 40 percent of the total Arctic ice pack which I represented with 2 ice-cubes. So the remaining Arctic Ice, glaciers and such would be represented by the addition of 3 more ice cubes after the zero water rise from the float-ice had been noted... In other words, with your 6" of ice cubes, you exaggerate... The addition of proper scaling for the size of the worlds oceans and the 3 ice-cubes would be a more accurate representation of the scaled water level rise from the land ice melt in the Arctic region... 

Quote from: karmakaze
(Oldyoti) "I will entreat you this LAST time.  I am sorry to have to tell you this, but your obvious lack in understanding of the Arctic, and how this particular ecosystem functions, is only exceeded by your inability to grasp the basic concept of "illustration"... such as the glass of water illustration in this case, the point of which was to show that when the ice melts, the water level is exactly the same as it was when the ice was solid and floating in the water! "

Oh please, stop acting like a fool. You're not stupid enough to seriously believe that all the ice in the polar regions of earth is FLOATING in the water. YOU have failed to grasp the fundamental flaw in your "illustration" because, it seems, YOU have no idea wtf you are talking about.

Surely you have heard of Antarctica, haven't you?  You carefully and obviously avoid referring to Antarctica because you KNOW that your argument falls over when confronted with the facts of that continent. Miles thick ice (summing to over 5 MILLION CUBIC MILES) rests ON LAND in Antarctica, and it is melting off at a prodigious rate.

Your first paragraph here, is a "thinly veiled compound ad hominem", including your continued attempt at "poisoning the well" against any argument I present by discrediting my basic illustration, which in point of fact does illustrate the zero water level gain that it is designed to show.  This illustration is also a spring-board foundation upon which further well reasoned illustrations can be built that would lead the reader to a conceptual understanding of what would happen should the polar icecap melt. 

Your second paragraph is a clever dodge, and a hijack attempt as you drag in another red herring ... namely the Antarctic red herring.  I will remind you once again... we're not discussing the facts that would surround a posible Arctic or Antarctic meltdown here ... we are discussing the credibility of the theory of anthropogenic (human generated), global warming which is the subject of the papers mentioned in the article... we're not discussing climate change per se, we are not discussing the effects of global warming, we are not discussing environmental pollution of rivers and so on... we are discussing The Credibility of Anthropogenic Global Warming, in other words, human activity as the cause of global warming!


Quote from: karmakaze
(Oldyoti) "This is ludicrous... since by imposing the provisions of these conferences, that IS "changes".  The changes made would alter what is or is not considered as pollution in order to benefit THEM, which is the case with Carbon Dioxide... when all three of the large climate agreements are dovetailed, they create international law.  Law that would curtail any protest against THEM... all dissent would be moot... In effect they will have created the legal framework whereby they NEED NOT do anything ever again... since there would be no one to stop them from doing everything they want, which I pointed out a previous post."

A Carbon Tax bans dissent? What a stupid, possibly insane, claim. Seriously, if you want to argue facts, thats fine, but just making them up out of whole cloth is downright insulting to human intelligence.

Once again, let me dumb it down for you - Climate Change Theory threatens the biggest money makers "they" have. If we demand a reduction is CO2 PRODUCTION, then they will lose money hand over fist. So instead they propose a "Carbon Tax" that way they don't have to reduce production, all they have to do is pay MORE for it. But who ends up REALLY paying? You and me. They still produce, and they offset the cost on to us.

So, by proposing said tax, they avoid PRODUCTION limits, AND they con morons into arguing against ANY anti-Climate Change measures. In other words, either "we" accept the tax as a fix and "we" pay for it, or "we" deny climate change altogether and "they" still lose nothing. You are doing a great job for them.

I suggest that you read the linked supporting material that comes with the article it has a purpose you know... there is at least a half dozen links there that either point directly to these facts, or direct you to links that illustrate my points ... Once again your attitude, and you're confrontational stance, speaks volumes as to your true intent here.  My suggestion to you is that you read the entire article with linked material and try to understand it before you switch on your ViaVoice, or your Dragon Naturally Speaking, and spew nothing but fallacious debate arguments, and off topic drivel designed not to get to the truth... but to foist up your narrow point of view at the expense of the other posters and the original arguement.

Quote from: karmakaze
(Oldyoti) "Be this as it may... All of this Arctic talk is "red herring", to the original question... which is... will imposing a world wide anthropogenically caused global warming, carbon tax, ala IPCC... as well as the carbon sharing provisions in Kyoto, and the Agenda 21 provisions set forth in Rio... stop global warming?.. This is after all the gist of the article we are discussing here... "

Thank you for once again proving my point. NO, that is NOT the gist of the article we are discussing. In fact the article never mentioned ANY of those things. All it suggested was that there was a lack of "consensus" regarding anthropogenic climate change, and it didn't do that very convincingly either.

As I said much earlier, this article is being used to "prove" things that it doesn't even come close to DISCUSSING let alone proving. Thanks for proving my statement.

As was stated previously you will find what you're looking for in the material that is linked to the article perhaps that will be more convincing to the nay sayer!

Quote from: karmakaze
(Oldyoti) "I have posed a return to the premise of this thread to you twice now... at which point you just call the premise a "bullshit distraction"... with no logic to support your statement."

No you haven't, just as above, you have proposed a return to a premise that is NOT in the article, nor in anyway discussed by the article, and wasn't even the main gist of my original reply. It is YOU that has taken this discussion away from the content of the article into other areas.

If you would read the WHOLE article and listen to the content of the shows that are broadcast in conjunction with this forum as well as the myriad other articles that are written around this subject both pro and con, as well as the "Movie"... "An Inconvenient Truth" and Documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle" which prompted the article and this present debate, you might see the connection... here are the two subtle suggestions I referenced...

Reply # 24 "Now would you care to show proof that supports the idea that a global carbon-tax and the huge bureaucratic regulatory system that would be needed to implement such tax, would be a good thing? Then relate your argument upon a justification for such regulation, Perhaps basing it upon what is scientifically understood, given the history of carbon dioxide through measurable fluctuations over the last 10,000 years or so.  As distinct from your here-to-fore touting of the dubious consensus numbers of purchased "experts" whose "Research Grants" are approved and qualified because of a subtext such as, "...and how it relates to climate change/global warming and/or greenhouse gas production."

Reply #27 "Be this as it may... All of this Arctic talk is "red herring", to the original question... which is... will imposing a world wide anthropogenically caused global warming, carbon tax, ala IPCC... as well as the carbon sharing provisions in Kyoto, and the Agenda 21 provisions set forth in Rio... stop global warming?.. This is after all the gist of the article we are discussing here...

I have posed a return to the premise of this thread to you twice now... at which point you just call the premise a "bullshit distraction"... with no logic to support your statement.  Your stance, hell bent on winning the discussion without addressing with verifiable facts THE question, is further exacerbated by the fact you will not state your position with regard to the slight warming trend we are in... You just nip around the edges with statements like the one above... and drag "arctic herrings" replete with condescending ad-homs."


Quote from: karmakaze
(Oldyoti) "hell bent on winning the discussion without addressing with verifiable facts THE question"

What question? You posed an irrelevant question regarding a Carbon Tax - something never even MENTIONED in the article this thread is supposed to be discussing, and I answered it forthrightly - The Carbon Tax is a con, designed to get people like YOU to argue against climate change theory out of ignorant self interest. Your determination to keep bringing up this irrelevant issue (to the article) shows just how well their plan is working in some quarters.

(Oldyoti) "How about trying to get to the truth of this current warming trend instead... "

Climate scientists have been, and as the article this thread is about shows, 49% of papers published by them agree with the prevailing climate change theory, while only 6% disagree. Now, why do you keep focusing on politics instead of science? Is it because the science is clearly against you?

(Oldyoti) "I suggest that you state your position to begin with, as regards the anthropogenic question ASAP, if you would be so kind..."

OK I have no idea what you are talking about. You seem to be asking me to state my position, yet thats exactly what I have been doing since my first post. I pointed out that the article in question was being used to "prove" things that it never even mentioned (as you have shown multiple times) and that even if one hundred percent accurate, the study had nothing to do with climate science but was actually nothing more than a modified opinion poll that cherry picked data to appear to show something that it didn't.

As for anthropogenic climate change, I am not a climate scientist, but considering that 49% of papers published in the last two years agree with that theory, while only 6% disagree, I think I'm gonna have to go with the majority of guys who know what they're talking about.

(Oldyoti) "you see, you are dancing on thin ice here... "

Is that a threat to ban me? What for? Not agreeing with every word you say? Freedom huh?

Threat to ban...? Hadn't thought of it... Just like you forgot to mention the other 45% of the papers...

I nor anyone else, is here to read and comprehend the article and related material for you.  Agree or disagree as you will, but disagreement requires verifiable information and facts...

As moderator, on a politically charged subjects such as this, I'm allowed to float dicey little tidbits, like a fishing lure... or a glass of water experiment, and see who bites on the short straw... Ice feeling thinner yet?..


--Oldyoti

Give a troll one piece of straw, and he will try to build an entire straw-army from it...

Aqua Teen Hunger Force

  • Guest
Re: Majority Of Scientists Do Not Support Man Made Warming Theory
« Reply #38 on: September 13, 2007, 10:04:13 pm »
these are very deceitful times we live in,and the more sheeple trust science and scientists  than God, the more they are apt to beleive every fairy tale that comes down the pike!

Offline Cruise4

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,386
Re: Majority Of Scientists Do Not Support Man Made Warming Theory
« Reply #39 on: September 14, 2007, 05:46:37 am »
Re. Ice melts... why was Greenland called Greenland?

Re. Climate Change (which goes on every hour of every day)
How were grapes grown in Northern Britain in times gone past?
Skating on the Thames?
1001 other examples of times the earth didn't stand still.

Can WE do anything about it via CO2 Taxes? NO, nor should we.

Total CO2 in atmosphere = 0.038ppm
Man's contribution = 3%
3% of 0.038 = 0.00114

So if we reduced CO2 emmission to 0 we would save a 0.00114ppm contribution to the atmosphere.

Its all rollocks! Google the figures for yourself.

King Canute stopping the Sun is less likely than his failed attempt to stop the waves.

Now corporate pollution as an issue... now we are talking.