Majority Of Scientists Do Not Support Man Made Warming Theory

[username]

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 )

[JTCoyoté]

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... 

(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!

(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.

(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!

(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."

(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]

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!

[Cruise4]

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.

[JTCoyoté]

It is interesting that you would bring up the subject of Greenland ... The story goes that the name is a misnomer as is the case with the name of Iceland, the other island country in the North Atlantic, in order to entice people to move to Greenland rather than to Iceland. 

There is evidence that during a long warm period that occurred 5000 to 6000 years ago and lasted for some 15 centuries, Greenland was indeed green.  The northern ice pack at that time was much less than it is today. It was said to be possible at that time to travel by sea between Newfoundland and Greenland above the North American continent through the Bering Straits into the Pacific and the east coast of Asia... These tales were the source of the infamous, legendary, and fabled "Northwest Passage" that drove the European explorers of old from Christopher Columbus on ... unfortunately by that time the ice had completely locked in the Arctic Ocean and the north shores of North America...

I agree that the most important environmental problem facing the world is unrestricted, unrestrained, environmental pollution by large corporate conglomerates and government ... The unfortunate thing is that the environmental movement has been co-opted by the very international corporate/state interests they wish to curtail ...

With agreements like NAFTA and GATT the WTO, and CAFTA, and the resultant  moving of all of America's manufacturing offshore ... into Mexico, to China, and elsewhere, the restrictions and constraints that were made law in the 70's and 80's... programs for updating and modernizing manufacturing practices which included the processing of pollutants into inert and truly re-usable  substances... has been set back over 25 years because of these offshore international corporate/government "Free-Trade Shenanigans"!

The fact that they are splitting the people with this "Glob-Warm" stuff shows that we have lost our focus...The International Corporate state is instituting another Global Law as we squabble... It would tie us environmentally to the UN and it's charter which would over-ride Constitutional power in cases of CO2 as a danger to the environment...This is poppy-cock.

In the past, the ice core record shows that the levels of CO2 have been 10 times higher at close to 0.30% (3 tenths of one percent), as opposed to the 0.0378% or about 378 parts per million according to NOAA, that we see today... My God people, the government puts sodium-fluoro-silicate in your drinking water at a rate of 3.5 to 4.0 ppm and this is a cumulative deadly poison, a class 6 toxin!!! This is 1/3 the rate that human beings contribute to the background CO2!  CO2 is neither cumulative nor a poison... and it is a minimal greenhouse gas especially at the levels it occurs... plants rely on it for there very existence... The most abundant atmosperic greenhouse gas is dihydrogen-monoxide vapor!... we should promote laws right away, to ban it world wide next...

Using the ice cores... we find that we are presently in a relative CO2 low, with the average being higher than today as was stated on GGWS...

We have plenty of fronts in this fight but you don't build a new structure until the old one is torn down... we must dismantle the International Corporate/Super State FIRST!

--Oldyoti

"The high office of President has been used to foment a plot to destroy the American's freedom, and before I leave office I must inform the citizen of his plight." -- John F. Kennedy at Columbia University, 10 days before his assassination

[hooky]

There is evidence that during a long warm period that occurred 3000 to 4000 years ago and lasted for some 15 centuries, Greenland was indeed green.  The northern ice pack at that time was much less than it is today. It was said to be possible at that time to travel by sea between Newfoundland and Greenland above the North American continent through the Bering Straits into the Pacific and the east coast of Asia... These tales were the source of the infamous, legendary, and fabled "Northwest Passage" that drove the European explorers of old from Christopher Columbus on ... unfortunately by that time the ice had completely locked in the Arctic Ocean...

LOL ...

Arctic Meltdown Opens Fabled Northwest Passage
By Ker Than, LiveScience Staff Writer
posted: 14 September 2007 02:59 pm ET
http://www.livescience.com/environment/070914_northwest_passage.html

[JTCoyoté]

Hooky,

Notice the time on my post... then compare it to the time of the posted article you linked...

Was that you I saw in that movie Zulu, toward the end... picking your teeth with that Martini-Henry Bayonet... 

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0058777/quotes

--Oldyoti

[On Democracy]..."Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."
-- James Madison -- Federalist Paper #10

[Cruise4]

Wow... that was synchronistic !!!

[Overcast]

Considering this...

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07252/815920-85.stm

If it was truly the aim of our government to 'correct' global warming - it could be done now. I suspect - we'll see no change over the next decade.

[JTCoyoté]

The interesting thing about all this is at the same time we are getting loud reports of record ice melts in the North ... if you listen real closely above all of the clatter, you will hear the muffled report of an equal yet opposite increase in the icepack of the Antarctic... record pack is being reported...

If I remember my Ice-Age info correctly, the Northern Hemisphere was heavily glaciated last time... while the south was left in a rather temperate malaise... could it be the South's turn this time...?
Could that be another reason why Latin Americans are moving North, they instinctively feel the creeping Southern Ice Age approching... 

--Oldyoti

Free trade is the serial killer of American manufacturing and the Trojan Horse of World Government. It is the primrose path to the loss of economic independence and national sovereignty. Free trade is a bright shining lie. -- Where the Right Went Wrong --PJB

[Sane]

The interesting thing about all this is at the same time we are getting loud reports of record ice melts in the North ... if you listen real closely above all of the clatter, you will hear the muffled report of an equal yet opposite increase in the icepack of the Antarctic... record pack is being reported...

If I remember my Ice-Age info correctly, the Northern Hemisphere was heavily glaciated last time... while the south was left in a rather temperate malaise... could it be the South's turn this time...?
Could that be another reason why Latin Americans are moving North, they instinctively feel the creeping Southern Ice Age approching... 

--Oldyoti

Free trade is the serial killer of American manufacturing and the Trojan Horse of World Government. It is the primrose path to the loss of economic independence and national sovereignty. Free trade is a bright shining lie. -- Where the Right Went Wrong --PJB

Let us not forget the other great news that we get to miss, like the impending Iran War, Oil going to $200 a barrel to end the middle class, and a student getting tazered and arrested by 7 cops for asking kerry about skull and bones

[JTCoyoté]

Now that things have settled down and both sides of the un-American left/right-Republican/Democrat-liberal/Conservative, divisive European style false political paradigm, all have snuggled up together with the "Human Caused Climate Change Junkies", ala Algore... (Climate Change is an euphemism for "Political Climate Change" as in Global "Governance", ala IPCC dictum, FYI), so we know where they all really stand.  But what exactly are they standing on?  Nothing really, this new paradigm is really the old one, Liberty v Tyranny and the Gullibility and or Stupidity of the People, fed by the power of THEIR media, to FEAR-up the population to accept false "global environmental protection and world carbon taxes".  A new "Marshall Plan"... the New Feudalism FOR the environment to be... It's all a LIE!

Here, I will expose their LARGEST lie... and why they don't have a true scientific "Carbon footprint" to stand on!  Especially when it comes to the biggest human created producer of CO2, auto emissions. We're being conned, pure and simple.

Having a bit of understanding of auto emissions, CO2 is not the whole story.  Auto exhaust on average is comprised of, NOx, less than 1ppm, (parts per million), HCC (hydro carbon Compounds), avg. 25ppm, then CO (Carbon monoxide less than .02%,about 200 ppm, then 0xy2, .1%, 1,000ppm, then CO2, 12%, 12,000ppm a few percent of free nitrogen, and finally the lions share, at more than 70%, at around 700,000ppm, we have the major "greenhouse gas", water vapor.

The "experts" say that the average car converts, a hydrocarbon fuel, (gasoline) and air, into a yearly yield of 3.751 tons of CO2.  Lets look at that from a broader perspective.  Let's say there are 600 million cars in the world, which is the auto industry estimate these days, that means all of them together produce 2,250,600,000 tons of carbon dioxide. This is added to the atmosphere each year if each of the 600 million cars produce the average of 3.751 tons of CO2 annually.

At first glance and even after a long ponder, that 2.25 billion tons is a lot of CO2, but lets see how it stacks up against the BIG picture, and how much this yearly quantity really affects the Earth's atmospheric CO2 levels.

The best way to do this is to calculate the weight of the earths atmosphere... The best way to do that is with the mathematical tools we already have and a few quantities we already know. We know the atmospheric pressure of a 1" by 1" column of the atmosphere reaching all the way out to the ionosphere when weighed at sea level is 14.7 pounds or pounds per square inch (psi)... For the sake of argument we will use the 14.7psi number since almost 80% of the planet is ocean or sea level. The calculation is accomplished by multiplying the atmospheric pressure of 14.7psi by the total number of square inches of the earths' surface, which will give the total weight of the atmosphere.

Since we're estimating here, we know the Earth's actual average radius to be 3963.19 miles. I will round this number DOWN to 3900 miles, to ease the calculation of the area of the Earth's surface and then use the formula for computing the area of a sphere: 4 x pi x (radius)squared.

3900 miles x 5280 (ft./mile) x 12 (inches/ft.), yields an earth radius of just under 250 million inches. (It is actually 247,104,000 inches). So I will now round this number UP slightly to 250,000,000 inches for the Earth's radius. Calculating the area of a sphere of this radius using the above formula gives:

4 x 3.1415 (pi) x (250,000,000) squared = 785,375 x 10e12th square inches. Now we will multiply each of these square inches by its sea level weight, 14.5 psi, (again rounding Down a little from the 14.7psi, compensating for the land area of the earth)... The end product is 113,879,375 x 10e11th pounds, or about 11.4 quintillion pounds of atmosphere. By dividing this number by 2000 lbs to the ton, we get a more manageable final weight of the atmosphere of just a touch under 570 x 10e13th tons, or more precisely, 5,693,968,750,000,000 tons... that's almost 5.7 quadrillion tons for the total weight of the atmosphere. Now that IS a lot of air!!!!

Okay now let's see what kind if any measurable impact the annual auto created CO2 has on the global CO2 scale...

It is known that the current level of atmospheric Carbon-Dioxide is an average of 383ppm or .0383%, of the total atmospheric volume, which has fluctuated as much as 0.002% over the the last 4 decades or so, since we started keeping track of CO2, and as much as 0.02% over the last 25,000 years since we have been studying and measuring CO2 from ice cores and other methods.

Okay, so how many tons of CO2 are there already in the atmosphere... that's easy, take .0383% or .000383 times 5.7 quadrillion tons... this yields a product of 2,183,100,000,000 total tons, just under 2.2 trillion tons of CO2 constant in the Earths' atmosphere, or 1/2611th of the total atmosphere.  This level remains fairly constant because as CO2 rises, it spurs an increase in plant growth which increases the photo-synthetic production of water vapor and oxygen as the plants consume this CO2 windfall... thus the carbon/oxygen cycle continues in balance... where there is CO2 there will be plants converting CO2 into food and oxygen... and where there are plants there will be animals consuming plants converting them into more CO2... and round and round it goes.

In any case when you divide the yearly CO2 caused by auto emissions by the known constant, or naturally occurring background CO2 in the atmosphere, you get 0.001031. or 1031/ppm ... thus the yearly increase in CO2 from all those cars adds right at 1/1000th to the total atmospheric CO2 per year.  This increase is roughly 2/3 of all human emissions of CO2, yet all human activity is easily counter-acted each year, not only by new tree growth which this added carbon dioxide spurs, but by the growing grass, corn, shrubs, weeds, moss, kudzu, onions, beans, rice, wheat, barley and sorghum fields, many millions of lush lawns and flower gardens, your favorite "green 18 holer" and all of the natural wild growth that cycles each year both terrestrial and aquatic, let's not forget those lily pads, and the worlds ocean born photo-plankton among others. 

It must be understood however, what happens when plants don't have enough CO2... they DIE they suffocate, because CO2 is what plants breath... The result is disease susceptible, weak, dying, and dead plants and eventual desertification.  AlGore is a plant hater and thus an animal hater, especially people... and he has close to $42 million dollars in his pocket, and counting, because people accept his lies, as he uses movies and media to forward his mission to starve the breath of life from not only plants, but animals as well. The chicken-littles of global human caused, (anthropogenic) climate change, didn't do their math and botany homework, so these uninformed easily led "enviro-cooling=warming-wonks" need some remedial education.... SOON! 

It's the Sun that warms, and the living Earth responds and compensates with heat reducing volcanism, or heat increasing plant growth.  The HUMAN caused climate change scenario, is nothing more than a political ploy that has been illustrated graphically to look LARGE and frightening in the surreality of the media, in order to convince the people that it is a HUGE global problem. The global agenda is to convince people in effect, that they must self annihilate or we will destroy the planet.  All to the advantage of the global elite. The truth is, we are all just microbes moving around within a much larger and grander symbiosis, that corrects itself without our help, and well beyond our ability to easily effect, as it has for billions of years and counting.

JTCoyoté

" ...the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the
principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a
law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as
other departments, are bound by that instrument."
~Justice John Marshall, Marbury v Madison, 1803

[chris jones]

You folks are gifted in your knowledge of science and physics, I am not. I do not even consider my self a lay man when it comes to such subjects.
However I do beleve we have alternatives to fossil fuel, I do know we spend billions of the war, and that we are taxed beyond our means.
Why not spend these billions developing alternative fuel, rebuking patent rights the Oil Companys have purchased and using them for the better good of humanity. Thus detereorating the oil companys strangulation hold on civilization and at the same time stop this BS about the warming therory.
This would of course require a rebellion. The American type, where as the people run the country not the regime. This would require the support of congress and also an end to the war, so i suppose I'm dreaming.
Or we could incarcerate the criminal parasites that are gaining global dominancy and profiteering, and end Abomination now. Ah, but this would take courage on the part of our elected officials, the military high ups, and the justice system, I am dreaming.

[JTCoyoté]

I don't know about the idea that some are gifted so much... maybe, but hard work in research and understanding helps... in any case...

The globalists are on both sides of this faux Global Warming argument, which is a contrivance to begin with, both are working for the same NWO goal... They have framed the debate around this argument namely the idea that fossil fuel IS "fossil fuel" and is finite and will increase in cost as per Peak Oil "Theory"... and on the other side the idea that using and burning "fossil fuel" causes global warming and will destroy the planet... as per the Human caused Global Warming Theory.

Neither of these assertions are anything but theory based upon a partial system hypothesis, and as long as both are taught as fact in opposing schools within  the world's education system, they will not be disproved... so as things stand neither can be proven true or untrue. This is good for the elite... the two sides are opposed camps of a pre-supposition that must be maintained in conflict in order for the elite to succeed in their quest to dominate and subjugate the world.

Many people on both sides fall in the category of those who 'must trust'... their understanding of these scientific things is limited, so the bought and paid for, so called experts on both sides are their only hope... yet very few of these experts have the interdisciplinary knowledge themselves to speak to any more than a very narrow aspect on one side of the subject thus the knowledge is very compartmentalized on both sides...again, good for the elite... yet the expert's  pointed chatter is convincing enough to waylay the doubts in the minds of the folks who believe them... at least for a while.

There also are those who JUST know in there mind that they are right, on both sides... they have been convinced, by their schooling and the experts that it just must be as they see it, they just know it!!!! SO, if they can't prove their view with facts, in an argument... they will use fallacious debate tactics to derail or discredit the other side appearing to win the debate... all because they KNOW they are right and the opposition must be defeated... They can't prove it scientifically, and they usually have little understanding of the HUGE picture, but they KNOW they are right...

This is what must be guarded against, it is the result of believing what THE EXPERTS say and not researching and discussing the facts to the point of understanding with folks who also want to know the TRUTH... instead of those who are driven only by the desire to WIN!

--Oldyoti

"A true nation is held together not by any political creed but by patriotism....
For two centuries, men have died for America." -- State of Emergency
~Patrick J. Buchanan

[chris jones]

My opinion, rather than spend the next trillion on the war, bring the  boys home, incarcerte the criminals in ofice and their cronys.  Expose our errors, seek redemmption, and we will find it.Then use that trillion to develop methods of cleanup, the earth does need that, and we can do it.
This is short and sweet, end oil consumption, we have the methods and means, scientists and physcacists know it, so do the oil companys that bought out legitimate paterns. Solutions to fossil fuels is not a new concept. they have baffled us with lunatic solutions, and burried or bought out solutions. Afterall a legitimate alternative to fossil fuel would be their undoing. Do you think they would allow that?

[aLLyOuRbAsE]

i was talking with someone today who professed "well, something's got to be done" in response to "do you think a carbon tax is a good idea".

also, the phrase "something green" came out of him as well.

obviously, he had no reasoning as to why he thought these things, only that "they must be done", and when asked whether zero co2 emmissions would stop any global warming, he just shrugged.

the idea that we must stop all carbon dioxide or else the world will get warmer (implying that if we were successful that the world would not warm) is in my opinion, actualy quite insulting to the intelligence.

not to say that pollution is ethical or moral, far from it, thats not what ive said. only that pollution on its own sake is unethical and unmoral, without the need to justify that with some arrogant notion that mankind is more powerful than its provider.

 

[chris jones]

Air consumption Tax.

Now that would be a cool tax they can lay on us.
Every US cit. families included in proportion .
They could calculate age, body weight, work and usage involved, and this tax comes right out of the old paycheck.
Why should air be free???

[JTCoyoté]

Air consumption Tax.

Now that would be a cool tax they can lay on us.
Every US cit. families included in proportion .
They could calculate age, body weight, work and usage involved, and this tax comes right out of the old paycheck.
Why should air be free???

Air is necessary for life... "life, Liberty and pursuit of happiness"... Water is needed for life as well... they poison the water with fluoride and chlorine and then sell you bottled water in "plastic" bottles... think about it...

Taxing air is exactly what the carbon tax is, a tax on air... you breath in the air, and are taxed on the amount of oxygen you use as measured by the amount of carbon dioxide you exhale... same with cars and factories... great way to make money... does nothing for the planet and forces folks to think CO2 is bad... which it is not.

This whole thing is being pushed as a feel-good measure to suck in the unthinking... it is draconian in it's implications...and serves no environmental purpose...

--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

[cold fusion]

It's nice to find some people who have been doing their homework! You people just made my day. (I've been a bit discouraged lately over the ignorance and intellectual laziness of so many of our fellow humans.)
You're right... global warming has NOTHING to do with CO2 levels. Warming is caused by an increase in the radiance of the sun, which results in CO2 coming out of solution as the oceans warm up. A global carbon tax is like the shamans telling the people they must offer their firstborn or the snake will eat the sun. All stars are regulated by the intensity of the electric charge at their surface received from their intergalactic Birkeland current which is like a helical power current flowing in space. Stars are more like like light bulbs than they are like thermonuclear reactors.
Imposing a carbon tax is complete madness and a CRIME against humanity. The "elite" scum are making their move to destroy the middle class and to be lords of the planet.

Our controllers chose oil in the 1960's as the means of control. They will not allow alternative energy sources to be developed, and they will not allow the largest oil reserves in the world (Gull Island in Alaska) to be brought to market, along with cheap natural gas that they are pumping back into the ground at a rate of 2 billion cubic feet per day. We could have gasoline at less than $2/gallon within a year. We could obtain a 200 year supply of cheap energy by utilizing the corridor already in existence, with virtually zero environmental impact. That is much more time than is necessary to develop alternative energy. Put these bastards in jail where they belong, and we won't need their oil at ridiculously inflated prices.
Stan Meyer was murdered for his insistence on bringing his amazing technology to market. He could go from L.A. to N.Y. on 22 gallons of water. But, as J.P. Morgan said, "where do you put the meter?"

[aLLyOuRbAsE]

i agree, cold fusion, except id say the decision was made closer to 1860 than 1960...

also, its a shame we've been dragged into a consensus view of science these days, it doesnt work both ways if you catch my drift...

the carbon tax is at our doorstep, with most people unwilling to criticly think about the issue, rather that "something green must be done".

the worst thing is, is that these things dont happen suddenly or over night, they happen slowly, and subversly, and by the time people realise this, its already happened.

i forget how it goes exactly but there is a quote,

"when they came for the communists i remained silent, i was not a communist. when they locked up the social democrats i remained silent, i was not a social democrat. when they came for the trade unionists i did not speak out, i was not a trade unionist. When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out."

[cold fusion]

re: "the decision was made closer to 1860 than 1960..."
I agree. The spiritual roots of this stuff can be tracked all the way back to ancient Babylon. The '60's date was a reference to Henry Kissinger going around to all the oil producing countries on a deal-making mission. Everybody lost big-time on the deals except for the IMF and the World Bank. Iraq and Iran said, "No thank you, Mr. Kissinger". Saudi Arabia took the deal.
Back in the 1930's, the coal, oil, and timber barons got together to outlaw industrial hemp as a source of plastics, energy, and paper. They wanted a mercantilist monopoly, and hemp can be grown practically anywhere. And so we were propagandized with the myths of "demon weed", and marijuana was outlawed.
Water vapor is by far the most significant "greenhouse gas". So will they tax water too?
The whole notion of "greenhouse gasses" being the cause of "global warming" is just gas and baloney. For the technically-minded, here is an excellent paper titled "Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics". http://web.mac.com/jubileemasonry/iWeb/Site/GreenhouseEffect.pdf
It's a bit too technical for me, but it can be summarized in six words: "Al Gore is full of s**t".

[cold fusion]

The lines you mentioned are attributed to Pastor Martin Niemoller.

Poem (1976 version)
Original               

"Als die Nazis die Kommunisten holten,
habe ich geschwiegen;
ich war ja kein Kommunist.

Als sie die Sozialdemokraten einsperrten,
habe ich geschwiegen;
ich war ja kein Sozialdemokrat.

Als sie die Gewerkschafter holten,
habe ich nicht protestiert;
ich war ja kein Gewerkschafter.

Als sie die Juden holten,
habe ich geschwiegen;
ich war ja kein Jude.

Als sie mich holten,
gab es keinen mehr, der protestieren konnte.    

Translation:
"When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out."

Ironically, when the poem was recounted in the United States in the 1950s, the first stanza, referring to communists, was often omitted, due to the rise of McCarthyism and the Red Scare.

Most poems omit "the sick, the so-called incurables", (known today as the mentally ill) in Niemöller's original writings. "Dann hat man die Kranken, die sogenannten Unheilbaren beseitigt."

A well-known variant of this poem has the last stanza as "then they came for the Catholics."

[Yankeespie]

I couldn't wade threw all the post.. all's I can say is you bet your bottom dollar this was man made!!!!! It's called CHEMTRAILS! Don't believe me research it for yourself.... At least the Gov is realizing they can't just make a statement any more and have us bow to them saying Yes sir.. we believe!  They have to give examples!  All this week its been in the upper 80's for October in Maine thats pretty amazing!  Global Warming  my ass......Almost every day here in Maine.... the sky's are littered with jets laying their deadly trails..... Now all you sheeple  out there take a long deep, deep breath, and with any luck you'll suck in all that good chit their dropping on us! Any keep in mind while your at it.... remember what ever their doing to us physically its happening quicker to our kids! 

[cold fusion]

There are a lot of academic shills around who are promoting the notion that rising CO2 levels CAUSE global warming. Actually, it's the other way around. But all the grant money is behind promoting the propaganda in order to facilitate our enslavement. Take away the grant money and suddenly all the phoney "science" promoting the "do something green" agenda will disappear like the White House emails.

re: post #51 by JT... Great job of pointing out the lunacy of the "globaloney".
I'm all for developing alternative energy sources, but I also realize that even if we don't we will NOT destroy the planet by burning fossil fuels in our homes and cars. We're too insignificant in the grand scheme of things. And I agree that pollution IS a problem. JT's post did a good job of making the point that CO2 is beneficial, and not a pollutant. Rising temperatures and rising CO2 levels will result in an increase in global food production. With increased CO2, plants thrive with less water and can grow in more arid areas not currently productive. That CO2 will come out of sea water as the oceans slowly warm up. Areas that are presently too cold will become useful for agriculture as temperatures return to conditions that existed in the past.

In the days of the Vikings, the Northwest Passage was open, and vineyards and orchards thrived in Greenland in areas that today have permafrost.

[cold fusion]

Re: reply #62 on chemtrails
Chemtrails are part of the population control and mind control machinery, enhancing the efficacy of HAARP. If anything, chemtrails reflect radiation back into space and reduce the effects of increased solar radiance. Some people (Cliff Carnicom for example) claim that the aerosols from chemtrails contribute to global warming. Mr. Carnicom's background (intelligence?) leads me to be cautious, as some of his material might be disinformation. The one thing you can bet your bottom dollar on is that it isn't being done for our benefit, but for our destruction.

It seems to me that if they were serious about reducing global warming, they would turn off their multi-gigawatt ionospheric heater (HAARP).

[aLLyOuRbAsE]

the guns or butter debate of the turn of the 20th century was where modern nations (led by great britain) switched from local coal to persian oil for their navy and eventually other uses. granted the united states took a decade or two to follow suit, but the lobbying for western envolvement in the middle-east goes back to 1880-1900.



back to "climate change" or "global warming", what really gets me is that people need a reason to feel that some action should be taken against pollution, as though its not worth bothering with unless we believe that we can control the earth's climate. since when did pollution need to be justified as un-ethical? surely thats pretty self evident??

there are actually people out there that think if we cut carbon dioxide, the earth will actualy stop getting warmer...

it doesnt take a genius, or even a "scientist"...to figure this one out...pollution = bad...and...nature more powerful than humans. and it also doesnt take a rocket scientist to understand that governments have and will continue to lie through their teeth about this.

what does take a rocket scientist is to explain this to the average joe in a way that they can understand and not feel attacked (because they are being told something they dont know - but its not coming from the tv box - so they feel inferior and threatened)

[cold fusion]

re: "governments have and will continue to lie through their teeth about this"
Aye, there's the rub.
Two thoughts: (1.) The LOVE of money is the ROOT of ALL evil. and (2.) Corporations, in their own corrupt self-interest instigated the creation of the government agencies that are supposed to tax and regulate them. They did this in order that they would CONTROL these agencies and use them for their own interests, eliminating honest competition and ensuring monopoly control. They have also bought our representatives in Washington, who all understand the "rules" of this game, and many examples exist of what happens when someone stands up and goes against this rigged "game".
These scum have a lot of chutzpah accusing Alex Jones of treason.

[s0cks]

I personally believe that the quick increases in Global Temperatures has been exaggerated by humans. I also think a well thought out and thorough carbon tax or trading scheme is a good idea.

We have seen from leaf fossils a time in the Earth's past when CO2 levels were so high that the world was ice free, the oceans stagnant, plant life thrived, and 90% of all "oxygen breathing" life was wiped out. This massive stagnation is the widely accepted view of where oil was formed from as layers upon layers of plankton and ocean life lay dead at the bottom of the ocean floor. Now we use millions of years of captured carbon and burn it into the atmosphere with no disregard. 14 million years worth of captured carbon and energy burned every 1 year. Funny coincidence that atmospheric carbon content has increased with a direct correlation to fossil fuels burnt. And also funny how global temperatures have risen with direct correlation too?

If global temperatures increase by up to 10 degrees from current levels the vast fields of ocean floor ice methane in such places as Siberia will begin to melt and pour billions of tonnes of methane into the atmosphere. Far worse than CO2, causing a huge warming of the planet and another mass extinguishing of non-plant life as you literally won't be able to breathe.

For the sake of humanity, clean air, and a brighter future should we not be pro-active rather than reactive? IF we can help slow the warming process or even stop it should we not do this? Even if we are wrong isn't it worth trying?

There are a lot of poor "excuses" in this whole post. Something about ice in a glass of water? What a load of rubbish. Ice IS water. If the ice melts it WILL increase the water level. It doesn't just vanish, gone forever. What you are probably seeing is a mixture of evaporation and poor measurement. You mention yourself that the ocean is massively deep (35,000ft?). We are talking about a rise of 9m (30ft) or so if the Arctic melts. Scale that down to the size of a glass of water and it'll be hundreds of a millimetre increase when that ice melts.

Also what is this about GW believers being plant haters? There's a balance people! While plants would love more CO2 I'm sure we would love more oxygen. If your pro plant does that mean your anti-human? Someone also mentions added carbon by humans is taken care of by added oxygen from plants. In a world where deforestation is occurring more than forestation and as the worlds CO2 output increases I find this hard to believe.

To top it off even Bush's administration was caught editing documents to dumb down the suggestion global warming is man made to make it look like its just natural causes (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/08/politics/08climate.html). This is rather backwards thinking if they WANT us to believe in global warming. In fact just search for with words "Bush" and "Global Warming" in most news sites and most of the reports show how Bush is anti-global warming. The facts that AJ and you guys put forth about GW DO NOT add up.

Thanks.

[JTCoyoté]

The answer to your last line above is... of course it wouldn't make any sense to you... because you obviously believe the scenario you just painted... which is pure unadulterated fantasy... so any reasonable thinking being who says anything with science as the basis of a hypothesis will sound strange to you... you are just regurgitating snippets of stuff you have heard only they have no cohesiveness at all.  You have a whole sh*t-pot full of unlearning to do, my friend!

The line about all oxygen breathing life being almost totally wiped out because of an over flourishing of plant life... Oxygen breathers dying from to much oxygen?... and that being where all of the oil came from... well it had me rolling...

In your present state of "knowledge" a conversation on the big picture and the dynamics of the star as the controlling factor in 99.99% of everything that happens here could never happen with you.  The subtlety of the basic argument in this thread is completely lost on you... The possibility of a lack of a human cause for global warming, or control on the human level... scares the living crap out of you... just like it does all of you Anthropogenic global warming wonks!

--Oldyoti

"The tax power has been used by the national government
as a weapon to take over, one by one, subjects traditionally
within the orbit of state police power."
~Chief Justice Taft

[aLLyOuRbAsE]

i agree with oldyoti, there is soo much arrogance in this statement,

"IF we can help slow the warming process or even stop it should we not do this?"

why do we need to believe that we can control the universe to justify pollution as unethical? i certainly dont. pollution is unethical, and immoral, simply on its own standing.

now, you may say that that in itself is justification for a carbon tax, as carbon dioxide is found in most industrial factories etc but anyone can see that a tax only means the rich can carry on while the poor and middle class suffer. there a hundred and one better things we can do to help the environment and reduce pollution, but all of them (except a carbon tax) mean heavy losses for big business and industry...you getting the picture yet?

anyway, as oldyoti said, you've a lot of unlearning to do, s0cks, and the first thing i'd say is "the government does not love you, it does not care for you, it wants you dead" so stop buying their bullcrap will you, and start thinking for yourself.

[JTCoyoté]

What I find frightening is the fact that most of the people will buy into Human Caused Climate Change just because power speaks it... even though the data and factual analysis show it to be untrue.

In 1998 a group of concerned scientists began a concerted effort to counter this trend, and to stop the false UN-IPCC push to tax the people of the world and blame climate change on humanity. This HUGE effort has gone totally unreported by the mainstream media. It is the Global Warming Petition Project.

This effort is NOT a political effort, it is PURELY SCIENTIFIC in it's thrust!  All signers must be scientists with at least a Bachelor of Science degree from an accredited school... there are over 31,478 signatories so far. As we speak, 9029 with Phds are among them... and over 12,000 work directly in climate related fields. (Since I first posted this, the number of scientists have increased and still the GWPP is hidden by the media.) 
Here is a direct link to the thinking and analysis on CO2 I did in a 2007 article.

The climate has always cycled over time. We are now in a cyclic warming trend and the data shows its long cycle predictability. With interdisciplinary communication, science has opened much of the climate change complexity to the light of reason and out of the realm of fear.  Fear is what the UN-IPCC, the politicians, and their minions have chosen to foist on us, a snake god operation in the name of anthropogenic climate change. The IPCC has been unmasked as the political organization it is, with it's money making, world carbon tax, agenda/scam.

The proponants of human caused climate change rattle on about polar bears being destroyed by humanities evil CO2, which is BS. They also go on about island nations like Tuvalu being flooded by "humanity's evil." The data shows that the sea level world wide was about 12 inches higher during the Medieval Climate Optimum from about 750AD to 1200AD. During that time the average ocean temperature reached 24.2 degrees C. Then the Earth plummeted into the Little Ice Age which at it's coldest dropped the ocean temperatures to 21.8 degrees C in about 1750AD. This is when the Thames, the Delaware, and Hudson rivers used to freeze solid every winter. We are now at 22.8 degrees C, which is below the 3,000 year average of just a tad under 23 degrees C. We are still coming out of the Little Ice age today! 1000 years ago the Island Tuvalu was almost under water, and will be again, but not because of human causes!

"Figure 1: Surface temperatures in the Sargasso Sea, a 2 million square mile region of the Atlantic Ocean, with time resolution of 50 to 100 years and ending in 1975, as determined by isotope ratios of marine organism remains in sediment at the bottom of the sea (3). The horizontal line is the average temperature for this 3,000-year period. The Little Ice Age and Medieval Climate Optimum were naturally occurring, extended intervals of climate departures from the mean. A value of 0.25 °C, which is the change in Sargasso Sea temperature between 1975 and 2006, has been added to the 1975 data in order to provide a 2006 temperature value.

The average temperature of the Earth has varied within a range of about 3°C during the past 3,000 years. It is currently increasing as the Earth recovers from a period that is known as the Little Ice Age, as shown in Figure 1. George Washington and his army were at Valley Forge during the coldest era in 1,500 years, but even then the temperature was only about 1° Centigrade below the 3,000-year average.



    Figure 2: Average length of 169 glaciers from 1700 to 2000 (4). The principal source of melt energy is solar radiation. Variations in glacier mass and length are primarily due to temperature and precipitation (5,6). This melting trend lags the temperature increase by about 20 years, so it predates the 6-fold increase in hydrocarbon use (7) even more than shown in the figure. Hydrocarbon use could not have caused this shortening trend.

The most recent part of this warming period is reflected by shortening of world glaciers, as shown in Figure 2. Glaciers regularly lengthen and shorten in delayed correlation with cooling and warming trends. Shortening lags temperature by about 20 years, so the current warming trend began in about 1800.



    Figure 3: Arctic surface air temperature compared with total solar irradiance as measured by sunspot cycle amplitude, sunspot cycle length, solar equatorial rotation rate, fraction of penumbral spots, and decay rate of the 11-year sunspot cycle (8,9). Solar irradiance correlates well with Arctic temperature, while hydrocarbon use (7) does not correlate.

Atmospheric temperature is regulated by the sun, which fluctuates in activity as shown in Figure 3; by the greenhouse effect, largely caused by atmospheric water vapor (H2O); and by other phenomena that are more poorly understood. While major greenhouse gas H2O substantially warms the Earth, minor greenhouse gases such as CO2 have little effect, as shown in Figures 2 and 3. The 6-fold increase in hydrocarbon use since 1940 has had no noticeable effect on atmospheric temperature or on the trend in glacier length.

While Figure 1 is illustrative of most geographical locations, there is great variability of temperature records with location and regional climate. Comprehensive surveys of published temperature records confirm the principal features of Figure 1, including the fact that the current Earth temperature is approximately 1 °C lower than that during the Medieval Climate Optimum 1,000 years ago (11,12)."
 http://www.petitionproject.org/gw_article/Review_Article_HTML.php

We have real environmental problems that this "thing", this human caused climate change "thing" is obfuscating, leading us away from things that need to be addressed. The environmental movement has been hijacked/kidnapped by the UN-IPCC and it's Pied Piper, Algore. The fact that virtually all of our leaders, on all sides have come out in support of this LIE, betrays them and their allegiance to the NWO, the ruling elite, and their disregard for the climate and disdain for the Constitution. 

They spew the words placed in their mouths by their global carbon taxation masters. There isn't a dimes worth of difference between John McPuppet, Barack O'Puppet, or AlGore Puppet they all regurgitate the same global feudalistic talking points. Thus any discussion of their opinions has no validity in a discussion of facts and actualities, which like truth holds sway over OPINION even the OPINION of power busying itself selling climate change snake oil in a package of fear.

Here is the summery of the 12 page letter that is circulated with the Global Warming Petition Project petition.

http://www.petitionproject.org/review_article.php

For those who wish to peruse the actual letter, here is a link

http://www.petitionproject.org/gw_article/Review_Article_HTML.php
JTCoyoté

"To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of
the people always possess arms and be taught alike,
especially when young, how to use them..."
~Richard Henry Lee

[JTCoyoté]

The IPCC and The GWPP have the same data to work with from the onset. The GWPP Scientists' only agenda is to assimilate and translate this data and widely disseminate the facts it contains. Therefore they present all of the data in an understandable way to make the factual evidence accessible to the largest number of people. The IPCC on the other hand omits certain "contradictory" research, then skews the remaining data to fit a preconceived schema, so as to fit in with the implementation of a global feudalistic government controlled by the elite, under the guise of a "climate protecting world democracy".

Small wonder why there are so many real scientists signing onto the GWPP.

Here is a post from KiwiClare that points to some facts that expose this IPCC political FARSE...

Farse alright!
William Schlesinger on IPCC: “Something on the order of 20 percent have had some dealing with climate.”
17 02 2009
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/17/william-schlesinger-on-ipcc-something-on-the-order-of-20-percent-have-had-some-dealing-with-climate/
This is a bit disturbing, though in retrospect, not surprising. One of our local IPCC wonks at Chico State University, Jeff Price,  is a biologist, but lectures me about climate all the same. - Anthony

by Paul Chesser, Climate Strategies Watch

I had intended to return to this point when I originally posted about this debate last week, but time got away from me. Thankfully, my colleague Roy Cordato brought it up today:

During the question and answer session of last week’s William Schlesinger/John Christy global warming debate, (alarmist) Schlesinger was asked how many members of United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) were actual climate scientists. It is well known that many, if not most, of its members are not scientists at all. Its president, for example, is an economist.

http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2007/10/13/Rajendra_Pachauri_wideweb__470x317,0.jpg

Rajendra Pachauri, Chairman of the IPCC - trained initially as a railway engineer

This question came after Schlesinger had cited the IPCC as an authority for his position. His answer was quite telling.

First he broadened it to include not just climate scientists but also those who have had “some dealing with the climate.” His complete answer was that he thought, “something on the order of 20 percent have had some dealing with climate.” In other words, even IPCC worshiper Schlesinger now acknowledges that 80 percent of the IPCC membership had absolutely no dealing with the climate as part of their academic studies.

This shatters so much of the alarmists’ claim, as they almost always appeal to the IPCC as their ultimate authority.

And:
"Fifty-three authors and five reviewers are all that can be said to explicitly support the claim of a significant human influence on climate. The figure of 4000 is a myth. Even the IPCC's total of 3750 is a myth. Not even the 2879 individuals can be shown to support the claim. The true number is about 60, or maybe, if we asked each of those privately, perhaps even fewer." - Melbourne climate analyst John McLean reports on how few supported the key claims in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report in 2007."
http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=419&Itemid=1

JTCoyoté

"My agency in promoting the passage of the National Banking Act
[of 1864] was the greatest financial mistake in my life. It has built
up a monopoly which affects every interest in the country."
~Solomon P. Chase
On his role in the usary banking system