Al Gore's 24 Hours of Reality Climate Change

13 years ago

Al Gore was already outed as a fraud on this issue. Did they pass around more Kool-aid again?

Someone go tell him it's time to turn off his city worth of electric.

[ 5 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Sal
When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
Beyond the Path

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4684450].message }}

Michael Mayo

13 years ago

Originally Posted by HeySal

Al Gore was already outed as a fraud on this issue. Did they pass around more Kool-aid again?

Someone go tell him it's time to turn off his city worth of electric.

And they still let him keep the Noble Peace Prise although Pete Rose makes a
bet and can't get into the Baseball's Hall of Fame???

Strange world indeed!

~MM~

[ 3 ] Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4684551].message }}

Kurt

13 years ago

Originally Posted by HeySal

Al Gore was already outed as a fraud on this issue. Did they pass around more Kool-aid again?

Someone go tell him it's time to turn off his city worth of electric.

Al Gore was "outed" by Art Robison, the extremist "scientist" that also believes radiation from nuclear plants is good for us. He calls it "hormesis".

Art Robinson's "30,000" scientists actually include only about 150 climatologists, plus his petition has some very serious issues concerning credibility on this issue.

For anyone taking Art Robinson as their source of info, I suggest you listen to him personally. This is the lead "scientist" that debunks global warming.

Hope you like your radiation...

ART ROBINSON vs RACHEL MADDOW pt.1 - YouTube

ART ROBINSON vs RACHEL MADDOW pt.2 - YouTube

Art Robinson Tells David Pakman Rachel Maddow...

[ 3 ] Thanks

Signature

Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4684720].message }}

TLTheLiberator

13 years ago

Let me get this straight...

#1:The climate on this planet is not changing for the worse.

&

#2: If it is, man has nothing to do with it.

Is that correct?????????????????????

TL

[ 2 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4684595].message }}

MikeAmbrosio

13 years ago

Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator

Let me get this straight...

#1:The climate on this planet is not changing for the worse.

&

#2: If it is, man has nothing to do with it.

Is that correct?????????????????????

TL

No, that's NOT it on either count.

I'd answer, but then we delve into politics. So I will say nothing further

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4684655].message }}

TLTheLiberator 13 years ago

Originally Posted by MikeAmbrosio

No, that's NOT it on either count.

I'd answer, but then we delve into politics. So I will say nothing further

So the answer to both questions IYHO is no?

Is that right???

TL
- Thanks
- 1 reply
Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4684777].message }}
- MikeAmbrosio 13 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator
  
  So the answer to both questions IYHO is no?
  
  Is that right???
  
  TL
  
  Well, since you've already decided it is, then why not?
  
  Nothing I can say will change your mind. Read my answers any way you please. Like I said, my answers would be construed as political, so I refrain. I simply think your two choices are not the entire picture.
  
  But, you already know that...
  
  Thanks
  
  Signature
  
  Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4685631].message }}

HeySal

13 years ago

I can go into it without hitting politics, TL.

Yes the climate is getting wild. It appears that we are coming out of the interglacial period - which is a natural cycle. We were able to populate to almost 7 bil because of the warm climate that allowed us to grow enough food, etc and so forth.

Second - yes people have a lot to do with the climate, but if CO2 was the main issue, we could just plant more trees to take care of it -- which is pretty much what many countries are doing now. You see - people are the cause of some of the negative changes, but not in the way that it is handed to us.

What has happened is a natural occurrence in all biomes when conditions are very good for the dominant species -- we over populated. The result is that we are stripping the land which is becoming desertificated. We have cleared so much ground that we have put ourselves into the 6th major extinction - and corporations are still hell bent on clear cutting rain forests. Down in S. America they are lifting some laws that have protected those rain forests (I, for one, don't think they should be allowed to do this as it will effect the climate of the whole planet). So look for more chain reactions - and not good ones.

One of these is the widely shouted "glacial melting". India was very upset with the IPCC for anouncing the Himalayas were melting - the scientists that are actually there on the glacier studying it say it is just fine and normal. There are, however, glaciers that are not doing well. Not because of heat, but because all the forests in the area have been cut and forests provide moisture for snow - so it's not a heat problem, it's a lack of moisture that is shrinking the glaciers.

Many countries are trying everything they know how to mitigate extinctions and desertification of their biomes now. It may be too late, and there isn't much we can do until it gets cold enough that we can't grow enough food to support the over-carrying capacity numbers of our species. Population control methods were discussed at the UN but they decided that if leaders went the Chinese route they would just end up with massive revolts, so they are trying education instead.

So - it's not looking good, but the only real answer is to restore biomes and ecosystems and we can't do that very well with people clearing everything in their path. Any other answer or "solution" you hear is merely more elite money making scheming and will be totally ineffective.

Frankly, until we can reverse population growth (and damned soon) there's not much we can do about the situation. If it gets cold enough fast enough - problem solved, but it won't be pleasant.

[ 4 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Sal
When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
Beyond the Path

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4684822].message }}

Kay King 13 years ago

Old topic - same arguments from the same people. It's a topic where you believe what you decide to believe and you can find "facts" to back you up on either side.

It's sad it's become a political issue as that will pretty much guaantee nothing will ever be done about it unless there's money to be made or votes to be had.

What I never understand is why people argue endlessly to prove they are "right" on the issue. Climate change is no longer an interesting debate because people have chosen "sides" to argue - so it's only rhetoric.

One thing I won't pay attention are the nutjobs on the fringes. They do come out of the woodwork on issues like this.
- [ 3 ] Thanks
Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
***
One secret to happiness is to let every situation be
what it is instead of what you think it should be.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4684947].message }}

thunderbird

13 years ago

The vast majority of scientists believe that humans are contributing to climate change, with or without Al Gore in the picture.

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

Project HERE.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4684943].message }}

PatrickBrianONeill

13 years ago

In the 70's, we were told that all our industrialization and invasive activities were leading to a Global Cooling that, in 20 or 30 years, would return ice-age like temps to the world.

Now it's global warming.

Next year it will be 2012.

And after that doesn't happen, Gore will say an alien invasion from the stars is all but guaranteed.

I wouldn't waste 60 seconds listening to this clown who is so desperate to remain topical.

Patrick

P.S.
see "Chicken Little".

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

PatrickBrianONeill.com

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4685006].message }}

HeySal

13 years ago

Originally Posted by CoolAromas

In the 70's, we were told that all our industrialization and invasive activities were leading to a Global Cooling that, in 20 or 30 years, would return ice-age like temps to the world.

Now it's global warming.

Next year it will be 2012.

And after that doesn't happen, Gore will say an alien invasion from the stars is all but guaranteed.

I wouldn't waste 60 seconds listening to this clown who is so desperate to remain topical.

Patrick

P.S.
see "Chicken Little".

Are you kiddng? If Gore can get certain climate taxes on the map, he stands to personally make billions. If I was about to make that much shake from a position I'd have my little global salvation show on the road, too.

Thanks

Signature

Sal
When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
Beyond the Path

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4685248].message }}

Roaddog

13 years ago

Humans effect the atmosphere.

So does cow plop.

and everything else...

I predict enough hot air in this thread to melt an iceberg

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

KimW a Fellow Warrior Who Really Needs Help
Ken Strong Cancer Donation | Keep Ken Strong WSO

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4685055].message }}

HeySal

13 years ago

Scientists that take the PC official view on global warming are NOT in the majority.

Kurt - that is only one scientist in many. They are walking out of the ASP over this issue one by one - even nobel winning scientists. And while the 30,000 petition isn't all climatologists, it is all people with degrees in some area of science --- as apposed to some of the hair dressers and resteraunt owners that contributed to the 4,000 for the Kayoto pact. The petition itself explains why each category of science is included. Even if only 1/3rd of that 30,000 are actually directly in climatology, that's a lot more force than 4,000 of which only a fracton are climatologists. (Fallacy of omission is an extremely compelling bit of smoke and mirrors). And -- if you want the full take, it doesn't matter HOW many of any one field take a view -- what matters is who is RIGHT. Perhaps a lot of people just plain missed "climategate"? Or that satellite pics weren't updates? Or that there is more snow on top than in around 17 years now? Or glacial shrinkage is due to dry, not heat?

Very often the predominant view of a situation is the view that is ALLOWED to be publicized and many who appear to be compliant with the view are not even very tolerant of it. If you go to each climatologist and ask their view of warming, you are going to be very startled if you have the idea that most support the carbon theory. Very. Almost as startled as you would be if you learned about some achaeological history that has been just "disappeared" from the Smithsonian because it doesn't agree with the PC official view of history. You would not believe the gold that's been melted down because the officials would not deal with it because of where it was found and the indications of it's age and origin. "Official" Science does not tell us the truth any more than any other sector of power. Any sector in power tells us what will keep them in power and wealthy.

Believe what you want -- just go out of your way to cause as little pollution as possible, and pray they don't put a tax on carbon or our next extreme winter (which will probably be this one as the last two have produced record colds) may be extremely disastrous.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Sal
When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
Beyond the Path

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4685223].message }}

thunderbird 13 years ago

Originally Posted by HeySal

Scientists that take the PC official view on global warming are NOT in the majority. <snip>

They are in the majority. Sorry.
- [ 1 ] Thanks
- 1 reply
Signature

Project HERE.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4685234].message }}
- HeySal 13 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by thunderbird
  
  They are in the majority. Sorry.
  
  I've been studying the situation very tightly for 5 years and I do not see that at all. I've heard it only out of politicians mouths. I'm not hearing it from most scientists, although I know several that are just not talking simply to keep getting their paychecks.
  
  For anyone taking Art Robinson as their source of info...
  
  Don't know who he is. How about if I trade your source here for a different one? One additional fact - this guy endorsed Obama in 2008 - and has changed his mind because of his stance on GW.
  
  Giaever announced his resignation from APS was due to the group's belief in man-made global warming fears. Giaever explained in his email to APS: "In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible? The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this 'warming' period."
  
  And from a Climate Depot exclusive:
  
  On May 1, 2009, the American Physical Society (APS) Council decided to review its current climate statement via a high-level subcommittee of respected senior scientists. The decision was prompted after a group of over 80 prominent physicists petitioned the APS revise its global warming position and more than 250 scientists urged a change in the group's climate statement in 2010. The physicists wrote to APS governing board: "Measured or reconstructed temperature records indicate that 20th - 21st century changes are neither exceptional nor persistent, and the historical and geological records show many periods warmer than today.� An American Physical Society editor conceded that a "considerable presence" of scientific skeptics exists.
  
  In October 2010, the APS suffered more scientific woes when another one of its prominent physicists resigned. The late Physicist Hal Lewis, who died in May of 2011, excoriated the APS leadership for its strict dogmatic like adherence to man-made global warming beliefs. See: Prominent Physicist Resigns: 'Climategate was a fraud on a scale I have never seen...Effect on APS position: None. None at all. This is not science' & See: Prominent Physicist Resigns From American Physical Society: 'Global warming is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life'--APS President Curtis Callan 'seems to have abandoned most ethical principles...APS has become a corrupt organization'
  
  Thanks
  
  Signature
  
  Sal
  When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
  Beyond the Path
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4685558].message }}

thunderbird

13 years ago

Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities."

Thanks

Signature

Project HERE.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4685227].message }}

seasoned

13 years ago

BTW did you know that CO2 is NEEDED to breath? We NEED CO2! It is almost like water. If we had no water, we couldn't breath! Funny how that works, but it does. And PURE oxygen, at least in your environment is DANGEROUS!

They can't REALLY believe the rhetoric since they are, BY FAR, the biggest contributors. I mean ONE GUY! Just ******ONE******* single handedly, in MONTHS probably caused more CO and CO2 that I have in my ENTIRE life, and we are almost the same age!!!!!!! INCREDIBLE! And The subject of this thread in ONE of his homes uses more energy that probably EVERY hous on my street PUT TOGETHER! He EASILY uses more in a day than I do in a year! And he wants ME to cut back?

BTW Interesting link I was sent today: http://www.climatedepot.com/a/12797/...Global-Warming

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4685344].message }}

Dennis Gaskill

13 years ago

It seems to me the global warming gang outed themselves when they falsified their data to support their theories.

Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation - Telegraph

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Just when you think you've got it all figured out, someone changes the rules.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4685482].message }}

myob 13 years ago

Greenland is finally really turning green!

Greenland: We Like Global Warming, Thank You Very Much
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4685523].message }}

thunderbird

13 years ago

Originally Posted by Dennis Gaskill

It seems to me the global warming gang outed themselves when they falsified their data to support their theories.

Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation - Telegraph

AP: 'Exhaustive Review' of Stolen Climate Email Finds 'No Evidence of Falsification, Fabrication'

Thanks
3 replies

Signature

Project HERE.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4685897].message }}

myob 13 years ago

One of the great benefits of Global Warming is the opening up of the Northwest Passage for commercial use. Billions of dollars in transportation costs could be saved each year, in addition to time and energy resources.

Northwest Passage: Global Warming
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4686051].message }}
HeySal 13 years ago

Originally Posted by thunderbird

AP: 'Exhaustive Review' of Stolen Climate Email Finds 'No Evidence of Falsification, Fabrication'

Exactly one of my points TB -- the press finds no evidence of falsification - but a whole wild bunch of very high level physicists from the APS did. Press report or World class physicists? Hmmm - which would be more likely to know the difference or to almost close down the APS over fraud? My only question is if one of the AP reporters got paid specifically to print that crap or whether they were just ordered to do it.
- Thanks
- 1 reply
Signature

Sal
When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
Beyond the Path
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4686963].message }}
- myob 13 years ago
  
  For the last 35 years, the average global surface ocean temperature has been rising. The evidence is sharply dramatic in the North Atlantic, Arctic region, and expanding temperate areas in southern Greenland. The increasing violent weather patterns fits within the model of AGW (climate change) as predicted by climatologists.
  
  Global Warming to Bring More Intense Storms
  
  [ 1 ] Thanks
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4687367].message }}

Dennis Gaskill

13 years ago

Originally Posted by thunderbird

AP: 'Exhaustive Review' of Stolen Climate Email Finds 'No Evidence of Falsification, Fabrication'

Have YOU read any of the emails? Because I've seen some, and I disagree with the "no evidence" finding.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Just when you think you've got it all figured out, someone changes the rules.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4688247].message }}

thunderbird

13 years ago

Originally Posted by Dennis Gaskill

Have YOU read any of the emails? Because I've seen some, and I disagree with the "no evidence" finding.

Sure, I read it. Lines taken out of context gave a different impression and suggested a different meaning than when in context.

Here's what six -- not 1 or 2, but SIX -- different committees found:
Climatic Research Unit email controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Six committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct"

You know, your words could be recorded, edited, and taken out of context to suggest something very different than reality, as happened with the exhaustively debunked pimp hoax, for example.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Project HERE.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4688308].message }}

HeySal

13 years ago

Originally Posted by thunderbird

Sure, I read it. Lines taken out of context gave a different impression and suggested a different meaning than when in context.

You know, your words could be recorded, edited, and taken out of context to suggest something very different than reality, as happened with the exhaustively debunked pimp hoax, for example.

Then you didn't read the emails - you read what someone was reporting about them. There's a difference.

You never read the full emails - are taking reporter's words for the validity of fraud when at the same time some of the world's leading physicists are walking out of the APS calling GW fraud -- and saying the APS leadership has gone corrupt. Is this the case with the other committees as well?

That's why I want to know what scientists say - not politicians, news, or "Officals" -- I want to hear from the scientists - and I have and there is a lot of turmoil over this one and a lot of them are fed up to death with the whole ball of BS.

If it's all so damned true -- tell them to do something about it without collecting taxes. Anything they want but they can't make money from the decision. Wanna see an issue die overnight? That would be the way to do it.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Sal
When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
Beyond the Path

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4688567].message }}

thunderbird

13 years ago

Originally Posted by HeySal

Then you didn't read the emails - you read what someone was reporting about them. There's a difference.

You never read the full emails - are taking reporter's words for the validity of fraud when<snip>

It doesn't even matter what I said or read. The vast majority of scientists -- 97% or thereabouts -- accept that human-generated climate change is an undeniable fact. Maybe a handful hired by the Koch brothers say something else, like the PhDs ofyesteryear hired by the tobacco industry to deny the effects of tobacco or the PhD frauds who promoted the lie that formula is better than breast milk.

Thanks

Signature

Project HERE.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4688659].message }}

Dennis Gaskill

13 years ago

Originally Posted by thunderbird

Sure, I read it. Lines taken out of context gave a different impression and suggested a different meaning than when in context.

Here's what six -- not 1 or 2, but SIX -- different committees found:
Climatic Research Unit email controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Six committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct"

You know, your words could be recorded, edited, and taken out of context to suggest something very different than reality, as happened with the exhaustively debunked pimp hoax, for example.

You mean like this:

"I've just completed Mike's Nature [the science journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

Critics cite this as evidence that data was manipulated to mask the fact that global temperatures are falling. Prof Jones claims the meaning of "trick" has been misinterpreted

Isn't that like saying, "it depends on what your meaning of is is"?

LOL - some of the same people who came out with those reports also criticized those involved for not being forthcoming with all their data and for being evasive.

If you haven't noticed, I haven't said what I believe. I originally said I think they outed themselves, and I still think that. If they have nothing to hide why would they need to be less than forthcoming and why would they need to be evasive?

Why was "global warming" changed to "climate change" ...was it because the temperatures hadn't been rising?

You can believe whatever you want, but I'm not convinced of anything one way or the other. I find it curious though, that many of the loudest voices crying "climate change" stand to make a fortune from it, or lose a fortune in research money if it went down the other way. I also find it curious that many of those who say it's a hoax have something to gain from their point of view.

The truth is very difficult to determine. When Sal pointed out that reading those six reports was different from reading the emails, you defended your belief that "97% of scientists believe it's real." Show me where you arrived at that percentage. Was it from a biased source? I ask because you don't seem very objective.

Let's say it was true though, for the sake of argument. What percentage of those "scientists" did the research themselves, and what percentage just bought into the media stories?

Statistics can be manipulated to show whatever you want to see. There are plenty of authoritative voices on each side of the argument. Frankly, I don't trust either side, and I fail to see why anyone should.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Just when you think you've got it all figured out, someone changes the rules.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4693372].message }}

thunderbird

13 years ago

Originally Posted by Dennis Gaskill

You mean like this:

Isn't that like saying, "it depends on what your meaning of is is"? <snip>

That is a false comparison and a pointless exercise.

Myriad investigations into it revealed no fraud. The doubt is manufactured by vested interests, but the facts remain. Because of facts, the scientific community overwhelmingly believes that human-generated climate change is taking place:
The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Project HERE.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4693443].message }}

Dennis Gaskill

13 years ago

Originally Posted by thunderbird

That is a false comparison and a pointless exercise.

Myriad investigations into it revealed no fraud. The doubt is manufactured by vested interests, but the facts remain. Because of facts, the scientific community overwhelmingly believes that human-generated climate change is taking place:
The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change

Posting links to your side of the argument is what is pointless. You have chosen sides, I am skeptical of both sides. I'm not arguing with you, but you apparently have a need to put me into a situation where I either agree with you or have to post a counterpoint. You want a counterpoint? Well then, here's one from the article you just linked to:

The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known...

Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics.

Continued research, without bias, what a concept.

The scientific concensus used to be that the sun revolved around the earth. Concensus is often wrong. Facts are often wrong, or biased, or faked...and the more money there is at stake, the more likely that is.

Believe what you want, ignore what you want, but your conviction has no bearing on my skepticism. I seriously doubt your objectivity though.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Just when you think you've got it all figured out, someone changes the rules.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4693637].message }}

seasoned

13 years ago

Originally Posted by Dennis Gaskill

Continued research, without bias, what a concept.

The scientific concensus used to be that the sun revolved around the earth. Concensus is often wrong. Facts are often wrong, or biased, or faked...and the more money there is at stake, the more likely that is.

Believe what you want, ignore what you want, but your conviction has no bearing on my skepticism. I seriously doubt your objectivity though.

I WISH I could remember the name of them, but there are some books that have been produced, as I understand it, fro HUNDREDS and possibly THOUSANDS of years. Apparently, they have details of where planets and stars were and are. It is HARD to believe anyone took that catholic belief seriously. And I only have a protestant bible(the catholic one is a little different, missing a few books, and having a few others), and admittedly never looked for the passage, but I don't remember ANYTHING saying that the sun revolved around the earth.

But the fact that some DID makes "consensus" all the less trustable. They ALSO believed flies magically appeared in rotten meat!

Steve

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4693700].message }}

tagiscom

13 years ago

It's too late down-under, a universally overwhelmingly unpopular carbon tax is about to be forced on the Australian people that will target the top 500 'polluters,' which in our case is the manufacturing and mining industry. As if the economic crunch wasn't bad enough with people being laid off, particular in the manufacturing and mining sector due to revenue loss, this tax will completely kill the industries competitiveness and cost thousands of people their jobs.

The worst part is this new tax won't even reduce emissions at all, all it will do is cost jobs, drive up the cost of living, and suck out 71 billion a year out of the economy.

-Chris

Yea, Chris l live in AU, and am not looking forward to the hidden tax so we don't go bankrupt taking care of the 30 percent of pensioners that will exist in 2050, (or carbon tax).

I am all for helping the environment, but kicking people out of their houses because everything is going up a second time, (we have already been clobbered with rising electricity, etc) isn't the right way to go.

And as for people that believe that we have caused this, just go back to the start of the industrial revolution, (forgive me, if the dates aren't exact, they should be in the ballpark) which started in 1660, then for the next 100 years we were polluting Europe in ever increasing amounts. Then in the 1730, s Europe, (England) had a mini ice age, and this ice age went for the next 130 years, and got so bad that the Tem's could be walked on because it was frozen solid. Then after the 1860's, it disappeared.

So we were polluting the atmosphere as much as possible before and during this ice age, and it disappeared by itself?

Unfortunately, these days if politicians need a certain amount by a certain date, they can't just ask the population for it, because they would very likely be voted out come the next election. So instead they have to come up with very clever ways to get what they need, so the country isn't in economic strife in the future!

As for finding new ways to generate electricity, there are several, but as long as they are not a direct threat to the oil industry, (solar, wind) then they will have a chance of being developed.

I do find it a bit ironic that we are pumping billions into Fussion, (deuterium from seawater) that may or may not work, and pump, a measly, hundreds of millions into solar?

The oil industry is always going to cast a shadow over green power generation!

I believe that each individual needs to do his or her own research on personal power generation or Global warming, to find the actual truth, not the half truth, (etc) from the media.

Shane

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Archimedes-The Truth Seekers Forum..

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4695061].message }}

seasoned

13 years ago

Originally Posted by tagiscom

Yea, Chris l live in AU, and am not looking forward to the hidden tax so we don't go bankrupt taking care of the 30 percent of pensioners that will exist in 2050, (or carbon tax).

You DO realize that restricting things without knowing what you are doing is DUMB, and could hurt society. C&T, at least in America, though I think ALL participants decided to do it the same way, tries to set a NATIONAL limit, and give credits as a kind of voucher to businesses to try to match need. If they should make mistakes, and they WILL, the vouchers can be traded. That is the TRADE in cap and trade. So it is possible that NONE of the money will even go to the government.

FURTHER, any money the companies pay means their expenses go up! They will RAISE prices! Do YOU trust government SO much that the little money they DO get will go ONLY to those in need, and be enough to offset inflation? This HAS been tried before. Isn't the fact that we are talking about it PROOF that it doesn't work?

I am all for helping the environment, but kicking people out of their houses because everything is going up a second time, (we have already been clobbered with rising electricity, etc) isn't the right way to go.

WOW, I didn't even read ahead! WHAT do YOU think caused this?

And as for people that believe that we have caused this, just go back to the start of the industrial revolution, (forgive me, if the dates aren't exact, they should be in the ballpark) which started in 1660, then for the next 100 years we were polluting Europe in ever increasing amounts. Then in the 1730, s Europe, (England) had a mini ice age, and this ice age went for the next 130 years, and got so bad that the Tem's could be walked on because it was frozen solid. Then after the 1860's, it disappeared.

OH MAN, the US used to be HORRIBLE! I saw pictures. It was FAR worse than the 70s! The 70s was FAR worse than now. I can't speak to australia, but always viewed it as more pristine. I have NEVER seen anything to show it is as bad as the US was.

So we were polluting the atmosphere as much as possible before and during this ice age, and it disappeared by itself?

WHY NOT? So much happened BEFORE we did anything to make an impact.

Unfortunately, these days if politicians need a certain amount by a certain date, they can't just ask the population for it, because they would very likely be voted out come the next election. So instead they have to come up with very clever ways to get what they need, so the country isn't in economic strife in the future!

In the US, that is bull. They can just stop buying ONE pile of garbage someone calls art, and BANG, they have enough money to pay or DOZENS of homeless people for a YEAR!

As for finding new ways to generate electricity, there are several, but as long as they are not a direct threat to the oil industry, (solar, wind) then they will have a chance of being developed.

I assume you mean will NOT. My uncle told me of a danish company that saw their business like more than double! WHAT do they make? WINDMILLS. And more and more are using solar. BUT that will NOT help the poor. The genie is out of the bottle! People KNOW they can get cheap power. Doesn't that mean LESS tax?

I do find it a bit ironic that we are pumping billions into Fussion, (deuterium from seawater) that may or may not work, and pump, a measly, hundreds of millions into solar?

Is the US paying for fussion? I knew there was a reward of like 10-20K for a working model. Apparently NOBODY has claimed it. deuterium is the WEAKEST source of radiation on the planet! And I can't imagine its life is very long. In theory, it wouldn't even have a half life. If you COULD get power from it, it seems it would be VERY little! A COMPOST bin is probably a better bet, and compost bins HAVE been used to power small communities.

The oil industry is always going to cast a shadow over green power generation!

I believe that each individual needs to do his or her own research on personal power generation or Global warming, to find the actual truth, not the half truth, (etc) from the media.

Shane

Actually, the industries COULD have hidden this! When I was in school,in the 70s, I saw a show about solar cells and improvements made. It was ALL positive, hopeful, etc... The company that said they were doing this? An OIL company!

Solar cells today are used in ALL SORTS of little electronic gadgets. I believe AUSTRALIA hosts the yearly solar race! One of the solar companies in the US that the US goverment paid about a year ago is now BANKRUPT!

Steve

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4696289].message }}

tagiscom

13 years ago

Hi Steve, trust the AU Government, no not really, (most of the world has probably seen our prime minister, say "there won't be a carbon tax, and go back on her word").

And no, about taking 100% care of our pensioners, probably not, our pensioners and the middle class are usually the ones in AU that get clobbered by a new way to extract money.

This is just another GST, with a few flowers growing out of it. Eventhough our efforts globally are negligible, it is a step in the right direction to walk out of my doorway and smell fresh air, but not if people are ending up on our streets because of it?

Odds on eventhough the government is saying that we won't be worse off, we probably will be overall, maybe by a very small amount or quite a lot? Time will tell.

WOW, I didn't even read ahead! WHAT do YOU think caused this?

Mainly because the government privatized the electricity commission in the mid 90,s, (if l remember correctly) because they knew that replacing the infrastructure now, would put a considerable strain on the budget. So electricity has gone up considerably over the past 6 years, and several small business out there, with the tough economic conditions, are putting many small business on the knife edge, the carbon tax, may add to these utility pressures, which may put a lot of businesses out of business.

In the US, that is bull. They can just stop buying ONE pile of garbage someone calls art, and BANG, they have enough money to pay or DOZENS of homeless people for a YEAR!

Unfortunately that sort of thing happens all the time in my country; l swear if someone with a name in art went through their garbage bins, and threw something on a canvas or their wall, with a signature, and gave it some philosophical meaning, they would make a fortune from it.

It reminds me of the recent story of an artist that got a $20,000 grant from our government, and turned it into $20,000 bills, (two $10,000 stacks in a bank strap) stacked it one on top of another and called it art?

Can't get dumber than that? And from what l have read he, auctioned it off for $21,750, whereby, (of course) he got a commission, and the auctioneer get his cut, and as for the buyer, l don't want to know.

As you are saying the poor could have benefited from $20,000, a lot more than blowing serious cash to "get people to think creatively"?

I assume you mean will NOT. My uncle told me of a danish company that saw their business like more than double! WHAT do they make? WINDMILLS. And more and more are using solar. BUT that will NOT help the poor. The genie is out of the bottle! People KNOW they can get cheap power. Doesn't that mean LESS tax?

I was just hinting that if some cheap, free way of generating power was out there, the wider population will never know about it, because of the risk to the oil industry. Solar and Wind, is going gangbusters!

Is the US paying for fussion? I knew there was a reward of like 10-20K for a working model. Apparently NOBODY has claimed it. deuterium is the WEAKEST source of radiation on the planet! And I can't imagine its life is very long. In theory, it wouldn't even have a half life. If you COULD get power from it, it seems it would be VERY little! A COMPOST bin is probably a better bet, and compost bins HAVE been used to power small communities.

Sorry, l meant to say Fusion, it may be exciting to create temperatures of thirty million degrees, briefly as a plasma, but still a very expensive process that is still iffy.

Not surprised that the solar race is losing interest, at least by backers.

This world runs on oil, so if some revolutionary way exists to create limitless power for free, the wider community will never know about it!

Shane

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Archimedes-The Truth Seekers Forum..

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4697490].message }}

seasoned

13 years ago

Originally Posted by tagiscom

Unfortunately that sort of thing happens all the time in my country; l swear if someone with a name in art went through their garbage bins, and threw something on a canvas or their wall, with a signature, and gave it some philosophical meaning, they would make a fortune from it.

It reminds me of the recent story of an artist that got a $20,000 grant from our government, and turned it into $20,000 bills, (two $10,000 stacks in a bank strap) stacked it one on top of another and called it art?

Can't get dumber than that? And from what l have read he, auctioned it off for $21,750, whereby, (of course) he got a commission, and the auctioneer get his cut, and as for the buyer, l don't want to know.

As you are saying the poor could have benefited from $20,000, a lot more than blowing serious cash to "get people to think creatively"?

Admittedly, I haven't been there in about a year, but for at least several years prior, around the baggage claim areas, at logan airport, the old northwest terminal, by the bathrooms, there is a BIG rube goldberg type contraption, maybe 6' on any side. It IS powered. Hey, I am ok with people doing that, etc... but NOT with the public paying for it. In california, on PCH, as I recall, they have "art" in the middle of the road that can lead to accidents. Want a WORSE example? How about the guy that is PAID for "art" that is little more than litter, and has KILLED?!?!?!?

Christo Umbrella Crushes Woman - NYTimes.com

I was just hinting that if some cheap, free way of generating power was out there, the wider population will never know about it, because of the risk to the oil industry. Solar and Wind, is going gangbusters!

Well, I tried to let people know in the 1970s, but people certainly know now. The pentagon even has a solar farm. Australia, as I said, has the solar races.

Sorry, l meant to say Fusion, it may be exciting to create temperatures of thirty million degrees, briefly as a plasma, but still a very expensive process that is still iffy.

Nobody has gotten CLOSE to such high temperatures. Much of the fraud has been that temperature increass have been SO low that they have to account for every calorie of heat and, after doing so, find NO excess power.

Not surprised that the solar race is losing interest, at least by backers.

In the seventies, it was still kind of new, and they tried to make it better. So it isn't surprising that they aren't working as hard. But HEY, the same seemed true of electric cars. Still, they quietly worked to improve everything. GM was working on it EVEN when the goverment didn't encourage it, etc... Today, it is much better.

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4698022].message }}

thunderbird

13 years ago

Originally Posted by Dennis Gaskill

Posting links to your side of the argument is what is pointless. <snip>

I think Hey Sal needs to rewrite the script. A little bit of drama and conflict is good, but each scene should be kept under 3 minutes. Our dialog is making the audience switch channels. Also, my dialog isn't very natural -- nobody talks like that in the real world -- and should be rewritten.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Project HERE.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4693907].message }}

Dennis Gaskill

13 years ago

Originally Posted by thunderbird

I think Hey Sal needs to rewrite the script. A little bit of drama and conflict is good, but each scene should be kept under 3 minutes. Our dialog is making the audience switch channels. Also, my dialog isn't very natural -- nobody talks like that in the real world -- and should be rewritten.

I'm actually surprised the thread has lasted this long. These kinds of threads can turn political real fast, and there were a couple of comments that I thought might cause the damn to burst.

Thanks

Signature

Just when you think you've got it all figured out, someone changes the rules.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4694246].message }}

HeySal

13 years ago

Originally Posted by thunderbird

I think Hey Sal needs to rewrite the script. A little bit of drama and conflict is good, but each scene should be kept under 3 minutes. Our dialog is making the audience switch channels. Also, my dialog isn't very natural -- nobody talks like that in the real world -- and should be rewritten.

And if the info I was putting in here supported your argument, you'd not care a whit how long it took me to say something. At least I put in relevant info to actual scientists views and leave out mass media generated generalizations - which don't even prove out to be true when held against words from scientists themselves. The APS changed their view on GW because the scientists refused to support it. You call that irrelevant? Sorry that I had to use the quote in here - but thought after all the statements about what scientists think I thought maybe some of the statements might be a little bit relevant - and even revealing.

Whatever. Go back to your TV.

Thanks

Signature

Sal
When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
Beyond the Path

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4697527].message }}

seasoned

13 years ago

INTERESTING that they should use the term WHITEWASH! Weather stations were SUPPOSED to be, and have traditionally been, WHITEWASHED! TODAY They may even have latex, etc... The temperatures are simply not the same.

You know what it is like? It is like the "professor" on gilligans island. He found the water was rising. OH NO!!!!!!! OH NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The island will be under water? WHAT WILL WE DO!?!?!?!? Everyone scrambled, etc.... The island was in an uproar! DISASTER! THEN, one day, the "professor" found out gilligan was using a little pole for his lobster traps! OH MY GOD, ALL IS OK!!!!!!! WHY? Because THAT pole was his POINT OF REFERENCE!

Moral of the story folks? NEVER rely on relative data unless you have a KNOWN and FIXED point of reference! NOAA has NO such point! HERE! OH, for GROSS measurements it is OK. For RECENT history it is OK. But for predicting based on distant past, or predicting far into the future? FORGET IT!

Steve

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4685574].message }}

HeySal

13 years ago

Originally Posted by seasoned

INTERESTING that they should use the term WHITEWASH! Weather stations were SUPPOSED to be, and have traditionally been, WHITEWASHED! TODAY They may even have latex, etc... The temperatures are simply not the same.

You know what it is like? It is like the "professor" on gilligans island. He found the water was rising. OH NO!!!!!!! OH NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The island will be under water? WHAT WILL WE DO!?!?!?!? Everyone scrambled, etc.... The island was in an uproar! DISASTER! THEN, one day, the "professor" found out gilligan was using a little pole for his lobster traps! OH MY GOD, ALL IS OK!!!!!!! WHY? Because THAT pole was his POINT OF REFERENCE!

Moral of the story folks? NEVER rely on relative data unless you have a KNOWN and FIXED point of reference! NOAA has NO such point! HERE! OH, for GROSS measurements it is OK. For RECENT history it is OK. But for predicting based on distant past, or predicting far into the future? FORGET IT!

Steve

Interestingly - whitewashing cities is one idea that scientists have had in respect to heat. Cities do capture and retain high levels of heat. If you don't believe that just walk out of the city and into a forest and you won't need stats - you can feel the difference very distinctly. Anyhow - they want to make all cities white to reflect the heat and keep the cities cool. Not a bad idea actually.

NOAA is the one that put together the team of scientists that are watching boime destruction chain reactions - it's their work that is targeting hotspot areas that will cause massive chain reaction extinctions if they aren't restored asap. The team is from NOAA and from several universities and natural science organizations, global, not national.

All the effort to pull us out of the extinction before we become endangered ourselves and in the US Monsanto is being allowed to roam free like a snake in a hen house.

Nothing makes sense anymore. Nothing. Like I said - no matter what people believe, if they just try to reduce their consumption and waste, at least we are all moving in a good direction no matter what the argument is and which side turns out to be the right. Who the heck knows - some previously unknown obscure scientist might just come up with something that proves us all wrong. It happens in science. Being conservation minded will help this planet no matter what the answers prove to be.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Sal
When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
Beyond the Path

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4688516].message }}

seasoned

13 years ago

Originally Posted by HeySal

Interestingly - whitewashing cities is one idea that scientists have had in respect to heat. Cities do capture and retain high levels of heat. If you don't believe that just walk out of the city and into a forest and you won't need stats - you can feel the difference very distinctly. Anyhow - they want to make all cities white to reflect the heat and keep the cities cool. Not a bad idea actually.

NOAA is the one that put together the team of scientists that are watching boime destruction chain reactions - it's their work that is targeting hotspot areas that will cause massive chain reaction extinctions if they aren't restored asap. The team is from NOAA and from several universities and natural science organizations, global, not national.

All the effort to pull us out of the extinction before we become endangered ourselves and in the US Monsanto is being allowed to roam free like a snake in a hen house.

Nothing makes sense anymore. Nothing. Like I said - no matter what people believe, if they just try to reduce their consumption and waste, at least we are all moving in a good direction no matter what the argument is and which side turns out to be the right. Who the heck knows - some previously unknown obscure scientist might just come up with something that proves us all wrong. It happens in science. Being conservation minded will help this planet no matter what the answers prove to be.

Well, nearly all creatures are nomadic. If they weren't, extinction would have happened LONG ago. Even HUMANS are nomadic. The ONLY reason that nomads are called nomads is because it is their lifestyle. They do it even when not needed.

And YEAH, I HAVE always spoken FOR conservation! My biggest beefs with those asking ME to conserve is that THEY usually waste, and I DO conserve! HECK, I have been a pedestrian on contracts for like 8 years. GRANTED, it is cheaper, but sometimes I COULD get a car, and didn't. I could always make a case for one. And I recently donated a car. I told the guy that it might require like $1000 work to get it running but it would be a nice car. He called me yesterday, and said he put a battery in, and it runs fine. That car is about 20 years old. One less car for the junk heap, and he is calling me very generous! 8-) And it LITERALLY looks BRAND NEW! Inside and out!

And the deal with C&T is just BAD on its face, ESPECIALLY when the WORST offenders are EXEMPT!

And if the problem is CO or CO2, do what I have been suggesting for DECADES, PLANT! SOME have said we might ALREADY be extinct if not for the algae and the like. Most of the planet IS covered by water after all. And WHAT happens if we DO have higher yielding crops? Traditionally, that means that they will build MORE! YEP, get MORE food, and LESS oxygen! GREAT IDEA, HUH? I see this happen EVERYWHERE! If something becomes more efficient, they use the other space for something ELSE.

What C&T will do is pay some of the worst offenders, hurt some of the more decent countries, and they will have to rely on the WORST countries. You know what usually happens THEN?!?!?!? THEY BUILD MORE PLANTS! That means that polution could SKYROCKET! And I DON'T just mean CO, and CO2, but ALSO H2SO4, SO2, S, C, CD,AS,PB, etc.

BTW for those that don't know....
Sulfuric acid, AKA ACID RAIN, poisonous to many things. Because it tends to cloud, it comes down diluted, but is still considered a problem. As it gets worse, it will be more felt.
Sulfer dioxide CAN become H2SO4, and is bad for the lungs, etc...
Sulfer, same thing.
Carbon can come down as soot. NOBODY likes that!
Cadmium is toxic
Arsnic is toxic
Lead is toxic.

That isn't a guess, prediction, etc... It is a PROMISE! It is ALREADY happening in the most polluted city on the planet, which is EXEMPT from these rules, and grows perhaps 2-3 tmes as fast as the US shrinks. The US USED to be almost as bad, but more reasonable laws have made that better. And they didn't seem to understand the money is money bit in another thread, maybe water=water and air=air here makes more sense. If they hurt "their" air water, etc... enough, we WILL feel it. It doesn't matter that they are on the other side of the globe.

If that happens, people here would WISH they were extinct!

And what happens if they become a leading producer of aircraft or something? Don't laugh, when I was a kid, we thought they were only good for some cheap junk. TODAY even APPLE depends on them! YIKES!

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4690026].message }}

Joshua Rigley

Banned 13 years ago

This video might shed a bit of light on the subject:

Global Warming - YouTube

Personally, I believe we're being very irresponsible with our resources. And not with just the whole fossil fuel thing. The rain forest, for example, provides so much more than just wood, and should be treated with more care and respect.

EDIT: I thought I'd add the links from the video:

Links:

Pacific Research Institute - watch the movie
http://www.aconvenientfiction.com/
http://environment.pacificresearch.org/latest-studies

Reid A. Bryson - scroll down for ice cap article
http://www.wecnmagazine.com/2007issues/may/may07.html

Solar Activity: A dominant factor in climate dynamics - scroll down read sections in blue
http://www.john-daly.com/solar/solar.htm

BBC's The Great Global Warming Swindle
http://video.google.com/videosearch?...+global+warmin...

Other possible causes for global warming
http://www.physorg.com/news11710.html

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4685783].message }}

Fazal Mayar

13 years ago

I knew climate changign was kind a myth but its not clear at 100 pct that its a myth, there does seem to be some good chances in the weather and overall ground on the earth.

still al gore isnt someone who i think is always right

Thanks

Signature

Blogger at RicherOrNot.com (Make Money online blog but also promoting ethical internet marketing)

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4686797].message }}

thunderbird

13 years ago

Clearly, the Koch Bros disinformation campaign against global warming has been very effective.

Like it or hate it, most scientists believe that human activity is causing global warming:

Global Warming: How Do Scientists Know They're Not Wrong? | LiveScience

"From catastrophic sea level rise to jarring changes in local weather, humanity faces a potentially dangerous threat from the changes our own pollution has wrought on Earth’s climate. But since nothing in science can ever be proven with 100 percent certainty, how is it that scientists can be so sure that we are the cause of global warming?

For years, there has been clear scientific consensus that Earth’s climate is heating up and that humans are the culprits behind the trend, says Naomi Oreskes, a historian of science at the University of California, San Diego.

A few years ago, she evaluated 928 scientific papers that dealt with global climate change and found that none disagreed about human-generated global warming. The results of her analysis were published in a 2004 essay in the journal Science."

[ 2 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Project HERE.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4687420].message }}

TLTheLiberator

13 years ago

Originally Posted by thunderbird

Clearly, the Koch Bros disinformation campaign against global warming has been very effective.

Like it or hate it, most scientists believe that human activity is causing global warming:

Global Warming: How Do Scientists Know They're Not Wrong? | LiveScience

"From catastrophic sea level rise to jarring changes in local weather, humanity faces a potentially dangerous threat from the changes our own pollution has wrought on Earth's climate. But since nothing in science can ever be proven with 100 percent certainty, how is it that scientists can be so sure that we are the cause of global warming?

For years, there has been clear scientific consensus that Earth's climate is heating up and that humans are the culprits behind the trend, says Naomi Oreskes, a historian of science at the University of California, San Diego.

A few years ago, she evaluated 928 scientific papers that dealt with global climate change and found that none disagreed about human-generated global warming. The results of her analysis were published in a 2004 essay in the journal Science."

Who are the the Koch Bros???????????????????

TL

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4689816].message }}

TimPhelan 13 years ago

A couple billionaires who are behind many right wing causes. They were one of the main backers of the so called "grass roots" emergence of the Tea Party.

Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator

Who are the the Koch Bros???????????????????

TL
- [ 1 ] Thanks
- 1 reply
Signature
Over 50 Dating
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4689986].message }}
- seasoned 13 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by TimPhelan
  
  A couple billionaires who are behind many right wing causes. They were one of the main backers of the so called "grass roots" emergence of the Tea Party.
  
  I was going to say the libs answer to soros.
  
  I thought the teaparty was started in boston a LONG time ago, and then that event a few years before the current one took hold where it was suggested that everyone send a tea bag to the IRS with their tax return.
  
  BTW ANOTHER host suggested sending PEAS to the whitehouse, because of a speech made where it was suggested that we "eat our peas". So HEY, don't say I didn't warn you. Maybe there will be a PEA party now! Actually thogh, most that sent the peas were probably tea party members, even though the show was not aimed at tea party members.
  
  BTW the peas could be anything from a pack o seeds for them, to frozen peas. No preference was given.
  
  Meant to be entertaining by giving a few facts and observations, NOT political.
  
  Steve
  
  Thanks
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4690062].message }}

seasoned

13 years ago

HELP ME! HELP ME! PLEASE, SOMEBODY, HELP ME! I mean I can stand it OK, but I know my mother would have a REAL problem with this if she were here! It is INCREDIBLE! I got out and it was, to call it what my mother would have, ******FREEZING******! To REALLY appreciate how COLD it is, let's look at tomorrows forecast! 49degrees! That is Farenheit folks! Less than 10C! And my home? Well, tonight it will be about 3C! YIKES! And my mother figured anything below something above TWENTY was freezing!

PLEASE HELP! It is RAINING! A FEW more degrees, and it will be SNOWING! I was told this wouldn't happen for at least another MONTH!

Steve

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4687519].message }}

Kay King 13 years ago

Scientists that take the PC official view on global warming are NOT in the majority.

Scientists who consider what is or is not PC - are not scientists.
- [ 2 ] Thanks
Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
***
One secret to happiness is to let every situation be
what it is instead of what you think it should be.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4687640].message }}

myob

13 years ago

Originally Posted by seasoned

HELP ME! HELP ME! PLEASE, SOMEBODY, HELP ME! I mean I can stand it OK, but I know my mother would have a REAL problem with this if she were here! It is INCREDIBLE! I got out and it was, to call it what my mother would have, ******FREEZING******! To REALLY appreciate how COLD it is, let's look at tomorrows forecast! 49degrees! That is Farenheit folks! Less than 10C! And my home? Well, tonight it will be about 3C! YIKES! And my mother figured anything below something above TWENTY was freezing!

PLEASE HELP! It is RAINING! A FEW more degrees, and it will be SNOWING! I was told this wouldn't happen for at least another MONTH!

Steve

Why should this be a surprise? Such unusal, wild weather pattern swings are as expected in the AGW model. Other parts of the country, notably Texas, have been searing in record heat and draught. A global view is not so silly and anecdotal.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4688050].message }}

seasoned

13 years ago

Originally Posted by myob

Why should this be a surprise? Such unusal, wild weather pattern swings are as expected in the AGW model. Other parts of the country, notably Texas, have been searing in record heat and draught. A global view is not so silly and anecdotal.

Interesting that they say GLOBAL warming then, but they DO say warming. Yeah, it isn't quite snowing YET, and it IS supposed to start being like that next month. But I was just poking fun.

Steve

[ 1 ] Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4689856].message }}

TLTheLiberator

13 years ago

Originally Posted by Ken_Caudill

Whether or not climate change is man-made is a wonderfully stupid thing to discuss.

If it is, there is nothing we can do about it. Does anyone in their right mind believe emerging economies are going to cripple their production because a group of scientists say so? Are we willing to invade China, India, Argentina to force them to stop polluting?

If it isn't, there's still nothing we an do about it.

Feng shui........................

Thanks

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4689772].message }}

Chris Worner

13 years ago

@Heysal

It's too late down-under, a universally overwhelmingly unpopular carbon tax is about to be foistered on the Australian people that will target the top 500 'polluters,' which in our case is the manufacturing and mining industry. As if the economic crunch wasn't bad enough with people being laid off, particular in the manufacturing and mining sector due to revenue loss, this tax will completely kill the industries competitiveness and cost thousands of people their jobs.

The worst part is this new tax won't even reduce emissions at all, all it will do is cost jobs, drive up the cost of living, and suck out 71 billion a year out of the economy.

-Chris

Thanks

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4690477].message }}

PLRExpress

13 years ago

We could do with a little global warming where I am in the UK. It's cold and wet today. Anyone finds any, please send it over. :-)

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4690624].message }}

dagaul101

13 years ago

It will be an interesting program no doubt, I would hope it would give ideas on how to diminish our harmful effects on the planet

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4701737].message }}

tagiscom

13 years ago

Sorry folks but enough is enough. We are called the Warriors, yes, but we don't have forum section that cause members to go to war with each other and begin to hate each other.

From this point on Religious & Political not allowed and posting them will get you banned for a while and then for good if it continues.

Take your hatred for the US, UK, Australia, China, Christmas...etc somewhere else. Not here.

Oh, should have read that first, my apologies, l will keep politics out of my threads from now on!

I don't really hate my government, just concerned by some of their actions.

Shane

Thanks

Signature

Archimedes-The Truth Seekers Forum..

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4705396].message }}

jasdon

13 years ago

George Carlin, and plastic. Classic.

George Carlin - Saving the Planet - YouTube

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4708261].message }}

tagiscom 13 years ago

Thanks Jasdon, l always cringe when l hear of some environmentalist talking about saving a rat with a white dot on it's head, becoming extinct.

Does it really matter, and is the average person on the street really going to care?

Shane
- Thanks
Signature
Archimedes-The Truth Seekers Forum..
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4712512].message }}

hardraysnight

13 years ago

Professor Doctor Neil Finn of the Crowded House Institute Of Climatic Sciences, summed it up succinctly 'Four seasons In One Day.'

Thanks

Signature

These guys helped me with the feedback for my site

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4713084].message }}

Al Gore's 24 Hours of Reality Climate Change

Trending Topics

Newbie

How did you turn it all around?

A healthy fascination for Hollywood...

best high quality crypto traffic.

Any thoughts on golf's latest phenom...Scottie Scheffler??