30,000 scientists sue Al Gore for fraud.

60 replies
  • OFF TOPIC
  • |



Indy
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    Its about time! Many people here still believe the human caused warming scam.

    I talked to the Sierra Club about what classes I should take for an Environmental Parlegal certificate - and they sent me BS about warming and I sent them back the facts. They had nothing to say in reply....they are making good bucks from pushing the scam.
    Signature

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

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[3768].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author gabby335
      I don't put much credence in ANYTHING that comes from Faux news network!

      In fact, I don't watch much news ... period. I get my news from website of newspapers from other countries ... less propaganda that way!!
      Signature

      Debbi

      http://www.matchrateplus.com/seniorcomputerguru - Make residual income showing local businesses how to SAVE money on their Credit Card processing! No cost ... NO selling!

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4167].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author KarlWarren
        The Earth has been colder... a LOT colder, and it has been a LOT hotter too. It's just a natural cycle. We don't have MUCH impact on it at all. Wait til there's a huge volcanic eruption (causing hundreds of tons of CO2 to be released into the atmosphere), then we'll see all those global warming lunatics panic.
        Signature
        eCoverNinja - Sales Page Graphics & Layout Specialist
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4244].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author bendiggs
      There is no proven evidence that man has caused dramatic changes in the environment, but on the flipside, there is no conclusive evidence that says we aren't impacting the climate. The world has had many cycles of warming and cooling, but the actual cause of those is unknown. We can't say Al Gore is right or wrong because we really don't know.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4438].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Phnx
        Bwahahah! Made my day!

        It's the little things.
        Signature
        In all matters of opinion, our adversaries are insane. ~ Oscar Wilde (1854 - 1900)

        Easy Weight Loss
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4578].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Keith Gilbert
          I second HeySal's "it's about time" comment. I am sick and tired of people claiming that humans are ruining the earth. They want the government to spend billions of dollars and put all kinds of restrictions on companies and individuals to "stop global warming."

          I don't see how anyone can say for sure that global warming is real. Even if it is, I doubt it's significantly caused by humans. When you think of how big the earth is compared to all the big cities that global warming activists claim are the problem, those big cities seem insignificant to the vastness of the planet.

          Al Gore is just in it for the money. His house uses more energy in one MONTH than the average American's uses in an entire year. Read this also.
          http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/house.asp

          What annoys me too is that companies are latching on to the "global warming crisis" by buying "carbon credits" and calling themselves "green." They don't care if it's all a scam. They just want the good press.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4889].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author espacecadet
            Banned
            [DELETED]
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5375].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author batchos
              Well, global warming is also about the rights of animals.

              The cruelty that animals have to go through to let you have their flesh as your meal.

              It's also about hunger. Many people around the world go hungry while we feed grain to livestock.

              If you are interested in the vegetarian/vegan view, here's a replay of a conference I attended recently in LA.

              http://godsdirectcontact.com/event/M...80726InLA.html

              Both sides of the issue are available, you just have to care enough to find them. See my signature for a television channel that carries firsthand information about global warming and animal rights.

              batchos
              Signature
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5812].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author HeySal
                Okay -before everyone gets all confused about what I just said -- I said humans don't cause WARMING. We are, in fact, the prime cause of desertification and other major damage to the earth - but not warming. If you have kept up with Earthwatch on RHS1
                you know it's basically the sun activity and volcanoes that decide climate. But humans
                have reached the critical mass and are clearing land which then is being dessicated by
                desertification at unprecidented and alarming rates. We are RUINING our environments and that is still going to bite us in the long term. Desertificated land will NOT produce.

                As far as warming - it has been very good for allowing us to flourish to the point of critical mass - now we have stepped beyond and have done so at a time when we face possible major cooling (sunspots aren't happening yet during this sun cycle) and a cooling will be catastrophic for growing enough food to feed an over-carrying capacity population. - and that's without government lunacy about distribution. We got our first taste over the last year when rice crops were devastated in unprecidented cold. Most countries discontinued export to feed their own people and rice reserves are dangerously low planetwide. What happens in another cold winter? We are screwed is what happens.
                The poor of the world are already falling. Nations are limited in the help they can provide
                with their own reserves depleated.

                People thought that warming was scary? There's a new horror flick in being released and its called - Global Chill. And this one won't earn the politicians a fricken cent.
                Signature

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

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5918].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Melkor
                  Argument from numbers? Yeah, sure. "Eat shit, 10 trillion flies can't be wrong". You're marketers, you should know by now that the validity of social proof lies only in the emotional self-justification you derive from it, there is no evidentiary power in numbers.

                  Before you go any further out on any limbs based on Faux News reporting, spend some time educating yourself at CICERO and display some basic knowledge of how the scientific process works. al gore made a nice power point presentation, but he is irrelevant to the scientific process, unlike what the clowns at Fox would have you believe.
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5982].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author Nvc
                    saw a interested movie named the great global warming swindle witch says the opposite of what al gore claims, im totally stupid when it comes to this natural biology crap and didnt understand half of what they said but most of it made some sence anyway

                    mostly they say global warming is a fraud because of some dark sun spots whatever.
                    and they say global warming is just a million dollar industry witch i can confirm in my country where they run a anti gas using propaganda and people are starting to be ashamed for using gas and the bio cars or whatever that is they are creating are skyrocking in sales here

                    personally, i have 250m to my shop and have no problem going there by car to buy 1 L milk since its politicians and scientists problem to solve the global warming problem (if it exists) and not mine
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6025].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author rajhu
                Originally Posted by batchos View Post

                Well, global warming is also about the rights of animals.

                The cruelty that animals have to go through to let you have their flesh as your meal.

                It's also about hunger. Many people around the world go hungry while we feed grain to livestock.

                If you are interested in the vegetarian/vegan view, here's a replay of a conference I attended recently in LA.

                Master video conference in LA 20080726

                Both sides of the issue are available, you just have to care enough to find them. See my signature for a television channel that carries firsthand information about global warming and animal rights.

                batchos
                Well I'm a Raw Food Vegan and I totally understand the cruelty of factory farming etc. But that has very little to do with Global Warming. We're talking separate issues here.

                If it were the case then why would last year have been the biggest global temperature drop ever recorded?

                I've linked to the story on it here on my blog.
                Widescale Global Cooling... Largest Temp Drop In One Year | Raw Food Diet, Bodyweight Exercises and Self-Mastery

                Cheers,

                Roger Haeske
                The 41-Year-Old Teenager
                Signature

                Is it possible to look and feel like a healthy and athletic teenager at 41 years of age?

                Click here to watch "My Top 8 Anti-Aging Secrets Video."


                See my age defying PICTURES for yourself -- http://Be40Look20.com

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[16981].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Jelasco
                Originally Posted by batchos View Post

                Well, global warming is also about the rights of animals.

                The cruelty that animals have to go through to let you have their flesh as your meal.
                What about the cruelty that animals impose on each other?

                When a lion takes down a gazelle, is that somehow less cruel than a slaughterhouse killing a cow for meat?
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[77236].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author John M Kane
      Hey HeySal

      your links are messed
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7240].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author HeySal
        Originally Posted by war28476 View Post

        Hey HeySal

        your links are messed
        Why so they are, John. Thank you. I guess they didn't do well in the copy/paste from one vortex to the next. Will fix that now.

        ER.....anyone seen Tommy? I need to borrow the shitweasel flux capacitor.
        Signature

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

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7627].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Michael Mayo
          If Al Gore would just keep his mouth shut the Earth would cool down some:rolleyes:
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7684].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Kay King
            How does "wants to sue" end up being "Al gore sued" as a subject line?

            We've debated global warming before here - and it's very easy to go online and find those who agree with the warming theories and those who don't agree.

            So what?

            Can anyone truly believe that releasing toxic substances into the earth's atmosphere from manufacturing, millions of autos, etc - that cutting down rain forests and pushing farther and farther into wildlife habitats to build cookie cutter houses.....is a good thing?

            I think many of the programs being proposed for global warming are useless but is there anything wrong with wanting to STOP polluting our rivers and oceans and our air - or at the least to find new technology to reduce that pollution?

            To say this is only a political issue is to opt out of any responsibility for the impact you have on the world. Responsible governments exist only when a responsible public demands it.

            Instead of arguing the political aspects and picking apart research to use only what supports your personal views - wouldn't it be wiser to go forward with the idea of doing a better job at conserving the atmosphere of our planet and at preserving as many species as we can?

            There is no downside to cleaning up some of our wasteful, damaging habits. If we ignore the potential of a future problem, and if the warnings are eventually found to be prophetic - the downside is quite large.

            kay
            Signature
            Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world will change forever for that one dog.

            I'm going to work on being less condescending
            (Condescending means to talk down to people)
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7749].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Michael Mayo
              Hey Kay,

              Here's a temp picture for you to use untill you have a new one made!

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7983].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author lauraswane
                Regardless of science, no one can deny the drastic change in the weather. It has rained at least once every day where I live, though in previous year's I'd be watering my lawn at this time.

                That said, the earth has gone through drastic climate changes before so perhaps it will regulate itself once again. If you look back at the history of the earths climate, there is no defined norm.
                Signature
                Send Your Sites Page Ranking Through The Roof! All This In Only 15 Minutes.

                http://www.easytrafficbuilder.com

                Laura Swane
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9107].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Kay King
                  Michael -

                  Thanks! I love it - makes me look younger
                  Signature
                  Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world will change forever for that one dog.

                  I'm going to work on being less condescending
                  (Condescending means to talk down to people)
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9408].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author John Rowe
                    I have no idea if Global Warming is real or not... but that guy said nothing. Sure would like to hear some intellegence on the subject.
                    Signature

                    We have a system that increasingly taxes work and subsidizes nonwork.
                    ~ Milton Friedman

                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9423].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author Michelle Brouse
                      Listen hey Stop - What's that sound... everyone look what's going down....

                      The sun causes the heat and cooling as far as I have learned, and it's the "natural cycle of the earth."

                      You know, like spring, summer, fall and winter.

                      Why must folks insist that we are so "BIG and BAD" to control the natural cycles of time and space.

                      BTW Sal - nice to see you on the pic! Showed Anth tonight, said "hey Anth, check this out - this is Sal!"

                      He's heard me talk about you once or twice, it's all been good.

                      Thanks Indy for the link, glad someone is saying something - but as far as I care - it's not enough. The people who know have to get to the point where they are no longer ridiculed. I'll help there as much as I can.

                      Thanks!
                      Michelle
                      Signature

                      I have no signature. :-D

                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9688].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                      Old news made into another viral email type campaign. This petition was started around 1998 and a majority of the signatures were from that period. It seems some of people who signed this are dead now.

                      Oregon Petition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

                      "The text of the petition is often misrepresented: for example, until recently the petition's website stated that the petition's signatories "declare that global warming is a lie with no scientific basis whatsoever."[4] The two-paragraph petition used the terms catastrophic heating and disruption, not "global warming." The original article associated with the petition (see below) defined "global warming" as "severe increases in Earth's atmospheric and surface temperatures, with disastrous environmental consequences".[5] This differs from both scientific usage and dictionary definitions, in which "global warming" is an increase in the global mean atmospheric temperature[6][7] without implying that the increase is "severe" or will have "disastrous environmental consequences."

                      Global Warming Skeptic Organizations

                      "Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine

                      The Marshall Institute co-sponsored with the OISM a deceptive campaign -- known as the Petition Project -- to undermine and discredit the scientific authority of the IPCC and to oppose the Kyoto Protocol. Early in the spring of 1998, thousands of scientists around the country received a mass mailing urging them to sign a petition calling on the government to reject the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was accompanied by other pieces including an article formatted to mimic the journal of the National Academy of Sciences. Subsequent research revealed that the article had not been peer-reviewed, nor published, nor even accepted for publication in that journal and the Academy released a strong statement disclaiming any connection to this effort and reaffirming the reality of climate change. The Petition resurfaced in 2001.

                      Spin: There is no scientific basis for claims about global warming. IPCC is a hoax. Kyoto is flawed.

                      Funding: Petition was funded by private sources."

                      Here's something from last year when this petition appeared again:

                      RealClimate

                      "Oregon Institute of Science and Malarkey

                      A large number of US scientists (to our direct knowledge: engineers, biologists, computer scientists and geologists) received a package in the mail this week. The package consists of a colour preprint of a 'new' article by Robinson, Robinson and Soon and an exhortation to sign a petition demanding that the US not sign the Kyoto Protocol. If you get a feeling of deja vu, it is because this comes from our old friends, the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine and is an attempt to re-invigorate the highly criticised 1999 "Oregon Petition"."

                      I think Kay had it about right on this issue.
                      Signature
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9725].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author greymatrixx
                        The threat of global warming is real, it's at least partially manmade, and consumers and industry have to stop spewing carbon dioxide into the air or little by little we're all going to roast."
                        LARRY DERFNER : The Jerusalem Post.

                        For anyone who has not read it...Profile Al Gore...

                        EARTHWATCH: RHS1 Global Rockhound Community Enviromental News E-zine.

                        Indy...
                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9752].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author Mike Wright
                        Ok, lets just accept that there are a variety of views on these matters for
                        a while and accept the empirical evidence of climate and ecological change.

                        I would agree that concentrating on Carbon Dioxide reduction may be questionable, but maybe not for the same reasons as others. However,
                        if the Carbon trading licences enable some South American countries to
                        preserve the rainforests and associated areas of huge biodiversity, that
                        must in itself be a good thing for the planet.

                        The one huge atmospheric pollutant category wwhich most definitely
                        affects climate .... and also mirrors industrial, agricultural and similar
                        hydrocarbon usage growth in the last century or two, is the rise in
                        atmospheric dust and particulates.

                        Intensive farming, deforestation, over-grazing have resulted in
                        increasing desertification and huge dustbowls. Particulate emissions
                        from aircraft, shipping, vehicles and industry has increased immensely.
                        As Sal pointed out in this thread, volcanic and tectonic activity seems
                        to have increased in recent years.

                        This type of pollution can cause dramatic localised environmental
                        changes or much larger and global changes. In some cases, this can
                        be reversed by local changes at source eg. the current Olympics or
                        clean air regulations in cities to minimise fog, smog and other problems.

                        Admittedly, the heavier particles which pose the spectre known as
                        a "nuclear winter" will usually come back down again with rain and
                        or gravity ... therefore posing a short-term if sometimes severe problem.
                        However, particulates and any number of chemical compounds can
                        float around at various levels in the atmosphere where they are capable
                        of causing such problems as the "holes in the Ozone Layer".

                        Then of course we come to the oceans which are a massive arbiter
                        of climate, the atmosphere and more. Indeed, oceanic algae produces
                        the majority of the planet's oxygen. The oceans are also a massive
                        source of food and biodiversity. So why nearly everyone treats the
                        oceans as a giant sewage plant, repository for every concievable
                        toxic chemical and a rubbish tip is objectively somewhat stupid.

                        It matters not a jot really whatever your views are on Global Warming,
                        Kyoto or Carbon Credits.... we simply can not use those views to
                        continue acting as we have done over the last couple of centuries.

                        What do I base some of the above views on ?
                        Well, about 35 years ago in the UK, before the clean air legislation and
                        when coal fires and inefficient vehicle engines were the norm, we had
                        real seasons and long hot summers. I could wash and polish my car and
                        it would shine for weeks. The main reason for washing it was to remove
                        about a million splattered insects from the glass and bodywork. Currently,
                        I can wash and polish my car .... and its covered in dust by the next day
                        without local farmers operating/harvesting, building works, or weather
                        systems transporting volcanic dust or desert sand from other countries.
                        Also, apart from flying ant season, there are usually few if any bugs to
                        wash off the windscreen relative to years ago.

                        To be honest, I am less convinced by the proponents of solar cycles
                        and variations of planetary orbit, than I am by the clear and empirical
                        evidence of the observable negative effects of our activities upon our
                        ecology and environment.
                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9941].message }}
                        • Profile picture of the author KarlWarren
                          Kay and Mike,

                          those two well thought out posts are brilliant.

                          While I don't think that "global warming" is man made, I do agree that we
                          are abusing our environment.

                          We kill more things than need to be killed, we waste more things than need
                          to be wasted and we take everything for granted.

                          The area around any one of us is a scruffy, dirty mess and most of us will
                          turn a blind eye and think "yeah, someone ought to clean that up."

                          So, while 'carbon dioxide' in the atmosphere isn't really something I think
                          will destroy us (well, not man made carbon anyway) - I do feel that what
                          we're dumping anywhere and everywhere IS having an impact on life.

                          Kindest regards,
                          Karl.
                          Signature
                          eCoverNinja - Sales Page Graphics & Layout Specialist
                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9982].message }}
                          • Profile picture of the author pehweiliang
                            A good suggestion would be "The Guardian". So far this newspaper has been one of the more neutral and relevant news provider. Of course, as it is from British, any British news might be deemed as not 100% accurately reported.
                            Signature

                            http://www.muddycrow.com/(A site where free Internet Marketing information is organised)

                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10128].message }}
                            • Profile picture of the author Mike Wright
                              Originally Posted by pehweiliang View Post

                              A good suggestion would be "The Guardian". So far this newspaper has been one of the more neutral and relevant news provider. Of course, as it is from British, any British news might be deemed as not 100% accurately reported.
                              The Guardian must be the most neutral uncontroversial newspaper
                              in the UK. The readership is, by and large, very similar in nature ...
                              often employed in environments of oppressive political correctness.
                              On the plus side, the readers are usually environmentally conscious
                              and exhibit vast diligence in determining whether a pack of teabags
                              from a "Free Trade" source is preferred to a pack of loose tea from China
                              in terms of environmental impact. Somewhat paradoxically, they also
                              sometimes bicycle about 20 miles to work while their partner drives
                              their several children around in some vast vehicle to purchase some
                              special breed chickens to produce eggs in their urban living space.

                              I doubt that I will ever be a willing Guardian reader ..... at least
                              while there is some paint I can watch drying somewhere (anywhere)
                              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10281].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author gabby335
              Bravo Kay!

              I won't repeat what was stated, just to say that I agree with her 100% (well, maybe 99% ... no opinion is ever 100% agreeable!)

              As for the comment about Al Gore "inventing the Internet" ... please ... stop repeating the propaganda from the far right! To get the real story on this "claim", go to the Snopes page that explains all about it with a REAL 'fair and balanced' look at the whole story! snopes.com: Al Gore Invented the Internet

              Carry on with the debate! And for those of you who are skeptical ... actually view the documentary or read the book before railing against it. And READ BOTH sides to get the real story.

              Just my quick take.
              Signature

              Debbi

              http://www.matchrateplus.com/seniorcomputerguru - Make residual income showing local businesses how to SAVE money on their Credit Card processing! No cost ... NO selling!

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10333].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author ellyan
              Kay,

              Why do you think that the offered programs are useless?

              OK.I had never entered into discussion about global warming before however I

              think this is a huge concern today.

              I'm afraid the problem could remain for years to come.
              I hope the goverments will refer with responsibility..Meanwhile I think that people
              are not so concerned about our planet. Pity!

              Elitsa
              Signature
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10436].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Michael Mayo
                Michael
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[11858].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Barry Walls
                Originally Posted by ellyan View Post

                Kay,

                Why do you think that the offered programs are useless?

                OK.I had never entered into discussion about global warming before however I

                think this is a huge concern today.

                I'm afraid the problem could remain for years to come.
                I hope the goverments will refer with responsibility..Meanwhile I think that people
                are not so concerned about our planet. Pity!

                Elitsa
                Hi Ellyan

                I don't think that you can equate mistrusting the science of global warming activists with not caring for the environment. One doesn't necessarily follow the other. I think global warming is a total scam but I am very concerned with pollution, environmental management and resource depletion.

                Barry
                Signature

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[13800].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author HeySal
                  I am wondering why in any attempt at enviromental discussions people want to think we have to clean up C02? C02 is NOT a pollutant - it is a natural gas and, in fact, it will protect plants in warming situations - they NEED the stuff.
                  If you want to talk about cleaning the environment - Carbon MONOXIDE (as opposed to Carbon DIOXIDE) is a nasty pollutant. So why are we worried about the natural element and completely ignoring the actually deadly pollutant? Guess there's no money in real, constructive environmentalism, eh?


                  WOW Kay - just saw your avatar....that stuff REALLY works -- better than I thought it does.
                  Signature

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

                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[13868].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author Jose Delgado
                    I think Global Warming is REAL! And It IS a Big deal.

                    I'm with Al on this one.
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[13921].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author Melkor
                    Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

                    I am wondering why in any attempt at enviromental discussions people want to think we have to clean up C02? C02 is NOT a pollutant - it is a natural gas and, in fact, it will protect plants in warming situations - they NEED the stuff.
                    If you want to talk about cleaning the environment - Carbon MONOXIDE (as opposed to Carbon DIOXIDE) is a nasty pollutant. So why are we worried about the natural element and completely ignoring the actually deadly pollutant? Guess there's no money in real, constructive environmentalism, eh?.
                    Because carbon monoxide is an unstable and reactive gas that rapidly oxidizes to form regular carbon dioxide in non-enclosed spaces. CO is a byproduct of incomplete combustion, and is only a localized problem if you're camping and the camping stove isn't burning hot enough, for example.

                    It's very simple really - CO2 functions exactly like the glass panes in a hothouse. It lets visible light through but absorbs infrared energy in the far infrared, which is the vawelength that the Earth normally radiates heat out into space through. At some point the heat below builds up to the point where the infrared radiation has a different wavelength that doesn't get absorbed by the CO2 and radiates back out to space - unfortunately, that wavelength corresponds to temperatures considerably higher than the median temperature of the Earth as of now, leading to a gradual buildup of residual heat until a new, higher equilibrium is reached.

                    You feel this process in action if you've ever been in a hothouse.

                    Unfortunately, the CO2 that we keep adding to the atmosphere is the equivalent of adding thicker and thicker glass panes/more isolation to our hothouse, pushing the equilibrium temperature higher and higher.

                    This is not a good thing - most of out staple food plants have very narrow temperature ranges that give optimum yields, and you've already seen what happens when temperatures deviate from that.

                    No-one denies that the sun is the driving force in the solar system. All we're saying is that when we're living in a pressure cooker, it's not real clever to turn up the heat and plug the safety valve.
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[13966].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author Barry Walls
                      what you say is true...but what you leave out is that CO2 is only 3% of greenhouse gases and we are only reponsible for about (im not sure of the exact figure) @4% of that....so we are responsible for 0.12% of all green house gases. The earth has been a lot hotter than it is today and its been OK.
                      Signature

                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[14027].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author Melkor
                        Originally Posted by bigjock View Post

                        what you say is true...but what you leave out is that CO2 is only 3% of greenhouse gases and we are only reponsible for about (im not sure of the exact figure) @4% of that....so we are responsible for 0.12% of all green house gases. The earth has been a lot hotter than it is today and its been OK.
                        Oh, the Earth will pull through just fine, don't worry.

                        But I'm kinda partial to an Earth that's capable of supporting human life in reasonable numbers and a reasonable pleasant lifestyle. That's not a given, the catastrophic scenarios that are possible if the worst of the Tipping Point scenarios turn out to be the projections most closely aligned with reality are the stuff of nightmares.

                        Take a look at the South Pole now. It's the middle of their winter, and the ice shelves are still melting. In winter. At the South Pole.

                        That don't give you pause?

                        The Earth will live on, of course it will. But we might not - desertifcation is accelerating, arable land is disappearing at an alarming clip, and biomass production in the oceans is decreasing due to the average temperature moving just slightly out of the optimum temperature range for phytoplankton and other marine life at the bottom of the food chain.

                        What happens when a Butterfly Marketer flaps his wings? Small knock-on effects can have far-reaching consequences.
                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[14078].message }}
                        • Profile picture of the author Barry Walls
                          Its all worrying, but none of it has anything to do with CO2 from humans IMO.
                          Signature

                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[14100].message }}
                          • Profile picture of the author Melkor
                            Originally Posted by bigjock View Post

                            Its all worrying, but none of it has anything to do with CO2 from humans IMO.
                            Well, that's the thing - reality is not subject to vote, opinion, or debate, and though your opinion says otherwise, the facts on the ground shows that the only explanation that correlates with the facts as we know them is either "The Flying spachetti monster did it", or it's human-produced carbon emissions that's responsible.

                            And despite the rather desperate lies put out by the Cato institute, the American Enterprise Institute, the CPPI, and other PR arms of Big Oil spread in the public sphere modeleed on the marketing campaign of Big Tobacco that successfully supressed evidence of the harmful effects of cigarette smoking for 30-40 years, there is no doubt that the 'hockey stick' graph that Al Gore borrowed for his movie is real, the temperature increases are real, the accelerating effects of climate change and the knock-on effects are real.

                            It's a fascinating process from a PR/marketing standpoint of course - Big Oil went out and hired the same PR guys that worked for Bg Tobacco and had them go to work using essentially the same strategy to pollute the public sphere and confuse the public discourse with irrelevant and disingenous distractions from the facts on the ground.

                            Bg Tobacco pullet it off for 30-40 years and killed God knows how many people through their quest for keeping on selling carcinogenic, addictive drugs to the public.

                            If Big Oil pulls it off for another 30-40 years, I wonder how many lives they're going to cut short?
                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[14147].message }}
                            • Profile picture of the author Barry Walls
                              Originally Posted by Melkor View Post

                              there is no doubt that the 'hockey stick' graph that Al Gore borrowed for his movie is real, the temperature increases are real,
                              Dude, the hockey stick graph has been totally debunked. If you took a sample over time of how many 18-23 year olds populated this forum in the last 5 years, it would be a hockey stick graph. They've tested it with some weird and wonderful data sets. The computer model used produces a hockey stick for every data set. Its a statistical joke.

                              "The researchers responsible for the original data have been brought before Congress to defend their findings, with one member of the House going so far as to demand to inspect their personal financial records for evidence of bribery."

                              Adobe - Design Center : Seeing is believing: Information visualization and the debate over global warming - the correct graphs are here.

                              You only have to look at it to know its wrong...the warm period before little ice age isn't even on it. That was only 800 years ago and they had vineyards in the south of England.

                              Its flat out wrong. Sorry.

                              Barry
                              Signature

                              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[14921].message }}
                              • Profile picture of the author Melkor
                                Originally Posted by bigjock View Post

                                Dude, the hockey stick graph has been totally debunked. If you took a sample over time of how many 18-23 year olds populated this forum in the last 5 years, it would be a hockey stick graph. They've tested it with some weird and wonderful data sets. The computer model used produces a hockey stick for every data set. Its a statistical joke.

                                "The researchers responsible for the original data have been brought before Congress to defend their findings, with one member of the House going so far as to demand to inspect their personal financial records for evidence of bribery."

                                Adobe - Design Center : Seeing is believing: Information visualization and the debate over global warming - the correct graphs are here.

                                You only have to look at it to know its wrong...the warm period before little ice age isn't even on it. That was only 800 years ago and they had vineyards in the south of England.

                                Its flat out wrong. Sorry.

                                Barry
                                Selective quoting from a design theorist explaing why global warming deniers are so desperate to question the visual representation of the current warming trend? Oh, my - read your own link and understand what he's saying:
                                As Edward Tufte has famously observed, less is often just less when it comes to visualizing information. So designers should think twice before sacrificing complexity for the sake of clarity. "Complex information graphics correlate many data points in a way that conveys the overall message without sacrificing the nuance of detail or oversimplifying the concept," says Martin. "Rather, they strike a balance between 'thesis' and 'data' levels of an argument and thus present a more robust and interesting case." Although critics of the hockey stick have offered alternative visualizations, few of them have been as visually compelling as the original. The simplified graph below, which charts the same data, would only be convincing to someone who already agreed with the claim that the current pattern of global warming is part of the natural cycle.
                                In other words, it's nothing to do with the credibility or lack thereof of the visual representation of the dataset, it's only about design considerations involved.

                                My degree is in chemical engineering and computer science. I understand the underlying mathemathical and statistical models used, as well as the algorithms used to convert the datasets into a visual representation and more importantly, the physical chemistry facts that underpin the explanatory models that the global warming researchers are using.

                                This is why the 'hockey stick' graph is convincing to me - because I do understand the underlying science.

                                It's probably also why it's unconvincing to you.

                                The thing I find really ironic though is that apart from the global warming issue I'd be right there along with Sal on most things. There is a financial elite that conspires to keep the masses down, there is an overaching global organization that doesn't give a damn about the civilians as long as they get theirs, there's a whole lot of really old money who don't give a rat's ass about humanity as a whole as long as they get to own yo'ass.

                                Where we part ways is in identifying who that elite is, and who's the one lying to you.

                                If you only knew how much cash there is in being a global warming denier you'd know who that elite is.
                                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[15078].message }}
                                • Profile picture of the author Barry Walls
                                  OK...go and plug any data set into the model used to produce the hockey stick graph and dont come up with a hockey stick...then I'll be impressed. Many have tried...no one has succeeded as far as I am aware....but Im open to you proving me wrong.
                                  Signature

                                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[15127].message }}
                                  • Profile picture of the author Melkor
                                    Originally Posted by bigjock View Post

                                    OK...go and plug any data set into the model used to produce the hockey stick graph and dont come up with a hockey stick...then I'll be impressed. Many have tried...no one has succeeded as far as I am aware....but Im open to you proving me wrong.
                                    Cite? Link? Do you have a credible, peer-reviewed study to back up that unfounded assertion? Or are you merely repeating a talking point from Big Oil's publicist now?
                                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[15154].message }}
                                    • Profile picture of the author Barry Walls
                                      Id say the 30000 sueing scientists count as peer review. In the great global warming swindle documentary, top climatologists and staticticians tested the model and it came back every time as a hockey stick.

                                      In peer review, dont you have to release your data?

                                      Hmmmm....I wonder why he isnt? "The Hockey Stick is broken. Michael Mann refuses to release his code & data." | Logical Science

                                      But I already realise that nothing will satisfy you...you seem very heavily invested in your position, despite the uproar from the majority of your peer group.

                                      Prove me wrong...build a non hockey stick graph from any data set with that computer model.
                                      Signature

                                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[15206].message }}
                                      • Profile picture of the author Melkor
                                        Dude, do you even read the links you post? Everything in that page verifies what I've been saying.

                                        And did you read what TimPhelan posted up above?
                                        Global Warming Skeptic Organizations

                                        "Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine

                                        The Marshall Institute co-sponsored with the OISM a deceptive campaign -- known as the Petition Project -- to undermine and discredit the scientific authority of the IPCC and to oppose the Kyoto Protocol. Early in the spring of 1998, thousands of scientists around the country received a mass mailing urging them to sign a petition calling on the government to reject the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was accompanied by other pieces including an article formatted to mimic the journal of the National Academy of Sciences. Subsequent research revealed that the article had not been peer-reviewed, nor published, nor even accepted for publication in that journal and the Academy released a strong statement disclaiming any connection to this effort and reaffirming the reality of climate change. The Petition resurfaced in 2001.

                                        Spin: There is no scientific basis for claims about global warming. IPCC is a hoax. Kyoto is flawed.

                                        Funding: Petition was funded by private sources."
                                        A lot of the people whose names appear on Oregon Petition have sued the organizations still perpetuating the hoax for associating their names with global warming denialists.
                                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[15236].message }}
                                        • Profile picture of the author ccna2000
                                          Banned
                                          [DELETED]
                                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[16810].message }}
                                        • Profile picture of the author Phnx
                                          Originally Posted by Melkor View Post

                                          Dude, do you even read the links you post? Everything in that page verifies what I've been saying.

                                          And did you read what TimPhelan posted up above?


                                          A lot of the people whose names appear on Oregon Petition have sued the organizations still perpetuating the hoax for associating their names with global warming denialists.
                                          Did you get your copy of the latest IPCC report? Had a copy somewhere, I'll see if I can find it for you.

                                          You know what is really surprising? All those "thousands of scientists" they claim they have seem to have gone missing when it came time to putting their names to it. There are only around 50+ names on it. Don't forget many of those that originally started the ball rolling on this have since "recanted" when they checked out the new evidence coming out. (Also don't forget science does not, and cannot work by "consensus".)

                                          Advancements in knowledge are made precisely by the scientists who break with "consensus".

                                          I'll see if I can dig it out though it should be around on the net somewhere - it was in pdf format.
                                          Signature
                                          In all matters of opinion, our adversaries are insane. ~ Oscar Wilde (1854 - 1900)

                                          Easy Weight Loss
                                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[16880].message }}
                                          • Profile picture of the author Melkor
                                            Originally Posted by Phnx View Post

                                            Did you get your copy of the latest IPCC report? Had a copy somewhere, I'll see if I can find it for you.

                                            You know what is really surprising? All those "thousands of scientists" they claim they have seem to have gone missing when it came time to putting their names to it. There are only around 50+ names on it. Don't forget many of those that originally started the ball rolling on this have since "recanted" when they checked out the new evidence coming out. (Also don't forget science does not, and cannot work by "consensus".)

                                            Advancements in knowledge are made precisely by the scientists who break with "consensus".

                                            I'll see if I can dig it out though it should be around on the net somewhere - it was in pdf format.
                                            Well, first off- I'm European, so what you're referring to as 'leftist', I think of as 'moderately conservative', to 'somewhat reactionary'.

                                            You know, back in the day there was real Republicans who established the wildlife preserves, the Clean air act, and other environmental acts, the EPA was established by friggin' Richard Nixon for Ghod's sake. Since when is it conservative politics to waste as much as possible, to spend the treasury like a drunken sailor, to thrash the place because you aren't concerned about the long term? When did Republicans turn into rethuglicans?

                                            Man, I miss Republicans.

                                            You know, real republicans, the ones who could read and debate the actual issues, and who at least knew enough to know that they didn't know enough about the issue to talk about it.

                                            Did you even bother to read my first reply in this thread? Al Gore made a very nice power point presentation, but he has as much to do with the science side of things as a spokesmodel for L'Oreal has input on the formulation of their product (glycerine soap and some perfume, plus very smart marketing, mostly. And some silicone oil to prevent split ends if we're talking shampoo. Just in case you wondered.)

                                            If you want factual criticism of the movie you need look no further than this from Realclimate.org where actual credentialled scientists in the field criticises some dubious conclusions and factual errors Gore made in the movie.

                                            But seriously - the disingenousness of trying to frame this as a debate over the credibility of the spokesmodel as opposed to the IPCC is extremely revealing in as much as it shows that you either know you can't debate on the facts since the facts prove your standpoint wrong, or you attack what you perceive as the messenger because you lack the educational background to understand the science and therefore are forced to view everything in a politcal spin framework, where facts are subject to debate and change according to your perspective.
                                            The Michael Crichton framework, if you will.Who doesn't understand the actual science, but pretends that he does.

                                            Which is of course the hallmark of the later generation of Rethuglicans who made even Juan Cole split from the Red State core.

                                            But all right - since you obviously don't understand how the scientific process works - the IPCC is not a petition, and it's only signed by the people who is actually on the committee. Unlike the Oregon Hoax which gives this thread its title, the IPCC report only presents an overview of the field as it stands right now, it's not intended to be the final answer to everything.

                                            But you know, maybe noted leftist rag The Economist is more your speed - read some background material and get back to me.
                                            Reality is that which doesn't go away when you stop believeing in it
                                            -Philip K. Dick
                                            Climate change and anthropogenic forcing of the system by dumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere is not going away just because you refuse to believe in it.
                                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[18160].message }}
                                            • Profile picture of the author greymatrixx
                                              Orginaly posted by Indiana on another thread.

                                              ***************
                                              4...CO2 as the prime cause of global warming has not yet been validated its still a theory.


                                              In a 1996 report by the UN on global warming, two statements were deleted from the final draft. Here they are:

                                              1) None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases.

                                              2) No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to man made causes. To the present day there is still no scientific proof that man-made CO2 causes significant global warming.

                                              See "Carbon dioxide rebellion" edition 6 of RHS1 Earthwatch...


                                              Though out 2007/8 Hundreds of media reports from all over the planet have been read and considered,here at RHS1, dozens of scientific papers researched, in the past few days media reports examined still repeat and quote as fact information that has been shown, demonstrated, definitively to be wrong, untrue, incorrect.

                                              Whatever you believe about global warming/climate change, you do well to take heed here, you cannot have full confidence in what you read in the mass written media about global warming/climate change.

                                              Now I am not going to waste my time here demonstrating errors, the real problem is that many of these errors are used as fact as proof of opinion and projections of consequences. Such forward thinking based on error may be termed "logical fantasies".

                                              ***************

                                              Originally posted by Melkor on another thread

                                              ************
                                              "1996 was a long time ago, dude. Read less conspiracy theory and more theoretical physics, and you'll have an easier time of it seeing through the obfuscation spread by certain energy interests."

                                              ************

                                              Groan!!!!!!!...Melkor I read your trite, toy town, scientific explanation of global atmospheric mechanics on this thread...What you said is almost correct for CO2 in a jar, the planet is NOT a jar...It is also true for hydogen if you stuff enough in your jar...

                                              Now unless you are privy to some information that has so far eluded the body of science stop claiming that CO2 is the prime mover of global climate change because you do not know, I know you do not know, I refer you to the warning posted above as you are living proof that such a warning is necessary...

                                              Pull yourself together man you are suffering from carbon madness a celebral condition which preys upon the fears of decent concerned people...Once stricken an intelligent person starts running around like an alarmist chicken with no head spouting pre-programmed mis-information with such confidence and authority that to the average observer it is not obvious that person observed has gone totally mad.

                                              QED...Your words Melkor

                                              "there is no doubt that the 'hockey stick' graph that Al Gore borrowed for his movie is real,"

                                              "NO DOUBT"!... you must the only person in the world who is unaware that the graph was wrong the data it was complied from was misinterpreted much to the embarrassment of NASA...Now if you still have "No doubt" go and have a word with Jim (cattle truck) Hansen over at NASA tell him I sent you because he really wants it to right.
                                              Never mind the algorithms... "Rubbish in rubbish out".


                                              "1996 was a long time ago"

                                              Shrewd observation Melkor yet as you appear to be still there it shouldn't cause any problem...

                                              The correct response to my above posted info is (why were the two statements deleted from the final draft?)...
                                              Now understand this is pure conjecture on my part; I believe the IPCC still had some real scientists among its ranks at this era who were about to piss on the campfire
                                              however someone spotted them.

                                              As for "Big Oil"... No one is paying me eh!...Now if anyone from"Big Oil" is reading this I am available and not expensive...

                                              Gore works for Rothschild...Atomic power stations...Read some conspiracy theory...

                                              "read theoretical physics" NO you read some thorectical physics....I've read enough....Start with Earthwatch 02

                                              Earthwatch Series | Self Reliance Survival Systems

                                              Then read everything to 09....Because I am the editor...So you have a lot of ammunition there with which you can prove that the conclusions arrived at from the investigation are incorrect....Bonne chance..."Dude"...Indiana
                                              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[18532].message }}
                                              • Profile picture of the author Melkor
                                                Hmm, you do appear to have a reasonable overview of the field so far; let me just point out to you that the description of the small science experiement was just about how one establishes exactly which wavelentgths are absorbed by CO2 and which ones are let through, thus predicting which temperature "window"* the CO2 forcing will operate within, not one to characterise the system behaviour of the entire atmosphere.

                                                For that, you do indeed need more than a glass jar. A planet, for example.

                                                Look, you're with me on climate change being an actual event, right? You follow me on how CO2 contibutes to the hothouse effect by being an extra forcing on the system? The average temperature doesn't need to rise much for it to be a Very Bad Thing for humanity, even if the planet will survive just fine.

                                                The sun is the prime mover of climate change as the historical variance graph shows; but the extra forcing of anthropogenic CO2 contributes a significant fraction of the current warming trend and explains most of the extra increase in temperature and the steepness of the slope's change compared to previous cycles.

                                                (One of the interesting hypothesises that is under investigation by CICERO and that I'm looking forward to seeing more results from is trying to correlate the data from the SOHO solar observer satelite, various other observation stations, and cosmic ray detection stations from various astophysics projects including several radio astronomy projects to see if it's possible to detect an influence of cosmic rays from extrasolar sources on climate, temperature variance and cloud formation. The math will be horrenduous of course, but it should be possible to sort out what influence, positive or negative - incoming extrasolar radiation has on the climate and whether or not historical data from these observations changes anything in the math.)

                                                Howeever, I note that quite a few of your sources, like Dr. Tim Ball and his Natural Resources Stewardship Project are basically energy industry lobbyists - you might want to run your sources through Sourcewatch to clean your list of energy industry lobbyists of any kind and see who you're left with?

                                                And looking back at the 1996 event - those sentences were removed because they were inaccurate. It was already clear in 1996 that anthropogenic CO2 was a distorting force on the system, and thus the attempt by the energy industry lobbyists to declare on the front page that there was no problem and no reason to get all up into the oil industry's business was naturally removed.

                                                *If these guys can commercialize the technology into a reliable application, you can see some fun with changing the way the glass windows in your house reflect or absorb heat in summer and winter.
                                                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[18787].message }}
                                              • Profile picture of the author HeySal
                                                Just a few points to throw out:

                                                The number one greenhouse gas on earth is.....WATER...evaporated water. Have you ever been in a very hot place that is also very humid? That is how WATER effects climate.

                                                The South Pole is melting -- and was melting during record cold last winter. It is believed that the pole is now sitting on an active mantle plume.....and if that is correct, not only is the pole going to melt, there might be volcanic action there before too long.

                                                What is going on at the N Pole? The magnetic N. Pole is shifting for one thing - and very rapidly (moving to Siberia). There also rapid true polar wander going on (that is geographical pole shifting). No need to worry about a geographical pole reversal at this time but land shifting, even slight is going to mess things up a bit at the pole. We had more ice there last winter than in the last 15 years, so something else is going on besides warming........which just might be.......
                                                Mantle instability.

                                                The mantle is going through some changes right now. Scientists are beginning to wonder if the plume under Yellowstone has been cut off from the mantle heat source. That doesn't mean it's not still dangerous - but it isn't as hot as would be expected at this stage of that game. Whether it cools enough to become too solid to spew is yet to be seen, but if it has, in fact been cut off from the heat source, the possibilities of a major blow in that area lessen as the area cools. Now that is a good thing.

                                                The mantle is very possibly changing it's rotational pattern right now...and that could mean some new warm areas, and some new cooler areas. If the rotation is changing directions, I will have scads new material for my newsletters very soon.

                                                There is some major subterranian volcanic activity going on at this time and that will warm oceans and have many effects on marine life, water currents etc -- and has nothing to do with CO2. It has to do with the fact that volcanic lava is some pretty hot crap. Okay?

                                                Now if you are worried about your planet instead of advocating socking our money into a freaking C02 tax -- go to the ocean beaches closest to you and clean up any trash you find there. That action alone will do more for the environment than if you drain your whole wallet for years into the C02 tax.
                                                Signature

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

                                                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[77844].message }}
                                              • Profile picture of the author talewins
                                                The real cause of what little global warming we do have is our own wealth. Every time we turn on an air conditioner we are throwing hot air out. Refrigerators, freezers, walkins air conditioners -- Every time we cool one cubic foot by one degree we are warming 1.2 cubic feet by 1 degree. The more people that can afford these conveniences the more heat is thrown outside. People using old fireplaces can be letting 90% of their heat go up the chimney.
                                                When winter comes we burn fuel and electricity to stay warm and this too heats up the environment.
                                                I've been in homes with 17 rooms that had central heat and air running constantly for a family of three. It sure feels good and cold in homes like this, down to 65 in summer and up to 80 in the winter.
                                                Signature

                                                When you strive for greatness you will find that having a professional collaborator at your side can turn all the fuzzy preaching into writing that is smooth as silk and right as rain. http://www.talewins.com/LinStone.htm

                                                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[80581].message }}
                                            • Profile picture of the author Phnx
                                              Well, first off- I'm European, so what you're referring to as 'leftist', I think of as 'moderately conservative', to 'somewhat reactionary'.
                                              Ooh you said that with such a sneer in your tone. "I am ze European and yerh are just a redneck republican ignoramous". I can feel your lip curling.Tsk tsk. Took me a minute to figure why you were boring me with all the "republican" garbage. You think I'm an American Right winger! Hear that Sarge? *chortles*

                                              Swivel your eyes to the left...what does it say there mmmm? Contrary to popular belief, England is not yet a State of the US of A. Made a bit of a tit of yourself there, matey.

                                              But seriously - the disingenousness of trying to frame this as a debate over the credibility of the spokesmodel as opposed to the IPCC is extremely revealing in as much as it shows that you either know you can't debate on the facts since the facts prove your standpoint wrong, or you attack what you perceive as the messenger because you lack the educational background to understand the science and therefore are forced to view everything in a politcal spin framework, where facts are subject to debate and change according to your perspective
                                              LOL. You said to bigjock:"Or are you merely repeating a talking point from Big Oil's publicist now?". Ad hominem, attacking the messenger. *wags finger*. I would not have responded to your post but for that. I then show you that actually, Big Al's motives are also deeply suspect (not merely poor research from a standup guy with good intentions) so you guys are in no position to keep casting aspersions. I have to be honest, I kinda knew how you'd react. Ad hominems at me this time, getting angry and questioning my education and political persuasion. Miss the irony? I'll refrain from calling you a hypocrite.

                                              I emphasized the "Left" credentials of the articles purely so you couldn't trot out the "Big Oil" or "right wing corporate" dismissal. There are some excellent, thought provoking articles out there from the "Right" (not as many as from the Left, but they are there) however I have enough experience at this to know they'll be dismissed out of hand. Some dude has just got to have had a cup of coffee with someone who once worked for Enron and the baby is thrown out with the bath water.

                                              But even if Gore and the IPCC are scamming (they shared the Nobel for a reason, you cannot separate the two) what about "the science"? After all, that's supposedly what it's all about.

                                              The Michael Crichton framework, if you will.Who doesn't understand the actual science, but pretends that he does.
                                              First off you miss the point entirely. Michael Critchon is perfectly entitled to comment on this matter as are the scientists of The Oregon Petition. You see, it doesn't matter whether he understands the science in question, all he needs to understand is The Scientific Method. He knows and understands that, as he has experience of it. If the scientific method is not adhered to (which has been demonstrated time and again), then you have BAD SCIENCE. If you have bad science, ya got NOTHING. Certainly not enough to say the debate is over and try to silence critics. But of course Joe Public doesn't "get that" and is ripe for political manipulation. It is Tabloid Science.

                                              Ain't just the nuke industry they've got back on track thanks to AGW hysteria, (and the Head of the IPCC Rajendra Pachauri has himself sat on the board of an Oil Company. - not found which one yet, but I will - he's been busy trying to get the Indian Government to sign nuclear plant contracts), they are in control of the biofuels juggernaut "the biggest colonial land grab ever". The poverty, deaths, the environmental destruction.....they couldn't have done it without you guys. Way to go!

                                              The Clean Energy Scam - TIME

                                              Most scientists are idiots. They will never invent or discover anything, they merely play around with the discoveries of others. When a new theory comes along they will fight tooth and nail to prevent it's acceptance, probably because it makes them face their own ignorance. Eventually they are forced to change their minds - or die off and let the younger generation through - but they act as if they never doubted in the first place. Scientists are no different from Joe Public in that they can be emotionally manipulated. They also work on assumptions just like the rest of us.

                                              Doctors hand out poison pills because their "authorities" like the FDA, BMA or whatever, instruct them to. They assume - usually erroneously - that all those authorities are trustworthy and "the scientific method" has been adhered to. Other scientific fields are no different.

                                              "One could not be a successful scientist without realizing that, in contrast to the popular conception supported by newspapers and mothers of scientists, a goodly number of scientists are not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid." ~ James Watson, Nobel Winner and co-discoverer of DNA

                                              An eminent Israeli scientist in atmopspheric physics taught his students that AGW was the cause of the climate problems for years. One day he actually looked at the research and was all "oops". He no longer teaches it, but it is purely because he has clout that he hasn't lost his tenure. You want grants to do your research, you better be pushing the AGW line.

                                              But all right - since you obviously don't understand how the scientific process works - the IPCC is not a petition, and it's only signed by the people who is actually on the committee. Unlike the Oregon Hoax which gives this thread its title, the IPCC report only presents an overview of the field as it stands right now, it's not intended to be the final answer to everything.
                                              The IPCC has nothing to do with the scientific 'process' and of course it's not a petition. But the 'scientists' must put their names to the conclusions the Panel comes up with. Only 50+ did this time around. You will always here from the same handful of people - just as James Hansen is the 'spokeman' for Nasa. Before you swallow more Kool Aid, would you like to hear from REAL climate scientists? Some who were on the ORIGINAL panel of scientists who first sounded the alarm. Some who actually provided the evidence for the first IPCC report. Wanna know why they recanted?

                                              "Claude Allegre, one of France's leading socialists and among her most celebrated scientists, was among the first to sound the alarm about the dangers of global warming.......

                                              In the 1980s and early 1990s, when concern about global warming was in its infancy, little was known about the mechanics of how it could occur, or the consequences that could befall us. Since then, governments throughout the western world and bodies such as the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have commissioned billions of dollars worth of research by thousands of scientists. With a wealth of data now in, Dr. Allegre has recanted his views. To his surprise, the many climate models and studies failed dismally in establishing a man-made cause of catastrophic global warming. Meanwhile, increasing evidence indicates that most of the warming comes of natural phenomena. Dr. Allegre now sees global warming as over-hyped and an environmental concern of second rank......

                                              Dr. Allegre's skepticism is noteworthy in several respects. For one, he is an exalted member of France's political establishment, a friend of former Socialist president Lionel Jospin, and, from 1997 to 2000, his minister of education, research and technology, charged with improving the quality of government research through closer co-operation with France's educational institutions. For another, Dr. Allegre has the highest environmental credentials. The author of early environmental books, he fought successful battles to protect the ozone layer from CFCs and public health from lead pollution. His break with scientific dogma over global warming came at a personal cost: Colleagues in both the governmental and environmental spheres were aghast that he could publicly question the science behind climate change.

                                              But Dr. Allegre had allegiances to more than his socialist and environmental colleagues. He is, above all, a scientist of the first order, the architect of isotope geodynamics, which showed that the atmosphere was primarily formed early in the history of the Earth, and the geochemical modeller of the early solar system. Because of his path-breaking cosmochemical research, NASA asked Dr. Allegre to participate in the Apollo lunar program, where he helped determine the age of the Moon. Matching his scientific accomplishments in the cosmos are his accomplishments at home: Dr. Allegre is perhaps best known for his research on the structural and geochemical evolution of the Earth's crust and the creation of its mountains, explaining both the title of his article in l' Express and his revulsion at the nihilistic nature of the climate research debate.

                                              Full article
                                              Allegre's second thoughts

                                              "You're a respected scientist, one of the best in your field. So respected, in fact, that when the United Nations decided to study the relationship between hurricanes and global warming for the largest scientific endeavour in its history -- its International Panel on Climate Change -- it called upon you and your expertise.

                                              You are Christopher Landsea of the Atlantic Oceanographic & Meteorological Laboratory. You were a contributing author for the UN's second International Panel on Climate Change in 1995, writing the sections on observed changes in tropical cyclones around the world. Then the IPCC called on you as a contributing author once more, for its "Third Assessment Report" in 2001. And you were invited to participate yet again, when the IPCC called on you to be an author in the "Fourth Assessment Report." This report would specifically focus on Atlantic hurricanes, your specialty, and be published by the IPCC in 2007.

                                              Then something went horribly wrong. Within days of this last invitation, in October, 2004, you discovered that the IPCC's Kevin Trenberth -- the very person who had invited you -- was participating in a press conference. The title of the press conference perplexed you: "Experts to warn global warming likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense hurricane activity." This was some kind of mistake, you were certain. You had not done any work that substantiated this claim. Nobody had.

                                              As perplexing, none of the participants in that press conference were known for their hurricane expertise. In fact, to your knowledge, none had performed any research at all on hurricane variability, the subject of the press conference. Neither were they reporting on any new work in the field. All previous and current research in the area of hurricane variability, you knew, showed no reliable upward trend in the frequency or intensity of hurricanes. Not in the Atlantic basin. Not in any other basin.

                                              To add to the utter incomprehensibility of the press conference, the IPCC itself, in both 1995 and 2001, had found no global warming signal in the hurricane record. And until your new work would come out, in 2007, the IPCC would not have a new analysis on which to base a change of findings.

                                              To stop the press conference, or at least stop any misunderstandings that might come out of it, you contacted Dr. Trenberth prior to the media event. You prepared a synopsis for him that brought him up to date on the state of knowledge about hurricane formation. To your amazement, he simply dismissed your concerns. The press conference proceeded........"

                                              The hurricane expert who stood up to UN junk science

                                              The full "Deniers" series:
                                              Climate change: The Deniers

                                              There is way more than these of course, if you can be bothered to look for them them. Our own David Bellamy, a prominent botanist is also now a 'denier' once he'd actually checked all the research (again, like most he hadn't personally looked at it originally, he'd just assumed it was scientifically legit). He was forced to resign as head of an environmental group he'd led for 20+ years. Oh he's still doing environmental work, but it's much harder now he hasn't got the financial resources he had previously backing him.

                                              ....btw I'm not at all surprised some of the Oregan Petitioners got scared and tried to back out. They don't wanna watch their careers going down the toilet.

                                              Most of us "deniers" have been on "your side" of the fence, and believed the spin. At first.

                                              Climate change and anthropogenic forcing of the system by dumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere is not going away just because you refuse to believe in it.
                                              And your linking of the two doesn't make it so, no matter how much you wish to believe it.

                                              BTW Wikepedia? Don't make me laugh, that has never been a safe source for "authority" infomation. See how easily vested interests like BigPharma change thing. Thanks to WikiScanner they are now being caught at it.
                                              BrandweekNRX: Abbott caught altering entries to Wikipedia

                                              CIA and Major Corporations Altering Articles on Wikipedia - The Largest Minority

                                              Lawrence Soloman tried to balance up some articles after speaking to the climate 'recanters'. Wiki was having none of it. Richard Vigilante Books

                                              I realise none of this will make a blind bit of difference to you - just as you can shove as much evidence at people that sustainability is another manipulative lie, and depopulation is yet another means to globalist control (nobody ever suggests sharing resources that are allegedly scarce or returning to a more pastoral agricultural model) but whatever.

                                              The gig will be up soon enough if the sunspots remain absent. Be hard to keep claiming warming when the temperatures plunge. Still, they have other tricks up their sleeve - water scarcity and food shortages will be their next ones. Genetically modified seeds will be offered to "save us" and we'll be begging for it. Sheesh.
                                              Signature
                                              In all matters of opinion, our adversaries are insane. ~ Oscar Wilde (1854 - 1900)

                                              Easy Weight Loss
                                              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[19107].message }}
                                              • Profile picture of the author Melkor
                                                Oh, certainly - biofuels is a Very Bad Idea, right up there with NINJA mortgages and deregulation of financial markets that let certain banks and lending institutions print imaginary money in a manner reminischent of the "trusts" and "trusts of trusts" of 1920-29. We'd need about 8 Earths to have enough arable land to grow enough fuel to replace just current energy needs, never mind whats' going to be neccesary when China and India gets any kind of standard of living. So if biofuels are the real alternative that the energy companies are going to be using, there's going to be mass starvation before they're done. I suspect it's merely another potential future vehicle for control though - when you wind up spending most of your disposable income on food and the rest to pay interest on your credit cards you can't afford to rock the boat by ojecting too loudly when another one of your human rights gets quietly flushed down the crapper; what if the Company notice and fire you?

                                                I saw that already, you 'orrible litte oik, I was just pointin' out yeronner's mistake in callin' me a sep. And it's also why I sent you to The Economist, that noted Labour bastion and market regulation proponent.

                                                I mistrust the globalists and the capital forces - a lot more than you do, apparently. The oil industry and the reality-distirtion field that emanates from the oil industry's money is one of the driving influences behind globalization, so when you're repeating their talking points verbatim you're naturally going to get lumped in with them in my personal reailty filter. If you want to appear independent of the policy goals of energy companies in general you'd do well to not cut and paste from their press releases and use their PR flaks as sources.

                                                Contrary to popular perception of how science works, it usually also does not progress by paradigm revolution, but by gradual refinement of existing theories up until the point where existing theories does not explain or even predict obervations; so the 'genius inventor' model is singularily unhelpful from any point of view. This is why we have theorists and experimentalists - theorists make elaborate guesses about how certain observations might be connected and attempt to predict what else might be true based on those connections. Experimentalists go out and blow stuff up(CERN) or otherwise attempt to construct experiments to test what the theorists have thoiught up.

                                                Theorists need to be brilliant and imaginative in many ways, experimentalists who test their ideas need to be plodding and methodical. It takes both kinds.

                                                And you are seriously using the freakin' right wing National Post as a source? Interesting article series though, from a real conservative in the true sense- one interested in conserving the best of what already exists, so yeah, thanks - I haven't read everything from Lawrence Solomon yet, but I fully intend to, he's a good writer.

                                                (Uh, dude? Don't know if you noticed that link in my .sig file, but there's a reason I've begun to learn how to grow my own food without the help of chemical fertilizers purchased from Yara and seeds from Monsanto, no matter how much them guys would like to make it a thoughtcrime to even think of doing without their 'blessings', they're as bad as my personal bugbear in the oil industry. The PLR content is just a starting point.)
                                                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[19278].message }}
                                                • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                                                  Contrary to popular belief, England is not yet a State of the US of A.
                                                  Ah yes it is, we where trying to sell you to Canada though before you found out :rolleyes: (Damn it I want my old smileys back)
                                                  Signature

                                                  Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                                                  Getting old ain't for sissy's
                                                  As you are I was, as I am you will be
                                                  You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                                                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[19305].message }}
                                                  • Profile picture of the author Phnx
                                                    Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                                                    Ah yes it is, we where trying to sell you to Canada though before you found out :rolleyes: (Damn it I want my old smileys back)
                                                    Canada's not so bad. They have Mounties! And they are very polite.
                                                    Signature
                                                    In all matters of opinion, our adversaries are insane. ~ Oscar Wilde (1854 - 1900)

                                                    Easy Weight Loss
                                                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[19475].message }}
                                                    • Profile picture of the author HeySal
                                                      So while everyone is debating on C02, may I remind you all that WATER - evaporated WATER is the number one greenhouse gas? Many areas that are used for examples of warming actually have mantle plumes sitting under them, LOL. Sure it's warming in some areas. Temperatures hot enough to melt metals will do that. And as far as rain - it's because we are in a La Nina cycle right now. It's going to rain during a La Nina. I have also heard people freaking out over no ice at the poles when we got more ice than in the last 15 years and had one hell of a cold winter...enough to destroy crops in many countries. Ice sheets collapsing...um..have you checked out the seismic activity in the north lately? Alaska is on a continual rumble at the time.

                                                      The truth is there are so many factors involved in climate that to narrow it down to just one is ludicruous. The sun is inactive right now and it's colder overall than it has been in years - the cooling and warming cycles are going to continue. Picking out C02 and sweating about it is like worrying about a speck of dust in a sand storm.
                                                      Signature

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

                                                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[19567].message }}
                                                      • Profile picture of the author Tiger
                                                        Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

                                                        The sun is inactive right now and it's colder overall than it has been in years
                                                        Good Post Sal,

                                                        I wanted to put the

                                                        LINK

                                                        here again so no one would
                                                        miss it. We as a world are getting cooler, not warmer.


                                                        /Steve
                                                        Signature
                                                        We Get What We Settle For
                                                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[19588].message }}
                                                • Profile picture of the author Phnx
                                                  Originally Posted by Melkor View Post


                                                  I mistrust the globalists and the capital forces - a lot more than you do, apparently.
                                                  I would seriously doubt it. You wanna read a few more of my posts on here.

                                                  The oil industry and the reality-distirtion field that emanates from the oil industry's money is one of the driving influences behind globalization, so when you're repeating their talking points verbatim you're naturally going to get lumped in with them in my personal reailty filter. If you want to appear independent of the policy goals of energy companies in general you'd do well to not cut and paste from their press releases and use their PR flaks as sources.
                                                  I'd say you need to clean out your 'reality filter' a little bit. I don't cut and paste 'their' talking points. I actually type most of my interminably long posts myself. They get hideously long when I am forced to paste comments to back a premise. I used to just leave links until I realised that people don't often click them.

                                                  The oil companies are nothing. Pfft. Lackeys in a larger scheme. To believe they are the ones calling the shots is to believe Dubya is controlling American foreign policy. Or anything else for that matter. Don't think so.

                                                  You may be interested in this article which has Russians claiming oil and gas are not fossil fuels and that's the reason why they have suddenly become one of the worlds top producers. War and "Peak Oil"

                                                  That's a well regarded Canadian site by the way, with some excellent articles. Leans to the Left but it's more interested in the globalists games than narrow partisan politics. Peak Oil is just another scam. Drives the price up if people think there's scarcity. If there is war (probable if they follow their agenda to a tee) then it could hit $500 a barrel. They must be drooling at the thought. If it starts dropping to $50 a barrel head for the hills as they'll be flooding the market with cheap oil to crash the world economies.

                                                  And you are seriously using the freakin' right wing National Post as a source? Interesting article series though, from a real conservative in the true sense- one interested in conserving the best of what already exists, so yeah, thanks - I haven't read everything from Lawrence Solomon yet, but I fully intend to, he's a good writer.
                                                  There it is. *sighs* See how the mind jumps to irrelevances to avoid thinking about points outside of the 'comfort zone'.

                                                  National Post? The National Post are irrelevant. They were merely running the articles in full - the only other place would have been to read them in the published book. At least you did read them, most go "ooh National Post obviously a dodgy source so I won't bother reading". Now do you see the rationale for emphasizing that the Gore articles came from a heavyweight hardcore Left source? The hope is that people will then read it, whereas they wouldn't if they thought it was on a "rightwing" blog.

                                                  Works the other way too though, many rightwingers will refuse to read something if it's on a left leaning site "oh they're all lefties can't trust anything they say". It's very tiresome because what is going on at the moment goes way beyond politics. Many on the 'Left' are wolves in sheeps clothing: Ted Turner, George Soros et al. Even Chomsky himself is suspect. He's been pimping the One World Government for a long time, but it wasn't until his complete denial of any possibility that 9/11 was an inside job that some respected intellectuals started to see through him. He started backtracking then.

                                                  Many environmental movements like the WWF were set up by Nazi - sometimes literally former members of the Waffen SS - or Nazi sympathisers like Prince Phillip - but Malthusian eugenicists to a man. And of course Globalists. The whole 'environmental catastrophes' thing had been planned for long before they actually became an issue. They even have the Wildlands Project (headed by globalist Mikhail Gorbachev) ready to carve up America. Nobody asks what the hell the UN is doing planning to carve up the US in the first place.

                                                  It is their globalist system which is causing the bulk of the destruction, but rather than place the blame where it belongs we have been carefully conditioned over the last 30+ years to blame ourselves. There are too many of us, most of us have to go, the earth can't sustain us we are poisoning the planet (no, the system is). No less a towering figure than R. Buckminster Fuller proved beyond doubt the Malthusian model of sustainability was a fallacy. The National Academy Of Sciences agreed with his math. Yet it keeps being ignored. Nobody has any intention of changing the system, they are gonna change us.

                                                  Gore, Big Oil, The Multinationals, Environmental Movement are all working to the same Agenda. Of course the foot soldiers doing their dirty work have no idea - just like doctors haven't a clue they are killing hundreds of thousands of their patients every year via "iatragenic" illness. Means 'doctor induced' and as most is from drug side effects you'd think they'd get a clue.

                                                  It isn't even "capitalism" causing it, it's an Agenda to suck up the wealth of the world for the "few" (surely won't be us) and force us back into a feudal system. They masquerade as capitalists but they are surely not.

                                                  They are gonna squeeze us till the pips hurt and we'll help them because our attention is always 'misdirected' to place the blame elsewhere.

                                                  Carbon Credits is the slickest they've come up with. Gore and his cronies are making millions as they are buying them from the company they set up. Buying them from themselves. There is an excellently researched article on this, but it's from a journalist on the 'right' so I doubt you'll be interested.

                                                  (Uh, dude? Don't know if you noticed that link in my .sig file, but there's a reason I've begun to learn how to grow my own food without the help of chemical fertilizers purchased from Yara and seeds from Monsanto, no matter how much them guys would like to make it a thoughtcrime to even think of doing without their 'blessings', they're as bad as my personal bugbear in the oil industry. The PLR content is just a starting point.)
                                                  You need to start buying seeds up as fast as you can because Monsanto are buying up the worlds seed suppliers. And the water rights.

                                                  I no longer share the optimism of some on here. I've seen the 'Belly Of The Beast' recently and there is an evil so monstrous within our society that there is little hope of removing it. You could have Mother Theresa in the White House and it wouldn't make a lick of difference. And no, the epicentre of this isn't actually in the US though it has strong roots there.

                                                  I badly want to post that stuff, but I don't want to remove hope ya know? I don't sleep easy anymore. I just have to work out how to deal with it and still function.

                                                  "What you have to understand, John, is that sometimes there are forces and events too big, too powerful, with so much at stake for other people or institutions, that you cannot do anything about them, no matter how evil or wrong they are and no matter how dedicated or sincere you are or how much evidence you have. This is simply one of the hard facts of life you have to face."
                                                  - Former CIA director and Cercle member William Colby giving advice to his friend Senator John DeCamp,

                                                  Before the other thread went bellyup I posted a vid on how 'misdirection' is used to distort our perceptions, but we ended up on here. Here it is again. Don't be waiting for a 'gotcha' or you'll miss the lesson. Follow the instructions exactly and you should 'get it'. Now apply that understanding to everything 'authority' tells you, even those you think are on your (or the planets) side. Including AGW.

                                                  Signature
                                                  In all matters of opinion, our adversaries are insane. ~ Oscar Wilde (1854 - 1900)

                                                  Easy Weight Loss
                                                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[19471].message }}
                                    • Profile picture of the author Phnx
                                      Originally Posted by Melkor View Post

                                      Or are you merely repeating a talking point from Big Oil's publicist now?
                                      Oooh no, you don't wanna be throwing out the "Big Oil" schtick to rubbish opponents. Seriously you don't. 'Cos I just luurve bringing up some juicy links I dug up about the Saintly Mr Gore. These did not come from the "Right", nooo, what's really delicious about these is that they came from The Left. The intellectual "hard" Left at that - y'know Noam Chomsky's crowd. The very people who should be supporting him against the nasty Corporatists are adamant he is also "one of them" and taking most of the world for a ride. Not a surprise to those of us who follow the chicanery of the Globalists.

                                      From the real Left:

                                      "Of course Al Gore has been a shil for nuclear power ever since he came of age as a political harlot for the Oakridge nuclear laboratory in his home state of Tennessee. The practical beneficiary of the baseless hysteria over "anthropogenic global warming" is the nuclear power industry. This very fall, as Peter Montague describes at length in our current CounterPunch newsletter, this industry is reaping the fruits of Al Gore's campaigning. Congress has finally knocked aside the regulatory licensing processes that have somewhat protected the public across recent decades. The starting gun has sounded, and just about the moment Gore and his co-conspirators at the IPCC collect their prizes, the bulldozers will be breaking ground for the new nuclear plants soon to spring like Amanita phalloides--just as deadly--across the American landscape."

                                      Counterpunch (a very lefty mag)

                                      Alexander Cockburn: Al Gore's Peace Prize (scroll, centre article)

                                      Carbon Credits was a stroke of genius, I must admit. Sumptuary Law in a modern setting. Puts us peons back in our box and returns us to the feudal system. Hope the Elite reward him well.

                                      Did you know that Al Gore is directly responsible for the biggest environmental "gift" to Big Oil in US History?

                                      Counterpunch again:

                                      "Oil companies during the 20th Century, reports the Center for Public Integrity, "have tried unsuccessfully to obtain control of two oil fields owned and operated by the federal government: the Teapot Dome field in Casper, Wyoming, and the Elk Hillsfield in Bakersfield, California."

                                      When Clinton and Gore took office in 1992, that was about to change. Perhaps only outdone by George W. Bush's connections to Big Oil, Al Gore pressed President Clinton to approve handing over these public lands to the oil companies. The land, managed by the Navy, had held emergency oil reserves since 1912.

                                      It took five years of lobbying on behalf of Big Oil, but Gore and Occidental were victories. In the fall of 1997 the Energy Department sold 47,000 acres of the Elk Hill reserve to Occidental. Continues The Center for Public Integrity:
                                      "It was the largest privatization of federal property in U.S. history, one that tripled Occidental's U.S. oil reserves overnight. Although the Energy Department was required to assess the likely environmental consequences of the proposed sale, it didn't. Instead it hired a private company, ICF Kaiser International, Incorporated, to complete the assessment. The general chairman of Gore's presidential campaign, Tony Coelho, sat on the board of directors.

                                      "The very same day the Elk Hills sale was announced, Gore delivered a speech to the White House Conference on Climate Change on the "terrifying prospect" of global warming, a problem he blamed on the unchecked use of fossil fuels such as oil."
                                      Much much more... Joshua Frank: Nobel Gore? (scroll for centre article)

                                      From the Leftwing The Nation: (4 pages of muck) Gore's Oil Money

                                      As my old Grandpa used to say, they all pee in the same pot.

                                      Everywhere ya look there be lies and damn lies.
                                      Signature
                                      In all matters of opinion, our adversaries are insane. ~ Oscar Wilde (1854 - 1900)

                                      Easy Weight Loss
                                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[16870].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author queenb
    I Love You greymatrix for posting this. We need to get the word out!!! People open your ears!!! THEIR IS NO GLOBAL WARMING!!!

    Queenb

    http://www/thetruequeenb.com
    Signature

    Affiliate Link in Signature Removed by Moderator. Please read the forum rules on Signatures.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[83071].message }}

Trending Topics