45 replies to this topic

[biggee]

Not by Fire but by Ice THE NEXT ICE AGE - NOW!

Kyoto is pointless, say 60 leading scientists

Underwater volcanic activity in the Arctic Ocean far stronger than anyone imagined-It's not global warming, it's ocean warming.

Russian astronomer predicts mini ice age six to seven years

Failing ocean current raises fears of mini ice age

Antarctic snow pack increasing 5 feet per year - 18 Jul 05 –
More than 90 percent of the world's glaciers are growing thicker.

------------------
For more information on these very real facts go to--->
----> www.iceagenow.com

It’s a natural cycle! … it’s a cycle … it’s a cycle … it’s a cycle

[Lazarus Long]

Of course it's a cycle biggee and one that we are accelerating through human impact. Everyone that really studies the matter is well aware of the possibility that global warming can trigger ice ages it is long established as one of the modeled outcomes.

We have already addressed this aspect various times in the Threats to Life forum there is nothing new here but would you like to try discussing the subject rather than ranting please?

[rahein]

It doesn't mater if it is a natural cycle ect ect that people keep spewing out. Just because something is natural does not mean we have to accept it.

The truth is that major population centers are at risk of rising sea levels. We live there and we need to do all we can to prevent them from being destroyed. Even if humans are only a marginal cause we need to be NOT A FACTOR at all. We are at least a moderate factor IMHO.

Also 60 scientists arguing against global warming is drops in the bucket compared to all the scientists for it.

Look up something called "Global Dimming" it has been masking the current effects of global warming and as we clean up particulate pollution global warming will become more apparent.

Also many scientists have predicted that the out come of global warming will be an ice age this is not new and it does not mean that global warming is not happening.

[Mind]

Also 60 scientists arguing against global warming is drops in the bucket compared to all the scientists for it.

Be careful....consensus is not a sign of good science. Be sure to check the evidence.

A majority of the world believes there is a god (consensus), even though the evidence is nearly zero.

[Mind]

Another disturbing sign from some "global warming theorists" is that they usually reject all alternate or conjugate theories "out of hand"....meaning they usually give zero thought to cosmic rays, sun activity, underwater volcanoes, etc...before abjectly dismissing it and making rude comments about the authors.

[rahein]

Be careful....consensus is not a sign of good science. Be sure to check the evidence.

A majority of the world believes there is a god (consensus), even though the evidence is nearly zero.

I was trying to point out that it is a fallacy of authority and consesus. I did not mean to make it sound like more scientist agree with me so I am right.

Another disturbing sign from some "global warming theorists" is that they usually reject all alternate or conjugate theories "out of hand"....meaning they usually give zero thought to cosmic rays, sun activity, underwater volcanoes, etc...before abjectly dismissing it and making rude comments about the authors.

I admit that we are not the only cause of global warming, obvously at least the sun plays a role. Many other things do to. The differance is that we are making changes on a human timescale and the other factors tend to work on MUCH longer time scales. This is why I stated that we need to do everything we can to combat climate change that will disrupt socity even if we are not the cause.

[Mind]

Understood. Thanks for clearing that up rahein.

[biggee]

Lazarus Long posted;

Of course it's a cycle biggee and one that we are accelerating through human impact.

The human impact is best seen as acceptance and inducement of deception that attacks capitalism and individual accountability. As mind correctly points out

Another disturbing sign from some "global warming theorists" is that they usually reject all alternate or conjugate theories "out of hand"....meaning they usually give zero thought to cosmic rays, sun activity, underwater volcanoes, etc...before abjectly dismissing it and making rude comments about the authors.

The only thing we are accelerating is the religion of environmentalism and the big money it profits the select while doing extreme harm in its dispensing all the rubbish.

Everyone that really studies the matter is well aware of the possibility that global warming can trigger ice ages it is long established as one of the modeled outcomes.

Oh I see, everyone here studies the matter.

We have already addressed this aspect various times in the Threats to Life forum there is nothing new here but would you like to try discussing the subject rather than ranting please?

Didn't mean to hit a nerve.

Man simply plays a minimal role in global warming and we certainly won't be effective in trying to undo what little we have done to contribute to the effects we experience. If environmentalism had any good let alone integrity to them they would be putting thier efforts into turning pulp mills in to hemp pulp mills. Thus saving a lot of forests, helping to sustain wildlife habitat, planting hemp, creating more commerce, emitting huge amonts of oxygen, with a great cooling effect on the environment, eating up all kinds of toxins in the atmosphere....... .. Oops, am I ranting again....

[rahein]

The only thing we are accelerating is the religion of environmentalism and the big money it profits the select while doing extreme harm in its dispensing all the  rubbish.

How does the religion of environmentalism help big business profit? Usually environmental tech is distributed so no one get all the power or profit.

If environmentalism had any good let alone integrity to them they would be putting thier efforts into turning pulp mills in to hemp pulp mills. Thus saving a lot of forests, helping to sustain wildlife habitat, planting hemp, creating more commerce, emitting huge amonts of oxygen, with a great cooling effect on the environment, eating up all kinds of toxins in the atmosphere....... ..  Oops, am I ranting again....

Haven't you head trees give off methane, reduce available water to an ecosystem, and don't give off that much O2. We are not going to get out of the problems we are facing by planting weed. Though I admit it will help us coop with the stress it causes. Society need to change to a more sustainable way of life. We are just putting band-aids on a severed limb right now.

[Mind]

How does the religion of environmentalism help big business profit? Usually environmental tech is distributed so no one get all the power or profit.

I think biggee is alluding to the fact the religion of environmentalism profits off of scare tactics....ie, the more they yell the earth is going to be destroyed, the more money and influence they garner.

[rahein]

Ahh.

Altruistic and profit motives can not always be separated. That separation is also not always important, it is the end result that matters. Even people who disagree with global warming should agree that saving the diversity of species in eco systems is important and this is the other big push a greenies. So what if someone profits; big auto, big pharma and others have been raping us for years, why not let the greenies do it for awhile and improve the world why they are at it.

[jackinbox]

The only thing we are accelerating is the religion of environmentalism and the big money it profits the select while doing extreme harm in its dispensing all the  rubbish.

Oh I see, everyone here studies the matter.

Biggee, can you explain me what we have to fear of environnementalists? In what are they a threat to humanity? Why should we be against them?

[biggee]

rahien posted;

How does the religion of environmentalism help big business profit? Usually environmental tech is distributed so no one get all the power or profit.

To further add to what mind is saying; Environmentalism is big business. If you follow the money correctly you see all the media asking for your (not for profit) donations to help thier cause. How much of the donations actually help to go to the actual cause? How much of the donations goes into media advertising/hype to suck people in? How much ends up in thier Swiss bank accounts? It is far more dishonest than what most people realise. "Thier" cause results in at least 1,000,000 malaria deaths to children a year in Africa because of thier lies spread about DDT. They are all about money, yet they attack capitalism.

Haven't you head trees give off methane, reduce available water to an ecosystem, and don't give off that much O2.

I am fully aware of those facts. It is the hemp I was pointing out that created the benefits. But don't tell that to the eco-freaks.

We are not going to get out of the problems we are facing by planting weed.

I didn't say it would cure all problems, manmade or otherwise. I was merely pointing out thier obvious contradictions. That is just the tip of the iceberg.

Society need to change to a more sustainable way of life. We are just putting band-aids on a severed limb right now.

The individual needs to change to a more sustainable, accountable and responsible educational orientation based on the highest levels and integrity in science. Not more acceptance to be decieved. We are just putting band aids on severed heads. People need to stop listening to garbage from whom ever they prefer to believe at any given time and demand more from themselves and not be so immature in the obvious stupity of "choose your truth" in our acceptable denial of our own responsability to accountability (hard work). First the populus has to "dummy up" and sustain that. We must explore things to truly recognise the crap as a "stealthy" attack on the individual and it's immense presence under the guise of friends of the environment.

We are not going to get out of the problems we are facing by planting weed.

You need to research these things and stop buying into the bunk. Consensus isn't reality. Your linking hemp to marajuana is decieving at best. Rubbarb isn't maligned because the leaves are deadly, if you see the connection.

Though I admit it will help us coop with the stress it causes.

No it won't. I proved it. All it does is give you a headache!

Altruistic and profit motives can not always be separated. That separation is also not always important, it is the end result that matters.

What is really important is to not allow any "acceptable" degree of deception. Why do you think things have so degraded! We have to stop going around "half baked"!

People resist having to be accountable and constantly put it off in favor of an easier way and as long as we accept less we will never recieve the human potential we are capable of. It may appear like hard work but if we don't strive to define life with the highest integrated honesty we fall victim to our denials and suffer all kinds of injustice as evidenced throughout history. It is clearly deliniated; Victor or Victim? It truly is the battle for your mind and if we don't see and act on it for what it is we will never solve any problems, real or imagined. Get used to it. We the cattle....

Even people who disagree with global warming should agree that saving the diversity of species in eco systems is important

You assume I am against saving the diversity of species in eco systems? As in the DDT example, if you had a choice to protect the environment or your little child what would you choose? Keep in mind the book that was written by Rachel Carson (Silent Spring) was recanted by the author but that doesn't stop the "greenies" from leveraging the lies upon the masses for thier diabolical end results, (your/our moolah).

and this is the other big push a greenies.

That is the big push for the 'believers/minions', not the the head cheese's.

So what if someone profits; big auto, big pharma and others have been raping us for years, why not let the greenies do it for awhile and improve the world why they are at it.

Just buy into it and continue the slaughter!? The easy way is the hard way! I have nothing against profit if it is based on honesty. I am all for capitalism. You really don't see how god aweful the lies we accept cause diminishment of all things living? They do far more harm than good. You got some work to do.

jackinthebox wrote;

Biggee, can you explain me what we have to fear of environnementalists? In what are they a threat to humanity? Why should we be against them?

We have only ourselves to fear when it gets right down to it. This is far more deceptive than what anyone prefers to imagine. It is not an easy path when the world and its people have decided we can be sacraficed to higher causes. It is easier to be a kommakozie or terrorist bomber and believe we will go to heaven and escape this hell created on earth. All this is linked if you care to explore.

[jackinbox]

(biggee)
To further add to what mind is saying; Environmentalism is big business. If you follow the money correctly you see all the media asking for your (not for profit) donations to help thier cause. How much of the donations actually help to go to the actual cause? How much of the donations goes into media advertising/hype to suck people in? How much ends up in thier Swiss bank accounts? It is far more dishonest than what most people realise. "Thier" cause results in at least 1,000,000 malaria deaths to children a year in Africa because of thier lies spread about DDT. They are all about money, yet they attack capitalism.

What's your source for those statements? Fox news? Even if it's true that there is corrupted environmentalist, does it means that the cause is pointless? There is a lot of well documented case of environmental disaster caused by negligence of profit-blinded companies ( http://en.wikipedia....ental_disasters ). Without reglementation, it's well known that companies do nothing to protect the environment. I see this as the main reason capitalism get attacked so much. I believe in the capitalism system but I don't believe in self regulation.

(biggee)
We have only ourselves to fear when it gets right down to it. This is far more deceptive than what anyone prefers to imagine. It is not an easy path when the world and its people have decided we can be sacraficed to higher causes. It is easier to be a kommakozie or terrorist bomber and believe we will go to heaven and escape this hell created on earth. All this is linked if you care to explore.

A lot of people are already "sacraficed" to substain our lifestyle. Slavery remains a reality. If I had to fight for something, you can be sure I would choose the poor's side. But I guess you would call me a terrorist for being on "the wrong side".

[biggee]

jackinbox wrote;

What's your source for those statements? Fox news?

No, South Park.... I made a lot of statements and have much to offer but can not or do not have time to list 30 years of research for your convinience. The time it took me to do that, you could have been well occupied and enlightened by your research where before you would just ignore anything that contradicted your beliefs.

Even if it's true that there is corrupted environmentalist, does it means that the cause is pointless?

It is not only true and a little open minded exploration will leave no doubt. Just because thier cause sounds good doesn't mean they are good. I do however see the need for our watchdog's but who is watching them?

There is a lot of well documented case of environmental disaster caused by negligence of profit-blinded companies ( http://en.wikipedia....ental_disasters ).

Of course there is. I am all for environmentalism. We need watchdog's to help keep potential offenders in line. However, when we paint all companies with the same brush because of a few rotten apples do we hate all apples, good or bad?

Without reglementation, it's well known that companies do nothing to protect the environment.

Agreed.

I see this as the main reason capitalism get attacked so much.

It is mostly the unproductive (which includes most goverments and other organizations) that attacks the productive. Some individuals, organizations and all governments exist like a band of thieves. Parasitical and predatory in nature to decieve, attack and profit from the productive. That will never change unless we first hold ourselves accountable to not allowing any level of acceptable dishonesty (deception) to creep in.

I believe in the capitalism system but I don't believe in self regulation.

Agreed. Again we are not talking the same thing here.

A lot of people are already "sacraficed" to substain our lifestyle.
Slavery remains a reality.

Agreed. Unacceptable.

If I had to fight for something, you can be sure I would choose the poor's side.

I stand for justice through implementing honesty. I don't pick causes based on consensus reality. The poor are mostly in thier negative cash flow situation by buying into the deceptions. The poor never built any country and if they did they wouldn't be poor, if you get it.

But I guess you would call me a terrorist for being on "the wrong side".

You want me to label you? You are a sacred individual in the unfortunate position to be subjected to all the lies of this anti-civilisation who has been decieved/educated to have faith, belief and trust in the predatory class who mostly exist to milk and drain you. But don't worry, you have throngs of consensus reality on your side.

People always take issue when thier acquired beliefs are threatened. They don't see they have compromized thier life for fake reality.

It is not only true but crucial that we hold accountable those whom we trust in our worldly affairs to be totally honest so as not to be decieved. Yet we allow for this very critical error to go unchallenged. So insidious and destructive is the ignorance, man will even hate those that try to break free in all the many ways to the point of taking arms against them. In thier ideas and emotions accepted as true for who they are and what life is, they have sucuumbed to the virus that makes all reality, non reality and higher reality appear as genuine reality. When exposing what actually is, it is important to understand that those who believe "what isn't is", have become incapacitated to comprehend reality from thier disadvantaged point of fake reality and thus are influenced by any manner of spin-doctoring.

Protect individual rights and all rights are protected.

Get outside of the "box", Jack.

[rahein]

To further add to what mind is saying; Environmentalism is big business. If you follow the money correctly you see all the media asking for your (not for profit) donations to help thier cause. How much of the donations actually help to go to the actual cause? How much of the donations goes into media advertising/hype to suck people in? How much ends up in thier Swiss bank accounts? It is far more dishonest than what most people realise.

Just because some of the money is funneled of to people does not make what they are trying to do bad. You argue against this same thing latter.

"Thier" cause results in at least 1,000,000 malaria deaths to children a year in Africa because of thier lies spread about DDT. They are all about money, yet they attack capitalism.

I never said DDT was not OK to use. IMNSHO saving people is the most important thing we can do. We should try to do it a safely for the environment as possible. Years ago we (USA) drove around with trucks spraying out plumbs of DDT that children PLAYED in. Now we complain about Africans spraying a little around door and window frames. This is very contradictive. America likes promote one small form of environmental atrocity to distract for others.

The individual needs to change to a more sustainable, accountable and responsible educational orientation based on the highest levels and integrity in science. Not more acceptance to be decieved. We are just putting band aids on severed heads. People need to stop listening to garbage from whom ever they prefer to believe at any given time and demand more from themselves and not be so immature in the obvious stupity of "choose your truth" in our acceptable denial of our own responsability to accountability (hard work). First the populus has to "dummy up" and sustain that. We must explore things to truly recognise the crap as a "stealthy" attack on the individual and it's immense presence under the guise of friends of the environment.

When all individuals change it is called a society change. People need to stop buying in to big lies like global warming is not happening. Now oil companies are putting out commercials saying that CO2 is good. Of course it is good, no one has argued that it is TOO much that is bad. Science is dumbed down to a point where people will believe what ever they are told by who they think is the best authority. Sadly this is usually Bush or their church. Environmental groups must for in the framework they are provided, which is capitalism. That is the only way they can expect their message to be heard over the messages of big business.

You need to research these things and stop buying into the bunk. Consensus isn't reality. Your linking hemp to marajuana is decieving at best. Rubbarb isn't maligned because the leaves are deadly, if you see the connection.

Sorry my humor did not come across very well. I support the freedom of people doing whatever they want to their own body, as long as the external risks to others are minimized. I personally think legalizing THC in addition to just hemp could help this country get off it addiction to prescription drugs, including anti-depressants.

No it won't. I proved it. All it does is give you a headache!

You can't prove something by saying you can prove it. There you go again saying that we should use better arguments and then arguing with a fallacy. All BAD weed does is give you a headache. If you proof is by personal experience then you where smoking some bad weed. People have THC receptors in their entire body including very heavy concentrations in the brain. THC is an anti-inflammatory and has been linked to anti-oxidant abilities as well. To bad people can't study it better. The headache is caused by CO which you can get from burning anything. I prefer to vaporize THC by heating it to around 400F instead of burning it. This limits other harmful chemicals.

What is really important is to not allow any "acceptable" degree of deception. Why do you think things have so degraded! We have to stop going around "half baked"!

People resist having to be accountable and constantly put it off in favor of an easier way and as long as we accept less we will never receive the human potential we are capable of. It may appear like hard work but if we don't strive to define life with the highest integrated honesty we fall victim to our denials and suffer all kinds of injustice as evidenced throughout history. It is clearly delineated; Victor or Victim? It truly is the battle for your mind and if we don't see and act on it for what it is we will never solve any problems, real or imagined. Get used to it. We the cattle....

I could not agree more. The government has kept the masses dumbed down on purpose. Only 14% of the adult population has basic scientific literacy. People become lazy because mass marketing does all their thinking for them. It tells them what to buy, what to believe, and what to do. To bad all the things it is telling them are bad.

Just buy into it and continue the slaughter!? The easy way is the hard way! I have nothing against profit if it is based on honesty. I am all for capitalism. You really don't see how god aweful the lies we accept cause diminishment of all things living? They do far more harm than good. You got some work to do.

Of course I do not buy the slaughter. I could give a rats ass about capitalism. I want to see the planet and its population, both human plant and animal, to be taken care of and kept in a pristine condition. I want to see humans not only kept alive, but improved upon. We should not accept any lies that harm us. You are accepting lies by thinking that global warming is not a problem and not happening.

[biggee]

rahein wrote;

Just because some of the money is funneled of to people does not make what they are trying to do bad.

No, but it clearly points out the level of integrity that is valued and initiated by "this trusted authority". Just a little research and you can will have a more wide scope view on global warming, thus snaping into place another piece of the puzzle for your understanding convinience.

You argue against this same thing latter.

I would appreciate that you would point out my error here. I am always seeking to upgrade, so as not to be decieved.

I never said DDT was not OK to use. IMNSHO saving people is the most important thing we can do. We should try to do it a safely for the environment as possible. Years ago we (USA) drove around with trucks spraying out plumbs of DDT that children PLAYED in. Now we complain about Africans spraying a little around door and window frames. This is very contradictive. America likes promote one small form of environmental atrocity to distract for others.

Good points.

When all individuals change it is called a society change. People need to stop buying in to big lies like global warming is not happening. Now oil companies are putting out commercials saying that CO2 is good. Of course it is good, no one has argued that it is TOO much that is bad. Science is dumbed down to a point where people will believe what ever they are told by who they think is the best authority. Sadly this is usually Bush or their church. Environmental groups must for in the framework they are provided, which is capitalism. That is the only way they can expect their message to be heard over the messages of big business.

I can agree with most of that. Again I am talking about people being decieved into thinking man/capitalism is/are the MAIN causes.

Sorry my humor did not come across very well. I support the freedom of people doing whatever they want to their own body, as long as the external risks to others are minimized. I personally think legalizing THC in addition to just hemp could help this country get off it addiction to prescription drugs, including anti-depressants.

No need to apologise for my lack of perception. Otherwise we are mostly on the same page here.

You can't prove something by saying you can prove it. There you go again saying that we should use better arguments and then arguing with a fallacy.

Now it is your lack of perception!

All BAD weed does is give you a headache. If you proof is by personal experience then you where smoking some bad weed. People have THC receptors in their entire body including very heavy concentrations in the brain. THC is an anti-inflammatory and has been linked to anti-oxidant abilities as well. To bad people can't study it better. The headache is caused by CO which you can get from burning anything. I prefer to vaporize THC by heating it to around 400F instead of burning it. This limits other harmful chemicals.

Actually there have been many studies as well as case histories of use throughout the centuries that pretty obviously sum up an enormous ammont of benefits of hemp. It is evident the "rubbarb stalk and leaves" are painted with the same brush with regards to "hemp and hooch" and another confiscation of great benefit to man by our trusted beauracrats. More deception.

I could not agree more. The government has kept the masses dumbed down on purpose. Only 14% of the adult population has basic scientific literacy. People become lazy because mass marketing does all their thinking for them. It tells them what to buy, what to believe, and what to do. To bad  all the things it is telling them are bad.

Actually thier beliefs do most of thier thinking for them. That is the lazy part. Capitalism is the perfect scapegoat. Capitalism could only be extremely beneficial in a society that would stand for no level of deception. Like in everything in this life it is all subjected to and limited by the lies accepted as allowable.

Of course I do not buy the slaughter. I could give a rats ass about capitalism.

So you are in favor of a limited system that confiscates from the productive and gives to the unproductive, (mostly themselves)?

I want to see the planet and its population, both human plant and animal, to be taken care of and kept in a pristine condition. I want to see humans not only kept alive, but improved upon. We should not accept any lies that harm us.

I want to see man (each individual) grow up and start taking his part in the sanity that each and everyone of us has a responsability to do and stop buying into the lies that would have anyone believe we can allow others to define our understanding and parameters. Look after that part and the rest naturally falls into place and humanity makes the great paradigm leap. Don't look after that and we're doomed for deception.

You are accepting lies by thinking that global warming is not a problem and not happening.

Have you only just skimmed over what I have posted or did the torch hit 400f degrees?

Here is a great site on your problems understanding the deception of global warming. Don't miss the video --> www.friendsofscience.org

[Lazarus Long]

http://news.yahoo.co...nt_warming_dc_2
Earth-solar cycle spurs greenhouse gases- studies
By Deborah Zabarenko
Mon May 22, 3:29 PM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Greenhouse gases are known to spur global warming, but scientists said on Monday that global warming in turn spurs greenhouse gas emissions -- which means Earth could get hotter faster than climate models predict. (excerpt)

http://news.yahoo.co...ia_climate_dc_1
Australian study says global warming speeding up
Tue May 23, 6:00 AM ET

CANBERRA (Reuters) - Global warming could be happening faster than scientists had previously thought and weather extremes such as heatwaves could become common, an Australian government report said on Tuesday.

The report by the Environment Department said there was a greater risk that global warming could now exceed previous predictions of a 1.4 to 5.8 degrees Celsius rise in temperatures by the year 2100.

"The impacts of a changing climate are beginning to emerge," said the report, titled Stronger Evidence But New Challenges: Climate Change Science 2001-2005, adding that evidence of warming was becoming easier to observe.
(excerpt)

[biggee]

Climate change 'is the norm'
Viewpoint
By Dr Martin Keeley
Geologist, and a Visiting Professor at University College London

Scientists use "proxy data" to reconstruct the ancient climate

More details

Even as climate experts and politicians meet in Buenos Aires to mark the entry into force of the Kyoto Protocol, many sceptical scientists will still be arguing that the international consensus on "global warming" has got it wrong.

Those of us who study the pre-human history of the Earth find the current debate over global warming difficult to fathom. Climate changes - this is what it does.

To expect permanent stability in climate patterns displays a fundamental lack of understanding of the complexity and instability of weather.

If the global climate were not getting warmer, it would be getting cooler; stasis is not an option.

Ice caps either advance or retreat, and thank goodness. Following the last Ice Age, the climate is warming, and sea-level is rising - but well within their historical ranges.

As environments alter, so fauna and flora either adapt or die out; nature is very unsentimental.

But for the now-infamous and discredited "hockey stick" temperature curve for the last millennium, used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to add body to the case for Kyoto, most observers would not have suspended belief over claims that today's weather is the "mostest" "on record".

Time dependent

This expression is simply a lie. We know from the geological (and archaeological) record that weather variations and extremes are the norm.

Such extremes occur gradually and rapidly, and obviously were not human-induced (anthropogenic).......

See more --> http://news.bbc.co.u...ech/4066189.stm

And more --> http://www.akdart.com/warming.html

January 09, 2004
The global warming scam
The British government's chief scientific adviser, Sir David King, has said that global warming is a more serious threat to the world than terrorism. His remarks are utter balderdash from start to finish and illustrate the truly lamentable decline of science into ideological propaganda.

Sir David says the Bush administration should not dismiss global warming because: 1) the ten hottest years on record started in 1991 2) sea levels are rising 3) ice caps are melting and 4) the 'causal link' between man-made emissions and global warming is well established.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong. There is no such evidence. The whole thing is a global scam. There is no firm evidence that warming is happening; even if it is, it is most likely to have natural, not man-made causes; carbon dioxide, supposedly the culprit, makes up such a tiny fraction of the atmosphere that even if it were to quadruple, the effect on climate would be negligible; and just about every one of the eco-doomster stories that curdle our blood every five minutes is either speculative, historical or scientifically illiterate.

And more --> Union of Concerned Scientists

Scientists? Which kind of scientists? How many of them are members of the UCS? Intriguing questions. Just try to ask them to provide a list of names, positions, and academic background and see what happens. No response. The members of the UCS, in the overwhelming majority, are common, lay and ignorant people that provides $5.00 and up to the UCS fat wallet. The authority of their opinions is based on their money power. Money talks. . . and when it does, the Truth shuts up.

global warming

Global warming is real and underway (They must be kidding!)

Take Action on the McCain Lieberman Global Warming Bill !

The mainstream scientific consensus on global warming is becoming clearer every day: changes in our climate are real and they are underway. Now. But we can do something about it. The evidence that human-induced global warming is real is increasingly clear and compelling.

Actually, it is not clear nor compelling. It is a tragic fake. The "scientific consensus" does not exists. The "evidence" claimed by the IPCC has been shown false and based solely on "computer simulations". Virtual worlds. Kids video games are far more real. --> http://mitosyfraudes...en/UCSscam.html

And more --> http://www.ntu.edu.a...warming/102.htm

Global Warming Scam Worth Trillions
Pollution / Hot House Gas credit trading on a worldwide stage is potentially worth trillions!

Global warming is a political football used to break down national sovereignty via treaties like Kyoto. The result would redistribute wealth to 3rd world countries via pollution credit trading schemes.

Are you environmentalists aware of pollution credit trading schemes? Companies are allowed to pollute x units of some hot house gas. If they pollute less than x units the company can sell the difference to a hothouse gas commodity trader or another industry. In other words the excess clean is not retired.

A power plant in Ontario, Canada polluted less than it was allowed to and sold the difference to a company in the northern US that polluted more than it was allowed. It was cheaper for the US company to buy the Ontario companies credits than to comply. But was the air in the US city improved?

The same is true of credits generated by county airboards that manage vehicle emissions stations. The credits from your passing automobile are given to local companies to reduce their pollution burden.

Another part of this scheme involves sustainable development. Under sustainable development, if your community has polluted all it is permitted and still short of enough jobs ... tough. Or what if companies move out of your region and sell their credits (license to pollute) to another region?

Poverty is the worst polluter. Environmentalism has a cost and environmentalist want the poor to pay it. - Repeal --> http://news.zdnet.co...153838&start=-1

This is just the tip of the iceberg.
There is so much more evidence and proof that global warming is a scam, manmade or otherwise that it boggles the mind.

So many "smoke and mirrors, (deception, dishonesty)....

[rahein]

All I see you posting is smoke and mirrors. Where is any scientific data. Laz posted some real studies that show climate change.

Post 9/11 when planes where grounded and there where no con-trails they measured the largest historical change in temperature difference (low-hi) in history. It was the only time when we have truly been able to measure our true effects on the climate without fine particles hiding some of the heat.

There is lots of scientific data backing up global warming and global dimming. They are both real and we contribute to both of them as well as natural phenomena which we could help stop. Check out an old thread in "Threats To Life" about coal seam fires. They put out as much CO2 in a year as we do (although most of the fires are our fault) and we could put them out if we wanted and company has already put a few out. We need to get our climate in a homeostasis so we do not need to suffer from changing sea levels and rain fall patterns.

I said it before and I will say it again. I don’t care if we are not the main cause I don’t care if we are no cause. Period. We live here and I want to live here a long time. I can’t safely live here if sea levels rise, droughts and flooding are rampant, and storms keep getting stronger.

[jackinbox]

Biggee, You seem to worry pretty much of the integrity and motivations of environmentalist but aren’t you concerned by the integrity of your sources? Do you think that we should trust more think tanks, lobbies groups and obscures “science defenders” groups than universities and scientists conforming to the peer review process?

The group “friends of science” appears suspicious to me:
http://www.sourcewat...ends_of_Science
http://www.manitobaw....asp?number=568
http://www.sourcewat...=APCO_Worldwide

An interesting rebuttal of the conclusions drawn by “friends of science”:
http://faculty.eas.u...nt2Rebuttal.pdf
Obtained from:
http://faculty.eas.u...AS457index.html

As an example, should we trust someone like Steven Milloy or an organization like the cato institute to provide us with “scientific informations”?
Another link of interest:
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/

[mikelorrey]

Of course it's a cycle biggee and one that we are accelerating through human impact. Everyone that really studies the matter is well aware of the possibility that global warming can trigger ice ages it is long established as one of the modeled outcomes.

We have already addressed this aspect various times in the Threats to Life forum there is nothing new here but would you like to try discussing the subject rather than ranting please?

The ice age threat is NOT due to global warming. In fact, it comes from solar astronomers who measure the convection velocity of the sun by measuring how fast sunspots move away from the equator. Current observations show this velocity has dropped to near zero. What this means is that solar cycle 25, which will start in 2022 (not 6 or 7 years) is going to have little to no sunspots whatsoever, much like the Maunder Minimum which caused the Little Ice Age.

Sunspot activity is correlated with both solar emissions and inversely related with cosmic ray activity. High solar winds associated with solar maxima protect Earth from most cosmic rays coming from outside the solar system. It turns out though, that cosmic rays play an important role in cloud formation: they trigger the condensation of water molecules into clouds, and thus the level of cosmic rays is directly proportional to the amount of cloud cover. Since cloud cover increases the albedo of Earth (reflecting more solar energy back into space before it hits ground), high cosmic rays mean global cooling, and little ice ages.

[Mind]

I trust the CATO Institute more than university professors in most subject areas. Many university professors have agendas that bias their work.

[jackinbox]

I trust the CATO Institute more than university professors in most subject areas. Many university professors have agendas that bias their work.

What kind of agendas many university professors have except to promote scientific methods? The CATO Institute has an agenda; it's stated in their mission:
"to broaden the parameters of public policy debate to allow consideration of the traditional American principles of limited government, individual liberty, free markets, and peace" by seeking greater involvement of the "lay public in questions of public policy and the role of government."

So, when CATO publish papers on environmental issues (and others), the purpose is mainly to support their agenda. At least, you could argue that it's not a hidden agenda which as some merit but when science is concerned, it raise many issues.

“Rupert Murdoch has served on the board of directors of Cato, and was at the time also on the board of tobacco company Phillip Morris.
It has been reported by critical sources that Cato has received substantial funding from Phillip Morris and other tobacco companies, though it was never more than 1 or 2 % of the institute's funding.”

"The Wall Street Journal quoted Cato analyst Jerry Taylor as stating that the Cato Institute
received over $100,000 from tobacco giant Philip Morris and $50,000 from RJ Reynolds
in 1995 alone."

Source:
http://en.wikipedia..../Cato_Institute
http://www.no-smoke....toinstitute.pdf
http://timlambert.org/2004/03/pmdocs/
http://www.cato.org/about/about.html

That’s not what I call a “trustable” institution.

[rahein]

The ice age threat is NOT due to global warming. In fact, it comes from solar astronomers who measure the convection velocity of the sun by measuring how fast sunspots move away from the equator. Current observations show this velocity has dropped to near zero. What this means is that solar cycle 25, which will start in 2022 (not 6 or 7 years) is going to have little to no sunspots whatsoever, much like the Maunder Minimum which caused the Little Ice Age.

Sunspot activity is correlated with both solar emissions and inversely related with cosmic ray activity. High solar winds associated with solar maxima protect Earth from most cosmic rays coming from outside the solar system. It turns out though, that cosmic rays play an important role in cloud formation: they trigger the condensation of water molecules into clouds, and thus the level of cosmic rays is directly proportional to the amount of cloud cover. Since cloud cover increases the albedo of Earth (reflecting more solar energy back into space before it hits ground), high cosmic rays mean global cooling, and little ice ages.

Then we better get researching how to create cloads and rain fall. Seriously just because it is not our fault does not mean we shouldn't protect ourselves from it.

[jackinbox]

« More than 90 percent of the world's glaciers are growing thicker.”

Biggee, that’s a misstatement. Most glaciers in the world retreat ( http://en.wikipedia....iers_since_1850 ). Your source ( http://www.iceagenow...ing_Thicker.htm ) is misinterpreting others sources. Take the time to look at the article cited:

"It is the only large terrestrial ice body that is gaining mass rather than losing it,"
“The thickening of the eastern ice sheet should not be seen as a long-term protection against a rise in sea level”
“What's more, snowfall over East Antarctica will not continue to increase indefinitely in a warming world”
“Scientists have already estimated that Antarctic melting may be responsible for up to a third of the overall sea-level rise”
Source: http://www.nature.co.../050516-10.html

Other information related:
« This paper is concerned with the evidence for growth over a period
of thousands of years,”

“A calculation by
Meinardus suggests that an increase of temperature by 5°C and wind by
24 per cent would have combined to double the accumulation over
Antarctica.”

Source:
http://www.cig.ensmp...a086/086040.pdf


It’s a shame that some people are willing to distort scientific data for their own interest. It’s quite ironic that they accused the scientific community, from which they are taking their “evidences”, of misguidance. But what is worse? Organizations working to misinform the population or the credulity of those believing them? I think that it’s the combination of both that is the most scarring.

[Lazarus Long]

There are multiple reasons for global warming but some (if not all) are demonstrably self reinforcing and accelerating due to many aspects of human conduct. In China the dust storm issue is also the result of habitat expansion and disruption of their deserts through development, a similar event is occurring in Utah, Arizona and yes, desertification is a growing problem around the world AND in the US. For example if the sun is putting out more energy during the recent period and for the foreseeable future then human contributions to global green house gasses will only make the impact of that natural cycle significantly worse.

Another aspect of the the growing deserts is the dust is rising into the upper atmosphere and landing on glaciers around the world, from Colorado to the poles. This impacts what is known as albedo. The Earth's albedo is changing faster than natural cycles can account for and no I am not claiming that humans are ALL to blame. However there is a significant aspect of our behavior that won't go away through denial either and there are things we can do about it if the will to change exists. It is that will to change that is most being challenged by naysayers.

Sadly, I have observed that this is more often than not through a personal commitment to their person vested interests rather than any objective concern over the caliber of the science.

Now to those that talk of Solar Cycles the answer is yes they are a part of the equation but in terms of what is happening now and over the last few centuries and what will happen in the cmoing decades: Are those solar cycles more important than desertification, atmospheric dust, and green house gasses to the concern over global glacial melt?

The answer really is a profound no. Yes it is a part but for now the most important factors are terrestrially based.

Does some of that result from natural climactic cycles and impacts like volcanism?

Again yes, Sahara sandstorms have contributed to Atlantic hurricanes since long before the industrial era. Volcanism can be seen as impacting climate in the aftermath of significant modern events like Krakatoa, Mt. St. Helens and Mt. Pinatubo for example but so are the effects of industry, human demand and simply population growth as habitat and agricultural expansion alter the natural balances.

It is better that we acknowledge this fact and do something about what we can effect than use the aspects of what we cannot influence as a pretext for doing nothing.

Here are a few recent articles on this subject, some with further links to studies that support the conclusion.

China deserts eat up arable land: environmentalist

China triggers alarm on melting glaciers

Long History of Southwest Droughts Confirms Looming Water Shortage

Dust Storms Threaten Snow Packs

Mulitple study links
The effect of grain size on spectral mixture analysis of snow-covered area from AVIRIS data

Retrieval of subpixel snow-covered area and grain size from imaging spectrometer data

Climatic, edaphic, and biotic controls over storage and turnover of carbon in soils

[Live Forever]

Anyone heard if the movie An Inconvenient Truth (the one with Al Gore) on Global Warming will be any good? From the reviews I have read, it sounds like it should be pretty good, and it looks like it is opening in a theater near me on June 9, so I might have to give it a watch.

[Mind]

I am sure the movie will be enjoyable for Dems and Socialists.

[rahein]

Anyone heard if the movie An Inconvenient Truth (the one with Al Gore) on Global Warming will be any good? From the reviews I have read, it sounds like it should be pretty good, and it looks like it is opening in a theater near me on June 9, so I might have to give it a watch.

I am going to try to see it opening weekend in my market. The bigger the opening numbers are the more theaters will carry it for longer and the more people will get to see it. Maybe it can get the American people off their collective butts and get working.