Global Warming

[Tadao]

So, what I understand global warming to be in it's most basic form is that the ocean is warming ever so slightly, but enough to change currents.

This has an impact on weather, glaciers, and coastal levels.

Is that wrong?

[Evil Robot]

Didn't the earth used to have no atmosphere and was like thousands of degrees? Whatever happened to that?

[Tadao]

I believe it grew an atmosphere and cooled off. That would explain trying to protect the atmosphere. Much in the same way that polluting mars would warm it up so that we can live there.

[Colonel Flagg]

Tad is right - the temperature of the ocean is the driving force for most of the planet's weather. As an example, an oceanic thermal inversion a.k.a. el Nino gives rise to weird weather patterns in the Americas. That's only a relatively small warm water patch across the South Pacific - imagine it over the entire hydrologic surface of the globe.

[Wiffles]

There's an ongoing debate weather this is a cyclical phenomena or human induced. Some say it may even do a reverse, and cool-off the world into an ice age.

[Tadao]

For that to happen, well I don't know. Some one tell me how the ocean rising in temperature is going to create another iceage in the near future please.

[Fathom Zero]

There's an ongoing debate weather this is a cyclical phenomena or human induced. Some say it may even do a reverse, and cool-off the world into an ice age.

Yeah, they say it warms up a ton before it plunges into an ice age.

[Wiffles]

For that to happen, well I don't know. Some one tell me how the ocean rising in temperature is going to create another iceage in the near future please.

Yeah, they say it warms up a ton before it plunges into an ice age.


According to some scientists, the supposed ice age will start once the ocean's salinity reaches a certain level. With the oceans warming, and ice caps melting. The salinity levels of the ocean drops, this alters our oceans dramatically, and changes the cyclical currents already at play. Creating new weather patterns and ultimately, another ice age.

Timescales are still big, from hundreds to thousands of years. But geologically speaking, rapid.

[Tadao]

I don't understand yet why less salt in the ocean equals ice age yet. You didn't actually say why. Why?

[Fathom Zero]

Salinity affects the movement of water molecules, i.e. heat, I RECALL LEARNING IN THE 7TH GRADE.

[Tadao]

Yeah, in 7th grade it was 1982 for me. I was busy was kinda busy at the time.

[Zhukov]

I'm more worried about rising ocean levels. Well, not in such that I am going to drown in the next few years (I do live on an island, next to the ocean though) but that it's going to displace a lot of people one day.

[executioneer]

Didn't the earth used to have no atmosphere and was like thousands of degrees? Whatever happened to that?
i miss those days too

[Pentegarn]

I tend to believe that the Earth is cyclical. If it is getting warmer it is probably supposed to be doing so.

[Supafly345]

Christ, I started writing an essay here on why environmentalists are insane and why climate deniers are stupid, but shit hasn't this stuff been covered here yet? Yes, the earth does warm and cool in cycles, thats not what is alarming, its the fact that it is deviating from what the natural cycle should be.

But the next ice age is scheduled in 16000 years, so we don't have to worry much about that. And that is a current estimate, including the recent unexpected heat increase. (in the 80s it was an estimate 19000)

[Colonel Flagg]

As I think I said in "that other thread" there is still a lot we don't really understand about how and why the global climate cycles. Devotees of the ALGOR robot seem to point to the industrial revolution as the beginning of a gradual global warming, and claim this to be evidence of the human influenced warming trend which is outside of what we can infer from ice cores and tree rings as "normal" cyclic variation.

Then you have the FOXY contingent who points to a period in time known as "the Medieval Warming Period" where the average temperature increased even though there was no significant contribution from manmade activity.

So they argue. And argue. It's like a bad SNL sketch. "You shut up!" "No, you shut up!" (repeat ad.lib.) It's actually funny when you see it happen in a scientific forum like the ACS. And sad at the same time. :(

We'll likely not know the full story, or understand the implications of our actions today until after whatever is in store for us is already in full swing. And by then, it will be too late.

I believe it's called "fiddling while Rome burns".

[TheCoolinator]

The co-founder of Green Peace said it the best.....

"The environmentalist movement has been hijacked and turned into something completely different then what it should have been"

Watch the Great Global Warming swindle free on google video

The first thing my environmentalist professor taught us was to NOT be anthropocentric. Meaning to not believe that the world revolves around humans because it does not. We have very little bearing on what happens to the earth in the grand scheme of things. Do we really have the ability to change the climate? I say No but that doesn't mean we don't have the ability to literally make a complete mess of things.



As long as they keep the greenie's focused on the global warming plan and keep that money coming in for all the so called climate scientists then big industry will continue to destroy and pillage until there is nothing left. CO2 as a pollutant is a red herring!

[Colonel Flagg]

How naive. :rolleyes

[Tadao]

In green houses all over the world they pump in CO2 to accelerate the growth of plants.

I bet people are having a volley ball tournament inside the CONTAINED green house while they are pumping in Co2.

[The Leader]

The first thing my environmentalist professor taught us was to NOT be anthropocentric. Meaning to not believe that the world revolves around humans because it does not. We have very little bearing on what happens to the earth in the grand scheme of things. Do we really have the ability to change the climate? I say No but that doesn't mean we don't have the ability to literally make a complete mess of things.
But in Om Sannolikheten För Sekulära Förändringar I Atmosfärens Kolsyrehalt, Högbom explained how he had calculated that industry was putting as much CO2 into the atmosphere as there would have been produced naturally. You don't think that could do something?

[Tadao]

All we have to do is live in green houses!

[The Leader]

In green houses all over the world they pump in CO2 to accelerate the growth of plants.
CO2 as a pollutant is a red herring!
Wait, wait, wait, do you think that people are saying that CO2 is a pollutant? You know what plants breath, right?

I attack the global warming myth from the left not from the right and it crumbles every time.
How does it crumble? All you have ever posted about it is that it is a lie being perpetuated by scientists and big business. You have never posted any studies or actual information that would show the theory to be incorrect/impossible. The closest you came was when you posted that link to a clearly biased "documentary."

[TheCoolinator]

You don't think that could do something?

No, because CO2 is not a pollutant.

If industry just pumped out CO2 and water vapor I would be very pleased. The problem comes in when they start pumping out other stuff. Hence why industrial sectors have to be inspected regularly that their emissions don't contain real harmful chemicals. Scrubbers on smoke stacks do not absorb CO2 because it's an irrelevant gas. They focus mainly of the poisonous particulate from the creation of the energy.


Here is another way to think of it. All living organisms exhale CO2. There are 6 billion people around the world exhaling CO2 at one time plus the rest of the animal kingdom. You would think that much CO2 gas would have killed us the minute the human race got up to 5 billion.

[The Leader]

No, because CO2 is not a pollutant.

If industry just pumped out CO2 and water vapor I would be very pleased. The problem comes in when they start pumping out other harmful chemicals. Hence why industrial sectors have to be inspected regularly that their emissions don't contain real harmful chemicals. Scrubbers on smoke stacks do not absorb CO2 because it's an irrelevant gas. They focus mainly of the poisonous particulate from the creation of the energy.


Here is another way to think of it. All living organisms exhale CO2. There are 6 billion people around the world exhaling CO2 at one time plus the rest of the animal kingdom. You would think that much CO2 gas would have killed us the minute the human race got up to 5 billion.
I'm quoting this to preserve it.:lol

[Dimnos]

Red Herring...
The expression red herring is an idiom referring to a device which intends to divert the audience from the truth or an item of significance. For example, in mystery fiction, an innocent party may be purposefully cast as highly suspect through emphasis or descriptive techniques; attention is drawn away from the true guilty party.

Im pretty sure he is saying it is not a pollutant. However I too wish to know how it "crumbles" because you attack it "from the left".

[The Leader]

I know he's saying that it's not a pollutant, my point was that he thinks that there are people who think that it is a pollutant. If so then he doesn't even understand the theory of global warming so how could he disprove it? He can't.

[Fathom Zero]

I'M WORRIED ABOUT SMOKE. WHERE DOES SMOKE FACTOR INTO THIS EQUATION?

[Dimnos]

I think he is saying people refer to it as a greenhouse gas but not necessarily a pollutant. I still dont see how this is an attack "from the left" though.

[Dimnos]

Was it just a weak joke I missed or something?

[The Leader]

What?

[Ayatollah]

no joke. everyone in my country know the left flank of global warming is the weak front. this is why we have no global warming here. rofl. actually global warming is as real as jew holocaust. fool westerners.

EVIL ROBOT RULES!

[The Leader]

Finally, someone with some sense posts in this thread.

[TheCoolinator]

Once more and then I'm done.

Global warming / Climate Change movement is funded by big business to create a speculative market in Carbon Trading. The focus on CO2 (Carbon) is to veer duped environmentalist away from real issues so they will not demand tighter regulations on real toxic chemicals (Volatile organic compounds, diesel fuel, gasoline, mercury oxides, arsenic oxides, sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, petroleum based fertilizers and herbicides, fungicides, rodenticides, depleted uranium) and to distract them from reforming our failed energy policy. Instead of funding renewable clean energy sources like they have in many other countries they focus on taxing "carbon offenders" for heating their homes and drawing hot baths.



Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html

Carbon Trading Articles

Are 'Carbon Cowboys' Running Amok With Cap and Trade Speculation?

http://www.alternet.org/environment/145584/are_'carbon_cowboys'_running_amok_with_cap_and_tra de_speculation?utm_source=feedblitz&utm_medium=FeedBlitzRss&utm_campaign=alternet (http://www.alternet.org/environment/145584/are_%27carbon_cowboys%27_running_amok_with_cap_and _trade_speculation?utm_source=feedblitz&utm_medium=FeedBlitzRss&utm_campaign=alternet)

Following the Money in Copenhagen

http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/carbonwatch/2009/12/following-the-money-in-copenhagen.html

The Rising Value of the Global Carbon Market (http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/05/the_rising_valu.php)

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/05/the_rising_valu.php (http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/05/the_rising_valu.php)

[The Leader]

Well, the first article has some errors in it such as stating that Phil Jones' data is "Crucial to the theory of climate change." I wasn't aware that a single person could be so important in a theory that has been around for over a hundred years or so.

The rest, I assume, are talking about how businesses have manipulated data, etc. While this all shows that individuals and groups are fraudulent, I don't see how it proves that global warming is not true. All you have is a logical argument, but global warming, too, is a logical argument. That and it has immense amounts of data and fact while you're simply speculating. You can't disprove global warming, apparently, only point to liars who have supported it.

[The Leader]

Also it wasn't raw data that Phil Jones' team had. There's another flaw in the article.

[TheCoolinator]

Well, the first article has some errors in it such as stating that Phil Jones' data is "Crucial to the theory of climate change." I wasn't aware that a single person could be so important in a theory that has been around for over a hundred years or so.

The rest, I assume, are talking about how businesses have manipulated data, etc. While this all shows that individuals and groups are fraudulent, I don't see how it proves that global warming is not true. All you have is a logical argument, but global warming, too, is a logical argument. That and it has immense amounts of data and fact while you're simply speculating. You can't disprove global warming, apparently, only point to liars who have supported it.

Ok. :posh

[Supafly345]

The Great Global Warming Swindle has been exposed for using fraudulent data and making false claims on behalf of NASA and the scientists therein. Even the climate scientists who are confirmed skeptics that appeared on it denounced it for taking them out of context and manipulation of scientific language. It simply wasn't an honest special. Sure An Inconvenient Truth used only the most extreme examples and depended a lot on scary hypothetical scenarios that may or may not come true, but its data wasn't fraudulent.

Here's really the bottom line on scientific debates like this, unless you have studied the particular field in question extensively its always best to go with what the majority of scientists in it accepts. On the topic of man made climate change there is a significant majority. There is a chance they are wrong, but you won't find a scientist who is a skeptic of climate change say that decreased co2 emissions from cars and factories being a bad thing.

For man made climate change to be a fraud it would take an unprecidented conspiracy including thousands the most respected experts of the field. The only thing that keeps the public from accepting it is that the issue has become politicized, therefor tons of misinformation has been spread to muddy the waters. It is important never to let your logic be clouded by conspiracy theories and suspected scandal when there is no certainty. Unless you have the means to uncover it of course.

I also noticed that none of those articles are from scientific journals. Please know that it is important that you should get your information on such topics from papers published in a peer reviewed journal or articles that link back to the journal so you can verify it. YOU MUST YOU MUST YOU MUST put politics behind you when it comes to scientific matters.

[Tadao]

He believes 9-11 was a conspiracy, so saying "For man made climate change to be a fraud it would take an unprecidented conspiracy including thousands the most respected experts of the field." is meaningless.

[Supafly345]

There is a romance and excitement to conspiracy theories I understand, and it can be easy to get lost in them if you don't stay properly grounded, but there is a huge difference between accusing government and science of conpiracy. One is stupid the other impossible.


Then you have the FOXY contingent who points to a period in time known as "the Medieval Warming Period" where the average temperature increased even though there was no significant contribution from manmade activity.

This argument is taken into account but isn't capable of overturning what we know about the current anthropomorphic climate change. That would be like a man claiming a woman isn't pregnant with his child right now simply because she had been pregnant once years ago when he didn't know her. Yes its possible the same cause for her pregnancy before could be responsible now, but its much more likely that he is the cause.

[TheCoolinator]

what we know about the current anthropomorphic climate change.

What do we know about Global Warming / Climate Change? :confused:

CO2 needs to be taxed and a cap and trade system of carbon credits needs to be established to save the planet?

[The Leader]

lolz

[TheCoolinator]

lolz

No, I'm serious. What's the solution if Global Warming turns out to be real?

[Colonel Flagg]

Now THAT's what I meant by entertainment! :lol2

[Supafly345]

That's an entirely different discussion, and doesn't have any effect on its validity. You are clearly only interested in the political controversy and not the scientific one.

To know what there is to know about anthropogenic climate change will take independent research on your part into the scientific literature, and not political blogs. But you seem to like to watch things, so I will refer you to this series of videos by a scientist and former science corrospondant. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo
He covers the evolution of climate change theories, how each of them work, opposing theories, and even covers the errors in the two big opposing climate change movies. It is a good starting point to understanding climate change.

[Pentegarn]

I'M WORRIED ABOUT SMOKE. WHERE DOES SMOKE FACTOR INTO THIS EQUATION?

SMOKE WILL DESTROY THE WORLD! I HAVE THE PROOFS!

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/xj1XfVbTE7s&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/xj1XfVbTE7s&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[TheCoolinator]

That's an entirely different discussion, and doesn't have any effect on its validity. You are clearly only interested in the political controversy and not the scientific one.

To know what there is to know about anthropogenic climate change will take independent research on your part into the scientific literature, and not political blogs. But you seem to like to watch things, so I will refer you to this series of videos by a scientist and former science corrospondant. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo
He covers the evolution of climate change theories, how each of them work, opposing theories, and even covers the errors in the two big opposing climate change movies. It is a good starting point to understanding climate change.

I wish I could respond but I can't. I got warned so I will leave the forum. It's been nice talking to you all. I hope that global warming stuff doesn't come true.

[Colonel Flagg]

I got warned so I will leave the forum.

We'll see about that. :conspiracy

[executioneer]

hey coolinator how's the weather up on the cross today

[Guitar Woman]

I didn't read this thread, but it's the middle of March and I am freezing my nipples off.

Global warming is absolute horse shit.

[Zhukov]

I got warned so I will leave the forum.

If you mean that you were warned by a mod, well, I just have to say that that is bullshit.

[Colonel Flagg]

I didn't read this thread, but it's the middle of March and I am freezing my nipples off.

Global warming is absolute horse shit.

and this argument is about 100x more convincing that anything Coolie said.

[Dimnos]

I got warned so I will leave the forum.

Oh dont puss out now. Stick with it. If your just going to leave you might as well go out with a ban.

[Tadao]

:lol all this guy seems to do is run as soon as someone explains to him how he is wrong.

[Supafly345]

Jeez, I feel cheated. This is one of the few topics I know a lot about and I wanted to flex.

[Colonel Flagg]

:lol all this guy seems to do is run as soon as someone explains to him how he is wrong.

I tried to engage him into a discussion about the difference between the POLITICS and the SCIENCE surrounding the issue, and he responded with verbatim quotations from blogs, Google searches and Wikipedia. :blah

Remember, sometimes they come back .... :eek

[Colonel Flagg]

I will take Dimno's advice. May Rog protect me.



First off, Bill O'Reilly and Glenn beck both believe the myth of Global Warming. Youtube it.


Other right wing media whores (Sean Hannity & Co.) never bring up the corporate funding behind Global warming nor do they ever bring up the clean energy solutions that the Global warmers consistently ignore. Nor do they talk about "Cap and Trade" schemes on carbon or the international "CARBON TAX" that will be paid directly to unaccountable factions within the United Nations.

Nor do they bring up other hazardous chemicals that effect ours and other organisms health and should have stricter regulations put on them. Right wingers also never speak about how Al Gore was essential in passing FREE TRADE policies and has always been in the pocket of private corporate interests. They usually just harp on how he allegedly said that "He invented the internet".

Everything I said is attacking the Global Warming myth from the left.

1. Are Global Warmers getting their money from private corporations?

2. Is their movement based around the implementation of a Carbon Tax?

3. Will Wall Street and other parasitical interests be able to speculate on carbon after they pass cap and trade regulations on carbon only? (no other harmful chemicals included)

4. Did Al Gore help in passing Free Trade policies?

5. Are the Global Warmers ignoring all other environment problems and focusing on Carbon?

I-Mockery inspired article:
http://the-coolinator-lounge.blogspot.com/2010/03/man-made-global-warming-climate-change.html

I rest my case. :blah

[TheCoolinator]

You forgot the quotes that were attached and forgot to answer any of the questions. Shell Gasoline and the Rockefeller foundation pays for the Global Warmers.


So if you're attacking global warming "from the left", then how come you're using a spectacularly dense argument that I've seen used, VERBATIM, by Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, and Bill O'Reilly on their respective programs in the last month alone?


I will take Dimno's advice. May Rog protect me.


Disclaimer:I hope that my reply to this post will not be misconstrued as "FLOODING AND / OR GRIEFING". I really want to continue the conversation in the most civilized way possible. Thank you.

First off, Bill O'Reilly and Glenn beck both believe the myth of Global Warming. Youtube it.


Other right wing media whores (Sean Hannity & Co.) never bring up the corporate funding behind Global warming nor do they ever bring up the clean energy solutions that the Global warmers consistently ignore. Nor do they talk about "Cap and Trade" schemes on carbon or the international "CARBON TAX" that will be paid directly to unaccountable factions within the United Nations.

Nor do they bring up other hazardous chemicals that effect ours and other organisms health and should have stricter regulations put on them. Right wingers also never speak about how Al Gore was essential in passing FREE TRADE policies and has always been in the pocket of private corporate interests. They usually just harp on how he allegedly said that "He invented the internet".

Everything I said is attacking the Global Warming myth from the left.

1. Are Global Warmers getting their money from private corporations?

2. Is their movement based around the implementation of a Carbon Tax?

3. Will Wall Street and other parasitical interests be able to speculate on carbon after they pass cap and trade regulations on carbon only? (no other harmful chemicals included)

4. Did Al Gore help in passing Free Trade policies?

5. Are the Global Warmers ignoring all other environment problems and focusing on Carbon?

I-Mockery inspired article:
http://the-coolinator-lounge.blogspot.com/2010/03/man-made-global-warming-climate-change.html

[Colonel Flagg]

I don't think you get it. I don't want to debate the politics of global warming. If you want to talk about the SCIENCE behind the theory, then fine. Otherwise, I'm not going to waste my time.

And, unlike you, I mean it. :(

[TheCoolinator]

I don't think you get it. I don't want to debate the politics of global warming. If you want to talk about the SCIENCE behind the theory, then fine. Otherwise, I'm not going to waste my time.


I guess that's another place where we differ. From my studies Global Warming / Climate Change is nothing more than a political ideology. It actually has many similarities to 1940's German Race Science. Remember all that SCIENCE? I wonder who funded those researchers.



100 Articles on the Global Warming / Climate change hoax

http://www.scroogle.org/cgi-bin/nbbw.cgi

[The Leader]

Honey, you have not shown one piece of evidence that global warming doesn't exist and you clearly don't even understand the theory because you insist that carbon dioxide is treated as a pollutant in said theory. That and you don't understand what a political ideology is. You don't really understand a lot of things, really. That's why people who actually read up on politics and various studies, and who don't rely on internet conspiracy sites for their information, keep making fun of you.

[TheCoolinator]

Honey, you have not shown one piece of evidence that global warming doesn't exist



Now, IPCC claims on Amazon fall flat

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/environment/global-warming/Now-IPCC-claims-on-Amazon-fall-flat/articleshow/5502902.cms



UN exaggerated warming 6-fold: the scare is over

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monthly_report/sppi_monthly_co2_report_july.html




The billion-dollar hoax

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/the-billion-dollar-hoax/story-e6frfhqf-1225823736564


Top Rocket Scientist: No Evidence CO2 Causes Global Warming (http://www.infowars.com/top-rocket-scientist-no-evidence-co2-causes-global-warming/)http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/no-smoking-hot-spot/story-e6frg73o-1111116945238


Two Peer-Reviewed Scientific Papers Debunk CO2 Myth

http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/july2008/071608_debunk_myth.htm


[/URL]Rockefellers Fund Global-warming Protests as Earth Cools (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/tech-mainmenu-30/environment/2173-rockefeller-brothers-fund-global-warming-protests-as-earth-cools)http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/tech-mainmenu-30/environment/2173-rockefeller-brothers-fund-global-warming-protests-as-earth-cools



The dam is cracking

[URL]http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/dailypolitics/andrewneil/2010/01/the_dam_is_cracking.html



Ahem.....cough cough....:posh

[Blasted Child]

Everything can be bad in the wrong place. Ozone is vital for all life on earth as long as it's in the stratosphere, but would be highly toxic to breath.
Co2 - good in some places, bad in some.
Like garlic.

[TheCoolinator]

Everything can be bad in the wrong place. Ozone is vital for all life on earth as long as it's in the stratosphere, but would be highly toxic to breath.
Co2 - good in some places, bad in some.
Like garlic.

I like your avatar. I have an HP Lovecraft book with that same picture on it.

[Tadao]

idiot

[Blasted Child]

thanks, actually I didn't really choose it with much thought, I just picked a random image and I intend to replace it with something more personal in due time.

Even though I'm rather confident that humans are about to mess up our planet, I do think you've built up a quite solid case and displayed a fair amount of evidence. I'd hate to be a contrarian, but contrary to the rest here I don't think you're an idiot :)

I think the thing here is that you can always find a plethora of "evidence" and articles supporting either side of a case if you look hard enough. In a matter as zealously debated as this, it's simply useless to merely list links - the opponent could do the same, and a more prudent approach would be to just sit back and assess what seems to be the prevalent opinion in the scientist community.

[The Leader]

A solid case? Blasted Child, all he does is post links to biased websites. That and he clearly doesn't understand what the theory of global warming actually is or rudimentary science.

[Pentegarn]

I think this thread needs some Catholic talk in it

[Colonel Flagg]

Veni. Veni creator spiritus.

[TheCoolinator]

Even though I'm rather confident that humans are about to mess up our planet, I do think you've built up a quite solid case and displayed a fair amount of evidence. I'd hate to be a contrarian, but contrary to the rest here I don't think you're an idiot :)

Thank you good sir!

and I agree with you that Human's are messing up the planet. I cannot deny that, problem is that the Environmentalist movement is being diverted to serve a corporate agenda when they should be united in a regulation / clean power solution instead of this fanatically devotion to "Carbon". Which as you can see from the articles that I posted has absolutely nothing to do with the warming of the planet.

I think the thing here is that you can always find a plethora of "evidence" and articles supporting either side of a case if you look hard enough. In a matter as zealously debated as this, it's simply useless to merely list links - the opponent could do the same, and a more prudent approach would be to just sit back and assess what seems to be the prevalent opinion in the scientist community.

Very true but after both sides have laid down their evidence then an unbiased third party must decide which is the better argument.

We've come to the part in the debate where my evidence and ideology has been laid down on the table and the other side must admit their research and then an unbiased third party needs to decide.

This is very difficult to do since all I've been getting out of these cultists is insult's and how I don't know "science" or whatever that's supposed to mean.




all he does is post links to biased websites..

You only find them biased because they contradict what you believe. :bow

[The Leader]

You only find them biased because they contradict what you believe. :bow
You don't know what I believe as I have yet to discuss my opinion. They are biased because they lean towards one side of the argument instead of presenting information without commentary. Not only that but none of them are official sites. They also commonly have information which is completely false. What country are you from? You would have thought that if you made it through university you would understand how to find credible sources and what biased means. Apparently the school system there is failing.

[The Leader]

Seriously man, this is exactly your problem. You don't actually understand how to look at things without bias. You're probably someone who is devoted to one political party and will never vote for a candidate from a rival party not because they are not the better choice for the job but because they're not part of the party you idolize. You exemplify what is wrong with politics in the United States right now so I wouldn't be surprised if you are American.

[Pentegarn]

Veni. Veni creator spiritus.

http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q1/Pentegarn/boondocksaintsquote.jpg

[Supafly345]

Seriously man, this is exactly your problem. You don't actually understand how to look at things without bias. You're probably someone who is devoted to one political party and will never vote for a candidate from a rival party not because they are not the better choice for the job but because they're not part of the party you idolize. You exemplify what is wrong with politics in the United States right now so I wouldn't be surprised if you are American.
I don't know if his biasms are necessarily political party motivated. I think he is into the whole 'conspiracy theory' mythos. My brother had a friend like that- whatever was the underdog opinion he latched on to because he was so determined to not be a sheep or whatever. I think people like this believe themselves to be much smarter than the average person, so they can't share opinions with us lower life forms. He probably believes Hitler designed the VW bug and that the US is run by the Illuminati. Maybe even aliens too.

Its too easy and sort of ignorant to just say he's a republican or whatever, I think he's just paranoid. The republicans have already proposed their own version of Cap and Trade that is almost exactly the same as the D's, the only differance is that REPUBLICANS made it, making it automatically better because nothing the democrats do is right- but I'm getting off toipic. Conspiracy theorists are typically pretty conservative, but they are still paranoid about everyone.

[Evil Robot]

come on guys, coolies obviously right because he RESEARCHED thiss stuff on youtube. These are facts that he GATHERD from his STUDIES in a two year liberal arts college. The only thing left to question is whether he prefers CDs or tapes.

[TheCoolinator]

You don't know what I believe as I have yet to discuss my opinion. They are biased because they lean towards one side of the argument instead of presenting information without commentary. Not only that but none of them are official sites. They also commonly have information which is completely false. What country are you from? You would have thought that if you made it through university you would understand how to find credible sources and what biased means. Apparently the school system there is failing.Seriously man, this is exactly your problem. You don't actually understand how to look at things without bias. You're probably someone who is devoted to one political party and will never vote for a candidate from a rival party not because they are not the better choice for the job but because they're not part of the party you idolize. You exemplify what is wrong with politics in the United States right now so I wouldn't be surprised if you are American.

I don't know why your getting so upset. :|



The republicans have already proposed their own version of Cap and Trade that is almost exactly the same as the D's.

Thank you for proving my point. :lol

2. Is their movement based around the implementation of a Carbon Tax?

3. Will Wall Street and other parasitical interests be able to speculate on carbon after they pass cap and trade regulations on carbon only? (no other harmful chemicals included)


come on guys, coolies obviously right.

Thanks! :love

[The Leader]

Thank you for proving my point. :lol
What is your point?

[TheCoolinator]

What is your point?


Read

V



The republicans have already proposed their own version of Cap and Trade that is almost exactly the same as the D's.

[The Leader]

So you're not even sure what your point is then?

[Blasted Child]

A solid case? Blasted Child, all he does is post links to biased websites. That and he clearly doesn't understand what the theory of global warming actually is or rudimentary science.

Is it just me or has i-mockery suddenly turned very strict when it comes to debating standards?
Usually when we debate stuff over the internet, we link to articles. What is coolinator supposed to do, record himself as he travels with a weather balloon to collect the data?
We're all laymen here, all we can do is refer to stuff.

I think at least a few of the articles he linked to deserve some merit, and I like to consider myself equiped with a fairly critical set of eyes, but still, sure, everything can be dismissed as biased.

This being said, I'm still skeptical towards the conspiracy movement and the climate deniers, and heck, I agree that coolinator comes across as a tad sanctimonious, but hey he's probably young and going through a phase.

dunno, just thought this debate turned out a bit one-sided.

[TheCoolinator]

What is coolinator supposed to do, record himself as he travels with a weather balloon to collect the data?

LOL :lol2


dunno, just thought this debate turned out a bit one-sided.

Don't worry about it, I'm used to it. I got what I wanted to say out and we all enjoyed a nice conversation.

[The Leader]

But that's just it, I don't know what you had to say. You haven't presented any argument.

[Supafly345]

That is true, I feel I haven't been able to make any substantive rebuttals because no pointed arguments have been made. All I've been able to pick up is that there is a conspiracy somewhere.

I think his point was that using political motivation as his reason to deny global warming is invalid? Vaguely implied?

[The Leader]

I thought his point was that using political motivation as a reason to deny global warming was valid. :\

[The Leader]

Is it just me or has i-mockery suddenly turned very strict when it comes to debating standards?
Usually when we debate stuff over the internet, we link to articles. What is coolinator supposed to do, record himself as he travels with a weather balloon to collect the data?
We're all laymen here, all we can do is refer to stuff.

dunno, just thought this debate turned out a bit one-sided.
To address this, the problem is that few if any of his sources could be regarded as valid. That and I am trying to debate with him except I have no idea what his point is and he isn't really... Posting anything... It's like the same stuff over and over and he still hasn't stated what he means.

[Colonel Flagg]

Tu orum visita mentes.

[Colonel Flagg]

OK, I'll shut up. :(

[Colonel Flagg]

Is it just me or has i-mockery suddenly turned very strict when it comes to debating standards?
Usually when we debate stuff over the internet, we link to articles. What is coolinator supposed to do, record himself as he travels with a weather balloon to collect the data?
We're all laymen here, all we can do is refer to stuff.

I think at least a few of the articles he linked to deserve some merit, and I like to consider myself equiped with a fairly critical set of eyes, but still, sure, everything can be dismissed as biased.

This being said, I'm still skeptical towards the conspiracy movement and the climate deniers, and heck, I agree that coolinator comes across as a tad sanctimonious, but hey he's probably young and going through a phase.

dunno, just thought this debate turned out a bit one-sided.

The way I see it, (and feel free to disagree, for everyone has an opinion) the real problem witrh this highly emotional and politically charged topic is that people begin arguing viewpoints without a clear understanding of the fundamental principles. Thus, they tend to gravitate toward those arguments that most closely align with their beliefs. It's true in science, economics, health care, and, yes, even politics. (hows that for an oxymoron) This isn't factual, it's faith. (Hence the Latin aphorisms)

Coolie and his blogosphere are arguing based largely on faith. So are most of the proponents of the AGW hypothesis. (It's why you need to separate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak.) What both sides either fail to realize or refuse to speak about is that global climate change is documented and real. Causality is the issue over which there is much debate.

Does mankind have an adverse impact on the global climate? Define adverse. We are as much as any animal products of this environment. Yet we have either developed or have been granted (depending on your conceit) the intelligence and/or desire to alter said environment for our own purposes. Does this process pose a danger to the ecosystem? If we continue burning fossil fuels (incidentally generating tons and tons more CO2 than all other pollutants combined (and that can be calculated independently without resorting to faith)), dumping chemical and biological wastes, continue with irresponsible handling of nuclear waste byproducts, then yes, we do. The degree of that impact is what is at issue. Does it matter, on a global scale what mankind chooses to do with the environment, or is it merely a perturbation in a much larger and complex global climatary framework?

I recently looked at a similar situation on a much smaller scale - flooding on the Delaware River. Admittedly, I have a vested interest, but as a scientist, I was also curious. I found that there were two factions (surprise!) - those that want the upstate NY reservoirs (feeding fresh water to NYC) cut back to an 80% capacity to reduce the incidence of flooding downstream, and those that want the reservoirs kept at full or nearly full capacity year round, and use the spillways to regulate flow into the Delaware river.

The data for the river flow was readily available, and after some analysis, yielded a rather surprising result - neither side was completely correct. It seemed the real root cause was more likely increased development along the Delaware and in through upstate NY, and insufficient storm water handling provisions. It remains to be seen if keeping the reservoirs at a level slightly less than capacity during the wintertime will help, but the actual creation of the reservoir system has nothing to do with flooding.

I assume that a similar result would be found for the current issue at hand, if one wanted to analyze the data. That's why I don't like taking sides - it also involves narrowing your worldview, and the science suffers.

[The Leader]

I still have yet to be convinced by either side. :(

[The Leader]

CONVINCE ME COOLINATOR

[Evil Robot]

I would like to know why this collinator jerk thinks we all have time to sift through all the crazy articles he posted but did not write nor fully comprehend. I for one am just not going to do that. If he cant explain why his opinions are valid then that only means they are not valid.

[TheCoolinator]

arguing based largely on faith............. global climate change is documented and real

Oh come on......:confused: >:

I at least gave more examples then that to support my argument. Real examples from real sources from all over the world. Publicly documented confessions of climate scientists changing numbers to create the appearance of a changing climate because of CO2 emissions. Top scientists that have stopped believing in the myth because of lack of accurate data.

You guys have been calling me every name in the book while looking down your condescending elitists noses at me. All of which end in "You don't know SCIENCE" or "You don't know the principles" like it's some magical formula that only trained wizards are taught after years of apprenticeship and on top of that every single article that is literally common knowledge is condemned as "BIASED".

If we continue burning fossil fuels (incidentally generating tons and tons more CO2 than all other pollutants combined) CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 has no affect on the climate. There is no evidence that links CO2 to rising temperatures. The sun controls the heat of the globe as it controls the temperature of every single other celestial body in the solar system.

Al Gore's Carbon Tax will not save the world from the Sun.

dumping chemical and biological wastes, continue with irresponsible handling of nuclear waste byproducts, then yes, we do. The degree of that impact is what is at issue. No, Global Warming proponents don't care about chemicals, wastes, and spend nuclear fuel rods. They only care about Carbon and they center everything on CO2. I've been saying this from the beginning.


CONVINCE ME COOLINATOR

I'm tired.....ask me a question tomorrow and I will attempt to answer it to the best of my ability. :sleep

[The Leader]

Al Gore's Carbon Tax will not save the world from the Sun.
Why do you keep talking about solutions to the problem? That is not the issue we are discussing. I am trying to understand what scientific evidence you have that supports that there is not global warming. You have only posted links to articles which talk about people who have manipulated data to make it appear that climate change is occurring at a faster rate than it is. Some studies which are invalid do not negate all of the data that has been gathered over the past few hundred years which supports the theory of climate change.

No, Global Warming proponents don't care about chemicals, wastes, and spend nuclear fuel rods. They only care about Carbon and they center everything on CO2. I've been saying this from the beginning.
That doesn't affect the validity of what he posted. We are not discussing what some idiots believe. We are trying to discern what information you have that supports the idea that the theory of global warming is false. We do not want to hear about how people have taken advantage of this theory but what scientific evidence you have found.

[Supafly345]

Oh come on......:confused: >:

I at least gave more examples then that to support my argument. Real examples from real sources from all over the world. Publicly documented confessions of climate scientists changing numbers to create the appearance of a changing climate because of CO2 emissions. Top scientists that have stopped believing in the myth because of lack of accurate data.

This is a fallacious arguing tactic called "shifting of burden" where one challenges a person to prove them wrong when challenged to provide evidence in the first place. It is not honest.

As far as these publicly documented confessions of climate scientists forging data to forward an unfounded appearance of climate change- I know of only one example you could possibly be referring to. This wasn't an actual study of climate change that was under investigation, but rather the use of tree-ring data to be used as a valid measurement of temperature. The fudging of data was speculated in private documents, where they discussed replacing the temps of the tree ring data, which showed the earth cooling, to that of the actual temperatures which showed the earth warming. The actual temperatures it was changed to was taken from satellite measurements, so they are accurate. In the end the paper that was published never included this fudged data so the whole controversy didn't matter in the first place, even though the scientist in question has stepped down temporarily while an investigation over the matter is taking place.

There are no top scientists that have stopped believing in climate change, the top scientists that don't believe in climate change now have always been skeptics. In fact the number of climate scientists that support anthropogenic climate change has only grown in the past 20 years. In many climate denilist websites there is a common mis-reporting of interviews, distortion of data, and outright lies in them.
One of the most recent ones was the story that the top climate scientist Phil Jones has completely changed his mind and now claims that "there has been no global warming since 1995" because he said there was no significant data- which can be see here DAILY MAIL (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html). But if you read the original article HERE (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8511670.stm) he says over and over that anthropogenic climate change is real and that its 100% certain we have been warming since then.
So what happened? Well it turns out that the minimum amount of time that a scientifically significant measurement can be taken is 15 years, so when asked the question "has there been significant warming since 1995" he has to honestly say no, because that is one year shy of being significant, and the daily mail and other fact spinners can claim "there has been no significant warming" according to climatologist Phil Jones.

You see? Do you understand now that where you are getting your information is so twisted from reality that you have been completely disconnected?

There, I have taken the time to explain, and use examples in SHOWING you why. Not just linking to shit and claiming its proof, but giving detailed explanations. Now obviously I don't have time to give you months and months worth of data and hundreds of examples, but I shouldn't have to. Just stop letting yourself get lied to by conspiracy theorist.


I also just noticed the argument about means for climate change OTHER than CO2, well the only other 2 factors that are anywhere near capable right now of changing our climate is by Volcanic and Solar forcing. And both of those have been constant. You can pull up negligible arguments including methane, increased precipitation, oxygen, yadda yadda, but they don't have enough significance. The environmentalists focus on CO2 because thats what the scientists have been claiming the problem to be. Yes all these other arguments COULD potentially be the cause of climate change, IF IF IF they were increasing, but they arent.

[Colonel Flagg]

arguing based largely on faith........global climate change is documented and real.
Oh come on......:confused: >:

I at least gave more examples then that to support my argument. Real examples from real sources from all over the world. Publicly documented confessions of climate scientists changing numbers to create the appearance of a changing climate because of CO2 emissions. Top scientists that have stopped believing in the myth because of lack of accurate data.

You need to go back and read my previous post for comprehension. You obviously failed Geology or Natural Science somewhere down the line, because you completely missed the Ice Age reference. What you've been pontificating about is the AGW hypothesis, and this is something completely different.



incidentally generating tons and tons more CO2 than all other pollutants combined

CO2 is not a pollutant.

from www.dictionary.com (http://www.dictionary.com):

Pollutant (n.) - any substance, as certain chemicals or waste products, that renders the air, soil, water, or other natural resource harmful or unsuitable for a specific purpose.

You can try living in an enclosed room with only CO2 to breathe, and see how long it takes before you asphyxiate. Pollutants come in many forms, and too much of of anything can be bad for the environment.

CO2 has no affect on the climate. There is no evidence that links CO2 to rising temperatures. The sun controls the heat of the globe as it controls the temperature of every single other celestial body in the solar system.

CO2 is a strong IR absorber, and as the concentration of CO2 goes up, so does its ability in the air to absorb and store heat (for lack of a better term). If global atmospheric CO2 levels reached a sufficiently high level, then yes, they would significantly contribute to the warming of the planet. The key word here, however, is "if". As for the sun controlling the heat of the globe ... well mere words cannot describe the incredible intuitive grasp you have of the obvious.

Global Warming proponents don't care about chemicals, wastes, and spend nuclear fuel rods. They only care about Carbon and they center everything on CO2. I've been saying this from the beginning.

Bullshit. I brought these points up because (drumroll) I agree with this part of your mostly inept argument. We need to look at mankind's impact on the environment from all sources, and CO2 is only one source.

In closing, please take my advice, and reread my previous post for comprehension, scanning all areas for the word "warming". You'll find it does not occur (with one exception - and it's minor). This is intentional.

[Colonel Flagg]

As far as these publicly documented confessions of climate scientists forging data to forward an unfounded appearance of climate change- I know of only one example you could possibly be referring to. This wasn't an actual study of climate change that was under investigation, but rather the use of tree-ring data to be used as a valid measurement of temperature. The fudging of data was speculated in private documents, where they discussed replacing the temps of the tree ring data, which showed the earth cooling, to that of the actual temperatures which showed the earth warming. The actual temperatures it was changed to was taken from satellite measurements, so they are accurate. In the end the paper that was published never included this fudged data so the whole controversy didn't matter in the first place, even though the scientist in question has stepped down temporarily while an investigation over the matter is taking place.

There are no top scientists that have stopped believing in climate change, the top scientists that don't believe in climate change now have always been skeptics. In fact the number of climate scientists that support anthropogenic climate change has only grown in the past 20 years. In many climate denilist websites there is a common mis-reporting of interviews, distortion of data, and outright lies in them.
One of the most recent ones was the story that the top climate scientist Phil Jones has completely changed his mind and now claims that "there has been no global warming since 1995" because he said there was no significant data- which can be see here DAILY MAIL (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html). But if you read the original article HERE (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8511670.stm) he says over and over that anthropogenic climate change is real and that its 100% certain we have been warming since then.
So what happened? Well it turns out that the minimum amount of time that a scientifically significant measurement can be taken is 15 years, so when asked the question "has there been significant warming since 1995" he has to honestly say no, because that is one year shy of being significant, and the daily mail and other fact spinners can claim "there has been no significant warming" according to climatologist Phil Jones.

You see? Do you understand now that where you are getting your information is so twisted from reality that you have been completely disconnected?

There, I have taken the time to explain, and use examples in SHOWING you why. Not just linking to shit and claiming its proof, but giving detailed explanations. Now obviously I don't have time to give you months and months worth of data and hundreds of examples, but I shouldn't have to. Just stop letting yourself get lied to by conspiracy theorist.


I also just noticed the argument about means for climate change OTHER than CO2, well the only other 2 factors that are anywhere near capable right now of changing our climate is by Volcanic and Solar forcing. And both of those have been constant. You can pull up negligible arguments including methane, increased precipitation, oxygen, yadda yadda, but they don't have enough significance. The environmentalists focus on CO2 because thats what the scientists have been claiming the problem to be. Yes all these other arguments COULD potentially be the cause of climate change, IF IF IF they were increasing, but they arent.

Now THIS is a measured, well-reasoned argument.

[Supafly345]

The ironic part is that I was a climate denier about 6 or 7 months ago, and I honestly didn't know much about it the real science behind it, just the hype and weak pseudo science to refute it. I somehow became obsessed with the topic and learned way too much about it and, thanks to an open mind, changed my mind. So I know a lot about both sides of the argument. In fact I may know more about the anti-climate change shit than the supporting stuff because I was hardcore in it for so long.

Thats why I keep urging Coolinator to do real research, check the scientific journals, and learn about the scientific process. It took a lot of time, research, and understanding for me to change my mind. Hell, even if he had a good understanding the scientific process of testing, confirmation, peer review and everything that goes into turning something into a theory, he wouldn't question global warming. Forging data is next to impossible. And forging so much data over so many years among thousands of independant scientists who came to the same conclusion? That is impossible.

[Colonel Flagg]

I was just reading a sidebar in the magazine "Reason" where they talked about the "climategate e-mails". It pretty much follows your argument, so I won't discuss it beyond mentioning this interesting tidbit. Apparently, one of the lead researchers stated that the whole problem of having this issue arise is that the relevant data needs to be more publicly accessible. This will allow for more individuals to do in a few weeks what it took you 6 months to do.

I have to go back and read the article "for comprehension" but it appears to be relatively well balanced - a refreshing change from most of the rantings I've been subjected to on TEH INTERWEBS.

[Blasted Child]

CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 has no affect on the climate. There is no evidence that links CO2 to rising temperatures. The sun controls the heat of the globe as it controls the temperature of every single other celestial body in the solar system.


I think you need to revise this statement, coolinator. Even if we choose not to call CO2 a pollutant, it's widely recognised among the vast majority of researchers as a greenhouse gas; one that contributes to warmer climate and one that has increased in the atmosphere with one third since the industrial revolution.
It's also measured that human activity results in about 100 times more CO2 than volcanoes and other natural sources, on an annual basis.

It's not only the sun that governs our temperature and climate, it's a very complex system and the greenhouse gases play a major role. I'm afraid this is very basic meteorology.

[TheCoolinator]

All I see is an avalanche of doublethink going on here......


"The scientists lied about the data entry but it's OK because it didn't go into the final report"

"Scientists said the globe hasn't been warming since 1995 but he still believes in man made global warming"


Since there is no anthropogenic global warming we must ask ourselves what can change the climate. Is it humans? We impact 6% of the overall climate with our factories and other combustible materials. None of which ever reaches so high up in the stratosphere to block anything. As I've been saying all along there is no good science linking CO2 to the warming of the earth. Many scientists and meteorologists agree.

There are only two things that have the capacity to change the environment:

When the sun has a very active sun spot cycle and causing the earth to warm, this excess heat creates water vapor that further holds in heat.

&

Volcanoes that emit billions of tons of Sulphur gas into the atmosphere that cool the globe by reflecting the suns rays.

So right here we have a cooling and warming cycle that mankind has absolutely nothing to do with. We affect only 6% of the climate. 6%.

Global Warming advocates are nothing more then neo-Malthusians. This is an ruling class ideology. Hence why there is a carbon tax attached to every climate bill. They want the peasants to pay for their crimes against mother earth. The next stop will probably be one child policies.

Sceptics said this was the first time a senior scientist working with the IPCC had admitted to the possibility that the Medieval Warming Period could have been global, and therefore the world could have been hotter then than now.

No cars or factories in Medieval times.


Dr Benny Pieser, director of the sceptical Global Warming Policy Foundation, said Professor Jones’s ‘excuses’ for his failure to share data were hollow as he had shared it with colleagues and ‘mates’.
He said that until all the data was released, sceptics could not test it to see if it supported the conclusions claimed by climate change advocates.


The climate cultist have not disclosed all of their research. Much of which is hidden and or so falsified they cannot allow it to see the light of day.


He added that the professor’s concessions over medieval warming were ‘significant’ because they were his first public admission that the science was not settled.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html#ixzz0iLSdh9Mv (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html#ixzz0iLSdh9Mv)


hmmmm....

Now lets multiply that by 1000 and add all of the private donors pushing for carbon trading and taxing.

[Zhukov]

I don't think you should write off global warming mainly or even partly based on the fact that ruling classes are taking advantage of the hysteria behind it; they do that with everything.

As for the science, I'm not party to comment here I suppose, since I haven't read the walls of text presented for either argument. I have, however, browsed the facts slightly, and it does look to me as if human involvement in global warming is real. But I say again, I haven't delved very far into it at all.

[Colonel Flagg]

I am at a loss as to how to respond to any individual that has completely closed their mind to other explanations, theories or arguments about any topic, be it contentious or not.

Coolie has constantly harped on how carbon trading and taxation is wrong, and that we are idiots for buying into this. Yet, I can't think of anyone who has even mentioned these issues except him. He doesn't ask, he YELLS - and when he doesn't think he's being heard, he quotes articles, blogs and searches the web for information that bolsters his narrow viewpoint.

I said it before, and I say it again here: Global climate change is factual. The causation and prediction is what is fueling this particular debate. And, contrary to what Coolie might say, I am not nor have I ever been a staunch supporter of the AGW hypothesis. (It's still a hypothesis, after all, not a theory.) Personally, I would need to see the data for myself, much like SF did.

Right after I back up my hard drive. :\

[TheCoolinator]

If you're saying that seasons exist and there is a cycle of cooling and warming than I agree but I must stand firm on the ground that this whole Man made Global warming stuff is nothing more than a very intricate ruse. A cynical trick played on the public using emotionally charged end-of-the-world rhetoric.

Problem, Reaction, Solution.


Ex-Climate change Scientist Speaks out on his doubts about Man Made Global Warming.



There has not been a public debate about the causes of global warming and most of the public and our decision makers are not aware of the most basic salient facts:

1. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it.

2. There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None. There is plenty of evidence that global warming has occurred, and theory suggests that carbon emissions should raise temperatures (though by how much is hotly disputed) but there are no observations by anyone that implicate carbon emissions as a significant cause of the recent global warming.

3. The satellites that measure the world's temperature all say that the warming trend ended in 2001, and that the temperature has dropped about 0.6C in the past year (to the temperature of 1980). Land-based temperature readings are corrupted by the "urban heat island" effect: urban areas encroaching on thermometer stations warm the micro-climate around the thermometer, due to vegetation changes, concrete, cars, houses. Satellite data is the only temperature data we can trust, but it only goes back to 1979. NASA reports only land-based data, and reports a modest warming trend and recent cooling. The other three global temperature records use a mix of satellite and land measurements, or satellite only, and they all show no warming since 2001 and a recent cooling.


4. The new ice cores show that in the past six global warmings over the past half a million years, the temperature rises occurred on average 800 years before the accompanying rise in atmospheric carbon. Which says something important about which was cause and which was effect.

The world has spent $50 billion on global warming since 1990, and we have not found any actual evidence that carbon emissions cause global warming. Evidence consists of observations made by someone at some time that supports the idea that carbon emissions cause global warming. Computer models and theoretical calculations are not evidence, they are just theory.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/no-smoking-hot-spot/story-e6frg73o-1111116945238 (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/no-smoking-hot-spot/story-e6frg73o-1111116945238)


.................

I don't think you should write off global warming mainly or even partly based on the fact that ruling classes are taking advantage of the hysteria behind it; they do that with everything.


That's fine,

I'm just glad your aware of their manipulation but this is not just taking advantage of a situation this is actually creating the situation and funding a bottom up movement to force an agenda.

[The Leader]

Coolinator, if you are unable to debate an issue do you really think that you have any facts on your side?

[Colonel Flagg]

If you're saying that seasons exist and there is a cycle of cooling and warming than I agree

My God, can you really be this dense?

I've only used the ignore feature once. I can't say this anymore. :(

[Colonel Flagg]

Wow. This thread tightened up nicely all of a sudden. ;)

[Pentegarn]

My God, can you really be this dense?

I've only used the ignore feature once. I can't say this anymore. :(

I gotta know, who was your first?

[TheCoolinator]

Coolie has constantly harped on how carbon trading and taxation is wrong, and that we are idiots for buying into this.
................................
He doesn't ask, he YELLS
...................................
My God, can you really be this dense? I've only used the ignore feature once. I can't say this anymore.

I don't remember calling anyone an idiot, Nor do I remember yelling, if that's even possible through this communication medium. Maybe if I used caps a lot....which I didn't. I do remember getting called names on numerous occasions though. Names like "idiot", "Conspiracy theorist", and "naive"

Either way, having a tantrum and ignoring an opposing viewpoint doesn't really help your argument out too much. Just look at the bright side. We both believe seasons exist.

[Pentegarn]

You do realize he can't see your reply right? That's how ignore works

[Tadao]

I don't remember calling anyone an idiot or yelling, if that's even possible through this communication medium. Maybe if I used caps a lot....which I didn't. I do remember getting called names on numerous occasions though. Names like "idiot", "Conspiracy theorist", and "naive"

Either way, having a tantrum and ignoring an opposing viewpoint doesn't really help your argument out too much. Just look at the bright side. We both believe seasons exist.

He can now.

[TheCoolinator]

You do realize he can't see your reply right? That's how ignore works

I know,

I just wanted to point out how silly it is to ignore someone over a debate.

[Pentegarn]

He can now.

:lol

[Supafly345]

I just caught up on everything. Jesus christ, I have been patient and giving him the benefit of the doubt so far, foolishly thinking that he was open minded and just didn't understand. But there is a complete lack of willingness to change his mind. He mentions someone else ignoring him, but I have been completely ignored, either that or he is completely unable to comprehend legitimate debate. I feel like I am talking to an arrogant idiot version of myself from high school. This thread isn't an adult debate, its a plea for rational thought opposed to stonewalling.

"Ignorance begets confidence more than it does understanding"

[TheCoolinator]

I just caught up on everything. Jesus christ, I have been patient and giving him the benefit of the doubt so far, foolishly thinking that he was open minded and just didn't understand. But there is a complete lack of willingness to change his mind. He mentions someone else ignoring him, but I have been completely ignored, either that or he is completely unable to comprehend legitimate debate. I feel like I am talking to an arrogant idiot version of myself from high school. This thread isn't an adult debate, its a plea for rational thought opposed to stonewalling.

"Ignorance begets confidence more than it does understanding"

I did respond to you. I actually used one of your quotes to help my argument along. You said that both political parties have the same Cap and Trade bill. Not only is that a smoking gun but it gives validity to what I have been saying all along.

The whole entire Global warming mythos is to push through a wall street agenda.

Speculators and hedgefunds what to buy and sell Carbon credits and the oligarchs on top want free Carbon Tax money to go from the people and be directed into their coffers. Just imagine billions of dollars paid at the pump and your maintenance payments going to some unaccountable, unelected, aristocrat in the United Nations.

Pisses me off I can tell you that much.

[Blasted Child]

So right here we have a cooling and warming cycle that mankind has absolutely nothing to do with. We affect only 6% of the climate. 6%

Do you find this statement a bit paradoxal, Coolinator? In the same sentence you make two opposite claims.
If you pulled that 6% figure out of anything apart from your behind, it's still an alarming percentage. Consider how very little warming it takes to lay waste to entire coastal areas, owing to ice melting. One could argue that mother earth has been through worse, and that a few degrees up and down isn't much in the big picture, but we're talking very fragile human societies here; island nations that simply can't afford moving and have nowhere to go. Maybe the entire biosphere isn't at risk, but poor people certainly are.

[The Leader]

ignoring an opposing viewpoint doesn't really help your argument out too much.
That's kind of what you're doing though. Go back through this thread and read Supafly's and Flagg's posts and your responses. Or heck, anyone's posts and your responses. It's almost as if you didn't even read their posts.

[Tadao]

Not just the poor, if the currents change all the rich people will be fucked as well.

[The Leader]

Not if they can afford to buy their own island and... Oh.

[TheCoolinator]

That's kind of what you're doing though. Go back through this thread and read Supafly's and Flagg's posts and your responses. Or heck, anyone's posts and your responses. It's almost as if you didn't even read their posts.

Since they're all parroting the same rhetoric I really didn't need to respond to all of them individually. They pretty much got the same response I would have given them if I was speaking to them directly.

[The Leader]

Parroting the same rhetoric? You have not debated with them. You have not disproved what they post. All you have done is link to articles which have already been pointed out to be either misleading, biased, or to contain faulty information. Where are the studies that show that global warming is not occurring? Where is the data that supports your side of the argument? Can you post a link to a actual study or scholarly article which backs up your case that global warming is not occurring.

To clarify something else, I think that everyone agrees with you that people like Al Gore are exploiting the fear of global warming and all of that jazz so please don't discuss motivations that exist to fabricate global warming. What I am asking for is actual data that has been gathered that supports your argument.

[TheCoolinator]

Do you find this statement a bit paradoxal, Coolinator? In the same sentence you make two opposite claims.
If you pulled that 6% figure out of anything apart from your behind, it's still an alarming percentage.

The first part of that statement was directed towards the Sun and Volcanic activity (Non-man made). The second part was the percentage of human activity as a whole and I didn't specify how we affected the environment. Compared to the amount that 1 volcano or a sun cycle heavy in sun spots could do it's completely negligable.

Consider how very little warming it takes to lay waste to entire coastal areas, owing to ice melting.

When has Global Warming ever destroyed anything? I can't find one natural disaster that was ever linked to global warming.


One could argue that mother earth has been through worse, and that a few degrees up and down isn't much in the big picture, but we're talking very fragile human societies here; island nations that simply can't afford moving and have nowhere to go. Maybe the entire biosphere isn't at risk, but poor people certainly are.


That's all very melodramatic and all but its not proven it will do this. Don't think emotionally. Ask yourself who is telling you all these gloom and doom stories? Where are these ideas manifesting from?

Please, read the articles that I posted, see what's really going on. The world is not going to come to an end because Al Gore and Company say it is. I understand that there is pollution but their solutions will not change a thing.

[The Leader]

Did you not read my last post?

[TheCoolinator]

Did you not read my last post?


Two Peer-Reviewed Scientific Papers Debunk CO2 Myth
http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/july2008/071608_debunk_myth.htm


I posted this yesterday. Here it is again. Please read BOTH peer-reviewed papers debunking the myth.

[The Leader]

I think I found the first article but I had to either subscribe to the site or pay for the individual article. I have found the second one published by Physics Society. In the beginning of every article it is written, and I quote: "The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review, since that is not normal procedure for American Physical Society newsletters. The American Physical Society reaffirms the following position on climate change, adopted by its governing body, the APS Council, on November 18, 2007: 'Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate.'" Here is where I found the article.
(http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/index.cfm)

[Dimnos]

So are you saying warming is hogwash? Or just that the fat cats are using it as yet another means of lining their pockets? What exactly is your point? In two sentences or less and without posting a link.

[Tadao]

It's like saying people who made money on Katrina conspired for it to happen so that they could make money.

[TheCoolinator]

I think I found the first article but I had to either subscribe to the site or pay for the individual article. I have found the second one published by Physics Society. In the beginning of every article it is written, and I quote: "The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review, since that is not normal procedure for American Physical Society newsletters. The American Physical Society reaffirms the following position on climate change, adopted by its governing body, the APS Council, on November 18, 2007: 'Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate.'" Here is where I found the article.
(http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/index.cfm)


The full quote below.

The Forum on Physics and Society is a place for discussion and disagreement on scientific and policy matters. Our newsletter publishes a combination of non- peer- reviewed technical articles, policy analyses, and opinion. All articles and editorials published in the newsletter solely represent the views of their authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Forum Executive Committee.



The FPS Executive Committee strongly endorses the position of the APS Council that "Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate." The statement in the July 2008 edition of our newsletter, Physics and Society that, "There is considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for the global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution" does not represent the views of the Executive Committee of the Forum on Physics and Society.
Full article

Three top scientists have once again contradicted the claim that a "consensus" exists about man-made global warming with research that indicates CO2 emissions actually cool the atmosphere, in addition to another peer-reviewed paper that documents how the IPCC overstated CO2's effect on temperature by as much as 2000 per cent.


Professor George Chilingar and Leonid Khilyuk of the University of Southern California, and Oleg Sorokhtin of the Institute of Oceanology of the Russian Academy of Sciences have released a study that they claim completely contradicts the link between CO2 and global temperature increases.


"The writers investigated the effect of CO2 emission on the temperature of atmosphere. Computations based on the adiabatic theory of greenhouse effect show that increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere results in cooling rather than warming of the Earth’s atmosphere," states the preamble (http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content%7Econtent=a788582859%7Edb=all) to the paper.


The full study, which appears in the Energy Sources journal, is sure to cause ire amongst climate cult adherants.


No global warming has been observed for the past 10 years (http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/april2008/040408_cools_off.htm) as temperatures have gradually declined and studies indicate that there will be no further warming (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-563104/Global-warming-stop-NATURALLY-years-say-scientists.html) for the next 10 years.


In a related development, the peer-reviewed Physics and Society journal has published evidence (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/press/proved_no_climate_crisis.html) proving that the UN IPCC's 2007 climate summary "overstated CO2’s impact on temperature by 500-2000%."
According to the paper, "Computer models used by the UN’s climate panel (IPCC) were pre-programmed with overstated values for the three variables whose product is “climate sensitivity” (temperature increase in response to greenhouse-gas increase), resulting in a 500-2000% overstatement of CO2’s effect on temperature in the IPCC’s latest climate assessment report, published in 2007."


The paper also outlines evidence to confirm that Mars, Jupiter, Neptune’s largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same time as Earth warmed, a factor attributed to the Sun having been more active than at almost any other time in the past 11,400 years.
The paper concludes, "CO2 enrichment will add little more than 1 °F (0.6 °C) to global mean surface temperature by 2100."

[The Leader]

Yes, I've seen all that. The point is that the first paper does not come from a peer reviewed source, meaning that it has not been checked for errors. The entire paper may, hypothetically, be completely false. Did you only read the articles discussing the papers or did you read the papers themselves? The last thing you quoted is not the actual study but a brief overview of it. I've noticed that when I have actually gone through the links you have posted and read the papers, studies etc that they discuss, that none of them dispute that there is global warming. The closest that they come to it is disputing whether or not CO2 is a primary cause of it. In fact, many of the articles which propagandamatrix links to, including one in your quotation, state that CO2 is the primary factor in global warming. The sites you frequent evidently pick out the parts of articles and papers that they agree with while ignoring the portions which back up the opposition's side.

I struggle to see how these articles support your opinion when they often in fact detract from it.

[TheCoolinator]

Yes, I've seen all that. The point is that the first paper does not come from a peer reviewed source, meaning that it has not been checked for errors. The entire paper may, hypothetically, be completely false. Did you only read the articles discussing the papers or did you read the papers themselves? The last thing you quoted is not the actual study but a brief overview of it. I've noticed that when I have actually gone through the links you have posted and read the papers, studies etc that they discuss, that none of them dispute that there is global warming. The closest that they come to it is disputing whether or not CO2 is a primary cause of it. In fact, many of the articles which propagandamatrix links to, including one in your quotation, state that CO2 is the primary factor in global warming. The sites you frequent evidently pick out the parts of articles and papers that they agree with while ignoring the portions which back up the opposition's side.

I struggle to see how these articles support your opinion when they often in fact detract from it.

I don't think I can make it much clearer. You have to come to your own conclusions.

[Supafly345]

The myth that the earth has been cooling is one of the stupidest, and easiest to handle arguments out there, and to think there is any scientist that believes that is rediculous. There is an 11 year solar cycle where temperature rises and falls, then starts over again, the trend of warming is shown in the increasingly higher highs each cycle. So when they say "there has been no global warming for the past decade" and present that as proof, it is invalid because that isn't enough time for a full solar cycle, and like I said earlier, the amount of time needs to be over 15 years for it to be a significant measurement.
The fact of the matter is that back in 1998 we had an outrageously hot year that was a complete anomaly that spiked outside of our current warming trend completely, and it isn't very likely we will reach that temperature again very soon, and so climate deniers like to compare any temp today to that and say "see? its cooler than it was in 1998, therefore we are cooling." When in science statistics the peaks like that are smoothed out. The bottom line is that any number of years that shows a cooling trend that is under 15 is invalid as a legitimate statistic, because it isn't enough time to make a scientifically significant measurement.

And I read around in your last article, and clicked the link they claimed as their source, and guess what I found?
The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review, since that is not normal procedure for American Physical Society newsletters. The American Physical Society reaffirms the following position on climate change, adopted by its governing body, the APS Council, on November 18, 2007: "Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate."That was the preface to the source article that YOU posted. The paper was NOT peer reviewed, and as everyone knows as a fundamental step in the scientific process: no paper is considered legitimate science until it is peer reviewed. Not only was it not peer reviewed, but the people who published it take an aside to let the reader know that they officially agree with anthropogenic climate change. The link claims it was peer reviewed, but if you click it you find out that it is not. None of these sources are from reputable science journals.
There were a few links in it that actually did go to peer reviewed papers, but I couldn't read them because I needed to be a paying member of their info website or something, so I couldn't check them- they were only vaguely cited anyways so I don't think they had a huge impact on the article you posted. But there are a number of scientist out there with legitimate papers out there that do go against what the majority of science papers are saying. But we don't go with the theories with the least support, we go for the ones with the most.

I don't have time to check everything you link, but I think the random check I made should be a good indicator of how credible your sources are.

[TheCoolinator]

The Forum on Physics and Society is a place for discussion and disagreement on scientific and policy matters. Our newsletter publishes a combination of non- peer- reviewed technical articles, policy analyses, and opinion. All articles and editorials published in the newsletter solely represent the views of their authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Forum Executive Committee.



The FPS Executive Committee strongly endorses the position of the APS Council that "Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate." The statement in the July 2008 edition of our newsletter, Physics and Society that, "There is considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for the global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution" does not represent the views of the Executive Committee of the Forum on Physics and Society.Here again...is the FULL quote.

You guys are clinging to sand here. Your seeing what you want to see.

Not only was it not peer reviewed, but the people who published it take an aside to let the reader know that they officially agree with anthropogenic climate change.

lol, I wonder who's paying their bills.....

Ok, Now its time to show me why Global Warming is real.

Proceed.

[Supafly345]

Are you high? It still feels like you aren't reading anything I write and just make smug short remarks instead of actual rebuttals. Read that FULL quote, it says specifically that that very opinion does not reflect theirs.

None of this is from a science journal anyway. Unless you can find some papers from a peer reviewed science journal, and not an article reporting on a paper about an article, it is questionable.

[VaporTrailx1]

CO2 levels have been much, much higher throughout Earth's history although I wouldn't really count the pre-Carbiniferous levels since it was a vastly different ecosystem(ie. not much land vegetation). But throughout the Mesozoic, it was much higher than today.

http://deforestation.geologist-1011.net/PhanerozoicCO2-Temperatures.png
Just as a side note. There seems to be a correlation between points where the temperature rebounds after a lowpoint and mass extinctions. for Example Ordivician/Silurian extinction, and the end Permian. There's no real good parallel to our current period btw. The Permian was in terms of Temperature levels, but there was pretty much one giant continent and one giant ocean, so it was vastly diferent other than that.

[Colonel Flagg]

I don't remember calling anyone an idiot or yelling, if that's even possible through this communication medium. Maybe if I used caps a lot....which I didn't. I do remember getting called names on numerous occasions though. Names like "idiot", "Conspiracy theorist", and "naive"

Either way, having a tantrum and ignoring an opposing viewpoint doesn't really help your argument out too much. Just look at the bright side. We both believe seasons exist.

He can now.

Thanks T. ;)

Coolio, I think I was incredibly patient with you, trying to tease out of you something other than rhetoric to support your position on the AGW hypothesis. I even admitted agreeing with a portion of your argument, in the context of a larger whole. I did not go so far as to correct your scientific blunders nor your grammar (which on the whole was OK) - this would have been obstructively rude. However, you continued to ignore or misinterpret everything I wrote, in some cases modifying my words to fit your own ends. This is the height of hypocrisy, considering you are accusing individuals of manipulating data to support AGW.

I was trying to be nice. Now, all I hear is a faint buzzing sound, and all is good. :)

Peace to you.

CF

[TheCoolinator]

CO2 levels have been much, much higher throughout Earth's history although I wouldn't really count the pre-Carbiniferous levels since it was a vastly different ecosystem(ie. not much land vegetation). But throughout the Mesozoic, it was much higher than today.

http://deforestation.geologist-1011.net/PhanerozoicCO2-Temperatures.png
Just as a side note. There seems to be a correlation between points where the temperature rebounds after a lowpoint and mass extinctions. for Example Ordivician/Silurian extinction, and the end Permian.

Ironically I was just re-reading one of the articles that I previously posted and they were saying the same exact thing.

Here is the quote.

8. New research on our gasses


AT least four new papers by top scientists cast doubt on the IPCC claim that our carbon dioxide emissions are strongly linked to global warming.


One, published in Nature, shows the world had ice age activity even when atmospheric CO2 was four times the level of our pre-industrial times.


Another, by NASA medallist John Christy and David Douglass, shows global temperatures did not go up as much as expected from man-made emissions over the past three decades.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/the-billion-dollar-hoax/story-e6frfhqf-1225823736564

[Colonel Flagg]

So right here we have a cooling and warming cycle that mankind has absolutely nothing to do with. We affect only 6% of the climate. 6%

If you pulled that 6% figure out of anything apart from your behind, it's still an alarming percentage.

BC, I don't think even he knows what he's going to say next. If this is true than it is a potent argument FOR the validity of the AGW hypothesis.

Wait for it ....

[VaporTrailx1]

CO2 = bad

[The Leader]

You guys are clinging to sand here. Your seeing what you want to see.
Are you serious? You can't provide any evidence that there is no global warming, you ignore the fact that none of the articles you linked to claim that there is no global warming, only the sites that you found those articles linked from claimed that. Do you actually realize that you don't know what you're talking about or do you actually believe that you are correct, or rather that the sites where you get your opinions are correct?

Ask yourself this, have you ever actually read any of the papers or reports about global warming or have you only read conspiracy websites? Obviously you haven't because you evidently don't know anything about what has been found out about global climate change.

You aren't even voicing your own opinion, you're only regurgitating what the websites you look at say. You think that you're being targeted because you are thinking outside the box but you're not. You're being targeted because you evidently can't think outside of the box. You are unable to accept any information presented to you that is contrary to what you believe.

Prior to you joining these forums I had no opinion in regards to global warming/climate change, whether it was real or fictional etc, but after having read your comments and seen what kind of indoctrinated, unthinking, close minded individual you are when it comes to this issue I am beginning to think that there is in fact science behind global warming. Supafly has stated that he was a skeptic until he actually read into the theory. Someone who is able to actually asses the views of their opposition is a thinking person. You are not, evidently, and I am sure that you will read this and in your holier than thou mode of thought will think me a follower, duped by mass opinion, but I am not. I am not influenced by the opinions of the masses but rather by the opinion of one and their complete, needless detachment from reality.

[Supafly345]

There is no silver bullet to prove global warming, so it would take ages to go over it all, but it is easy to debunk junk skeptic claims. However there is an unlimited amount of those, so I would never have a break until a desire of understanding surfaces. I'll stick around but I am not going to play an active role in this thread any longer. For anyone on the fence I'll again post the very good video series that I posted earlier, but it was in link for so it could have been easy to miss. Its very good and covers tons of the best arguments, and cites sources.
52KLGqDSAjo

[TheCoolinator]

CO2 = bad

I agree.

Anyone else find it silly that they had to change the name of the movement from Global Warming to Climate change just in case the weather got cooler.....now they can blame it on CO2 no matter what the temperature is.

In the documentary "Out Foxed" you see where the phrase Climate Change came from. A right wing public relation firm made it up.

[Zhukov]

There is no silver bullet to prove global warming, so it would take ages to go over it all, but it is easy to debunk junk skeptic claims. However there is an unlimited amount of those, so I would never have a break until a desire of understanding surfaces. I'll stick around but I am not going to play an active role in this thread any longer. For anyone on the fence I'll again post the very good video series that I posted earlier, but it was in link for so it could have been easy to miss. Its very good and covers tons of the best arguments, and cites sources.
52KLGqDSAjo

Thanks for the video, it cleared up at least one thing for me; the man released gases merely trigger the climate change. Interesting. Now I have to watch all the other videos I guess.

[Colonel Flagg]

Good video, SF. Thanks.

[TheCoolinator]

I think we should all be asking ourselves why the Global Warmer community (Privately funded) would want to demonize a benign gas like CO2.

How I see it is that they wish to criminalize the gas in the mind of the public. Their mode of operation is to throw out an emotionally charged ideology (End of the World Scenario), mainly focused at the youth to create a synthetic mass movement. Some call them little enforcers. The high priests (climatologists) of this movement are promoted by a quasi-governmental body referred to as the IPCC.


The IPCC does not carry out its own original research, nor does it do the work of monitoring climate or related phenomena itself. A main activity of the IPCC is publishing special reports on topics relevant to the implementation of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Framework_Convention_on_Climate_Cha nge) (UNFCCC)

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles.pdf (http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles.pdf)


This group of unaccountable, unelected individuals decides by decrees which work of literature will be favorable to the cause of global warming and which ones are not (I.E. Censoring, Omittingm Ridiculing). The main thrust or agenda behind this synthetic movement is to create a Carbon Tax based around CO2. By doing this they will have an unending supply of revenue coming from the countries paying into it. The Carbon Tax will be on everything. Literally. It will be on any product that is created through using energy. This is an austerity tax. This is a tax created to destroy what’s left of industry while driving down the standard of living for the people. All under the guise of "Saving the Planet, polar bear, island nation, etc, etc,".

They understand that as cynical, desensitized, and callous people are these days there is an inherit goodness about them willing to make sacrifices for the future of humanity. If they are able to channel this energy through institutionalized irrationality then their plans will come to fruition. As an added bonus they wish to also pass a Cap and Trade system to officially "cut carbon emissions" but unofficially it will further destroy industry while propping up a speculative market on CO2. The Carbon Credit scheme will be similar to the pollution credits of old, bigger more powerful polluters will be allowed to pollute as much as they please as long as they buy / trade the credits legally on the open market, all the while having wall street parasites driving up the price of carbon to further pauperize the public.

It's an ingenious and insidious plan. That's why people have stood up in the face of adversity and spoke out against the mass manipulation.



31,486 American scientists have signed this petition,including 9,029 with PhDs

http://www.petitionproject.org/


This one is for TheLeader because I know he loves the Peer-reviewed stuff.



Summary of Peer-Reviewed Research
http://www.petitionproject.org/review_article.php

[Zhukov]

It may well be an ingenious and insidious plan, but does the existence of such a plan refute that climate change is actually happening?

I am a big proponent of 'find out who benefits most' etc, but that by itself doesn't mean anything. It's all well and good that you've shown us that people are exploiting the 'climate change movement', but does it automatically follow that the climate change movement is based on faulty science, or lies?


Oh, and are you saying that climatologists should be elected?

[TheCoolinator]

It may well be an ingenious and insidious plan, but does the existence of such a plan refute that climate change is actually happening?

The changing of the climate is a natural cycle unaffected by Mankind. As I said previously, They own and operate the man made global warming hypothesis. Meaning it's been a fabrication from the beginning.

but does it automatically follow that the climate change movement is based on faulty science, or lies?

As I said above, the "movement" is completely sythetic. It's a ruling class ideology that has been forced upon emotionally fragile individuals who have no knowledge of past climate patterns. If you scroll up a bit you will see a chart and a quote that both point out that in certain parts of history CO2 levels were 10x as high and the earth was not warming. The chart also shows that even when CO2 levels drop the global temperature stays the same.


Oh, and are you saying that climatologists should be elected?

No, I'm just pointing out that the IPCC is a unaccountable agency that was created to prope up the myth of man made global warming.

[VaporTrailx1]

Raising CO2 levels in the ocean are what we should be worried about. It has far more devastating effects than global warming.

[TheCoolinator]

Raising CO2 levels in the ocean are what we should be worried about. It has far more devastating effects than global warming.

Yes,

Ocean acidification is messing up all the reefs and shellfish populations. One more reason we should of been moving to renewable energy sources. I feel like these oil and coal cartels have been halting Human progress for over half a century. >:

[Tadao]

Suicide might make you feel better.

[The Leader]

I like how it took the Coolinator a full week before he posted a link to an article that is credible and to actually clarify his opinion.

[Zhukov]

The changing of the climate is a natural cycle unaffected by Mankind. As I said previously, They own and operate the man made global warming hypothesis. Meaning it's been a fabrication from the beginning.


That's not an affirmative or a negative in response to my question. Does the existence of whomever you are toting as the 'they' at this stage "owning" the global warming hypothesis actually prove the non-existence of global warming on a scientific level?

If, as I, and logic, suspects, the answer is no; then please stop using "The ruling class is making a mint out of the global warming lie" as an argument against the existence of global warming.

The ruling class owning the 'Climate Change Movement' =/= Climate change is not happening.

[The Leader]

Wait, is he actually saying that global warming does not exist or is he just trying to convince us that there are people taking advantage of it, or trying to show that CO2 is not the cause? I thought he was just horrible at explaining his opinion but now I am back to being confused. Way to fuck everything up Coolinator.

[Zhukov]

I don't even know. I'm not even down with the whole climate change debate, I just noticed him using that flawed argument (The Man owns climate change movement, therefore man-made climate change is a lie) a page back, and he kept doing it.

I'm seriously the FIRST person to check up who is benefiting from a situation, when they banned plastic bags in my local supermarket I pointed my finger straight at the bin-liner bag manufacturers, but you can't actually use the fact that someone is making money off of 'climate change fear' in a scientific debate.

[The Leader]

That's the same reason I was questioning him about it, but he's just really, really confused about... something.

[Tadao]

Haven't you guys got it by now? He doesn't want to get actually involved. It would take wy too much work. He is a couch activist.

[The Leader]

I just noticed that you have the cute baby bunny back as your avatar.

[Tadao]

Yeah, icecream bunny seemed to have gotten fuxored

[Pentegarn]

That's the same reason I was questioning him about it, but he's just really, really confused about... something.

This is speculation on my part, but I think he want's to argue the "Cap and trade" aspect of global warming, but is trying to attack the issue of global warming's existence to do so. Which I get where he is trying to go, but better to argue the problem with cap and trade than something that even the skeptics seem to think in some form exists (I have heard most of the hard core skeptics say they believe something in the climate is changing but their skepticism is rooted in the cause, which Colonel mentioned earlier if memory serves)

[The Leader]

I like this one better though. It looks like he wants to give hugs.

[The Leader]

I just don't know anymore, Pentegarn.

[TheCoolinator]

That's not an affirmative or a negative in response to my question. Does the existence of whomever you are toting as the 'they' at this stage "owning" the global warming hypothesis actually prove the non-existence of global warming on a scientific level?

Follow the money. I posted articles a few days ago which you seem to have not read through yet. This may be causing some confusion.

Articles to look for:

The Billion-Dollar Hoax

Rockefeller funds Global Warming protests as climate cools

&

All Cap and Trade Articles

If, as I, and logic, suspects, the answer is no; then please stop using "The ruling class is making a mint out of the global warming lie" as an argument against the existence of global warming.

Who's funding the global warming movement? Follow the money.


Way to fuck everything up Coolinator.

Ya.....OK......:rolleyes:

I think your just covering up how long it took you to grasp something so rudimentary. Which I repeated about 40 times.

Formula:

Fat cats scare public, public asks for protection, public gets more taxes forced upon them to be paid to fat cats while loosening the regulation on fat cats.

How many time must we watch this merry-go-round turn before we hit the off button? hmmmm?:lol

[The Leader]

Ok, so you are arguing that because people take advantage of global warming that then there isn't any global warming. So therefore we are back to where we were at the beginning and you are still arguing one massive logical fallacy.

[The Leader]

It's not rudimentary. It's not a logical argument. It's like saying that hurricanes are caused by the people who go into disaster areas to abduct children and sell them into the sex trade.

[The Leader]

And the reason I got confused was because you keep linking to articles that don't contend whether or not global warming exists but whether or not CO2 is the main cause while you apparently don't think that there is any global warming.

[Colonel Flagg]

The changing of the climate is a natural cycle unaffected by Mankind.

Now this is a point of view (not shared by many in the scientific community, to be sure) that can be backed up with a scientifically based foundation. Unfortunately, you continue to inject politics into the mix, which, as Leader quite correctly observes, confuses the hell out of everything.

Separate the politics from the science, Coolie. Please. If you do that, I might take you off ignore.

How's that for an incentive? :lol

[The Leader]

FOLLOW THE MONEY COOLINATOR THE 2004 INDIAN OCEAN TSUNAMI WAS ORCHESTRATED BY ELEMENTS OF THE ASIAN SEX TRADE READ

TSUNAMI TRAGEDY EXPOSES CHILD SEX TRAFFICKING/TOUR NETWORKS IN ASIA (http://www.traditionalvalues.org/read/2074/tsunami-tragedy-exposes-child-sex-traffickingtour-networks-in-asia/)

[The Leader]

THE UNITED STATES ORCHESTRATED WORLD WAR TWO IN ORDER TO GAIN ECONOMIC AND MILITARISTIC DOMINANCE

THE AMERICAN ECONOMY DURING WORLD WAR TWO (http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/tassava.WWII)

AMERICAN SUDDEN ECONOMIC GROWTH DURING AND FOLLOWING WORLD WAR (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=260402)

TWO (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=260402)

EXPECTATIONS OF ECONOMIC GROWTH (http://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/11125.html)

[TheCoolinator]

Ok, so you are arguing that because people take advantage of global warming that then there isn't any global warming. So therefore we are back to where we were at the beginning and you are still arguing one massive logical fallacy.

No, Please re-read my previous posts.

The Global warming movement is a synthetic, Elitist funded, bottom up, mass movement to impose austerity on a global level.

It's not rudimentary. It's not a logical argument. .

It's very simple. The man made global warming myth is fake and being used to push through austerity taxes and to create a cap and trade system. The duped public will ask for it because they believe it will "Save the Planet" but in reality will just create another economic bubble while imposing another tax that will further impoverish the populations of the world.

^ elementary.


And the reason I got confused was because you keep linking to articles that don't contend whether or not global warming exists but whether or not CO2 is the main cause while you apparently don't think that there is any global warming.

As I stated in almost everyone of my previous posts.

The changing climate is a natural cycle. The world cools and warms. We do no affect this with cars, factories, or any other carbon fueled machine.

Their whole entire argument is based around CO2. If you or anyone else cast doubt on that then their whole entire argument crumbles. Then after you have dispelled that myth you can look deeper to find out the inner workings of the agenda. Once you find out who is funded it then you realize it's not a hippy fest after all. It's a cold calculating system to manipulate the people into a frenzy.

[Tadao]

What was the class you excelled in at school? Art?

[TheCoolinator]

How's that for an incentive? :lol

How about if I just go back into the movie thread and continue to talk about Cobra and BattleStar Galactica? :lol

I think that would be the best thing...AND..probably get me taken off your ignore list. :)

[The Leader]

Global warming is not true. Global warming is not caused by CO2 emissions. Why is this?

Answer: Global warming is not real because global warming is not real.

This is your logic, yes?

[Colonel Flagg]

http://www.i-mockery.com/forum/showthread.php?p=675955#post675955

:)

[Pentegarn]

http://www.i-mockery.com/forum/showthread.php?p=675955#post675955

:)

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/pYU7oG2V7uc&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/pYU7oG2V7uc&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Supafly345]

Global warming is not true. Global warming is not caused by CO2 emissions. Why is this?

Answer: Global warming is not real because global warming is not real.

This is your logic, yes?Thats what was going on in my mind about his position. He had the 'god argument' disease where there is one infallible truth and evidence that supports that truth is just gravy.

[Dimnos]

http://www.i-mockery.com/forum/showthread.php?p=675955#post675955

:)

mveA4VTtk7g

[TheCoolinator]

30,000 scientists sue Al Gore over Global Warming / Climate Change Hoax.

It's so sad that we have to get our Global Warming news from a garbage heap station like Fox news.......especially on the ridiculously late and immature show Red Eye.....:x but that's what happens when your censored.


<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/FfHW7KR33IQ&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/FfHW7KR33IQ&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

[Dimnos]

Dude. Cant you see your thread has been hijacked? :rolleyes

[The Leader]

He thinks that Fox news is horrible but he still trusts their reports when they coincide with his opinions. No, of course he can't see it.

[TheCoolinator]

He thinks that Fox news is horrible but he still trusts their reports when they coincide with his opinions. No, of course he can't see it.

I don't trust Fox News. I trust the 30,000+ scientists that are taking the Global Warming Hoax to court.


Dude. Cant you see your thread has been hijacked? :rolleyes

lol, its not my thread....:lol Its Tadeo's

[The Leader]

And you trust John Coleman... Who thinks that global warming is not being perpetrated by the wealthy but by the mysterious New World Government or a movement which is trying to establish a World Government... Ok. Good luck with that.

[Tadao]

lol, its not my thread....:lol Its Tadeo's

Everyone here knows why this thread was created, besides you of course.

[The Leader]

Tadeo has a good point.

[Supafly345]

30,000 scientists sue Al Gore over Global Warming / Climate Change Hoax.

It's so sad that we have to get our Global Warming news from a garbage heap station like Fox news.......especially on the ridiculously late and immature show Red Eye.....:x but that's what happens when your censored.

This has been discredited due to not only having zero climatologists in the list of signatures, but over half of them have only have bachelors degrees and barely any had a degree in any field of science whatsoever. Some were found only have associate degrees.
And the people who signed aren't taking anyone to court, the guy who started the petition is. Or threatening to, I doubt it will ever reach court as its an empty publicity stunt to stir up distrust.

[The Leader]

Here's a quick article from Skeptic.com about that petition. Misleading By Petition (http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-11-12/)

[Supafly345]

I was wrong then, it was NEARLY half.

[Tadao]

Yeah, but someone is suing, so it must have merit!

[The Leader]

Or at least he said that he would. That's basically doing it though, right?

[Esuohlim]

Don't listen to any of these people, Coolinator. Your decision to stand up for your beliefs and not give into groupthink like these other bozos is respectable.

What's a global warming btw

[Colonel Flagg]

Don't listen to any of these people, Coolinator. Your decision to stand up for your beliefs and not give into groupthink like these other bozos is respectable.

What's a global warming btw

:lol

[Colonel Flagg]

This has been discredited due to not only having zero climatologists in the list of signatures, but over half of them have only have bachelors degrees and barely any had a degree in any field of science whatsoever. Some were found only have associate degrees.

But that doesn't matter, Supe. Remember? Anyone in a lab coat with a pocket protector and glasses can call themselves a "scientist" - they're all over the news! Look, here's a link that proves it:

CLICK HERE TO BE DAZZLED BY SCIENCE! (http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/12/you_too_can_be_a_distinguished.php)

EDIT: Oooopsie. This blogger doesn't agree with Coolie. He can't be right, he must be funded by the BIG CORPORATE LOGOS!

[Supafly345]

That's embarrassing, and wouldn't be possible if more of the public was science-literate. Not even most graduate students understand the scientific process.

The climate denial movement has been using the same exact tactics as the creationist/intelligent design movement: active circumvention of the scientific process, adopting sciency names for their publicity groups, taking science to court as if you can argue fact into being wrong, and never publicly going head to head with the science they are trying to discredit. The question on what science to believe has always been easily answered by what do most scientist believe, and the general public should always stick by that instead of trying to find justifications for their own pre-existing beliefs.

[Pentegarn]

CLICK HERE TO BE DAZZLED BY SCIENCE! (http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/12/you_too_can_be_a_distinguished.php)



<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/bps-xbo8wnA&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/bps-xbo8wnA&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[TheCoolinator]

This has been discredited due to not only having zero climatologists.

I would say that having zero Climatologists gives the petition more validity. Most of your Climatologists are probably taking hand outs from some privately funded Global Warming foundation that pushes the myth. That's why all of their work is either falsified or just blatantly wrong. They are paid to find Global Warming no matter what; they have been given the conclusion to their study before it even starts and they are forced through monetary incentives to manipulate the data to prove it. It's what they call in the field.....Bad Science.

And SupaFly, you can keep saying that everything I put down is "discredited", please give us a better argument.

Please tell us why there has not been a public debate about Man Made Global Warming?

Please tell us why CO2 levels were much higher in the historical record and why global temperature stayed the same?

Please tell us why in medieval times we had a warming period without the use of factories or cars?

Please tell us why Ex-Global Warming Scientists say none of it is true and why existing Climatologists are always wrong and have been caught falsifying their findings?

and finally,

Please tell us why a Carbon Tax and Cap and Trade system will save the planet?

Thank you.


Science Dictionary

climatologyhttp://sp.ask.com/dictstatic/g/d/speaker.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/audio.html/ahsdWAV/C0044300/Climatologist) (klī'mə-tŏl'ə-jē) Pronunciation Key (http://sp.ask.com/dictstatic/help/ahsd/pronkey.html)

The scientific study of climates, including the causes and long-term effects of variation in regional and global climates. Climatology also studies how climate changes over time and is affected by human actions.


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Climatologist

[Colonel Flagg]

I would say that having zero Climatologists gives the petition more validity. Most of your Climatologists are probably taking hand outs from some privately funded Global Warming foundation that pushes the myth. That's why all of their work is either falsified or just blatantly wrong. They are paid to find Global Warming no matter what; they have been given the conclusion to their study before it even starts and they are forced through monetary incentives to manipulate the data to prove it. It's what they call in the field.....Bad Science.

Coolie, you just don't get it, do you? "All of their work is either falsified or just blatantly wrong." Really? In what peer-reviewed journal have you seen this information?

In fact, only a fraction of the data has been found to be misrepresented, and even when that has been corrected and taken into account, the correlation between CO2 increasing and OVERALL global warming remains valid. It is not refutable by anyone literate in the scientific community. Again, not to sound like a broken record, but the major sticking point between the skeptics and the proponents of AGW in the scientific community is that of CAUSALITY. There is no believing or denying, except among those who have no real knowledge.

You claim the climatologists are "probably taking hand outs from some privately funded Global Warming foundation" - Which foundation? Which climatologists? You can't provide any examples, besides internet links to blogs and op-ed pieces. Yet you BELIEVE it to be true. (How ironic of you.)

You call this all "Bad Science". :rolleyes

Supe is right, you sound like member of the creationist movement. And, unfortunately, I'm being as objective as I can be. :(

[TheCoolinator]

The cooling and warming of the globe is a natural cycle that we do not affect. You're attempting to take a well documented climate cycle and load it down with myths. Please differentiate between fact and fiction. Please answer the questions above.


the correlation between CO2 increasing and OVERALL global warming remains valid


^ I understand your meaning behind correlation and causation but their ideology has and always will fall into the categories of Myths and Legends. Furthermore, there is a graph only a few posts backs that completely debunks this and underneath that same graph is a quote from an article that backs up that point.


You claim the climatologists are "probably taking hand outs from some privately funded Global Warming foundation" - Which foundation? Which climatologists? You can't provide any examples, besides internet links to blogs and op-ed pieces. Yet you BELIEVE it to be true. (How ironic of you.)

The IPCC is in blatant collusion with foundations that fund Climatologists that agree with Man Made Global Warming. They only publish scientists that believe in the myth and most of them have been found incorrect.

........




you sound like member of the creationist movement.

Speaking of irony,

Did anyone else slightly chuckle at the allegation of me having the same mind set as Creationists while zealously being called a Heretic for not bowing before the altar of Man Made Global Warming.

Like John Coleman said on that filthy show Red Eye.....it has truly become an religion.

[Colonel Flagg]

Question: How do you argue the point of scientific truth (not belief, or ideology but truth, demonstrable through what we know about physics, chemistry and/or mathematics) with a non-scientist?

Answer: You can't.

Back to ignore. It's much less aggravating. :(

EDIT: That graph to which you allude has a time-axis of hundreds of millions of years. We are looking on the order of a few hundred thousand years, or about the last millimeter of the time-axis.

See above point on arguing with a non-scientist.

[Pentegarn]

No no Colonel, back to the sports forum to talk Madness with me man!

[TheCoolinator]

Back to ignore. :(


All I wanted was a Hug.....just one Hug...>:

No no Colonel, back to the sports forum to talk Madness with me man!

I'm going back to the video game forum. I need to make an important thread about my love affair with the old school Might & Magic RPG series and how I need to strive harder to make time in my life to finish MM6 and MM8.

[Colonel Flagg]

I'm there, dude! [/hijack]

[The Leader]

I would say that having zero Climatologists gives the petition more validity. Most of your Climatologists are probably taking hand outs from some privately funded Global Warming foundation that pushes the myth. That's why all of their work is either falsified or just blatantly wrong. They are paid to find Global Warming no matter what; they have been given the conclusion to their study before it even starts and they are forced through monetary incentives to manipulate the data to prove it. It's what they call in the field.....Bad Science.

And SupaFly, you can keep saying that everything I put down is "discredited", please give us a better argument.

Please tell us why there has not been a public debate about Man Made Global Warming?

Please tell us why CO2 levels were much higher in the historical record and why global temperature stayed the same?

Please tell us why in medieval times we had a warming period without the use of factories or cars?

Please tell us why Ex-Global Warming Scientists say none of it is true and why existing Climatologists are always wrong and have been caught falsifying their findings?

and finally,

Please tell us why a Carbon Tax and Cap and Trade system will save the planet?

Thank you.
Do you read all of the posts in here or what? I love how you're still on about the cap and trade thing even though no one is supporting that here. I also love how you are saying that, essentially, if someone is an expert in something then their opinion regarding that subject is null and void. So I guess if I need surgery I shouldn't go to a surgeon but to a convenience store clerk?

Your entire argument is still that global warming is not real because it is not real. You have no evidence to support your side and you ignore the evidence presented to you that shows how you are mistaken. Therefore there can be no debate as you are just as flawed as those from whom you take your sources of information and are evidently incapable of thinking in abstract ways. You are stuck in the box.

[TheCoolinator]

(Puts words in Coolinators Mouth).

If you have a better argument then please express yourself freely. I won't be here though. I will be in the video game forum professing my love for the Might & Magic series. Which sadly I have little or no time to play.

Dam you corporate serfdom!!!! How I long to frolic in the fields of Erathia!

[The Leader]

How can I have a better argument if you only ignore it. You've already stated how experts should be completely disregarded, so then where can I get information from? I'd have to be just like you and quote from made up studies and people who didn't actually know what they were talking about.

[TheCoolinator]

You've already stated how experts should be completely disregarded.

Oh, what a tangled web we weave TheLeader.

I never said that ALL experts should be completely disregarded. Only the those who have been found to be incorrect every step of the way. Even going so far as to falsify their data to suit their donors.

AKA - Climatologists

Please you proper discernment.

[Zhukov]

It's pretty serious when you can't even be a scientist interested in climatology without being in the back pocket of The Government.

[The Leader]

Oh, my mistake Coolinator. I guess I just can't use information gathered by the experts in the field that we're discussing.:rolleyes

[Zhukov]

If those experts received donations or any sort of funding to continue their research, then no. That sort of thing automatically negates science.

You know this. You've been told at least eleven times.

[TheCoolinator]

It's pretty serious when you can't even be a scientist interested in climatology without being in the back pocket of The Government.

I don't believe the government would be in control of this. Most politicians are told what to do by Wall Street and Co.

Oh, my mistake Coolinator. I guess I just can't use information gathered by the experts in the field that we're discussing.

We're still waiting to receive your ideas on the subject matter discussed in this thread.

(takes pocket watch out of vest and looks at it while tapping foot)

[The Leader]

And I'm still waiting for you to get your head out of your ass and read the posts in the thread.

[Zhukov]

I don't believe the government would be in control of this. Most politicians are told what to do by Wall Street and Co.


So who is it? You said Ruling Class, and the government is part of that.

[The Leader]

I'm assuming he thinks it's the Free Masons or the Jews.

[Colonel Flagg]

And I'm still waiting for you to get your head out of your ass and read the posts in the thread.

You'll be waiting awhile, I'm thinkin'. :\

[Pentegarn]

I'm assuming he thinks it's the Free Masons or the Jews.

What if it is the Jewish Free Masons?


dun dun duuuuuuuuun!!!!!!! :hypno

[Colonel Flagg]

If those experts received donations or any sort of funding to continue their research, then no. That sort of thing automatically negates science.

You know this. You've been told at least eleven times.

Right. When I was in graduate school, I was funded by a BIG GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION so all my research is null and void, since all I did was generate data to support the conclusions already laid out for me by the RULING CLASS.

Wall Street was real interested in laser spectroscopy of supersonically cooled rare gas and alkane complexes of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.

Follow the money. :rolleyes

[Pentegarn]

Wall Street was real interested in laser spectroscopy of supersonically cooled rare gas and alkane complexes of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.

Follow the money. :rolleyes

Follow the money? I can't even follow that thing you just said :lol

[TheCoolinator]

So who is it? You said Ruling Class, and the government is part of that.

The government is nothing more then a tool of financial elites. When Monsanto and Wal-mart say jump, politicians ask how high?

They fund mass movements to short circuit normal political processes. I think the newest story I found about this "invisible oligarchical hand" would be how George Soros is attacking Greece's economy through speculation.

I would link to the article but it would be probably cause numerous individuals to yell and scream insults they've learned on MSNBC and Fox news.

[Colonel Flagg]

Follow the money? I can't even follow that thing you just said :lol

Yeah, I had to look it up :( It's been so long that I forgot what I did to earn that "degree" thing that makes me an instrument of the financial elite.

Don't believe me, I'm a scientist.

[Blasted Child]

Oi, I can only contribute with an old literature essay on Keats and an educational research thesis, both are fairly meaningless, but 100% free from ruling class interference

[Colonel Flagg]

Oi, I can only contribute with an old literature essay on Keats and an educational research thesis, both are fairly meaningless, but 100% free from ruling class interference

Don't you realize this qualifies you as a bona-fide expert? Blog about your opinions on climate research!

[TheCoolinator]

Dr David Evans was a consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005.

I DEVOTED six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian Greenhouse Office. I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia's compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, in the land use change and forestry sector.

FullCAM models carbon flows in plants, mulch, debris, soils and agricultural products, using inputs such as climate data, plant physiology and satellite data. I've been following the global warming debate closely for years.

When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty good: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the old ice core data, no other suspects.

The evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until we were certain when it appeared we needed to act quickly? Soon government and the scientific community were working together and lots of science research jobs were created. We scientists had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet.

But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming. As Lord Keynes famously said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"

There has not been a public debate about the causes of global warming and most of the public and our decision makers are not aware of

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/no-smoking-hot-spot/story-e6frg73o-1111116945238

I think is how most people felt when they found out about the hoax.....Since I have a degree in Environmental Studies it hit me pretty hard.



EDIT



Suppressed Study


http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/0/DOC062509-004.pdf


[/URL][U]EPA Suppresses Internal Global Warming Study (http://www.globalwarming.org/2009/06/24/epa-suppresses-internal-global-warming-study/)

The Competitive Enterprise Institute today charged that a senior official of the U.S. Environment Protection Agency actively suppressed a scientific analysis of climate change because of political pressure to support the Administration’s policy agenda of regulating carbon dioxide.
As part of a just-ended public comment period, CEI submitted a set of four EPA emails, dated March 12-17, 2009, which indicate that a significant internal critique of the agency’s global warming position was put under wraps and concealed.

(http://www.globalwarming.org/2009/06/24/epa-suppresses-internal-global-warming-study/)http://www.globalwarming.org/2009/06/24/epa-suppresses-internal-global-warming-study/



Surface Mass Balance of the Greenland Ice Sheet

Ice sheet grew by over 60%

http://co2science.org/articles/V12/N33/C1.php

[Zhukov]

Coolio, Australians can't be trusted for anything, so your text is invalid.


Also, I am a bona fide commie pinko nutcase, so there is no need to school me on who is spreading their tendrils into our parliaments and schools.

Anyway, as I was saying, who are the financial bigwigs that are pulling the strings in this case?

[The Leader]

Since I have a degree in Environmental Studies it hit me pretty hard.
Do you work in that field?

[The Leader]

I would link to the article but it would be probably cause numerous individuals to yell and scream insults they've learned on MSNBC and Fox news.
Also fuck you for assuming that because someone is logical they watch that bullshit.

[Supafly345]

Christ, he is sounding more and more like a typical conspiracy theorist.
He already sabotaged his own argument by saying he doesn't believe climatologists, the only people in the world who are authorized to speak on these matters, basically invalidating his position altogether. To think there is a global conspiracy among thousands of climatologists, all getting paid off by... I don't know what broke ass environmentalist group would have that kind of money, but SOMEBODY, AND all of them have kept their mouths shut about it?

This tree will still claim you can't chop him down even as he's burning in your fireplace. There is no getting through to him.

[TheCoolinator]

Anyway, as I was saying, who are the financial bigwigs that are pulling the strings in this case?

:lol Do you guys even read what I post? Or do you just wait until I respond and then ask the same exact question again?

The government is nothing more then a tool of financial elites. When Monsanto and Wal-mart say jump, politicians ask how high? They fund mass movements to short circuit normal political processes. I think the newest story I found about this "invisible oligarchical hand" would be how George Soros is attacking Greece's economy through speculation. I would link to the article but it would be probably cause numerous individuals to yell and scream insults they've learned on MSNBC and Fox news.Here is what I wrote......again....:\ Let me further simplify it by saying everyone who has a vest interested in the synthetic hoax movement.

Do you work in that field?

Not climate work but I do have a degree in Environmental studies and work as a regulator.

Christ, he is sounding more and more like a typical conspiracy theorist.
He already sabotaged his own argument by saying he doesn't believe climatologists, the only people in the world who are authorized to speak on these matters.

I guess we should all try to become Climatologists then and be official Conspiracy theorists.

Please read the articles I posted above where it discusses SUPPRESSED SCIENCE.

[The Leader]

:lol Do you guys even read what I post? Or do you just wait until I respond and then ask the same exact question again.
Your posts are often confusing to others.

[TheCoolinator]

Your posts are often confusing to others.

lol, Speak for yourself.


and why have you asked me the same question for 5 pages now?

[The Leader]

I was referring to others as people other than you. You also have problems with comprehension.

[TheCoolinator]

I was referring to others as people other than you. You also have problems with comprehension.

Your telling me I have a problem with comprehension when every single post I've written is somehow jumbled up in your mind and spit back out completely different then what was initially written. THEN you ask me the same exact question again three posts later.

[The Leader]

I think I mentioned earlier that you also have problems with abstract thought. I'm assuming you are referring to things such as the surgeon comment. That was a hypothetical situation which was meant to demonstrate to you how your logic is flawed. You evidently aren't intelligent enough to pick up on that. The reason we keep asking you the same questions over and over is because none of your arguments are rational, and are often vague.

[Tadao]

I was referring to others as people other than you. You also have problems with comprehension.

He won't understand that.

[Pentegarn]

What did you say?

[TheCoolinator]

What did you say?

It really doesn't matter what I said or how many times I repeat it. TheLeader and Co. will just continue to say "it doesn't make sense" or its "discredited" over and over again......:lol

Is it just me or has i-mockery suddenly turned very strict when it comes to debating standards?

Usually when we debate stuff over the internet, we link to articles. What is coolinator supposed to do, record himself as he travels with a weather balloon to collect the data?
We're all laymen here, all we can do is refer to stuff.

I think at least a few of the articles he linked to deserve some merit, and I like to consider myself equipped with a fairly critical set of eyes, but still, sure, everything can be dismissed as biased.

dunno, just thought this debate turned out a bit one-sided.

[The Leader]

He won't understand that.
Yeah, but I try to treat the retarded the same as everyone else, so I felt like I should post it anyway.

[TheCoolinator]

Yeah, but I try to treat the retarded the same as everyone else, so I felt like I should post it anyway.

More irony I see.....

Exhibit A:

Mar 8th, 2010, 05:16 PM


Very true

since the whistle has been blown on this scam it's pretty much over. The climate scientists have been found to screw around with the numbers. I don't blame them. If I had a steady job as a climate priest and had to keep saying the sky is falling I would definitely tell everyone who I'm working with to change all the numbers to suit our best interest. Meaning my paycheck.

I think we can go a little further though by saying that many wallstreet investment houses wanted the climate bill to get passed because it would have created a speculative market in carbon trading making a new bubble for corporations to hook on too.

I think the genius of this plan is labeling carbon dioxide as a pollutant. By labeling CO2 as a deadly chemical the regulators will focus directly on that and completely ignore more harmful chemicals such as Volatile Organic Compounds, Mercury oxides, Lead Oxides, sulphur oxides, and numerous other hazardous gases. This is why many of the funders of the Global Warming scheme are big oil and large multinational corporations.

Also look who they choose to be the spokesman for the Global Warming craze. Al Gore. Mr. FREE TRADE.

Anyone in this forum who is unemployed should be thanking Mr. Gore for shipping your jobs to a slave camp in China. Oh, and 3rd world nations don't give a rats ass about Global Warming / Climate Change. China, India, Africa, and ever other country that has a brain is going to completely ignore it because if they don't they will be as penniless as the USA.


http://www.i-mockery.com/forum/showthread.php?t=69703983&page=5



TheLeader calls me "retarded" but it took him until a day ago to fully comprehend this quote from almost 2 weeks ago.

Now that's what I call slow.

[Colonel Flagg]

Christ, he is sounding more and more like a typical conspiracy theorist.

He needs one of these (http://zapatopi.net/afdb/).

[The Leader]

More irony I see.....
I know, there's a lot of it in this thread. Now let me ask you this, why do you think that I couldn't understand that post?

[Colonel Flagg]

What did you say?

Based on your sig, P, I'd have figured he'd think you were a kindred spirit.

[The Leader]

Oh wait, I never read that comment because it was posted in a thread about Catholicism that I glance at occasionally. Yeah, I should totally know what other threads to look in so I can understand what you mean in this one.

[The Leader]

Of course I should expect your posts to be as jumbled as your reasoning.

[Pentegarn]

Based on your sig, P, I'd have figured he'd think you were a kindred spirit.

You know, I haven't looked at my sig for so long I had to scroll back to look at it and see what you were talking about.

Now that I have... :lol

[TheCoolinator]

Exhibit B:

A basic statement with very simple wording that was replied to by TheLeader in this thread. :\

He / She was still incapable of comprehending this statement in its entirety until a day ago. That's almost 2 full weeks of confusion.


The co-founder of Green Peace said it the best.....

"The environmentalist movement has been hijacked and turned into something completely different then what it should have been"

Watch the Great Global Warming swindle free on google video

The first thing my environmentalist professor taught us was to NOT be anthropocentric. Meaning to not believe that the world revolves around humans because it does not. We have very little bearing on what happens to the earth in the grand scheme of things. Do we really have the ability to change the climate? I say No but that doesn't mean we don't have the ability to literally make a complete mess of things.



As long as they keep the greenie's focused on the global warming plan and keep that money coming in for all the so called climate scientists then big industry will continue to destroy and pillage until there is nothing left. CO2 as a pollutant is a red herring!

http://www.i-mockery.com/forum/showthread.php?t=69704321

[The Leader]

Oh, what's the matter? Did I hurt your feelings? Are you all puffy face mad now? :c

[TheCoolinator]

Oh, what's the matter? Did I hurt your feelings? Are you all puffy face mad now? :c

Nope. Just wanted to set the record straight. :)

[The Leader]

What, that you are incapable of logical reasoning? Let us say that I am stupid. How does that make you any less retarded? It doesn't. You are just as God made you and you shouldn't have to make up excuses just to try to make yourself look more intelligent than you actually are.

[Colonel Flagg]

He doesn't understand your syllogism. Or Pentegarn's either. Let it go, Leader. :(

[The Leader]

I'm just trying to make him feel better about himself. There's no harm in that, is there?

[Zhukov]

:lol Do you guys even read what I post? Or do you just wait until I respond and then ask the same exact question again?

Here is what I wrote......again....:\ Let me further simplify it by saying everyone who has a vest interested in the synthetic hoax movement.


So you are saying that Monsato and Wal-Mart are the 'financial bigwigs' pulling the strings in this particular scenario? I don't follow, I'm sorry. When I asked for you to tell me specifics, I wasn't expecting you to say "everyone", that's all.

[Supafly345]

I stopped reading what everyone posts yesterday sometime. I remember now why I stopped visiting the politics board for 5 or so years.
The best part about this thread though, are the people who claim not to know or believe the debate in one direction or the other are the one's responding the most to this guy. I have no idea how you guys can handle these message board arguments, especially with someone so stubbornly paranoid.

[Zhukov]

Personally I'm used to people not believing a word I say regarding politics or the economy etc. I'm not taking this too seriously, and I'm not really going into the climate change debate, rather, focusing on one particular annoyance.

[Blasted Child]

Coolinator, out of curiousity, how old are you and what do you do for a living?

[Pentegarn]

He doesn't understand your syllogism. Or Pentegarn's either. Let it go, Leader. :(

I would call my quote more of a sillygism as opposed to a syllogism (as well as my all time favorite Woody Allen quote from back when he was funny) :lol

[Pentegarn]

I stopped reading what everyone posts yesterday sometime. I remember now why I stopped visiting the politics board for 5 or so years.
The best part about this thread though, are the people who claim not to know or believe the debate in one direction or the other are the one's responding the most to this guy. I have no idea how you guys can handle these message board arguments, especially with someone so stubbornly paranoid.

I know for a fact I don't know the whole story about Global Warming. That being said, (picking the berries from the nettles here) I do agree that cap and trade itself seems suspect at best (I lean more toward it being a flat out scam to squeeze money from others). If Coolinator's point is that, then he should say, "Cap and Trade is a scam because x" instead of trying to attack the science of the whole climate change issue. He is hurting his point about cap and trade by going in the direction he went because he has rendered himself as an entity not to be taken seriously in the debate.