Published: September 3rd, 2012 at 5:28 pm ET
|
This off-topic discussion thread is posted to be used as a place for discussion of topics not related to Fukushima and/or nuclear issues.
If a moderator decides a post is off topic, it will be moved to this thread.
Suggestions welcome, use the Contact Form.
*THIS FORUM IS NOW LOCATED HERE*
Published: September 3rd, 2012 at 5:28 pm ET
|
sending...
Ya ..global warming due to manmade pollutants…old game..
New enhanced game release of radiation from Fukushima..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTjrNYcjSJo
Report Comment
Thanks Aftershock. Kind words appreciated! At least my flimsy ego is being presented with beaucoup opportunities to toughen up. One of those 'growth opportunities' which, while not much fun, may be 'good for you' – character building, or some such rot.
Maybe after you check out some of the info on Freeman Dyson's website, you might even change your mind in this subject…
The ways of 'our corporate masters' are devious indeed…
Report Comment
"The ways of 'our corporate masters' are devious indeed…" Rest assured, in ways not even 'they' can comprehend!
Report Comment
@Bleep,
I apologize if I offended you.
I have been there already, ten years ago, in fact. I looked at all the evidence then and all I saw was the emphasis on C.D. as the culprit in the issues that were being discussed. Nothing has changed and the political agenda card spans the entire playing field on this and most other global debates. Including nuclear.
It's not about C.D. as I explained in my first reply.
And I wholeheartily respect your views, but seeing poor old Al being brought up, put it over the top.
A thicker skin will serve you well when typing letters into a blog post.
@AS,
I stuck my finger in and it came out smelly! Whats up with that!
Report Comment
aigeezer, these were two separate 'legal action' issues.
Take the time to watch some of the videos on this website.
http://loveforlife.com.au/content/09/12/05/videos-freeman-dyson-global-warming-bogus-climate-models-many-other-videos-global-w
You really appear to want to find me out to be wrong, rather than to explore this issue with an open mind & discover if there could be some truth to these claims that a larger (& covert) political/financial/globalist agenda is driving this anthropogenic global warming meme.
Consider that Al Gore was VP & is clearly an insider, a pretty highly placed insider. That should raise a red flag, because most of the DC insiders are corrupt, controlled, & furthering the NWO agenda, which is, to put it mildly, not 'people-friendly'; they are certainly not going to go up against the oilmen & big industry (unless as part of a some larger agenda.)
This whole exchange about anthropogenic global warming illustrates what I wrote about just yesterday in one of the threads here – people become ego- & emotionally-attached/identified with their ideas, theories, etc., & cling to them irrationally – partly because it takes work to do the necessary reading & re-thinking, & also because it requires humility to say, well, I guess perhaps I was wrong on that one.
All of this emotion, & the slurs & unkind personal remarks really are just so inappropriate, in a (supposedly) intellectual discussion on important matters such as this one.
Report Comment
Bleep, your source (Dyson) says:
"Dyson agrees that anthropogenic global warming exists, and has written that "[o]ne of the main causes of warming is the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere resulting from our burning of fossil fuels such as oil and coal and natural gas.""
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeman_Dyson
There are many more insiders taking your side of the bet – the entire Oil/Coal/Gas industry, for example. It just doesn't matter who is on which side – the only thing that matters is which side is correct, and you have provided no evidence that your side is correct. You just keep resorting to claims that people (you don't like) are on the other side of the bet. That part is not in dispute.
If the global warming side "wins" then Al Gore and friends might make a gazillion dollars. If the global warming side "loses" then Chevron/Shell/Exxon and friends will make a gazillion dollars. That part of the issue is irrelevant.
What matters is the physical reality on the planet, not the green paper that those people play for.
Report Comment
Excellent slice of reality. Thanks.
Report Comment
"You really appear to want to find me out to be wrong, rather than to explore this issue with an open mind & discover if there could be some truth to these claims that a larger (& covert) political/financial/globalist agenda is driving this anthropogenic global warming meme."
Bleep,
Your point is taken, YES there is a political agenda, on both sides, pertaining to this issue. That fact, plus the emphasis upon Carbon Dioxide as the culprit, makes the debate a bogus one. It's just all about the money, nothing else!
It's not about coming together for solutions to Mans effect upon this climate he lives and breaths in, it's about who can win and make the most cash off of the issue.
Report Comment
aigeezer, do some reading -
http://loveforlife.com.au/content/09/12/05/videos-freeman-dyson-global-warming-bogus-climate-models-many-other-videos-global-w
Don't just dismiss it as 'fringe'. There is some good info there.
It's obvious that the big money men, the big players, don't care about the environment – they are the ones who are (& have long been) raping & polluting it so recklessly. They clearly don't even care if they risk the survival of the planet – the reckless ways of the nuclear industry demonstrate that.
So when one of these insiders suddenly comes forward as a crusader on behalf of the environment (& is not 'taken out of play' or 'slapped' in some way that puts an end to his efforts – that indicates that he is operating with the consent of these powerful monied interests which have long been laying waste to the environment.
Exploring it further, there is evidence that there are multiple goals & objectives driving the global warming movement, such as taxing us more, limiting our freedoms more, increasing government controls, & moving towards global governance.
Several scientists in relevant fields have come forward challenging the validity of anthropogenic global warming & pointing to underlying motives having to do with the usual – profit, empire, & loss of freedoms for the people. So it is simply not accurate or correct airily to dismiss this information as coming from 'fringe' sources. That is just 'name calling.'
Report Comment
"there is evidence"
Where?
Report Comment
It's no use aigeezer, they just drop down to another talking point on the list…
Basically the whole climate change thing is Al Gore's fault.
It's hilarious to me…
Report Comment
Yes, and thanks Jebus. I recognize the game, but I had some spare time and I wanted to get it into the record, so to speak.
The Internet never forgets.
Report Comment
"The Internet never forgets."
Nope, just the s…… err.. people do….
I am tryin to be carefull, lest I butt hurt someone…
It's tough though!
Report Comment
Hey maybe they are just trying to get Al's name further up on the list @ the U of Ill.
Report Comment
Hehe, Jebus. That site is sooooo powerful. I'm just getting the hang of using it. With a bit of patience, you can see exactly where, when and how the talking points start, who plants them, who propagates them, how far they get in the echo chamber, who refutes them, who revives them, and so forth.
Here's a snippet from yesterday (it may be updated, depending on when you click on it):
http://climatechange.carboncapturereport.org/cgi-bin//profiler?key=United%20States&pt=5
… from which I speculate that a future misleading talking point will be "Alaska just got a lot of snow so global warming is false".
With this kind of tool, the public can fight back against planted disinformation much more effectively. This tool should also fit well with Muckety to investigate and expose corporate sources of spin.
Report Comment
Also, there is but one 'party', the Republicrat party. Or more accurately there are two organized crime gangs who try to appear as being in opposition but in fact have both been 'bought' by big banking/corporations, the trans-national money-powers. (That's why I call the whole political/voting charade a 'puppet show for the kiddies'… the adult kiddies, of course I mean.)
Those who are really in control keep a low profile but control the public figureheads – who indeed are well-rewarded for their cooperation (and can have an unfortunate accident or etc. if they refuse to bend to the will of their corporate/banking masters – case in point, JFK).
The elites do, of course, want us to believe that there is a difference, and to waste our efforts going down the various rabbit trails that lead off from that key belief.
If you were organized crime wanting to control an area, say a town, would you try to get control of one political faction or of both/all major political factions? I think the answer is self-evident.
Actually, one often has to go to 'fringe' groups and sources if one wants to find out what is really going on – though of course one must not have blind trust in any group or source.
Report Comment
aigeezer, I have posted a lot of this evidence. I have posted info on books on Amazon. The Freeman Dyson website has several good videos. I have presented reasoned arguments.
If you are really interested and not just wanting to quarrel or discredit me, why not access some of this info and give me a critique of some of the info presented? I have spent a lot of time looking up info and writing things here. You have replied with short posts that really do not address any of the information, just constitute a sort of 'bronx cheer'.
Are you really interested in this subject or is your mind made up and nothing can budge you? If the latter is the case – which is the impression I am gathering – then we had better 'agree to disagree.'
Report Comment
Bleep, you have posted opinions. You have never posted evidence.
Report Comment
Oops, sorry bleep, I didn't say that well. I mean you have posted opinions about profit motives that are quite persuasive. You have not posted persuasive evidence about the presence or absence of climate change, or of its causes if present.
Obviously you feel you have done so, but if your intent was to persuade (me) then it has not yet been effective. I have no stake whatsoever in the climate change issue, by the way, and I rather hope it is not true. However, if it is true, then we would be wise to act on it while we can.
I am convinced that the Nuke industry has jumped on the climate change bandwagon because of a perceived advantage over the coal/oil/gas industries. I see that as irrelevant to the underlying issue of climate change. All these industries and their political partners are likely to exploit any short-term perceived advantage. We, the public, must somehow ensure that their short-term advantage does not become our doom.
Report Comment
Bleep, here's where I think we are in agreement:
1. Governments are easily corrupted. One-party systems most easily, two-party systems next, and multi-party systems less so but still vulnerable.
2. Somebody will stand to make a lot of money no matter how the global warming issue works out.
Here's where I think we are in disagreement:
Anthropogenic global warming is or is not a reality.
What should we do next?
Report Comment
correct
right
proper
accurate
seemly
just Mr. Aigeezer. 100×100
Report Comment
Anyone out there want to talk about ways to purify water? Pond, pool, runoff, lake etc.
Report Comment
When the tap water stops flowing, Regular Clorox Bleach isn't just a laundry-aid, it's a lifesaver. Use it to purify water, and you'll have something to drink.
It's the same in any natural disaster. As the shock wears off and the days wear on, the biggest demand is for drinking water.
Boil water before consuming.
*Ratio of Clorox Bleach to Water for Purification
~2 drops of Regular Clorox Bleach per quart of water
~8 drops of Regular Clorox Bleach per gallon of water
~1/2 teaspoon Regular Clorox Bleach per five gallons of water
~If water is cloudy, double the recommended dosages of Clorox Bleach.
(Only use Regular Clorox Bleach (not Fresh Scent or Lemon Fresh). To insure that Clorox Bleach is at its full strength, replace your storage bottle every three months.)
~Clorox Bleach Sanitizing Solution.
Mix 1 tablespoon Regular Clorox Bleach with one gallon of water. Always wash and rinse items first, then let each item soak in Clorox Bleach Sanitizing Solution for 2 minutes. Drain and air dry.
Link with pictures
http://www.wikihow.com/Purify-Water
Report Comment
aigeezer – Here is some evidence of falsified data -
http://www.prisonplanet.com/ipcc-scientists-caught-producing-false-data-to-push-global-warming.html
Google this and you will find other links about it.
Maybe even actually READ this article (!)
Report Comment
Yes, everyone knows about the "climategate" gefuffle. It certainly provided a toehold to those who think climate change is not happening.
Now what do we do?
Report Comment
Climategate scientists DID collude with government officials to hide research that didn't fit their apocalyptic global warming
5,000 leaked emails reveal scientists deleted evidence that cast doubt on claims climate change was man-made
Experts were under orders from US and UK officials to come up with a 'strong message'
Critics claim: 'The stink of intellectual corruption is overpowering'
Scientist asks, 'What if they find that climate change is a natural fluctuation? They'll kill us all'
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2066240/Second-leak-climate-emails-Political-giants-weigh-bias-scientists-bowing-financial-pressure-sponsors.html#ixzz1rV6CbMyc
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2066240/Second-leak-climate-emails-Political-giants-weigh-bias-scientists-bowing-financial-pressure-sponsors.html
Report Comment
From your link:
"None of the material appears to be new, either: it seems to date from the first release in 2009.
It also occurs against a rather different scientific background, after the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature review of climate-science data by prominent climate sceptic Richard Muller, which analysed 1.6 billion temperature records, and concluded that global warming was a genuine effect."
Report Comment
And here is evidence that the skeptics are on their ass about this…
Ice age study delivers blow to global-warming skeptics
http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2012/0405/Ice-age-study-delivers-blow-to-global-warming-skeptics
Maybe take the quiz?
and here's another carefully chosen…
New ice age study delivers blow to global-warming skeptics
http://www.politicsforum.org/news/
Report Comment
I've posted these before – you said I had posted no actual information …
Global Warming Hoax – The reason why it is a Hoax – 9 Minutes 21 Seconds – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Io-Tb7vTamY
Al Gore sued by over 30.000 Scientists for Global Warming fraud / John Coleman – 5 Minutes 24 Seconds – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfHW7KR33IQ
Global Warming Hoax, Planned in 1961 – Meet your latest boogeyman,and BOW IN FEAR BEFORE HIM!!!…and don't forget to forfeit your national sovereignty to fight the invisible enemy… 10 Minutes – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvcuylMrkXk
Report Comment
Ah bleep. We are talking about different things. I've seen all those media reports – I know you have posted them. I hoped you might have some scientific references.
Stuff from peer-reviewed journals, for instance?
Report Comment
http://articles.latimes.com/2004/jan/22/opinion/oe-schlesinger22
http://www.voltairenet.org/Combating-Global-Warming-throughhttp://www.voltairenet.org/Rechauffement-climatique-trop-tard
http://www.voltairenet.org/1997-2010-L-ecologie-financiere
http://www.voltairenet.org/1982-1996-L-ecologie-de-marche
http://www.voltairenet.org/Gore-Vidal-Quelques-verites
http://www.voltairenet.org/There-is-no-scientific-consensus
Report Comment
http://www.voltairenet.org/+-Ecologia-medio-ambiente-+?lang=en
Report Comment
Just foolishness.
Aigeezer, I'm impressed. I couldn't have taken it for so long.
http://abcnews.go.com/m/blogEntry?id=16049659
Report Comment
"They don't expect or need to win any debate," he says, "they just want to keep the appearance of a debate going."
At the recent annual global climate summit, held in Durban, Alden Meyer of America's Union of Concerned Scientists, told ABC News that he now sees among negotiators from Europe and many other countries "not just tremendous frustration, but anger" at the American stance on climate.
"The U.S. is geopolitically isolated now on climate."
Sad but true, I'm afraid.
Report Comment
Hey B&B,
Gotta give her credit, she's pushed that rubbertree plant a long ways…
In the end, (maybe wrong wording) the climate changing will not matter when our oceans are sterile from CoreExit and Fuku's Cores Exiting!!
Report Comment
Hi Jebus, yes, I took some good hours of sleep inbetween! lol
Sadly, I think the effects of GW will be extremely awful and worldwide even be worse than Fuku and the next meltdown we'll soon see.
This is a fascinating but quite short read: google the study "The age of consequences".
That's where we are.
No more time for comparing amazon book reviews to youtube wacko channels.
The planet is at stake, no less.
Report Comment
That sleep is good for you! Rebuilds!
Yes, agreed we are in a fight for our grandchildrens lives and it seems like we are close to the front lines.
I am going to check that out, but I believe that I can envision what it entails.
It really is past the time, like it or not, that we, collectively, are going to have to pay the piper. And you can't write a check for that!
There will be the greatest sorrow and finger pointing that the world has ever seen. Period
At some point, if it can not be mitigated, (kicked down the road?), the only things that will matter will be you and your loved ones survival.
Report Comment
B&B,
This?
071105_ageofconsequences.pdf
http://csis.org/files/media/csis/pubs/071105_ageofconsequences.pdf
I just saved it and will settle in for a read.
I still have the rest of the lawn to mow and it's 7:40 here!
Report Comment
True that, Jebus!
Please DO read that study. It discusses 3 different possible scenarios and their consequences on (among others) water supply, national and intercontinental migration,…in an easy-to-read form.
Here's the link to the pdf:
http://csis.org/files/media/csis/pubs/071105_ageofconsequences.pdf
*BnB off to bed again
Report Comment
Lol
Crosspost! 4:40 AM here
Goodnight Jebus (miss your avatar)
Report Comment
LOL So far a good read.
And Sammy, my avatar, my buddy, is right here by my side, with bright eyes, and winkin at me…
Report Comment
I felt this was something that should be shared for those who do not read this PDF that B&B references….
“ The Romans did in these instances what all prudent princes
ought to do, who have to regard not only present troubles, but
also future ones, for which they must prepare with every energy, because, when foreseen, it is easy
to remedy them; but if you wait until they approach, the medicine is no longer in time because the malady has
become incurable; for it happens in this, as the physicians say it happens in hectic fever, that in the beginning of the
malady it is easy to cure but difficult to detect, but in the course of time, not having been either detected or treated
in the beginning, it becomes easy to detect but difficult to cure. Thus it happens in affairs of state, for when the evils
that arise have been foreseen (which it is only given to a wise man to see), they can be quickly redressed, but when,
through not having been foreseen, they have been permitted to grow in a way that every one can see them, there
is no longer a remedy.”
—Niccolo Machiavelli, Chapter 3, The Prince,in a discussion of the foreign policy of the Roman Republic
Report Comment
Climate Change Skepticism a Sickness That Must be “Treated,” Says Professor
short article –
Global warming alarmist equates climate denial with racism
http://www.infowars.com/climate-change-skepticism-a-sickness-that-must-be-treated-says-professor
Posting this again, aigeezer et al, in case you missed it when it was posted earlier.
In my readings online today, I came across the information that at an earlier time in the 'putsch' to get people to accept the theory of global warming as being incontrovertibly true & a desperate incipient crisis, it was suggested that 'climate change deniers' were in the same class as 'holocaust deniers'.
So, now the story has changed somewhat, & 'climate change deniers' are 'sick' &need 'therapy.'
So from whom might such suggestions be emanating? Whose fingerprints are all over it? Wouldn't you agree that it probably is the increasingly authoritarian government, which is now making non-conformity, independent thinking, a crime, or a 'sickness' that must be 'treated.'
So what is the agenda behind this whole 'global warming' meme, and to whom & why is it so important that it be believed in? Obviously it is not some unorganized or grass-roots or 'fringe' resistance that is telling us we need 'therapy' if we don't obediently change our beliefs to agree with the 'politically correct' group-think.
Report Comment
I follow aigeezers take concerning that site.
Report Comment
Hi bleep – that makes for a juicy headline, for sure.
Professor Norgaard's position has nothing to do with the underlying issue of climate change though. She may or may not be right about the phenomenon she reports, namely massive denial:
http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=12539
Ironically, Enenews readers may find the ongoing massive public denial of the seriousness of Fukushima to be rather similar.
However, denial or not, the issue that matters to life on the planet is whether anthropogenic climate change is happening. The issue is not who supports it, who opposes it, or who stands to profit from it. Same for the Fukushima situation, come to that, the world of physics is what matters, not politics, psychology or finance.
Anyway, bleep, it's late in my part of the world, so I've got to disengage for now. The universe is no doubt unfolding as it should. Climate change either is or is not happening, but the nukes will probably get us first, if that's any consolation.
Report Comment
Good night aigeezer.
Tomorrow everything is new (or so I hope)!
Report Comment
good night bnb
Report Comment
Night arclight! You need to sleep, too!!
Report Comment
just rendering as i speak!!
then sleeeeep!
peace
Report Comment
TEHRAN —
"Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stressed to visiting former Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama on Sunday that Tehran opposes nuclear weapons, his official website reported."
"Hatoyama’s presence in Iran was an issue of contention in Japan, after Japanese Foreign Minister Koichiro Gemba reportedly requested he not make the trip.
Prime Minister Yoshihiko Nodahe has also expressed concerns over Hatoyama’s visit, fearing it could undermine the Japanese government’s efforts for international coordination, Japanese media reported.
The visit came at a tense time, with Iran facing off against much of the West over its nuclear program."
http://www.japantoday.com/category/politics/view/iran-opposes-nuclear-weapons-ahmadinejad-tells-hatoyama?utm_campaign=jt_newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_source=jt_newsletter_2012-04-09_AM
Yukio Hatoyama … man of peace and common sense…. should replace noda! and then japan should follow icelands example (but hang the hedgefund assett stripping boys etc)
Report Comment
Thanks to choto for the links he posted http://www.voltairenet.org/More-Global-Warming-Scandals
http://articles.latimes.com/2004/jan/22/opinion/oe-schlesinger22
Some are in French,which I can't read, but both of the above are good ones; the one from the LA Times reports that there is little actual proof of any consistent trend of global warming, suggests reserving one's final opinion on the controversy, and references what I have referenced before, that there have been previous warmer spells (when there was a Scandinavian effort to settle in Greenland and farm, etc. but the brief warming trend ended & the weather became again too cold to sustain agriculture); and then when it was so cold that for the first – and I believe the last – time in history, the Thames froze over). That article also mentions the big y2k computer malfunction brou-ha-ha, of which so much was made, but which anticipated disaster never happened; I guess Gore was in the thick of that one, too.
Actually, for an interesting scientific opinion, see Freeman Dyson in I think the first two short vids here -
12/05/videos-freeman-dyson-global-warming-bogus-climate-models-many-other-videos-global-w
and I did make reference to a couple of books written by scientists disputing the global warming 'holy writ'; you can go to Amazon and read blurbs about them and portions of them.
Report Comment
An Introduction to Climate Change
What it could mean to you and your family
http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/climatebasics.asp
Report Comment
Global Warming Contrarians
The overwhelming consensus among climate scientists is that global warming is real, primarily caused by human activity, and a serious threat to our future. Yet media extremists, partisan think tanks, and special interest groups funded by fossil fuel and related industries continue to raise doubts in the minds of the public.
Global warming deniers downplay and distort the evidence of climate change, and they demand policies that allow these industries to continue polluting, as well as attempt to undercut existing anti-pollution legislation.
UCS continues to fight against misrepresentations of global warming in the popular media, providing sound, science-based evidence to set the record straight. UCS serves as a bastion of rationality among the distortions and hysteria whipped up by fossil fuel industry-funded deniers. In the articles listed below, learn the truth about these attacks on science.
GLOBAL WARMING CONTRARIAN BASIC READING
• Debunking Misinformation About Stolen Climate Emails in the "Climategate" Manufactured Controversy
• Attacks on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Obscure Real Science
• New Book "SuperFreakonomics" Mischaracterizes Climate Science
• Global Warming Skeptic Organizations
• Crichton Thriller State of Fear
• UCS Examines 'The Skeptical Environmentalist'
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/global_warming_contrarians/
Report Comment
http://csis.org/files/media/csis/pubs/071105_ageofconsequences.pdf
See this, bleep. Many questions answered. Good night.
Report Comment
LQQK another question!!
Report Comment
Global Warming & Climate Change
March 27, 2012
“Global warming has become perhaps the most complicated issue facing world leaders. Warnings from the scientific community are becoming louder, as an increasing body of science points to rising dangers from the ongoing buildup of human-related greenhouse gases — produced mainly by the burning of fossil fuels and forests.
“Global emissions of carbon dioxide jumped by the largest amount on record in 2010, upending the notion that the brief decline during the recession might persist through the recovery. Emissions rose 5.9 percent in 2010, according to the Global Carbon Project, an international collaboration of scientists. The increase solidified a trend of ever-rising emissions that scientists fear will make it difficult, if not impossible, to forestall severe climate change in coming decades….
“A growing body of scientific evidence indicates that since 1950, the world’s climate has been warming, primarily as a result of emissions from unfettered burning of fossil fuels and the razing of tropical forests. Such activity adds to the atmosphere’s invisible blanket of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping “greenhouse” gases. Recent research has shown that methane, which flows from landfills, livestock and oil and gas facilities, is a close second to carbon dioxide as an impact on the atmosphere.
Report Comment
[cont.]
“That conclusion has emerged through a broad body of analysis in fields as disparate as glaciology, the study of glacial formations, and palynology, the study of the distribution of pollen grains in lake mud. It is based on a host of assessments by the world’s leading organizations of climate and earth scientists.
“In the last several years, the scientific case that the rising human influence on climate could become disruptive has become particularly robust….”
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/globalwarming/index.html
Report Comment
SNAP! anne
"A growing body of scientific evidence indicates that since 1950, the world’s climate has been warming, primarily as a result of emissions from unfettered burning of fossil fuels and the razing of tropical forests."
"Since measurements began in the 1950s, scientists have discovered that there has been a decline of sunlight reaching the Earth; they called it global dimming."
off to do some more rendering!
lol!
scratches head!
Report Comment
Rising Sea Levels Seen as Threat to Coastal U.S.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/14/science/earth/study-rising-sea-levels-a-risk-to-coastal-states.html?_r=1&ref=globalwarming
Report Comment
16 July 1976, Volume 193, Number 4249 Science, “Meteorological Consequences of Atmospheric Krypton-85; Krypton-85 can disturb the atmospheric environment by perturbing atmospheric electrical processes,” by William L. Boeck.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/193/4249/195.extract
This whole article is reproduced in the discussion around:
http://enenews.com/hydrogen-levels-continue-rise-reactor-2-quadrupled-weeks/comment-page-1#comment-225373
There are other citations in that discussion on enenews as well.
Report Comment
thats a good link anne!
Report Comment
LOL! we will have to get admin to move this over to the nuclear related discussion forum soon!??
Report Comment
The L.A. Times article that you cite is from 2004, and is written by a politician, James Schlesinger. "While Secretary of Defense, he opposed amnesty for draft resisters, and pressed for development of more sophisticated nuclear weapon systems."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_R._Schlesinger
On the other hand, in March, 2012, the L.A. Times discusses the work of the late Nobel Laureate Sherwood Roland:
"I interviewed Rowland a couple of times, most recently half a dozen years ago, when the neo-paleo-anti-science crowd was in full-court press as naysayers on human-generated global climate change. Legitimate scientists with nuanced questions about data and formulas being used were lumped in with random cranks as "proof" that the body of scientific evidence is wrong and that science is no more than just another untrustworthy special-interest group."
"Rowland told me that "the planet is in for a rough century as we try to put together substitutes for the energy that we need in order to prevent very substantial climate change coming from rapidly rising temperatures."
The piece is extremely supportive of Rowland's warnings.
http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/global_warming/
Report Comment
Bleep, the Voltairenet article that you cite as a "good one" is written by William Engdahl, described in Wikipedia as "Frederick William Engdahl (born August 9, 1944) is a conspiracy theorist, an American German freelance journalist, historian and economic researcher."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F._William_Engdahl
"Engdahl argued that the Earth is cooling, not warming. He claims that global warming, like peak oil, is merely a "scare" and an attempt "by powerful vested interests to convince the world to sacrifice [so] that they remain in control of the events of this planet""
Report Comment
Global Dimming
Since measurements began in the 1950s, scientists have discovered that there has been a decline of sunlight reaching the Earth; they called it global dimming. But according to a paper published in the journal of Science, the dimming did not continue into the 1990s and indeed since the 1980s scientists have observed a widespread brightening. What caused the dimming to go down and what effect will it have, if any, on climate change? The film explores the theory that pollution is shielding the oceans from the full power of the Sun, and disrupting the pattern of the world-s rainfall. There is evidence that dimming caused the droughts in sub-Saharan Africa which claimed hundreds of thousands of lives in the 1970s and 1980s. It reveals that we may have grossly underestimated the speed at which our climate is changing. At its heart is a deadly new phenomenon. One that until very recently scientists refused to believe even existed. Alarmingly, the dimming continues today, and Asia, home to half the world-s population is currently under threat.
YOU DECIDE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmywf7a9OlI
no planes on 911 for three days…. interesting!
Report Comment
Arc! Don't do that to me!
Done with Youtube for today, lol!!
Report Comment
just saying !!
itll be there in the morning… the 9111 bit is really concerniing though… brings a new view on chem/whatever trails from airplanes!! why i havent flown since watching this program!
gnight!
lol!
Report Comment
TY, arclight. +1000
Report Comment
Re the scientific studies used in support of the global warming theory, I've read that most are based on computer modeling & are not 'hard science'. You know the old saying, garbage in, garbage out.
Another thing I recall from my 'global warming true believer' days, was ice core studies from glaciers in So. America, I believe it was, which were offered as proof positive of anthropogenic global warming, but later it was discovered that they had been way off in their dating of the ice core sample material & their conclusions were thus invalidated.
We think of 'Science' as being next to God in infallibility, but in fact examining the history of science reveals that such is hardly the case. Actually, global warming is an excellent case in point. There are fads & enthusiasms in science, which come & go; & of course, there are political/financial pressures(as in nuke field).
I've lived through a few fads & phases in the 'science' of psychology in which I have a BS. In the '60s, behaviorism & BF Skinner's 'black box' approach to the science were the gods of the hour. (Skinner's daughter, who was raised as an infant in his specially designed state-of-the-art infant/child environment, later committed suicide.)
Before that, in the '50s, psychoanalysis, the 'talking cure,' was going to heal our emotional malaises-but it turns out that people might understand themselves better,after being 'psychoanalyzed', but healing/change very often do not result.
Report Comment
Bleep typed these pixels of light:
"Skinner's daughter, who was raised as an infant in his specially designed state-of-the-art infant/child environment, later committed suicide."
SP: Just a correction on that statement I see from time to time.. Deborah Skinner might possibly quote Mark Twain's famous refutation of death and I am quite sure she will also deny any ill effects from her daddy's "box". Certainly he has been roasted for decades for his air crib (aka baby tender). Sure BF and momma would be jackbooted by CPS in today's world, but I assure you the rumor of Deborah's demise is just an urban legend and now takes new life as an Internet myth. Possibly the story came about from another Harvard psychologist's offspring who did die young tragically.
I do agree with you about the duplicity of theories on global warming as we know things can go hot or cold in a millennia depending on many factors and some have no human connection.
Report Comment
The hidden agenda behind the global warming deception
http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/opinion/the-hidden-agenda-behind-global-warming-deception-49670.html
"The globalist think-tank the Club of Rome published in 1993 The First Global Revolution that clearly outlined the global elite’s plans to use the invented crisis of “global warming” to stampede humanity towards their hidden goal – global, socialist government. The chilling language reveals the cynical propaganda plans of those who seek to impose global, socialist government on everyone."
“'In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine, and the like would fit the bill. In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat, which must be confronted by everyone together.'”
Report Comment
Warming hoax rolls on:skeptical-weathermen-must-be-counseled
'Counseling' skeptic weathermen … Taxpayer money goes to alarmist Heidi Cullen so that she can "create places" where skeptics can be converted without "marginalizing" them. Greenwire reports in "Can counseling help weathercasters reconcile clashing climate views?" … George Mason University's conflict resolution workshop program for media weather forecasters can be compared to marriage counseling, said climate scientist Heidi Cullen. "It's sort of based on the same premise," said Cullen, a former Weather Channel correspondent who is now interim CEO of a nonprofit news and research organization, Climate Central. The program is designed to bridge the gap between broadcast meteorologists who do not believe in man-made climate change and those who do — a disagreement that has created antagonism within the profession. − junkscience.com
Dominant Social Theme: If you don't believe, then you need to be counseled.
http://www.thedailybell.com/3688/VIDEO-Warming-Hoax-Rolls-On-Skeptical-Weathermen-Must-Be-Counseled
Print article plus short video. I like this website – good info on financial matters, the globalist agenda.
Report Comment
Do you think that the nuclear industry itself is responsible for the accident of Fukushima? Are you in favor of closing down all nuclear energy plants and never building any nuclear reactors? Do you think with all the aging reactors around the world that there will be another accident on the scale of Fukushima or Chernobyl if they are not closed down? Are you in favor of Terrapower? Are you in favor of so-called "cold" fusion? Do you believe in the myth of the closed fuel cycle? Are you in favor of MOX fuel?
Report Comment
So, jnppmmiuh, ssp and onnue belastrilated merri solicitorication in spades, but I have no links to prove or disprove. Nobody would believe how far its gone anyway.
Good luck with that, and…….
Happy Easter !
Report Comment
@PoorDaddy
I don't know what yhat first sentence means, but I hope and pray you didn't have a stroke!
I wanna hear that song from that very talented voice you have!
Report Comment
No stroke, jebus. First sentence is intentional nonsense, but I'm still looking for a link to prove it.
You know, the internet somewhere in it's dark recesses probably has that exact sentence AND the link that unequivocally proves its invalidity. Probably even a youtube video that shows jnppmmiuh, ssp and onnue frolicing merrily, belastrilating with reckless abandon in a euphoric state of solicitorication. That's my story and I'm stickin to it !
Report Comment
I must be a glutton for punishment…wanted to watch a movie and selected “Rain of Fire” from the 1970’s with Kirk Douglas. It is a nuclear/religious apocalyptic movie. I had never seen it before. It does have some rather foreboding scenes related to water and waves that are rather disturbing in light of what has happened in Japan.
Report Comment
Al Gore refuses to debate Lord Christopher Monckton on Global Warming
10 min. video interview – there are 3 more 10 min.segment as well – worth listening to! link is below.
1645-1715 – sun was at its least active for 10,000 years. Thames & Hudson would freeze over in the winters. 1700-35 – sun activity began to increase, & so did temp. on earth, 4 degrees F. in 35 years. This was before the industrial revolution. So temp. increases were due to sun's activities, not human activities.
Scientific evidence supports global cooling now, not global warming. Solar grand maximum peaked in '50s.
In the entire 20th Century the global temp has gone up only 1.3 degrees. Now we are going into a sun cooling phase.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJS2OjZOCIM&feature=related
Monckton flew to DC to present his information on global warming; Obama banned him – would not let him speak.
Catheter and West study & Symposium of US Astronomical Union, most scientists agree with this information & say we are now in a cycle of less sun activity, & global cooling.
Sea levels are rising (?) – 'all of that is rubbish' – scientific data do not support this.
Sea level now has stopped rising altogether. has not risen in last 3 years.
politics of this – Monckton has been banned from speaking – extreme leftists support global warming – no one else does. Most scientists know that it is rubbish but they don't dare say it because they will suffer (lose job, etc.)
Report Comment
I'm disappointed that you can't answer all the questions which I posed just above at your last comment.
Report Comment
Earthquake 9 April 2012 3:42 JST
MAP: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsww/Maps/10/145_35.php
Magnitude4.6 Date-Time
• Sunday, April 08, 2012 at 17:42:47 UTC
• Monday, April 09, 2012 at 03:42:47 AM at epicenter
• Time of Earthquake in other Time Zones
Location36.358°N, 143.009°E Depth25.7 km (16.0 miles) RegionOFF THE EAST COAST OF HONSHU, JAPAN Distances204 km (126 miles) ESE of Iwaki, Honshu, Japan
226 km (140 miles) E of Mito, Honshu, Japan
261 km (162 miles) ESE of Koriyama, Honshu, Japan
303 km (188 miles) ENE of TOKYO, Japan
Location Uncertaintyhorizontal +/- 19.5 km (12.1 miles); depth +/- 9.9 km (6.2 miles)
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsww/Quakes/usc0008ybt.php
Report Comment
aigeezer, you asked for science-here it is – 35 Inconvenient Truths
Also might be of interest to anne, B&B, jebus…
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html
"We now itemize 35 of the scientific errors and exaggerations in Al Gore’s movie. The first nine were listed by the judge (see article at link) in the High Court in London in October 2007 as being “errors.” The remaining 26 errors are just as inaccurate or exaggerated as the nine spelt out by the judge, who made it plain during the proceedings that the Court had not had time to consider more than these few errors. The judge found these errors serious enough to require the UK Government to pay substantial costs to the plaintiff…
…it is significant that each of the 35 errors listed below misstates the conclusions of the scientific literature or states that there is a threat where there is none or exaggerates the threat where there may be one. All of the errors point in one direction – towards undue alarmism. Not one of the errors falls in the direction of underestimating the degree of concern in the scientific community. The likelihood that all 35 of the errors listed below could have fallen in one direction purely by inadvertence is less than 1 in 34 billion."
Report Comment
Hi bleep. The most thorough rebuttal to Monckton's material appears to be:
Hadfield's videos exposing Monckton major errors:
1 — http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbW-aHvjOgM
2 — http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTY3FnsFZ7Q
3 — http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpF48b6Lsbo
4 — http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3giRaGNTMA
5 — http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRCyctTvuCo
Report Comment
anne, were those questions (that you are 'disappointed that (someone) didn't answer' addressed to me? I am confused…
Report Comment
Yes you are!
Maybe this will help…
http://csis.org/files/media/csis/pubs/071105_ageofconsequences.pdf
But be forewarned, they do mention Al in there… LOL…
Report Comment
anne I am puzzled as to why you are asking me these questions. Would you mind explaining?
Report Comment
Hey Bleep, You do understand that clicking the reply link, AT the post you want to respond to, gets better reponse results, right?
Report Comment
Jebus, have you no comments about the British court case in which the judge ruled that Gore's AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH contained many errors? Have you gone to Lord Monckton's website and read his information, or listened to the U tube/radio interview with him that I posted above?
Report Comment
So what if it did? An Inconvient Truth is not the definitive statement on climate change. It was AL Gores way of trying to wake up the masses to start realizing that this is an issue that needs to be addressed. Plain and simple.
I just don't understand why you are psychin' out on Al Gore. Leave the man alone, for christ sakes. He tried to wake people up, but he just wasn't chic enough for anyone to listen except those who stand to gain or loose millions, make that billions on this issue.
His overall message still stands, this issue needs to be addressed before the disease is bigger than the cure.
Report Comment
Exactly.
Report Comment
And start hittin the reply link next to the post you want to respond to.
Sending your post to the bottom makes you look like a classic shill.
Report Comment
Why won't Al Gore debate Monckton or others on global warming?
http://heartland.org/press-releases/2007/06/27/why-wont-al-gore-debate
"…Al Gore refuses to debate those who say global warming is not a crisis.
Maybe it’s because climate alarmists tend to lose when they debate climate realists. Or because most scientists do not support climate alarmism.
Dennis Avery, coauthor of the best-selling book Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years, is still waiting for Gore to respond to his April 16 formal debate challenge:
'[Our two] books represent the two leading explanations for the earth’s recent temperature changes—and they conflict. If global warming truly is the most important public policy issue of our day, then it is high time the public got to hear the arguments from both sides matched up against each other. How else can people make informed decisions? Therefore, I formally challenge you to debate me at a public event, preferably to be televised or carried by a radio station, sometime in the coming months.'
Avery is director of the Center for Global Food Issues and senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. He holds awards for outstanding performance from three different government agencies and was awarded the National Intelligence Medal of Achievement in 1983. He travels the world as a speaker, has testified before Congress, and has appeared on most of the nation's major television networks. He is well-qualified to debate Gore …"
Report Comment
@Sickputer, well, thanks for correcting that error on my part. I admit I do harbor ill feelings for Skinnerian psychology, because when I was an undergrad at U of Wash, Skinner was 'all the rage' and people who were interested in trying to understand what goes on in people's minds were ridiculed etc. – or close to it. I remember it as being rather Gestapo-like. It certainly taught me that academics are, despite their higher IQs and educations, just as much ruled by their emotions as the rest of us.
I had come to the university naively expecting it to be so rational and reasonable, devoted to the pursuit of truth,the life of the mind, etc., and above the petty politics and etc. that goes on everywhere else.
Report Comment
@Jebus, come now. All of those errors, and all in the direction of exaggerating the problem and the threat, etc. And he makes so much money lecturing… and (hypocritically, not practicing what he preaches) lives a very upscale, luxurious, energy-wasting lifestyle…
But most important, WHY won't he debate the matter publicly? If there is any truth and sincerity in the man and his position, why does he refuse to debate those who have detailed critiques of his alarmist theory?
Pretty obviously, it very much appears to be because he would suffer an ignominious public defeat and humiliation – and exposure as a very poor researcher at the very least, more likely as a cynical purveyor of untruths – if the price for his services is right, which it seems to be.
Report Comment
@ Jebus
Here you go, my friend, and again, thanks for the enjoyment I got putting your words to music. Hope you enjoy it too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0rDQL–9DE&feature=youtu.be
Report Comment
Whoops, forgot to tell you, I posted the written lyrics on youtube in case the words couldn't be understood, and also slowed the tempo way down to make them more audio-legible.
Report Comment
Yes Yes Thank you! PoorDaddy, Happy Easter to you and yours!
Wonderfull and heartfelt feelings for mankind shinin through.
I can not express my gratitude enough for expressing from your heart a message that came from mine. Much Love, Peace and Happiness to You and Yours. I am blessed to be in such good company.
Report Comment
Thank you for the song Jebus and Lance-PoorDaddy!!
Report Comment
@Jebus, It is looking like my information/basic position is trumping yours. Schills present FALSE information. So… who's the schill here? Schills also make fun of their debating opponent, use ridicule and ad hominem rather than substantive remarks etc., which you and others have done and I have tried very hard to refrain from doing despite that provocation.
Report Comment
@jebus, I am not going to say anymore at present (this evening) because I want to avoid anything like a quarrel/dispute that might get me given a 'time out.' Not because I want to avoid the debate, which at this juncture I certainly do not. I hope you will check out my most recent posts, which were some good finds, I believe.
Remember that the issue, and getting at the truth, are more important than 'being right.' If anthropogenic global warming IS another of those lies and disinfo ops that the elites are using to jerk us around and exploit and manipulate us, and tax us even more, etc. – well, wouldn't you agree that that is a good thing to know, if it is true? – which has been my position throughout this lengthy day of comment, reading, writing, and research.
It is better to know the truth than to be taken in by a lie.
Report Comment
Global warming/climate change is becoming beyond real. Why the elite from both the left and right, including Al Gore, would not take advantage of this as they do with all else … well then, they might be poor.
Report Comment
Earthquake Info: SHARP RISE IN U.S. EARTHQUAKES: ‘Almost Certainly Manmade,’ USGS Scientists Report. Find story here:
<http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=30192>
Report Comment
dharmasyd, I recall you saying that you know Leuren Moret and were going to email her and ask her about her statements alleging that several information sites are putting out (at least some) some dis-info. Did you ever contact her, and if so did she reply?
Report Comment
The sensitive plant
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/grrlscientist/2012/apr/07/1
Report Comment
@chemfood, re how 'real' global warming is, scroll up and read about the '35 Inconvenient Truths' about global warming, and also find Lord Monckton's radio interview with Savage and listen to it. Quite an education and quite fascinating. Here's the link – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJS2OjZOCIM&feature=related
Also check out Dennis Avery's book UNSTOPPABLE GLOBAL WARMING: EVERY 1500 YEARS – can read a bit about it on Amazon.
Or here:
http://www.reasontofreedom.com/unstoppable_global_warming_by_s_fred_singer_and_dennis_t_avery.html
Report Comment
Dennis Avery? There you go:
"Avery is author of Global Food Progress 1991 and Saving the Planet with Pesticides and Plastic: The Environmental Triumph of High-Yield Farming, both published by the Hudson Institute. In Saving the Planet, Avery argues that using chemical pesticides, fertilizers and biotechnology is "the solution to environmental problems." Avery is also the editor of Global Food Quarterly, a publication of the Hudson Institute.
The Hudson Institute has received grants from numerous companies involved in the argi-business sector including Monsanto, Cargill, and CropLife International."
"Avery, along with the prolific global warming denier S. Fred Singer, published a book titled Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1,500 Years, in which they argue that global warming is natural phenomenon.
Avery has given talks on the subject, this one sponsored by the Heartland Institute. Avery's talk was attended by a scientist at RealClimate who wrote an article countering Avery's points here. [8], [9]
Spoke at the Heartland Institute's 2008 International Conference on Climate Change. [6]
In 2007, Avery wrote an article that disagrees with banning DDT in North America and Europe as well as reducing its use in third-world countries. Avery's article indirectly compares Rachel Carson, whose books inspired the ban on DDT and the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency, to Hitler. [7]
All claims given above are linked to sources on the original site…
Report Comment
Which is this:
http://www.desmogblog.com/dennis-avery
Go believe the Propaganda machine, bleep. Too bad future generations and many people in poorer countries will suffer from the consequences of today's ignorance.
In the 60's, maybe nobody knew.
Today the carbon cycle is understood, and there are no excuses left for not taking immediate action.
Report Comment
Without putting in the effects of the radiation being emitted from Fukushima..all conversations about climate changing are moot point…they are working with insufficient data.
While the papered scientists are trying to figure out what is causing the rising amount of CO2 in the atmosphere..remember they just figured out that pesticides are killing the bees…
…let's ramp it up a bit.
Oxygen depletion…
http://www.carbonoffsetsdaily.com/news-channels/global/oxygen-depletion-as-important-as-co2-increases-scientist-says-10954.htm
Report Comment
Good morning Heart,
Ugh! One more problem on the table, as it seems? Boy, what a mess we made.
Report Comment
Hi B and B… Actually the end of a long, long day here.
More Co2..less O2=simple science.
As usual… I wonder how the "bright" minds of science miss the mark.
Thanks for all the work you do here… B and B.
Sleep calls.
Report Comment
Sleep well Heart!!
Report Comment
Thanks B and B..I never sleep more than 4 or 5 these days..seems I have a lot on my mind…
Back in a bit ..
Report Comment
Pesticide use and global warming are two separate issues. I am not in favor of pesticides, or even synthetic fertilizers (or even of eating animal products, for that matter – I am almost completely vegan – and the world (and ecosphere) would be better off if we were not raising animals for food at all, as it is an inefficient/wasteful use of available resources, as well as being inhumane, in my opinion); but I think Avery is correct in his position on anthropogenic global warming. Lord Monckton is a very intelligent spokesperson for this position.
Avery is talking about(alleging) poorer crop yield per acre in commercial agriculture using organic methods, and saying that to feed the world population (and save more wildlands from being given over to agriculture) we need to have a higher yield per acre, and that that is only achievable using chemical fertilizers/pesticides. I can't comment on that position or subject, as regards commercial agriculture as opposed to home gardens. I'd need to read up on it. Whenever I have had a home garden, I have gardened organically, and I think it certainly is healthier. The world is being polluted by all of these synthetic chemicals, which are having a negative effect on our health and that of other creatures, like honey bees.
Re global warming,I think Avery's information is correct. Read Monckton's 35 Inconvenient Truths.
Report Comment
Alright then. Christpher Monckton's next:
According to a research by the Guardian, "Monckton "has a degree in classics and a diploma in journalism and, as far as I can tell, no further qualifications."
According to a search of Google Scholar, Monckton has never published peer-reviewed research in any journal at any time.
In a 1987 article for the American Spectator titled the The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS, Monckton wrote that: [6]
"…. there is only one way to stop AIDS. That is to screen the entire population regularly and to quarantine all carriers of the disease for life. Every member of the population should be blood-tested every month … all those found to be infected with the virus, even if only as carriers, should be isolated compulsorily, immediately, and permanently."
The House of Lords have had an ongoing dispute with Monckton over his membership, as authorities have said Monckton is not and never has been a member and that there is no such thing as a non-voting or honorary member of the House. [7]
In July 2011 the House took the "unprecedented step" of publishing online a cease and desist letter to Monckton from the Clerk of the Parliaments, which concluded:
"I am publishing this letter on the parliamentary website so that anybody who wishes to check whether you are a Member of the House of Lords can view this official confirmation that you are not."
(cont.)
Report Comment
cont.
Stance on Climate Change:
"Yes, there is a greenhouse effect. Yes, CO2 contributes to it. Yes, it causes warming. Yes, we emit CO2. Yes, warming will result. But not a lot."
Monckton presented at the Heartland Institute's Third International Conference on Climate Change.
With all due respect, Mr Mockton is an idiot, just like Mr Avery.
All those clims and documents mentioned above are linked to at this site:
http://www.desmogblog.com/christopher-monckton
Report Comment
lol, and this one from The Guardian in July 2011: (snip)
"Monckton is currently on a lecture tour of Australia discussing climate change. The tour has been dogged by venue cancellations after he referred to the Australian government's former climate advisor Prof Ross Garnaut as a fascist during a recent lecture in Los Angeles. Footage of the lecture also showed Monckton displaying a swastika next to one of Garnaut's quotes. Monckton later apologised for "having made the point I was trying to make in such a catastrophically stupid and offensive way".
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jul/18/climate-monckton-member-house-lords
Now that's what I call a genuine source of information!
Believe who you like, bleep – but don't expect to get your point across to anyone by using those folks as a reference.
Report Comment
B& B, none of this is really relevant to the points Monckton makes about global warming. Why don't you speak to his 35 inconvenient truths about global warming? And to the court case in which the judge found all of those errors in Gore's work.
And listen to Monckton's interview with Savage. He has done his research and makes a lot of good points.
Also do some research on the possibility that this theory that global warming and cooling are caused by the sun's warming/cooling cycles could actually be correct.
The point here is not to be right, to win a debate, but to get to the truth about this alleged anthropogenic global warming. Put your research skills to investigating these central issues, rather than changing the focus of the debate to the alleged defective character/personal life of Monckton. You have not said a word on the central matter in dispute.
Report Comment
Hi bleep, I think the points given above re. Monckton are of importance, as they show that he
a) lacks any scientific background
b) is a proven liar.
Those points given, his opinion qualifies for me as completely irrelevant.
And please stop referncing to Al Gore's film ad nauseam, as if that was the only reference available to prove the existance of man-made global warming. As Jebus said above, that film was meant to be a piece to wake people up – it did, and therefore served its purpose.
In fact, the world is FULL of serious scientific work which deals with this subject. There is NO serious debate anymore about the existance of climate change!
As Peter Raven said, some fooish people just try to keep the debate going, as it serves their purposes. And, honestly, the USA are to my knowledge the only nation where those trying to deny the facts are successful.
If you tried to start a debate like this one in Europe, people would just laugh at you. Really.
And why? That's the interesting question. Because, as we all know, the US are run by corporations to a large extent. Those corporations try to make money with fossil fuels.
Their only way to do that for even longer is to ridicule / minimize the proven impact of their business on the climate. By doing so, they also block renewables to enter the market.
That's why the Heartland Inst. even tries (and succeeds) to write CC scepticism in schoolbooks.
Easy to see, or not?
Report Comment
Actually B & B, I'm in Europe and I'm not laughing at Bleep. In fact, I think you'll find that there are very many cynics of man made Global Warming in the UK and as you may already know, since 'The Inconvenient Truth' was discredited in this country, it was withdrawn from the School system.
@ B&B, Jebus, Aigeezer and some others, I find your bullying tactics and rudeness to Bleep quite disturbing. It says a lot about you guys and quite frankly I'm disappointed to see such hostility to someone just because they have opposing views. You guys have a lot to say about the Government, how they have lied and manipulated us regarding Fukushima, so why are you so quick to accept all that they say on Global Warming? Question everything. B&B, you seem to give a lot of opinions and nobody makes you 'prove' them. Bleep obviously is against nuclear power, isn't that what matters here. Stop 'ganging up' on people. What would Still Jill say?
Report Comment
True ..I haven't had coffee..but could someone tell me which of the climate champions represent the government?
Report Comment
Hi Sue, agreed, the UK is a special case! I'm a regular reader of George Monbiot's column and all the comments that come with it.
I don't know if you're aware of the fact that it was bleep who started the discussion yesterday in another thread ("awaiting the negative comments.."). I don't mean to come across as rude or bullying – if bleeps feels this way, I have no problem with apologizing to her. None whatsoever. She'll let me know, I guess.
I just find it tiring to be confronted with one proclaimed "expert" after another who can be exposed as a hardboiled lobbyist within 2 minutes.
And I told her several times to go ahead and believe what she wants! But as a self-proclaimed "member of the top 5, maybe top 1 percent in terms of intelligence" I'd expect more critical thinking.
I'm far from believing what the government tells me about climate change, by the way. I believe the vast majority of scientists who are experts on the topic and have been warning since 1982.
And as I said already yesterday, I've got nothing against bleep personally. We just disagree on this topic, and that's fine with me.
*thanks for your concern, though! I mean it.
Report Comment
@ Sue,thanks for the supportive remarks. I have indeed felt bullied and ridiculed for just trying to present information I think is important which casts doubt on the validity of the anthropogenic global warming theory.
Instead of addressing the actual issues, several people, a sort of 'mutual admiration society clique' have ridiculed and mocked me, under the guise of 'humor' and in general have studiously avoided addressing the substantive issues I have raised.
I have yet to see any of them engaging with a couple of important facts, such as that court case in England in which the court found several errors/misrepresentations in Gore's work, found in favor of the plaintiff, against Gore, and rejected Gore's work as accurate and factual enough to be presented to children in the public schools.
None of these critics of me and of Monckton has attempted to discuss/rebut his 35 Inconvenient Truths found in Gore's film, AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH.
Many ad hominem attacks and charges have been leveled against Monckton; but none of this energy and research effort has been directed towards actually engaging with Monckton's point by point, detailed critique of Gore's theory of anthropogenic global warming and the great threat is supposedly poses to us all.
The response to my effort to present what I consider important info worthy of thought and consideration has basically been ad hominem attacks against me and against Monckton.
Report Comment
Bleep, a few more detailed point-by-point refutations of Monckton's positions are found at:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Examples-Monckton-contradicting-scientific-sources.html
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Monckton-at-odds-with-the-very-scientists-he-cites.html
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/moncktons_mcluhan_moment.php
http://www.skepticalscience.com/monckton-misrepresents-scientists-own-work-part1.html
http://www.skepticalscience.com/monckton-misrepresents-specific-situations-part2.html
http://www.skepticalscience.com/monckton-misrepresents-reality-part3.html
http://climate.uu-uno.org/articles/view/147446/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/sep/21/climate-scientists-christopher-monckton
http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2010/09/24/21-experts-refute-monckton/
… probably Hadfield's refutations of Monckton's arguments (posted previously) are the most comprehensive and up to date.
Report Comment
Hi bleep, just as I said I would, I apologize to you if I made you feel bullied or ridiculed. That was never my intention.
Concerning the topic on discussion though, I stand by my point firmly. The issue is of so much concern to me that it winds me up if people choose to deliberately spread false propaganda without ANY scientific proof, like the people you refence to do.
The glaciers DO melt.
Sea levels DO rise.
Weather IS getting more extreme.
Global temperature DOES rise, faster than ever before.
It happens, whether you accept it or not.
*peace
Report Comment
Hi B&B. I had never heard of Monckton, so I looked him up and came upon this amazing YT source:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCoi94n0aJg
It's hard to imagine anyone taking His Lordship seriously, but Peter Hadfield took the trouble to refute his nonsense, item by item. Well worth viewing, I think.
The "skeptical science" site has a text version of some of the material and some more background on Monckton. The comments section at the bottom of that page is refreshing:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/peter-hadfield-letter-to-chris-monckton.html
Report Comment
Hi aigeezer, I hadn't heard of him neither before, which is sort of regrettable!
I like this comment the most:
"Snap. It feels like a wet towel. Lord my #ss."
Sums it up quite nicely.
Report Comment
BreadAndButter,
Origin of AIDS: The Polio Vaccine (CBC 'Witness', 2004)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=LZs1V8mpcoY
Report Comment
I did not imply that pesticide use had anthing to do with global warming ..I used it as a referrence to show how slow, inept and out of it, scientists are about the situation.
Report Comment
Heart, bleep was reacting to my information about that Avery person above, who she thinks has a good take on all things climate.
*don't think so, as he does lectures for the Heartland Institute
Report Comment
Monsanto Threatens to Sue Vermont Over GMO Labeling Bill
"Despite overwhelming public support and support from a clear majority of Vermont's Agriculture Committee, Vermont legislators are dragging their feet on a proposed GMO labeling bill. Why? Because Monsanto has threatened to sue the state if the bill passes. (…)
What happened to the formerly staunch legislative champions of Vermont's "right to know" bill? They lost their nerve and abandoned their principles after a Monsanto representative recently threatened a public official that the biotech giant would sue Vermont if they dared to pass the bill. Several legislators have rather unconvincingly argued that the Vermont public has a "low appetite" for any bills, even very popular bills like this one, that might end up in court. Others expressed concern about Vermont being the first state to pass a mandatory GMO labeling bill and then having to "go it alone" against Monsanto in court.
What it really comes down to this: Elected officials are abandoning the public interest and public will in the face of corporate intimidation." (…)
One comment says: "Vermont should countersue Monsanto – for extortion, obstruction, whatever applies to Monsanto's blatant attempt to interfere with the legislature's constitutional mandate to enact laws on behalf of Vermont residents."
True.
http://truth-out.org/news/item/8398-monsanto-threatens-to-sue-vermont-over-gmo-labeling-bill
Report Comment
They may find very little foods left that is not been modified to date !
Report Comment
@bleep-hits-blades,
1. Do you think that the nuclear industry itself is responsible for the accident of Fukushima, because they falsified many safety tests and didn't decommission reactors after 20 years?
2. Are you in favor of closing down all nuclear energy plants and never building any nuclear reactors?
3. Do you think with all the aging reactors around the world that there will be another accident on the scale of Fukushima or Chernobyl if they are not closed down?
4. Are you in favor of Terrapower? Are you in favor of so-called "cold" fusion?
5. Do you believe in the myth of the closed fuel cycle?
6. Are you in favor of MOX fuel?
Report Comment
anne, for the second time, why are you asking me these questions? It feels like some sort of cross-examination. What is the reason you have decided to ask me these questions?
Report Comment
@bleep-hits-blades, I'm interested in your opinion to these questions. I think that these issues are vital to the survival of the planet and the survival of the human race. They are questions that anyone could answer, especially someone on this website.
Report Comment
@bleep-hits-blades: Have you considered this list of nuclear accidents in Japan in the link posted by Whoopie?
Whoopie
April 9, 2012 at 9:41 am
I take that back. There is one great comment there jssbastiat who left this link: Following is a list of nuclear accidents Japan has gone through since 1990s! http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2011-03/12/c_13775056.htm
Did you know Japan had that many ACCIDENTS? I didn't.
http://enenews.com/forum-general-discussion-thread-nuclear-issues-apr-2-9-2012
Report Comment
Super Solar Storm To Hit Earth In 2013 'Carrington Effect'; Year Long Power Outage? via A Green Road Blog http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2012/03/super-solar-storm-predicted-to-hit-2013.html
Fukushima Reactor 4; Life Extinction Event If It Collapses; via A Green Road Blog
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2012/04/fukushima-reactor-4-life-extinction.html
CIA Remote Viewers Predict HUGE SOLAR STORM COMING
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2012/04/remote-viewers-predict-huge-solar-storm.html
Report Comment
I read about remote viewing in one of Tim Rifat's books, bought from the UK. I kept thinking about the Iraq war that it was remote sensing or viewing that came up with intelligence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
Report Comment
Warming climate reveals links to infectious disease
Researchers are gaining new insight into how pathogens will react to a warmer future:'It's not just a summer disease. It's becoming a spring and fall disease now.'April 5, 2012
“Diarrhea, cholera and tick-borne illness: As the climate changes, a host of health threats are predicted to escalate, experts say.
“Environmental changes already underway are allowing public health experts to establish stronger links between global warming and infectious disease.
“An analysis of pathogens in Europe that pose a serious threat to humans or animals, such as anthrax and cholera, found that climate change could influence 60 percent of these diseases. That's "a remarkably high number," said Matthew Baylis, an epidemiologist at the University of Liverpool in the UK, who presented his work this week at a symposium on infectious diseases and climate change at the University of Georgia.
“He predicts temperatures and rainfall will have an "overwhelming" effect on tick-borne disease. Strong winds could spread anthrax. West Nile virus is susceptible to changes in temperature and rainfall….”
http://wwwp.dailyclimate.org/tdc-newsroom/2012/04/climate-infections
Report Comment
Hi, Anne. Just a clarification.
Fraud increased disease by global warming.
http://amcmh.org/PagAMC/downloads/cambioclimatico.htm
Report Comment
Current sea level rise
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise
Sea Level Rise Swamps Islands
The seas are already overlapping islands and coasts from Panama to India. David Biello reports
“…Take the islands off the coast of Panama. These Caribbean islands regularly find themselves inundated with seawater for days—and some indigenous inhabitants have begun to move to hillsides on the mainland.
“…New research from the National Center for Atmospheric Research suggests that climate change is already causing even greater sea level rise along the coastlines of the Bay of Bengal, the Arabian Sea, Sri Lanka, Sumatra and Java—coastlines inhabited by hundreds of millions of people. The same climate change is also responsible for falling sea levels around the Seychelles and a potential weakening of the monsoons….”
http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=sea-level-rise-swamps-islands-10-07-18
Barrier Island Migration; Sea Level Rise and the Future
http://www.seagrant.sunysb.edu/cprocesses/pdfs/LIDynamicSShore-SeaLevel.pdf
Report Comment
Military sees threats, worry in climate change
April 2, 2012
Climate policy may be a minefield in U.S. politics, but the Pentagon sees liabilities of a different kind and is forging ahead with plans to reduce the military's carbon footprint and prepare for climate impacts.
'It's about returning more of our brave sailors and Marines.'
http://wwwp.dailyclimate.org/tdc-newsroom/2012/04/climate-security
Report Comment