Global Warming has come to be a hotly contested issue. Are there valid concerns that we should consider, or is Global Warming just the latest manufactured crisis to cash in on the public’s fears and generate new support for global governance, global carbon taxes and other oppressive policies?
On November 20, 2008 Ron Paul said in a New York Times / Freakonomics interview:
“I try to look at global warming the same way I look at all other serious issues: as objectively and open-minded as possible. There is clear evidence that the temperatures in some parts of the globe are rising, but temperatures are cooling in other parts. The average surface temperature had risen for several decades, but it fell back substantially in the past few years.
Clearly there is something afoot. The question is: Is the upward fluctuation in temperature man-made or part of a natural phenomenon. Geological records indicate that in the 12th century, Earth experienced a warming period during which Greenland was literally green and served as rich farmland for Nordic peoples. There was then a mini ice age, the polar ice caps grew, and the once-thriving population of Greenland was virtually wiped out.
It is clear that the earth experiences natural cycles in temperature. However, science shows that human activity probably does play a role in stimulating the current fluctuations.
The question is: how much? Rather than taking a “sky is falling” approach, I think there are common-sense steps we can take to cut emissions and preserve our environment. I am, after all, a conservative and seek to conserve not just American traditions and our Constitution, but our natural resources as well.
We should start by ending subsidies for oil companies. And we should never, ever go to war to protect our perceived oil interests. If oil were allowed to rise to its natural price, there would be tremendous market incentives to find alternate sources of energy. At the same time, I can’t support government “investment” in alternative sources either, for this is not investment at all.
Government cannot invest, it can only redistribute resources. Just look at the mess government created with ethanol. Congress decided that we needed more biofuels, and the best choice was ethanol from corn. So we subsidized corn farmers at the expense of others, and investment in other types of renewables was crowded out.
Now it turns out that corn ethanol is inefficient, and it actually takes more energy to produce the fuel than you get when you burn it. The most efficient ethanol may come from hemp, but hemp production is illegal and there has been little progress on hemp ethanol. And on top of that, corn is now going into our gas tanks instead of onto our tables or feeding our livestock or dairy cows; so food prices have been driven up. This is what happens when we allow government to make choices instead of the market; I hope we avoid those mistakes moving forward.”
After additional consideration and analysis and shortly before the release of the Climategate emails in late 2009, Ron Paul identified the artificial panic around Global Warming as an elaborate hoax:
“The greatest hoax I think that has been around for many, many years if not hundreds of years has been this hoax on [...] global warming.” – Ron Paul on Fox Business, Nov. 4, 2009
“[The Copenhagen treaty on climate change] can’t help the economy. It has to hurt the economy and it can’t possibly help the environment because they’re totally off track on that. It might turn out to be one of the biggest hoaxes of all history, this whole global warming terrorism that they’ve been using, but we’ll have to just wait and see, but it cannot be helpful. It’s going to hurt everybody.” – Ron Paul on the Alex Jones Show, Nov. 5, 2009
For an environmental insider’s view on the “Green Agenda” and its background and motivations check out The Green Agenda. Also read Lew Rockwell’s Anti-Environmentalist Manifesto.
Lets face it..Global warming is an issue. Whether its caused solely by unconscious, reckless use of technologies we dont fully understand or invisible cosmic energy enemating from the galactic centre. Personally, due to the fact that an ice Moon around Jupiter is now liquid seas, Pluto which is an ice planet and dervives no energy from our sun is also melting…. then its obvious the heat source is invisible and certainly not caused by the sun or CO2.
I dont think Pluto has an issue with fossil fuels… Now I am not justifying the use of fossil fuels as there are far better technologies available and suppressed. The oil companies should be stopped. However, the government who I believe is aware of the heating taking place throughout the entire solar system and that humans are not completely to blame…
In saying that, there is nothing we can do to stop the warming, maybe slow it slightly but not stop it… We have no physical control over energy coming from an apparent invisible source so to speak… So it will get warmer and the gov is going to cash in on it. the only thing capable of stopping these criminals is a well informed public. Convincing sheeple that ignorance is not bliss is tough work… Do ur homework readers… Cheers
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
If we can learn to control atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases, whether up or down, we can not only correct for our own output, but respond to events caused by the sun and so on.
The scientific community has humanity’s best interests at heart. If we are to survive, we will have to learn to control the weather, just as we build houses and use fertilizers and otherwise manipulate our environment to our advantage. Governments are responding slowly if at all to decades of continued pressure from the scientific community, because governments are paid off by big oil.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
i don’t know about “humanity’s best interests” – i’m sure some of them don’t think that big picture, and are just concerned with gaining mroe knowledge (for its own sake, of course – scientists and academics are interesting tyhpes). but yeah agree with everything you said – right on brotha!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
In addition to zealous knowledge seeking, some are probably responding to the demands of who-ever directs grant applications. I’ve heard grumblings from scientists that don’t agree with the institution they represent.
Then there is money in alternate energy which will only get bigger as they become more mainstream. The only thing that shielded alternate energy from corporate corruption in the past is the fact that it was on the fringe. That shield is quickly fading.
Scientists are not the only ones that can claim they have humanities best interest at heart. The Christian church always has; especially during the Crusades. The neo-cons would probably have problems with their recent tactics if they didn’t believe they were right and that they were saving others. CC’s pundits are falling over themselves to get in the same ideological line the NAZI’s formed 80 years ago.
Let’s get both Ron Paul’s messages and green energy out of the fringe. But let’s also be diligent about not letting the new found popularity corrupt us.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
[...] “No Climate Tax Pledge.” By doing so, Paul pledges to “oppose legislation relating to climate change that includes a net increase in government [...]
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I can has cheezburger?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
adam smith, after all, pointed out that the “chief architects of policy” are the “merchants and manufactures who have their needs so peculiarly attended to.” that was a piont of emphasis for murray rothbard as well. anyways, keep it up
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
one quibble i have with ron paul’s environmental stance (which i think is very reasonable) is that he points out that corn ethanol is inefficient. of course it is, no one disagrees on that. but he said that that’s an instance of govt. interference in the market. well, with all due respect, the govt. wouldn’t “invest” in corn ethanol if there wasn’t lobbying from the corn industry – after all, the corn industry benefits the more we use corn – which includes research for corn ethanol. ron paul is right in stating that oil industry interests are guiding govt. policy, and it’s a testament to his integrity that he’s pointing that out when not even democrats will point that out, but he should also point out that this is the case for most industries.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
1) The problem with trying to be objective in the Global Warming debate is that we are forced to base our conclusions on data supplied by people who are already convinced that CO2 based warming is underway. But objective is the right approach. We must push back against alarmism while considering the possibility that the supporters may be right.
2) Biofuel is great for getting us off foreign oil, but what do you get when you burn biofuel? CO2. The solution to our dependence on foreign oil is right in our hip pocket – algae. One prototype algae farm in New Mexico (yep, private industry) can produce 100,000 gallons per acre. Corn produces about 1000. Also the algae is grown in containment. – You can’t get more bio-friendly.
3) While we hope for windmills, unrelenting ocean wave action and the Gulf Stream offer unlimited electrical generation production.
4) A Solar furnace, that reaches 3000F has been operating in the American dessert for years. It melts sodium to transfer the heat to generate steam for the turbines. The sodium stores heat and continues working after the sun goes down. It is simple, effective and a network of furnaces could generate all of Los Angeles power needs.
The question is can we be green without being stupid?
Why aren’t these established alternatives being actively pursued with the same enthusiasm that is put into screaming about global warming?
Ask all of the bought and paid for Democrats and Re[publicans in office right now.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Is this what you are referring too?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_plants_in_the_Mojave_Desert
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Why the screaming? A lot of people in the support column have become convinced, after several decades, that scientific illiteracy in this country is so widespread that getting the funding to push green technology forward, and getting people to buy it before it’s cheap, is practically impossible.
So we continue to try and try and try to find some fun, loud, convincing way to explain what’s happening to the American public. The science is straightforward, but after 4 decades half the country remains unconvinced. Somehow they don’t understand they are being played by the oil industry. It’s gotten aggravating.
Meanwhile, the car companies for some reason made early hybrids the most ridiculous “Captain Tomorrow” egghead-looking things, and now I see people all the time driving Escapes when they could have bought the Escape hybrid, just to spite the left or something.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It seems that the fact I was originally posting about how we should work together on renewable energy and my support for Ron Paul’s statements have been forgotten. Please try to stick on course if possible.
Now to get off topic for the moment:
I assume you aren’t attributing scientific panic attacks (global warming, global cooling, climate change, population bombs, Hale-Bopp’s comet, 2000 crisis, etc) to footwear in space or gravity on the moon. But then I may again be mistaken; an assertion that you supported in the past.
I would like to re-address your past claims that scientists have no motivation to lie. Ignoring the possibility of human reactions and biases of the scientists themselves, what about those of the grant providers? And then there is the possibility of biases caused by “overconfidence” (http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=31643). Scientists aren’t immune to human reactions, and money (oil or otherwise) isn’t the only motivator that contaminates human actions.
As far as the use of complex models to justify a prediction, I didn’t realize modern science was immune to Occam’s Razor. Too often today the prediction comes first and the scientific research comes later, well after it has been tailored to prove the already decided on prediction.
Why do you keep representing computer programming with a programming statement that has caused much confusion and is the scorn of CS? The more I think of it, the more the entangled logic of climate change is like spaghetti code.
I may not be as educated on physics as you are, but you could use some logic classes and need to bone-up on scientific methods.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I am referring to an if-then statement because it’s the simplest computer programming concept I could think of, something that’s totally basic and that anyone with any understanding of the subject would know about. Your statement that it’s out of favor amongst programmers is something I didn’t and shouldn’t know, and a perfect example of my point. As a nonprogrammer, I was making a mistake by even suggesting that that was a fundamental concept. I was out of my element and talking over my head.
I have had any number of classes in logic. And I don’t believe in Occam’s Razor, per se. Things are as complicated as they are. But there’s NOTHING convoluted about the greenhouse effect. Hydrocarbon combustion has only 2 byproducts, CO2 and water vapor, both of which are greenhouse gases. We’ve removed some huge portion of the sink on CO2 while vastly increasing the supply. That’s very simple to understand.
Individual scientists are susceptible to bias, which is why science is double checked. A huge number of scientists double checking math and reformulating models over 50 years have not changed their opinions yet. Some tiny minority are suggesting that solar activity is the culprit, but that doesn’t change how we react even if they’re right, and it doesn’t really make sense. Where is the CO2 going?
I intuitively and scientifically understand what they were saying, and my education in science is nothing like theirs. We’re pouring black smoke into the air, all day every day, for two centuries, and now there’s a problem. This should pass your ‘common sense’ test.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Ok, I spoke too fast on the programming issue. In my mind “IF THEN” is as it used to be– not structured condition and usually followed by either a GOTO or GOSUB which is what has fallen in disgrace. The only place I know of it being used is assembly and MS-DOS batch files.
The evidence for climate change involves more than hydrocarbon combustion and that evidence is gathered in a less than simple (convoluted?) manner. Sometime Occam’s razor is a useful tool. I don’t know of any tool that is useful 100% of the time.
I don’t think anybody ever claimed there was no such thing as a greenhouse effect, that we haven’t been adding CO2 and worse to the atmosphere, or that the earth hasn’t been warming since we’ve been measuring.
My fear is that in a panic we’ll start putting something even worse in the atmosphere while we destroy the international economy and reverse the gains in health over the last 500 years or so.
As I pointed out last time, the concerns go much further than individual works. When I hear about a white collar crime I don’t doubt the clerks in the accounting department balanced their sheets correctly and that the error was introduced higher up. Same with questionable scientific theories.
But since we both agree that alternate energy should be a goal and it is economically viable (which until recently was news to me) why don’t we work together to promote it and quit trying to insult the way the other came to the same conclusion?
I intuitively put everything up for question (why do you think my pseudonym is “fluidly unsure” instead of “solidly sure”?) including the statements from the scientific community. Blame my past but skepticism is a part of me as much as trust in the scientific method is a part of you.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I can agree with all that.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
http://www.phys.ufl.edu/~det/phy2060/heavyboots.html
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Thank you for telling me why “old ice” is a concern. Your reasoning sounds solid and gives me something to ponder. I don’t know that I’ll come to the same conclusions as you but at least these arguments sound less absurd as they did before.
I mentioned veg. growth because of the parallels of a possible distracting straw-man. I had heard about “old growth” after there were indications that the Amazon was getting denser. Hence it appeared that old vs new growth was being used to distract the public from the actual argument. Was the same thing being done with old vs new ice?
I don’t know where you got the idea that I read everything in a conspiracy blog which I rarely visit much less read. I had just read an article in ENN that verified that the idea that old growth is carbon neutral did exist based on scientific studies at the time. ENN may be a “conspiracy blog” but I don’t think it is what you were thinking.
“In the 1960s, a study using 10 years worth of data from a single plantation suggested that forests 150 or more years old give off as much carbon as they take up from the atmosphere, and are thus carbon neutral.”
–http://www.enn.com/top_stories/article/38179
To be fair to ENN.COM, the article was about how new evidence proves the study in my memory as wrong. I assume that for a study to be wrong the study must actually exist and not be made-up at a right wing conspiracy site. They also mention that this study was the reason old forests are not protected by the Kyoto protocol.
Our arguments are more about epistemology (the study of knowledge and how it is obtained). You seem to feel that an authoritative source of evidence triumphs all personal reason. To me, a source of evidence is only one of many indications that the evidence is acceptable.
I too am shocked at the level of scientific (il)literacy shown today. Especially in scientific journals and the academia. Theories are based on non-verifiable sources (computer simulations and core analysis) and data taken out of a simpler context (planets and tanks that are not complete biological systems). IIRC, the need for empirically and verifiable evidence is based on Hemple’s “the philosophy of natural science”.
I bring up the “tin foil hat” whenever a fellow nerd seems to be taking technical facts further than the context. It wasn’t meant to be an insult but a polite jab at someone who wears the same badge of honor I do.
I missed what you were referring to with “Hatfield and McCoy”. Remember that the forgetfulness comes from both camps (Hatfield/McCoy, and Conservative/Liberal). If I decided to do so I could have taken it as an insulting reference to my roots (Scottish Irish) and the chasm between my family and the progressives. I thought that would be absurd so I decided to not be insulted.
I don’t think I was suggesting anything. I was coming to you with a specific request. But you are suggesting my doing makes no sense.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
All of quantum theory, for instance, existed only as equations, models and theories, until experimental results slowly confirmed it over the course of more than a century. Models are based on hard science that is well out of your or my league. Please stop being so dismissive of things you don’t have any frame of reference to understand. These people outrank you.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Quantum theory: Yet more proof that science has a u-turn on the highway of logic and reason. I’m not planning on following them off the cliff as you are.
I’ll be as dismissive as I wish to be when something makes no sense to me. It is much better to be true to yourself than faking your belief as you want me to. I will not bow down to kiss the feet of someone whom I am having a hard time not throwing my shoes at.
Saying that I don’t have the education, rank, or birth rights to know is all just a way to say “you are too inferior to comprehend and are not worthy of our superior knowledge”.
Please quit arguing like the pundit of an arrogant aristocrat. From some of your arguments I know you are more capable.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I will stick with my argument. I will say again that you sound like someone who has never once programmed arguing that if-then statements do not exist. You are out of your element.
Just because quantum theory doesn’t make sense to you, it’s not true? That’s insane. They just found a kind of molecule only predicted in quantum theory. I don’t even understand how you can call yourself a scientist if you reject anything you can’t understand. If the math is over your head, and you haven’t devoted decades to understanding it, how can you possibly reject it?
Meanwhile, DECADES of discoveries STRONGLY support it. But it’s too “out there” for you, precisely because you don’t know anything about it and don’t like to accept that other people outrank you and DO know something about it. Something that can’t be easily explained in words. Something that is normally expressed in equations. It’s over your head, man!
And I’m sorry, but I DO feel that your knowledge of science is vastly inferior to theirs, that you don’t understand the concepts or theories at play, and that you are not worth listening to. You haven’t demonstrated even an elementary school understanding of science to me.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
As to epistemology, I trust the aggregate opinion of the vast, vast majority of qualified people and my own common sense (again, for the dozenth time, WHERE does the CO2 go in your “theory?”) much more than the voices of a few scientists, especially when there’s such an easy agenda attached to their point of view (oil money).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The agenda? You don’t think there is money in the alternate energy industry?
You don’t think scientists benefit from more grants when their ideas and papers are supported by others? There is a motivation to be lenient or outright fake on theories. It is the same as a CEO/CFO’s motivation to “cook the books”.
Don’t give me any “they wouldn’t do that” *. Scientists are human just like executives.
I don’t understand why the desire for money is different than the desire for the prestige won by a scientist who is accepted by his/her peers, or the influence of a politician that swoons the right crowd. We are all just maximizing our benefits in life.
Where is CO2 going? I don’t have any hard evidence but I don’t know that it matters. It is awfully hard to not make a pun about trees and forests right now.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Scientists are shielded from this by two factors, as I have REPEATEDLY explained.
1) They have tenured positions with fixed pay.
2) Their work is double checked. In fact, there’s research money in double-checking other people’s work.
Yes, there’s money in alternative energy. But not for scientists. For inventors, yes. For scientists, no. The research money goes to fund the research. The scientist gets his salary.
There is only prestige in research that proves to be correct. There is no scientist who wants to go down in history as “the guy who was dead wrong about x,” except a nicotine industry scientist. Here we are talking about many thousands of university scientists all over the world.
If you STILL don’t understand how CO2 plays into global warming, after I explicitly explained it at great length, that’s your problem. That’s basic science. You don’t know what you’re talking about, and I’m tired of talking to you.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=37992
Old ice in the Arctic at an all time low
(Because water vapor is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, the greenhouse effect caused by CO2 is most pronounced in cold, dry areas, which is to say, the poles, which means more CO2 released from the ice, worse weather from flooding, and in general a bad deal. Unless we stop thinking with our Hatfield-and-McCoy brains.)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
That is another thing.
Mayb you could explain why “old” ice is better than “new” ice, or “old” growth is better than “new” growth.
As far as plant growth I don’t see why it is worse to cut old growth for the sake of new growth which will gobble up CO2 at a higher rate. While recent studies seem to indicate (in other words not 100% sure) that old growth is more carbon neutral than previously thought. But I haven’t read a study yet that counters the claim that it is less efficient of a carbon sink than new growth.
As far a ice, I’ve read nothing about the impact of the age of the ice. So separating new ice from old seems like a colloquial assumption (you know what assumption means right?).
Also explain why a “hatfield and mcCoy” brain is worse than one sheltered by a tin foil hat?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The age of the ice is an indicator of how much of the shelf has melted. Old ice is ice closer to the core of the shelf. Less old ice at the summer peak means the shelf has melted substantially. There is less new ice – the ice that forms each winter – as well.
This has nothing to do with old- and new-growth trees. I haven’t read anything about old-growth trees being better co2 exchangers than new growth. I think it’s a shame to cut down such majesties of nature, but as far as the environment is concerned, I’m for planting more trees instead of or after cutting them down.
If you’re implying I have the tin foil hat on because I understand and accept the last fifty years of science as well as its basic principles, rather than _you_ for assuming some claptrap you read on a conspiracy blog is true (when your overall understanding of this issue is that you don’t even know what CO2 _is_), I’m offended, but whatever.
The Hatfields and the McCoys forgot why they were fighting. Conservatives and liberals in this country just blindly reject anything at all ‘coming from the other side’ in their opinion, whether it’s good or bad. I can’t believe conservatives were so easily brainwashed by such bad, incoherent science, and really am shocked at the level of scientific literacy in this country
Where is the CO2 going? When you burn a hydrocarbon, it produces nothing except energy, CO2 and H2O, both greenhouse gases. All we DO is burn hydrocarbons, all day, every day, all around the world. The only sink for CO2 is plant life, and we’re killing all the plant life, too. What you’re suggesting makes no sense.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Be worried about two things.
1. Look at weather Cycles for past 2000 years.
2. How to grow crops in the cold in june. If you can find enough land that isn’t flooded that is.
http://www.longrangeweather.com/ArticleArchives/MoreExtremeWeather.htm
To The Republic
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The whole point is… I don’t care about what political party you are or aren’t with. We are americans. We are suppose to be for liberty and constitutional government. We are not getting that at 1600 penn ave… We are suppose to be a Republic. We have individual rights free from gov oppression.
I payed 50% in taxes this year… 6 months I went to work for the government. This is outrageous!!! I could have spent more time with my family or traveled… We were NEVER intended to pay anywhere near this amount. Maybe I would be a little less uptight about them charging us for GW if they weren’t already screwing me blind…. The income tax is criminal. Gov should be able to function fully on half the budget…
If freedom is the absence of government coercion as Dr. Paul writes… Then I am far from free when I am taxed in half… Great, now I can’t sleep I am so mad. Seriously, criminal…
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
There is no way you paid 50% income tax. The highest bracket is 35%
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
34% federal 10% california state… Not to mention sales tax throughout the year and property tax… Trust me… You pay a lot more than you think. Every week I can see that I lose close to half my gross… I get some back but nothing compared to what I payed. I am in the worst bracket, yes… Either way it is outrageous. Just getting rid of the income tax like Dr. Paul speaks of would be very american… You know the history of the income tax? We don’t need it and never should have allowed it…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Wow, you should move away from california.. I agree, I don’t believe in the income tax, but we insist on having wars.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I used to live in Nashville. No state tax which helps. Ever notice that states without state income tax have equal to or lower sales tax.
I know… many people are leaving…
The war is the main reason… I agree…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
States used to compete with eachother through taxes. People would migrate to the states with less taxes and would ultimatly then collect more money from a larger population.. Thats why cities and states with the lowest taxes are growing the fastest and doing the best.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I am waiting for a state to declare independence for the the federal gov. I would move there… Low low taxes and no property tax… I dream of Dr. Paul being the president of Texas… I wish he was 20 years younger… I know, but I can dream…
thanks for the dialogue and exchanging of ideas…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
There are over 100,000 “rogue” PH.D card carrying scientist that challenge the official story.
Also, ones political views are not relevant. Many people question both motives and hypotheses… I
In case you didn’t notice the NOVA special (all about pointing the finger at man) was sponsored by Exxon Mobil. Scientist also stand to gain huge $$ for their GW research. If it’s not true and the sun is all to blame, who can you tax? Have you read the “cap and trade” proposal? $3,200 per family rise in energy cost based on “man made” global warming claims. Europe is already being taxed. Governments will def exploit this, make no mistake. When it happens, and you are taxed for carbon, will you think it’s bizzar???
The IPCC is a political organization aimed at push man made GW…
1. [FREEMAN DYSON is professor of physics at the Institute for Advanced Study, in Princeton. One of the top scientist in the world
Good level headed perspective to me...
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/dysonf07/dysonf07_index.html
The main subject of this piece is the problem of climate change. This is a contentious subject, involving politics and economics as well as science. The science is inextricably mixed up with politics.
My first heresy says that all the fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated. Here I am opposing the holy brotherhood of climate model experts and the crowd of deluded citizens who believe the numbers predicted by the computer models.
When I listen to the public debates about climate change, I am impressed by the enormous gaps in our knowledge, the sparseness of our observations and the superficiality of our theories.]
2. Geologist outspoken with a different perspective…
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21542331-1702,00.html
3. “Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical…The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system.” – Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
We’re trying to become energy independent, start using renewable resources, bc we can’t afford to import energy like we do.. Thats the bottom line issue.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I am 1000% for renewable energy… I am 1000% percent angry about the pollution in this world. I think every individual house could be independently sustainable with food and energy… I wish that day would come.
Lobbyist? These are the Obama Admin own numbers. He even put money in the “stimuls” to redistribute as subsidies to low income families to off set rising prices…
Either way you can’t monetize debt without hyperinflation… So It’s irrelevant I guess…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I would like to see where you got 32k per family in rising energy cost.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
3,200
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I actually heard it on the countdown with Keith… I just googled it real quick… $3,100 sorry… I’m sure it will be less… Governments never waste money… (sarcastically)…
http://republicanleader.house.gov/news/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=117509
How do Republicans arrive at the $3,100 dollar figure? It’s pretty simple. We took MIT’s own estimate of a key “cap-and-trade” bill from the 110th Congress (S. 309) cosponsored by then-Senator Obama
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The government isn’t planning “hyperinflation.” hyperinflation happens when there is too much demand and not enough goods.. In other words, it would happen if the government just started handing out money to people like they did in germany.. Right now it is the opposite, we have too many goods with not enough demand. Its called deflation…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The government has to increase the M1 to create hyperinflation like they did in the seventies.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
My understanding is, we have de leveraging, not deflation… If we do it’s short lived. Hyperinflation is predictable, which is just as bad as planning… They are handing out money. The fed is handing out money to the tune of trillions. The money supply is going up faster than ever before… The dollar is losing value in the long run. Bernanke thinks he can reign that in after things stabilize. No other country has, I don’t know why he thinks we’ll be the first… When our currency has no value we will have hyperinflation regardless of supply and demand.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hyperinflation is a direct result from supply and demand from consumers.. If consumers aren’t given money, than it wont effect the demand.. The general public, or consumers, are not going to recieve money, so there will not be hyperinflation.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
We will have to pay a downpayment to make this transition, but it will be cheaper and healthier for generations to come so I think its justified. Plus, all of our economic troubles started bc of oil. We’re trying to get away and become energy independent.. Thats the whole purpose of the cap and trade. Government has to create initiatives instead of forcing businesses to change.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Cap and trade is not a good option in my opinion. Maybe better than the carbon tax like you eluded to earlier… I think it is pure fantasy to think the government will actually be successful… They haven’t done anything right that I can remember…
Keep in mind the government is the whole reason we don’t have clean independent energy. Why do I trust them? The people that killed or let Oil kill the electric car??? Blasphemy!
Economic troubles started from many things. Let’s not leave out the banks.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
They got rid of the electric car because we don’t have energy grids that can support it.. The economic troubles started in the 60′s and 70′s when we got off the gold standard so we could start importing oil. The free makret obviuosly wont change the way they run business. They need incentives.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Sean Obama hasn’t done anything to curb the dependence on foreign oil. Now Obama wants to get more oil from Ghana. That’s really solving the dependence issue. Plus Sean the reason the us got off of the gold standard to pay for the fiscal strain of Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society expenditures and the Vietnam War.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
If you’re referring to the OISM petition with that 100,000 rogue scientists number, it currently only has 31,000 signatures, and (and this is very important) there is no indication what field they are in or where they earned their credentials.
On the other hand, if we just assume there’s maybe a million people who would call themselves scientists in the world (which is probably pretty low), that’s about 3%. Which means 97% don’t.
Do you care what a social scientist thinks about it? That’s a PhD in science. I surely don’t. The same goes for a physicist like Freeman Dyson; I don’t see what his opinion has to do with it.
I had a chemistry professor tell my class that evolution was a scam and force us to write “I SHOUT AMEN” as the right answer to a multiple choice section. Evolution does not come up in a chemistry class; he was just trying to insert his opinion about it in front of a captive audience.
Within the crowd of people who actually know anything about it, there is virtually no disagreement.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
That said, I am reading the links you provided, and I agree with Dr. Dyson that science, politics, economics, religion and many other factors all come into play in understanding this contentious issue. but WHERE IS THE CO2 GOING?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I obviously have limited understanding… That is what I mean by your greater knowledge of the issue. I’m sure it’s frustrating to hear my perspective.
My tone is light hearted here…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
For Dyson, who is clearly very qualified to think. I like his perspective.
Not that I want you to go through all these people. Point is, whether through selective perception or pure knowledge, you won’t see what I see… I am simply interested in debate. I mean Al Gore has had real big holes punched in his movie. But it won’t matter cause people only see a big melting ice cap.
I gave you a geologist also… and what about Joanne S.?
“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical…The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system.” – Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”
What do we think when the warming stops? which it has. What will we say then? What do you say about all the hysteria surrounding the COOLING a few decades ago… I mean they were so sure then.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Well the temperature dramatically rised during WW2 and then dramatically decreased after it. I would say that the mass usage of oil during this time supports everything.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
and ever since other countries have started fully developing the temperature has been rising at a steady rate.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Yeah (sigh)
I can’t know cause I am not qualified. I clearly would like to be off oil. I am seriously just concerned about the solution not being extreme in gov cost. If it’s legit like “most”
scientist say (I don’t know) Then I pray for an actual solution.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Its got to happen somehow… I can’t think of any better way.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I am reading the other articles you mentioned.
Many people are qualified to think but have substantial unstated biases and assumptions that make their conclusions worthless. For instance, I am sure Galileo’s persecutors or Jesus’ were at the top of their field, highly respected, well-educated, intelligent. (And yes, I understand that you all feel like the Galileos or Jesuses here, but frankly so do I; an uphill battle against a crowd of people who don’t know what I’m talking about).
Am I qualified to question Dr. Simpson or even Dr. Dyson? No. I take their opinions seriously and try to find time and patience and be open-minded. But the people who are qualified to disagree with them all do, en masse, and what they’re saying makes sense. I haven’t heard or read one credible contrasting theory, and I’ve been watching and learning about this for 20 years. I am not a leftist; I take both sides seriously, but…
There are still people who literally believe the earth is flat. Should I have to take them seriously, too? What about people who don’t “believe in” carbon dating because it contradicts their interpretation of the Bible?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Well, I appreciate you taking the time to read/critic my opinions. I can respect what you said. I will continue to try and understand, I appreciate the help.
I think I have stated my main concern enough
Time will tell how deep they push their hands into our pockets…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Well actually, income taxes have been declining overall.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I mean… You say I don’t have the understanding… Maybe true. But I’m sure these Ph.d guys do and they disagree… My whole point is this. Whether it is or isn’t man made, governments will be taxing you… I will send you the proposed bill which sites man made carbon emissions as the basis. This is not a “conspiracy”… They will overreact and not even come close to putting money and resources in the right places… We both lose…
You sound level headed about the fix. I respect that… Mr. Dyson agrees from what I can tell…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
They aren’t setting up a carbon tax.. They are making a cap and trade system. 2 COMPLETELY different things.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I know what they are doing… I touch on it specifically below… It’s not completely different in that it all comes out of your wallet/purse… No need for nitpicking pointless points…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It’s not going to cost that much, thats just lobbyist figures. Why dont you read my post below
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
They ARE setting up a carbon tax and it will hit those who do not comply. This is a part of the financial scheme to turn Cap & Trade into a commodity so our Wall Street folks can have another run at American’s pockets, to make another heist so the rich get richer, another bubble bursting. It talks about this at the end of the article, though the whole article helps in understanding what is going on financially.
Cap & Trade has more to do with Wall Street, adding to the collapse of the economy.
Read this article: The Great American Bubble Machine
http://www.scribd.com/doc/16781569/The-Great-American-Bubble-Machine-GoldmanSachs-and-the-crash
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
google cause and effect relationship between Co2 and temperatures… Co2 does not drive temperature…
“we now know for certain that the temperature changes before the Co2″ “in the theory of GW due to humans, is the Co2 goes up the temp goes up, but the ice bowl records show it’s exactly the opposite…”
Tim Ball PH.D. in Climatology
Nova also backed that up… I do agree with that snippet from the Exxon Mobil backed documentary… http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/extremeice/program.html
AND I QUOTE “125,000 years ago temps went up 7 degrees caused by the earths orbit around the sun” that warmed the oceans and released co2 from the ocean… It wasn’t enough for the SUN warming the oceans and causing the melting…. BUT! the Co2 released was the culprit (of course)$$$$$… That is very flawed thinking…
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
What happened was, the CO2 and methane in the ice was released by solar activity, which in turn enormously accelerated global warming. It’s not correct to say that the temperature causes CO2 release, which has no effect on temperature. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Please look up what a greenhouse gas is. It is correct that as temperature goes up, CO2 locked in polar ice and on the ocean floor is released, which makes the problem that much worse.
The same thing is likely to happen again due to man-made GW or whatever this is. All the more reason to focus heavily on developing co2 sinks, and reducing our own emissions to buy ourselves time.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/04/03/antarctica.ice.shelf/index.html
A large ice shelf is about to break off the south pole – the SOUTH pole – after receding since the mid-90′s.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
So I guess these scientist are irrelevant? We now know that temps go up, Co2 goes up… Temps go up do to solar activity…
But where is the monetary gain if it’s a natural cycle… God forbid mother nature is the culprit like every other time temp change in history. What a missed opportunity for governments to tax if it’s not man made. Show me the money!!! Scientist need grants to continue their fundamentally flawed research…
try not to engage in ad homonym attacks… These are scientist Phds who completely disagree with you…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZ_Gy3JzrMs
yun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and Founding Director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks:
“The method of study adopted by the International Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) is fundamentally flawed, resulting in a baseless conclusion”
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Where’s the ad hominem attack? A huge ice shelf breaks off antartica.
I know that scientists disagree with me. But it’s a tiny minority, most of whom are in the employ of “private organizations” that I don’t trust. If YOU follow the money, and think about what deep-pocketed industry might be funding any and all research to “disprove” global warming (oil), you’ll see there’s more to this.
The paranoia about taxes has always struck me as bizarre. I can’t understand why anyone would need more than a million dollars a year or so, and we could do so much as a society with that money. You people just aren’t team players.
As I understand it, the two major lines of attack from scientists are:
* global warming and CO2 increase started before the industrial revolution.
But that would just be the natural cycle. Perhaps it should have leveled off and dropped by now. In any case, we have no control over that, but we can control CO2 and thus the temperature, and save ourselves, if we can get the right to pull its head out of the sand.
* solar activity causes temperature change.
Again, so what? Yes it does, but we can’t control that. We can control CO2 levels by building CO2 sinks and cutting our output.
Whatever you want to say about me – because to be honest, if you were as frustrated having this conversation with people who don’t understand the science we’re talking about, you’d be having a hard time holding your tongue, too – it’s ridiculous that you’ve sided with these rogue scientists simply because they’re rogues. You don’t have enough information or understanding to evaluate which side is right. And you’re just assuming that the right wing press has no agenda. I can’t understand it.
The reason I side with the mainstream science is because a) I have a good scientific education, and it’s obviously true if you know what’s going on, and b) science is extensively cross-checked for errors, and breakthroughs, not conformity, make people’s names in science.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
http://www.examiner.com/x-1586-Baltimore-Weather-Examiner~y2009m1d21-Oceans-are-cooling-according-to-NASA
See this article in the recent issue of The Register, “Japan’s boffins: Global warming isn’t man-made.”
The Register link: or google it…
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/25/jstor_climate_report_translation/
Unfortunately Western scientists have been trained by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to follow the trail of federal research funds, as Pavlov’s dogs were trained to salivate at the sound of a dinner bell.
NAS obviously had no idea that public interest in the weather (climate) might expose the entire house of cards that they have fabricated since the US government started pouring public funds into research after the end of World War II.
Many other untruths are identified in a manuscript that was published in Russia a couple of years ago:
arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0609509
arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0609509v3
“The Sun is a plasma diffuser that sorts atoms by mass,” Physics of Atomic Nuclei 69, number 11, pp. 1847-1856 (Nov 2006); Yadernaya Fizika 69, number 11, (Nov 2006); PAC: 96.20.Dt DOI: 10.1134/S106377880611007X
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Awe how cute, the free trader Libertarian is going to ride the Global Warming bandwagon to oppose subsidies (oil companies). How is that any different then Democrats riding the Global Warming bandwagon to push for more taxes, it isn’t. It is dishonest, and a liberal trait, because Libertarians are Liberal.
Long live Pat Buchanan.
P.S. All the evidence of Global Warming points to the Urban Heat Island effect.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_heat_island
“In any case, ground temperature measurements, like most weather observations, are logged by location; 19th-century United States air temperatures were often logged at Post Offices; early-20th-century temperatures added airfield observation sites. Both predate the massive sprawl, roadbuilding programs, and high- and medium-rise expansions contributing to UHI. More importantly, the logs allow sites in question to be filtered easily from data sets. Doing so, the presence of heat islands is visible, but overall trends change in magnitude, not direction.”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I really enjoyed the discourse between Pete and Unsure… I also liked the random Pistol perspective.
It was like reading a book of philosophy and that’s exactly what I enjoyed with Unsure… I think you have very logical reasoning and justified skepticism… I share your same beliefs.
My question to Pete, since you seem to have a very strong understanding of the situation… For the first time you made me think we have a roll in this… My questions are… Do you think it is dangerous to liberty for the gov to just react wildly (like they will) and there will be misplaced energy and resources as the government tries to impose things like cap and trade?
cap and trade seems like a ridiculous idea from either understanding of GW… If the companies are just going to pass the cost onto consumers, how is that an incentive to develop “clean” energy? The gov is the reason we don’t have clean energy in the fist place because they’re bought by big oil to keep it that way. Seems a bit ridiculous for them to impose new taxes and bad ideas… Thoughts on that please?
Let’s say I accept your premise and we need to cut co2 emissions. The fear and scare tactics used?The pictures of melting ice caps and starving polar bears are a bit outrageous, no??? Justified? I feel like they are going to do what they always do, use a crisis to further oppress the people. I mean Obama has some large new taxes set up that will only punish the citizens. I’m mostly worried about the actions they will take. If the gov has anything to do with it, and they do, it will be tons of wasted resources and taxpayer money… What do scientist think about the solution and gov role. Links, articles???
I hate pollution and can’t believe what is done to the rivers and lakes in this country… You have to understand why people reject GW based solely on the fear gov will abuse them with new and misguided taxes and regulation…. It’s superficial for gov to care about GW and not the other pollutants…
thank you for your time…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I’m more or less unplugging from this as I’ve said everything I’m qualified to say, more or less. I feel like not trusting scientists is like not trusting calculators; they’re nerds and they have no reason to lie. I do think “fear tactics” are justified, if you look at it from another perspective. Would it be a fear tactic of your carbon monoxide detector to start beeping?
I’m not worried about liberty. Liberty can restore itself if we’re still alive.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I appreciate the response… I can’t say I agree about the liberty issue mainly because we know from history how governments uses panic to oppress. It’s not that GW isn’t real or needs to be addressed, it’s that I don’t trust gov to do the right thing. To me it would be 90% their personal agenda and 10% dealing with the problem, al least that’s how they always operate. Recent, the sky is falling examples, the bailouts and Iraq….
I clearly can’t write well but I do like to think I have some common sense. I don’t know if you saw Bill Maher last night (i have a love/hate with him) but one of his guest talked about how fear and panic will only produce negative results. He gave the example of Denmark and let’s say Germany (can’t remember the other one, sorry)… Denmark sharply curved their emissions and Germany in a panic implemented a 40% tax on carbon and it actually increased emissions over the year by 43%… I’m just saying, dead or alive we have to have a plan that actually attacks the problem and doesn’t line the pockets of big companies and Washington. If we use fear and panic I strongly feel we will get only the latter…
take care,
paul
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
And I have enjoyed this also. Like running around the block, a little exercise (intellectual or physical) can be very invigorating.
Besides, this is an emotional subject that usually doesn’t allow honest debate without both sides loading their arguments with personal attacks.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
1] Is Global Warming “Real” ?
2] If Warming is “Real” do we want to “fix” it? Do we know the consequences of “fixing” ?
3] What is the casue of warming [assuming it's real and we want to fix it]?
4] Is the cause able to be “fixed” by human intervention?
Not to be a downer- but, Meth Hydrates are a far more potent green house gas – and humans have no ctrl over the release.
Also, the Human Population explosion is largly a problem in itself; yet, the consequence of “fixing” the environment from a political POV will more often end in global conflict [nuclear even] with devistating consequence –
IF, IF, IF “the world” agreed Co2 is the problem…and, “the world” agreed to “fix” it – 1) Human Birth rates would be restricted 2) The entire world would deploy Nuclear Tech as a means of 90% of power production – with dire urgency and disreguard to laws of zoning, construction red tape and burocratic bs.
Reality is: Thinking the Gov. will “save us” from ANYTHIG is ignorant. To think humanity can save itself without realizing first hand “expensive and deadly” consequence of non action is naive.
IMO the US and rest of the world are going to have it’s hands full dealing with the implied destability of diminished US influence and associated economic, political and cultural dynamics this will bring. I think the entire planet should think it best to try and avoid nuclear war first – “save the planet and CO2″ second.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Actually, now that I think about it more, it’s a 33% increase over the natural level (1/3 of 75% is 25%), which is worse. Not ‘tiny’ in either case. There’s such a thing as right-wing spin, too.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
A little help… I thought you might get an email if I hit reply… Questions below.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I have looked at a lot of the deniers’ work. The science denying global warming is man-made all seems to miss my point. I will continue to insist that the case for natural, cyclical warming is excellent, and that it coincides with a man-made effect _over which we have some control_, and that arguing about the size of this effect is a red herring.
If CO2 levels directly correlate with temperature changes leading to uninhabitable conditions, and we can sink instead of dramatically increase CO2 levels, this is the only responsible course of action. We may win, we may lose, but at least we didn’t give up and throw ourselves a big party.
But just indulge me as to the kind of effect we may be causing and may be able to prevent…
Man’s contribution to CO2 is generally set at 25%. Deniers will say this is a “tiny” contribution, but that is bizarre. Consider what happen when your body temperature goes up just a few degrees, or your blood pH changes by a point. The change can be fatal. Homeostatic systems develop in response to a natural range of variation, and even then have extremes at which they fail. They are not designed to handle a 25% increase beyond their maximum levels. An increase of 25% in body temperature would be:
273 K – Freezing point of water
273 + (5/9 * ( 98.6 – 32)) = 310 K – Normal body temperature
310 K * .25 = 77.5 K – a 25% increase
(310 + 77.5) – 273 = 114.5 Celsius – new body temperature
9/5 * (114.5 C) + 32 = 238 F
This might sound astonishing or even impossible, but it’s correct. What you think of 0 degrees is probably -32 degrees farenheit, which is actually still a very high temperature compared to the absence of atomic motion (O Kelvin, the absolute 0). A 25% increase in our absolute temperature would obviously be fatal in short order.
In the same way, a 25% increase in the absolute level of CO2 is a very big deal in a homeostatic system, especially one in which the sink for CO2 (trees) has been drastically removed.
Just to satisfy those who will not accept that calculation, if the Farenheit scale is (incorrectly) chosen,
98.6 * .25 = 24.65 F
98.6 + 24.65 = 123.25 F
Still fatal.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
Just in case you find that discouraging, I want to point out that the right technology could remove, say, all the CO2 in the atmosphere in a matter of weeks or months, if that were a good idea (which it’s not). We theoretically have control, in fact, not just over our own contribution, but over the natural level as well. Which means we could prevent a natural ice age, if we had our ducks in a row. But these things take time and money to invent and model and such.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Err, not -32 F, but just 0 F, which is 32 F (the freezing point of water) minus 32.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
ok, thats cool, but i urge u to share your views on the eternal energy that comprises all things, (commonly referred to as god), as ur view may have a positive impact on others, encouraging them to look at things with an open and objective mind.. If your willing of course…
whatever we have been doing ‘collectively’, certainly hasnt and will not produce the society in which we have always dreamed.
global warming is not happening to us, its happening through us, because of us…. this is leading edge science, not religion…
I understand there are some frightening issues at hand, that if not resolved, and soon, then life as we know it will come to a grinding halt.
I believe that if we dont look at the metaphysical cause of things, and not the sympton (like failed modern medicine) then we miss the lesson.
in the words of Neale Donald Walsch… this is for everyone…
what you do to others, you do to yourself,
what you fail to do for others, you fail to do for yourself.
the pain of other your pain, and the joy of others, your joy.
and when you disclaim any part of that, you disclaim a part of yourself.
NOW is the time to reclaim yourself,
NOW is the time to see yourself again as ‘who you really are’,
thus, rendering yourself visible again.
For when you, and your true relationship with yourself becomes visible, then we are indivisible, and NOTHING, will ever divide us again….
Lets all put down our sticks and stones and join hands in celebration of life. In doing so, we will change this world before our very eyes….
Love to all… P
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I wish what you say was true. But I have found those that urge us to “put down your sticks and stones” will then hurdle weapon that are even more damaging– aka words, thoughts, and ideas.
Becoming “indivisible” via honestly stating your thoughts will not cure the wounds caused by fights triggered by differing conclusions on the same body of evidence. Here, I’ve been debating/battling someone whose conclusions are different than mine.
Thoughts are more powerful than any WMD known to man and claiming open discourse will solve the problems of humanity is like saying that the existence of the A-bomb makes the world safer because people would be afraid to use it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
oh my…
i think ur missing my point…and not buying into the truth is a shame..
if you think ur vote or money means anthing, then you are seriously mistaken. presidents are not elected, they are selected.
and all debates eventually return to a spiritual perspective as that is where it all begins..and ends….
until people remember ‘who they really are’, then their attempts to change anything will be futile. Change comes from within, you can vote and throw money at whatever u like until u exhaust your funds and ballot paper. It wont be until people stop seeing themselves as separate from everything that these issues will be resolved..
Global warming is a sympton of a dis-eased human race. When we see the truth and heal, natural solutions will flood in thick and fast.
Research Dr. Hew Len and Ho’oponopono and you will soon realise that nothing happens on the outside that hasn’t first happened on the inside…
Action is the last step in any process, vital, yes, but the last step. If the thought processes are not in alignment with the outcome you desire than you have zero chance of achieving a satifactory result..
Free peoples minds Peter and you will stop global warming, violence, disease, famine, and all the other side-effects of a sick human race.
Cheers, Love P
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Listen precious,
Its obvious u cant have a serious debate without getting emotional.
For one, i dont take drugs, and assumptions are best left to ignorant people?? Secondly, you have no knowledge of my education or what i consider to be god.. i dont believe in a religious god or an angry vengeful god who punishes people. you are obviously very disconnected from the source if you believe that god is separate from ourselves, thus feels the need to punish us like some scorned, emotional human being, whose failed to obey.. pftt.
Sorry, i dont have the ability to stop a bus with my thoughts, but that has nothing to do with the fact that our thoughts are creative, maybe not in the visible instance that ur suggesting, which by the way is completely absurd and ludicrous to take what i said that literally. Maybe u should ‘start’ taking drugs my brother.
I realize that there are many sides to a story, in fact there are nearly 6.5billion versions of the truth. this is just mine. so when ur finished the failed feable attempts to drag others down into a sceptical, narrowminded view point then maybe we can get on with the real debate… I know its difficult at times, but there is nothing enlightened about making others feel bad, in order to make urself feel better… Let the ego go… it has no place in a debate.. Open ur mind to possibilities and stop listening to everything ur told my mainstream media, and what ur taught in government run schools.. your told only what they want u to know… not a lot of truth…
There are many useful, green technologies that can replace fossil fuels and modern electricity, but they will not come to light until a brainwashed public demand a real solution… So, until certain ego maniacal, unconscious, global elites are brought to a peoples court, then how else are you going to allow these technologies to be made public. Centralisation of power is the problem.
So, unless people are made aware of conspiracy ‘fact’ and the lies perpetrated against humanity, and the game being played, then the industrialists will continue their war on nature and you, whilst they fleece ur hard earned money with yet another tax (carbon tax). People cant fight a war that they are not even aware of…. So while u sit there at ur computer attempting to right off others for having a view different to yours i suggest you digest the following…. CONDEMNATION WITHOUT THOROUGH INVESTIGATION, IS THE HEIGHT OF IGNORANCE…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
You don’t know my background.
I know a lot about the theory you’re trying to push, and I used to buy in to it. But it’s not the whole story, in my experience or my opinion. I’m not here to talk religion.
What I was trying to say was, if you think we can fix this problem with our minds, and not our dollars and votes, that is too surreal and too ephemeral.
And if you want to talk emotional, you don’t call a stranger “precious” if your emotions are in control.
I am not making others feel bad to make myself feel better. I am trying to get people to drop their misguided objections to well-understood science. If it makes them feel bad, that’s not my responsibility. Arguing with people always makes me feel bad, not better. I wish there were a peaceful, pleasant way to tell someone to his or her face that the things they have believed for years are patently false from a better-educated perspective. 2+2 does not equal 5. I’ve tried and tried, but the situation is relatively drastic to keep trying soft tactics.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Also, the post you’re responding to wasn’t a response specifically to you. It was intended to cover a range of religious viewpoints, including yours. If you don’t believe in a God as described in the first paragraph, then that paragraph isn’t the one intended for you. My own beliefs, I prefer to keep to myself.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
You failed!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I guess since you say so, and are randomly casting doubt on my statements, with no argument or evidence to support your conclusion that I failed, you’re right. That’s how debate works, apparently.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Look…
If you are someone who believes in God, you should remember that God helps those who helps themselves and punishes those who ignore the law for selfish reasons.
If you are someone who does not, you should realize that science has a remarkable track record of being more and more right, ands that you are attempting to question your betters and derailing an attempt to respond to the real situation suggested by sophisticated models you could not even begin to analyze at your level of education in the subject, and even more so by science you should have learned in junior high. Hell, even common sense says the black smoke is going to mess up the planet.
If you believe that the mind controls the physical universe, you should realize that your mind cannot stop an oncoming bus from smashing you flat. Quit taking so many drugs. There is more going on than that simple theory, as well.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
You really crack me up. Calling “green science” science is like calling “intelligent design” science.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
So you say, with no proof whatsoever or any other explanation of where CO2 is going.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Isn’t CO2 a part of the cyclical process called nature and wouldn’t it be reused by such? Somebody above responded that we are dumping too much in too short a period of time. That makes sense to me and made my ears stand up to pay attention. So we should combat the problem, but those that claim it is the end of life as we know it put themselves in the same level as all other dooms day prophets.
IIRC (I may be wrong here); as carbon looses its ionic charge and is no longer excited by an external source of kinetic energy it will break down into more basic elements.
This is not my field of study so I’m not 100% sure, but this is my reasoning. Neither telling me to abandon my attempts at reason, or shaming or scaring me into compliance will get anywhere.
Like I said, you may not agree with my reasoning but claiming no reasoning exists and using that line as a straw-man argument only weakens your line of reasoning in my eyes.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
But it IS the field of study of the people you’re claiming to correct! And they disagree with you! And you’re talking about elementary chemistry, and you’re wrong!
CO2 is not a charged particle, and has no tendency to break down. Its natural sink is trees, and we’ve mowed down most of the rain forest already. Honestly, if you don’t know anything about basic climate science, why do you have such a strong opinion?
It would seem NOTHING will get anywhere with you. I’ve already repeatedly explained the basic science, and you seem to have paid no attention at all.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
If there were a meteor headed toward the earth, and you could see it in the sky, and scientists were telling us we had to do something or it would crash into the earth with the force of 200 nuclear weapons and kill every living thing, would you scoff and call them doomsday prophets?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Since you only responded to 1/3 of my post, can I assume you agree with the rest?
As far as your question regarding the meteor. Yes I would scoff if I couldn’t see the meteor but recognized the possibility that those who warn us are misusing the trust we’ve given them to increase their influence in society and therefore their pocketbook?
Your choice of scenarios is rather interesting since there are scientists who claim catastrophe is imminent and human-kind will soon be destroyed by an alien object as the were dinosaurs.
I scoff at dino theorists too so don’t feel so alone.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I responded to your entire post.
The “we can see the meteor coming” correlates to “we can directly measure the CO2 level in the air.”
I’ve never met a scientist who was hurting for money or had anything less than a nerdly and extra-pure attitude toward their research. The only ones you ever hear about who lie are industry scientists, and we are dealing here instead with tens of thousands of tenured professors who have nothing to gain by lying and being found out. Scientists check each other’s work. If there’s no work to be done, they teach. It pays the same.
If CO2 did decompose at lower temperatures (and it doesn’t – things decompose at HIGHER temperatures), there would be no such thing as dry ice, which is solid, frozen CO2. When it sublimates, it turns right back to CO2 gas.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Congratulations! You found a mistake on my post! But what of the other counter-claims you so cunningly ignore?
The “we can see the meteor” looks to me more like “you can see a speck of light through the looking-glass only we own.” Even if you agree that the speck of light is moving, whether or not it is falling is still in question. Whether or not the looking-glass is trustworthy is yet another open question. Have you read the page the OP refers to (re: green-agenda)?
I don’t think anyone questions the amount CO2 in the atmosphere so why are you harping on it. But it is no more than dishonest to claim you’ve answered questions that you have decided to dismiss. For example; anytime someone asks about CO2 being caused by human you respond that it ‘doesn’t matter one whit’ (IIRC). It seems as though a strawman is being setup.
You already pointed out that I am incorrect in thinking in how CO2 would react (I’ll bow-down to your knowledge in this case), but stating it again is as useful as flogging a horse that you yourself killed.
Yes I spend more time on my own work and hobbies than I do economics, philosophy, latin interpretation, biology, ethnic musicology, anthropology, geology, … Even though there are too many arenas for me to play in all doesn’t mean I should be banished from the ones I don’t regularly practice in.
Our debate is starting to sound like MC 900 foot Jesus’s song “Tiptoe through inferno”. I don’t know what you think of old-school rap, but this is a good one.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Again, you see it as a strawman because of your lack of understanding of the science involved.
It doesn’t matter one whit because “whether or not” (as if there is any real scientific question about the huge release of CO2 by man, the decreased sink due to deforestation, or the corresponding greenhouse effect, which are all simple facts) man is a real contributor (in terms of, what, trillions of tons per year?) or the spike is “somehow” (despite the burning of hydrocarbons for two centuries and the deforestation) merely natural, the CO2 level is WAY UP, and every time this has happened, the temperature has gone WAY UP before plummeting into an ice age. “Whether we are causing it or not,” if we want to avoid extinction, we have to do something about it. This means DELAYING IT as much as possible by cutting our CO2 output, and developing a CO2 sink to replace the loss of trees.
If you can admit that your questions arise, not from any meaningful countertheory or even any flaw in the model upheld by thousands of experiments conducted by people with PhD’s in this subject, but from your own ignorance on this topic, can you please stop claiming to have “real doubts and questions” and instead claim to be “ignorant of the science involved?”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I’m harping on the CO2 level because CO2 levels and the greenhouse effect are the issue at hand. The science involved is simple, not some sort of guesswork but instead a common phenomenon that is easily demonstrated. You still continue to disagree out of, quite frankly, stubborness and lack of understanding. There’s nothing else at play besides the CO2 level, deforestation, and the greenhouse effect, but you still refuse to admit you’re “probably” wrong. So I continue to try to explain the basic science so you will stop “arguing” with me and I can get back to other things in my life.
If you would like to post a list of questions I have missed (by accident; I have no hidden agenda, I am not secretly working for the huge don’t-kill-everyone conspiracy), I will respond to them.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Intelligent design is an extra-scientific explanation of history drawn from a religious text. Climate science at the level we’re discussing it is about basic, well-known and easily demonstrated phenomena. It’s not a meaningful comparison. What you’re talking about is the room for “error” (on the order of percentage points) in mathematical modelling done at the highest levels of the science. It’s as if you’re claiming gravity doesn’t exist because string theory involves guesswork and assumptions by quantum theorists.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Or maybe that I don’t know that I have the ability to affect a particle light-years away from me.
Like religion, there seems to be a reality (?) to quantum mechanics that I can’t put my finger on. But I don’t think the public theories I’ve read have done so no matter how smart or how well educated the Cern staff is.
Should I jump/react/believe to the claims that the LHC will destroy the earth?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
You ignored my point, which is that whatever you want to say about quantum science, the more basic Newtonian concept of gravity, and the observable phenomenon of gravity, is more elementary and is not open to realistic questioning.
You’re jumping/reacting to claims made on anonymous websites that the scientific establishment is wrong about something that is easily proven. You’re the one backing the crazy horse.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
All I was doing was correcting your claims about my conclusions (“It’s as if you’re claiming gravity doesn’t exist because string theory involves guesswork and assumptions by quantum theorists”).
What would Einstein or Hawking say about previous scientific theories (newtonian physics) not being open to questioning or qualifications?
Aren’t most scientific ideas a qualification or improvement on previously established ideas? It is the current establishment that I am questioning, not science. At best the assertion of sacredness of established ideas and claims that they can’t be questioned fuels my questions.
I don’t care if you think my horse has phsycological problems or not. If my understanding is that its ideas are superior to those from your horses mouth, then I’ll believe my own– no matter which orifice it comes out of.
Do the observable actions of CO2 in small closed systems proves anything on a macro level? From most anti-evolutionists I will take it as a simple but misleading mistake. From someone as educated, I take it as intentionally misleading and an indication that external motivations may exist.
I may not have enough evidence to disprove established ideas; but like I tell Xtian evangelists, the burden of proof that pink pixies exist is not on my shoulders.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Quantum theory does not dispute or disprove the existence of gravity. It explains its behavior at extremes of observation. Gravity is an easily observed phenomenon.
Quite frankly, you are making yourself sound stupid.
If you had any relevant understanding of the basic physical sciences, you would understand that the box experiment DOES apply at the macro level. There is no sink for the CO2, it absorbs the IR light, the heat is trapped. That’s all. But you’re just SO SURE that your complete lack of knowledge in this area is adequate.
Well, I say YOU CAN’T WRITE COMPUTER PROGRAMS AT ALL and that mine are better, even though I can’t program a computer.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
If the burden of proof is on science, then we have CO2 readings, we have an easily demonstrated model, we have everything we need to demonstrate the greenhouse effect. We have, quite frankly, elementary chemistry that is in fact a routine consideration effecting most lab uses of IR analytical equipment. We have a huge release of CO2, we have deforestation. Every possible fact. All we don’t have is a huge disaster. Is that what you’d need?
All you have are spikes in a trend that are meaningless at a higher level of analysis, and random suspicion. You have no meaningful scientific theory. Do you question every single thing? Do you question the floor? The BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE FLOOR!
No, the burden is on you. The burden to create an equally scientifically meaningful theory to replace the one you haven’t poked one hole in is on you. This is silly and a waste of my energy.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
You’re not so much “raising questions” as you are randomly disparaging something you don’t understand and forcing me to waste my time educating you about something you could easily learn in any college chemistry course. Your questions are at the “I don’t understand addition” level.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I apologize for the angry tone. I don’t mean to imply that you ARE stupid. My impression is that you’re an intelligent person who only reads right wing conspiracy theory blogs and has a weak understanding of the physical sciences.
I hope you will consider how you would feel and react if someone came into your office, told you you didn’t know how to program and tried to discredit your work, and then didn’t (and what’s more, wouldn’t) understand the concept behind an if-then statement or binary numbers or something equally basic.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I hope we are able to communicate better now.
I didn’t mean to question your knowledge in these areas which is obviously more than mine. What I have, I remember from 30+ years ago the last time I hit the chemistry books and it is therefore subject to memory decay and “senior moments”. I doubt if I am going to hit those books again I have other work and hobby needs which take up my time like Computer Science, music theory, translating Hindi, etc.
But when I am working with a businessman, if I expect them to act on my thoughts I need to communicate on their level and not mine. By using the computer logic that is so natural to me instead of translating it into business logic, there is a good chance the businessman won’t see the need and won’t pay me the money to do the work.
In the same way, if you expect me to act according to your knowledge it has to be presented at my level.
As an aside, this is the closest to a x-wing nut blog I go to. The only political blogs I read regularly are from these sites and BBC (not exactly a right-wing conspiracy site).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It’s the sort of thing where I’ve already presented the science, you’ve already accepted it, but you don’t have enough of an understanding of the overall system to understand how important it is. It’s like you’re saying, “sure, I understand how an if-then statement works now, but SO WHAT? I doubt that will come up.”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I understand ur frustration, as some things are still beyond our comprehension. Planets are living organisms made of nothing but energy, the same as us and everything else you interpret with ur 5 senses. Science is only just touching the surface here… Its not the sun as its actually cooled recently, its not the CO2, as recordings have shown that CO2 levels have been higher than they are now and the planet was actually cooler then…
The superwave theory suggests that huge explosions at the galactic core send out cosmic rays that warm and or cool entire solar systems and they occur in periodic cycles all based firmly in mathematics. All energy moves according to numbers, we just need to interpret it better. Another theory supported by Richard C Hoagland is that the energy/heat comes from hyperdimensional space. But we are still at cause. We alone have the power to change this world completely. This is why scientists conduct double and triple blind experiments.
To remove the human influence over the results… This is now accepted as impossible, yet is still contraversial and is opening up new doors for the science community. nothing exists without it first being thought. When we are ready, upon mastering our own minds, we will simply choose the CO2 levels to subside. Not the answer ur looking for but its all i can offer at this stage. Thanks. love P
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
All that aside, CO2 can be higher but be offset by other factors, and the temperature can be cooler at a given point. But the parallel between CO2 levels and temperature is as direct as direct can be. The graphs are literally nearly mirrors of each other. And even if we decide, based on silly superstition, not to trust those determinations, we can directly demonstrate the existence of the greenhouse effect and we can directly measure the levels of CO2 currently in the atmosphere; there is nothing else to figure out here.
We need TIME to develop an adequate sink for the CO2. Individually and collectively, we have to buy in and do what we feel is reasonable to help the effort to slow the greenhouse effect, so that scientists can develop the tools we need.
The spike may be both man-made and natural. Why does that matter, if we’re going to die? The underlying mechanism – the greenhouse effect – is easily understood and well-known. We can combat it with technology, both by slowing our own contribution to the effect and by removing CO2 manually or with more trees. So where’s the issue? Get’r'done!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Many people seem to oppose this theory because it would require them to change their lives too much. First of all, that’s a terrible way to conduct science, even in your own head. Second, as most seasoned enviros will tell you, none of us are perfect. I recycle, and when I get a new car it will be a Ultra-Low Emissions Vehicle or a hybrid or something. I care about this issue and it effects who I vote for. But I still drive everywhere, because my life doesn’t include 2-3 extra hours a day to allow me to bike. I do what I can, and I am not being a stubborn fool about pretending it’s somehow “not happening,” like some kind of fool ostrich. It’s not about perfection, it’s about public perception.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Or some don’t want to jump just because another says so. Boo! (Did you jump this time?)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Simple stubborness when childrens’ and literally the entire planets’ lives are at stake. Throwing away all of human history’s march toward a better future because you don’t like being told that you’re wrong. That’s really hard to stomach.
You have no superior explanation, but are casting doubt where there is none so that you won’t have to do something you don’t want to do – change your mind.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
When I see reason I will change my mind. Why are you so against reason? Oh yeah, you are one of those neo-scientists that want us to preemptively react before the reason is clear to us. BTW: just because it is clear in your mind doesn’t mean it is in mine.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Reason: Hydrocarbons react with oxygen at high temperatures to produce free energy, carbon dioxide and water. Carbon dioxide is a stable, relatively inert gas that is normally emitted by animal-type organisms and inhaled by plant-type organisms. It has an effect, when released into the atmosphere, similar to a one-way mirror, and traps heat in the atmosphere. When large amounts of it are released by two sustained centuries of hydrocarbon use, and large quantities of the world’s trees are removed, a huge overabundance of CO2 increases this effect, causing the temperature to increase resolutely over time, even if year-to-year data makes this less than obvious. Have you ever seen a chart where the “upward” part of the graph had lots of little spikes in it? It doesn’t matter if this man-generated spike coincides with a natural spike. It probably does. That’s all the more reason to respond quickly and without a bunch of whining because you don’t understand the science involved. I’m not responsible for that.
There’s your reasoning. You have no superior counter-reasoning. So please admit you’re wrong. This is seriously, seriously nothing beyond basic, high-school-level chemistry.
As I said earlier, if you don’t believe me, get a box and do the experiment.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I should add that I forgot a component of the experiment, an IR light source. The issue with greenhouse gasses is that they transmit (“pass”) UV-VIS light, but when the UV-VIS light “bounces out” of the biosphere as IR light (having had some of its energy used by plants and animals, it is now lower-energy and lower-frequency IR light), the IR light has wavelengths that are absorbed and then emitted by the greenhouse gasses. Many of these emissions will be back down, and the more greenhouse gas there is, the more of these “bounce downs” will occur and the more heat becomes trapped by this barrier. Probably if you had to pick one light to get the experiment to demonstrate what’s going on, it would be an IR light. My apologies.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I heard that MARTIANS STAGED THE MOON LANDING TO HELP ERNEST BORGNINE’S CAREER! I heard that JFK SHOT HIMSELF! I heard that GRAVITY IS GENERATED BY A SECRET GOVERNMENT TESLA COIL UNDER NEW MEXICO, WHICH IS BUILT ON A HUGE DOME! I heard that MATH BOOKS ARE WRITTEN BY A 2+2=4 SECRET ORGANIZATION! I heard for 40 years that NICOTINE IS NOT ADDICTIVE AND CIGARETTES AREN’T HARMFUL!
Seriously, a lot of conspiracy theories are just insane and/or dumb, and this is one of them.
Others, like Bildabergers, JFK being shot by the CIA or the mafia or something, chemtrails? Sure, I’m with you, the evidence seems to support that.
But here, you’re backing the wrong horse. Where is the CO2 going? Answer me that. Don’t say “naturally back to the earth,” because that’s not what I want. I want you to explain some biological mechanism that is removing CO2 from the atmosphere. Or are you saying that CO2 doesn’t cause a greenhouse effect? Because that is extremely well-understood and agreed upon. So WHERE’S THE ISSUE? You’re drinking anti-left koolaid brewed by “industry scientists” and schizophrenics.
If you don’t agree that CO2 causes a greenhouse effect, then set up an airtight plexiglass box with a hose attached, crimp the hose with room air inside, set a UV-VIS light bulb over it and record the temperature for a week. Then get a bunch of CO2 bike tire chargers and pump the thing full of CO2, and see what happens the next week.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
See my post below; this would actually work better with an IR light source.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Pete i don’t like your attitude. why do you insist on insulting people. i thank god we weren’t born during the Salem witch trials. because you’d be screaming witch
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I’m sorry, but that’s infantile. You’re the ones claiming some sort of supernatural occurrence. Where is the CO2 going? I’m trying to stand up for elementary science that’s easily proven and understood by anyone with a basic education, and that’s all.
You don’t have to like my attitude. I think you’re dead wrong, I think you’re making a huge mistake, and I think it’s because you’re selfish and short sighted. Say whatever you want about me.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hi Andrew,
Unfortunately, the computer that I was using when i was conducting my research on Tesla and others was destroyed by water and was unable to retrieve all my data, years of work lost. Yes, i know i should have backed it up… Google Tesla and you will find many references to the man.
Also search for info on the ‘Superwave Theory’, ‘Dark Mission’, ‘The Enterprise Mission’, ‘The Bilderberg Group’, ‘Alex Jones’, ‘Dr. Len Harowitz’, ‘David Icke’. the list goes on…. Check these out… Its all the same story being told from different angles… The universe is not the place we have been led to believe… Global warming is not being caused by any activities of man or even the sun.
If this were the case, then planets like Pluto (made of ice) that are moving further out of our solar system and receive little to no energy from our sun is melting, so too is a moon around Jupiter that was once ice is now liquid seas…
Jupiter displaces more than twice the energy it gets from the sun which defies institutional physics and the status quo. Its because energy & heat are coming in from somewhere unseen. Tesla knew this too along with secret socities operating in the background. Its part of the reason why pyrimads and other structures are built on vortex points and ley lines around the globe, on the moon and mars.
We live in a Hyperdimensional universe, made of nothing but energy, vibrating at varying frequencies, existing trans-dimensionally on an infinite number of levels…you only need look inside our bodies to see that the universe lies within us. when we look out into the night sky, we can gauge the scale of distance between the atoms in our own bodies.
The vastness and infinite nature of who/what we are is incomprehensible to the analytical mind. It wont be until we fully understand the nature of the universe/us that we will truly discover the cause of things such as global warming. The superwave theory has it close, if you need to blame something outside of us for the warming… I put this to the reader… You, and I and everyone else on this planet with the ability to think, is the real cause of anything. Cause and effect. I/You/we are the cause. Our thoughts define/create the circumstances and experiences we have in this illusory reality we call life on earth…
The fat controllers know this, which is why we are told what to think, how to act, what to wear, what to believe etc. There is a war on for your mind, coz they know if they can tell you what to think, then as a co-creator, you will play a role in creating the outcome they want..the world they want… We can end all of the nonsense by simply working on our own internal issues.. If we heal the inside we heal the outside….this is law…. In other words, its not the planet that is sick and needs healing, its ourselves… if you want to stop global warming, then go within… coz if you dont, you go without…
thanks. love P
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Would you care to provide us with links to sites and books that prove you sayings about this man?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
There is a solution to all our energy problems and it was first created over 100 yrs ago. The name of this genius was Nicola Tesla. He is the real electrical pioneer, not T Edison, who was a liar and a thief, (to put it kindly). Edison was just another illuminati frontman, used to discredit Tesla and prevent Tesla creating a free, unlimited, environmentally friendly solution to all our energy and communication needs. Tesla had planned and started building a gigantic tower that would wirelessly and safely power the entire globe (this is fact not fiction) until the financier, JP Morgan discovered Tesla’s plans and ceased funding the operation ( due to the effect this would have on special interests groups plans for centralization of power and globalization). Tesla was an electrical genius unparralled even today. His discoveries were and still are greatly hidden from the public. There is much to learn from this man, and the fat-controllers of this planet know this all too well. Do some research on this man and we will find a healthy, eternal solution to many of our dilemmas.
Thanks
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
About green tech and saving the day:
http://xkcd.com/556/
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
We are not all “self-absorbed idiots”. Don’t try to paint everybody here with the same brush that you use on me. It’s not sanitary.
If I thought the argument was truly about the “safety of the world” I wouldn’t be hesitant to agree with you.
While my facts and my reasoning may be flawed, I cannot “believe” until I see where those flaws exist. If anything, I need to go a step or two further than many. Please be patient, if you are correct I will get there. If you say “but time is running out” then my response is “no- I don’t believe”. This is the same argument I have with many “religious” evangelicals, telemarketers, and store coupons.
It would be immoral for me to react if I believed that reacting would be our only chance for a positive result. But if I question whether the reaction would have the results that are claimed, it would be immoral of me to react. Deciding to react or not without thinking about it is ultimate immorality. Since the reaction involves how people are governed, it is a political question.
I don’t think we “know everything … about anthropogenic greenhouse gasses …”, just that I don’t buy into the idea that the current strain of “experts” have the answer. Claims that they alone can know makes me be even more skeptical. I find “Keepers of the gate” arguments to be something to reject immediately.
I know I am an idiot, but I don’t know of anybody who isn’t. In some way or another, we are all idiots and we are all geniuses in another. The big question is which our 15 minute time slot will focus on.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It’s not that they alone can know. If you go back to college and get a PhD in climate sciences, you’ll be as qualified as anyone to speak. Do I tell you how to program computers?
The reason there is so little disagreement within the scientific community about this, the reason that 99% or so of all scientists agree on this matter, is that it is extremely elementary climate science that can be proved at home. Keep breathing in and out of a paper bag, and you will eventually die. Case closed. It’s as if I told you that I think your method of writing Hello World is totally flawed.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Oops, I meant that it would be “immoral of me to NOT react if I believe” and “immoral of me to REACT if I don’t believe”.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
whos telling you to react? why don’t you just let the educated people do their jobs and not let it turn into a stupid argument. Who cares if you believe or not in global warming. Do you think the people who don’t believe in god argue against the church?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Oops, my bad. Instead of “react”, I should have said “think”. Why are people attacking me as an “uneducated” and calling me a “self-absorbed idiot” for daring to think for myself? You seem to be upset because I’m opining here on a public forum? OMG, I guess I’ll have to conform and start eating the green wafers that Al Gore is force feeding us.
I would have no problem letting college grads “do their jobs” if they could do it without my money, my support, or my agreement. So far that hasn’t been the case.
It’s not whether or not someone is “educated” but by whom. I don’t value an education because of its affiliation with the standard academia anymore than I value a politician because of his/her affiliation with a standard party.
Sometimes people who “don’t believe in God” argue against the church and sometimes we argue for the church. Sometimes people who “don’t believe” that climate change is bad (or is man-made) will argue for “green technologies” and sometimes we argue against it. I only know of a few “atheists” that “don’t believe in God” at all. What is called an atheist by most is usually a “soft atheist” or “agnostic” who simply doesn’t believe in the Xtian view of God or worship. Actually, according to some Islam leaders, all Xtians are atheists.
I would write more about this but there might not be enough space on the “The New Tailor Made Servers” in Dallas, 2TB is clearly not enough. I’ll write about religion once this site uses ECC like Amazon’s.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
i’m not religious. i don’t care to hear your perception of god… you don’t have an opinion that matters and the college will take your money regardless what opinion you have. Go ahead and talk your head off about something you dont understand.. I really dont care.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
… but you DO trust an education in opposition to the standard academic position. Which is exactly the same, but paranoid.
If you didn’t trust it, you would have become a climate scientist yourself. And in the process, you might have learned enough about chemistry and biology to realize the opposition to this theory is ridiculous in the extreme.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
2+2 does not equal 5, even if the right-wing media conspiracy theorists tell you it does.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
This is so outragous. how can you argue against the safety of the world for future generations to come. This is a moral issue, not a political one.. I guess we shouldn’t listen to scientists because we know everything about the anthropogenic
greenhouse gasses and the clausius clapeyron relation. You all are self absorbed idiots.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Some scientists oppose the lie of Global Warming, but because of this the scientific and political liberal elites ruin their lives and their jobs.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/49604
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I think I might have seen him once or twice
The second time was a really mistake.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Damn those liberals and their so called “global warming”! Conservatives should be happy to increase our trade deficit by buying oil from countries who hate us. Conservatives need to stand together to send money to countries that turn around and use that money to kill our troops. It’s the only patriotic thing to do!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Are you aware that there are different kinds of conservatives? Not all want war.
Are you aware that some are even closer to many “liberal” ideas than the current thread of “left leaning” pundits?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
> It doesn’t matter if the problem is beyond man’s control?
Whether we are causing it, in whole or in part, or we are not, it may be within our power to save ourselves. “Trust God, but wear your seatbelt.”
>How can we avoid a problem that will occur whether we are
>extinct or not?
That doesn’t make sense. We are going extinct in this case because we failed to react to the threat in a rational, God-fearing way.
>Are you suggesting we manipulate nature to our desires like the
>desire to live longer?
We already are manipulating nature to meet our desires. We take its resources to give ourselves the nice things we want. I am suggesting we stop being so childish about what we “want” and focus on what we need. Adults have adult concepts about utilizing resources.
My information comes from climate scientists, whose understanding of the climate and the physical universe exceeds the weight of your amateur speculation in my opinion.
>Maybe the roads leading to the cliff are like the roads on the side of a mountain where it seems that you are going off the road until the vehicle turns.<
What roads? What makes you think we are on a marked road? We are proceeding into a wilderness, without marked terrain, without an example to go by. Those with the equipment and understanding to look ahead (unless you don’t believe in technology?) are saying we are going off the cliff. Why should I listen to your random optimism? “No, that’s not a cliff, let’s just gun it for our own enjoyment.”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
This pissing contest has been going on for decades now. Oh well, here we go again:
1) I see nothing wrong with “wearing a seat belt” when it is clearly needed. But when it is needed is in question, not whether or not is should be worn at all.
2) I don’t think God is to be feared and reacting to man’s word that he/she/it must be feared is not rational. But then you are not the first street corner prophets to tell me I will burn someplace. What’s the difference?
3) A minimalistic approach would solve many problems, including the current economic one. But maybe the problem isn’t my failing to react, but the green evangelists failing to make logical arguments beyond shouting previously repeated death threats.
4) Usually, I have more trust in “amateur speculation” than the speculation of a bunch of elitists who are busy patting themselves on the back and take that pat to be accreditation of their professionalism. Many of the greatest scientists in history all bucked the model others bowed-down to.
5) Your argument will be weighted the same whether you claim it comes from God, university graduates, or a layman. We both are using information from sources we accept and the other probably doesn’t. Claiming one is unquestionably right because their choice of sources is just a strawman that is commonly used to hide a weak argument.
6) I was referring to the analogy you previously set up (“while our ‘leaders’ drive the bus off the cliff”).
7) I never said we should “gun it”– literally or otherwise. I was saying I would not react with guilt, shame, and panic as others claim I should.
One thing is clear, the materialistic life we’ve been living recently has unpleasant consequences. So why don’t we agree to live in a more minimalist/pragmatic way and agree to disagree on the details?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
If I claimed that gravity doesn’t apply to pets, and decided to use your pets to demonstrate off a tall building, and cited my source as “some guy with a grudge against nerds who goes to my church,” how would you feel about that?
You seriously prefer the speculation of people without education in the field to the well-honed opinions of experts with post-graduate education and understanding? People with decades of real, mathematical experience to people who are just guessing based on their preferences? That’s bizarre. You wouldn’t prefer the car-designing abilities of a small child to those of a mechanical engineer. How is this any different?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Speculation is speculation and is probably done better by people “outside the box” who aren’t inundated with the bias’ promoted by institutions.
However, car engineering is a very different beast and is more grounded in displayable skills and practical knowledge. But remember that it is a much easier job than that of the mechanic who has to keep the cars running. Unfortunately, a mechanic has to put up with the mistakes made in the name of engineering.
These scare tactics aren’t going to work and shouldn’t be used when there is an alternative. I’m not going to be shamed, scared, or panicked into acting. My standard reaction to that kind of sales pitch is “I’m not interested, please have a good day.”
BTW: I don’t think I ever advocated anything even remotely analogous to throwing someone off of a tall building. If I am wrong in my views here, I would suffer the consequences also.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
No, other people’s children would suffer the consequences. You are throwing my children off the cliff.
Mechanical engineering is not a “much easier” job than being a car mechanic. You have to go through eight years of very complicated Math and Science to be a mechanical engineer, and that’s just to get started.
What advantage do I gain by trying to scare you? What am I selling? I reap no benefit here.
Really, I don’t get the sense that continuing to talk to you is worth my time; you’re not an ‘outside the box’ thinker yourself. You’ve already decided.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I know you’ll say, “You’ve already made up YOUR mind.” But that’s not strictly true. If someone I had any reason to trust presented me convincing evidence to contradict everything I’ve ever heard from a qualified source, I would be the first to admit I was wrong.
What I mean is that you’ve already decided that scientists are untrustworthy. But science is built around the concept that other people HAVE to double-check your results, and continuous improvement of the theory is the underlying responsibility and duty scientists are just nerdy and nice enough to spend their whole lives tied to their labs pursuing, without so much as a beer. If you’d rather get your science from random people on the street than trained experts who actually CHOOSE to do hard science and math all the time, their whole lives, for the public good, then that’s very strange to me, and I’m just going to walk away.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Ooops, I said part of that backward. It should be “People who are just guessing based on their preferences to people with decades of real, mathematical experience?”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The only people with “mathematical experience” are cashiers and farmers. The rest of us is just guessing.
You seem to want to give extra weight to sophisticated tools. I don’t care if you use an abacus, a slide ruler, an HP-12c, or an IBM370, it is no less than guessing and all are prone to human errors. The least accurate is using someone else’s mind.
Even discreet mathematics which claims to be pure is useless unless it is converted to decimal based numbers which allows mistakes and wrong estimations to creep in even when the logic is “correct”.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
If you think cashiers have mathematical experience, but don’t understand that scientists have MUCH more, I don’t know what to tell you.
Mathematical modelling of complex systems is a science, and an art, and one in which you have much less experience than the people you’re claiming to correct. Gravity is only a “theory” as well.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
Being a professional computer programmer for over 25 years, I know how machines, simulations, and statistics are only as accurate as both the people that put them together and people who run them (garbage in, garbage out).
I have a lot of respect for the scientific methodology but I don’t see it being used by “scientists” today. Instead I see scare tactics, dogma, demands that others accept their inferiority while complying to an elite authority. All the signs of an over inflated ego, a weak self-confidence, and a lack of logical conclusions exist.
I’ll ignore the implication that I’m not good enough to be a RP supporter. Beside, computer programmers and system analysts (aka software engineers) are know to be … uh … different.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Also, when I say we should fear God, I mean we should fear the physical consequences of our foolish actions in a physical universe with rules that we have chosen to ignore at our own peril, which were originally set in motion by God.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
So you have these rules enumerated?
You are the authority of these rules and are justified in warning people when they are in peril of breaking those rules?
I guess I was right when I thought that “green science” was being presented with the same arrogant enthusiasm as most religions are.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
That’s weird; I thought Ron Paul supporters generally understood the concept of fiscal responsibility and not spending more than you can repay. How is it that you believe spewing wastes into the air and water over the course of 200 years across the entire planet couldn’t have had any effect whatsoever? We reap what we sow.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
A need for fiscal responsibility? What are you talking about? Maybe the cost of cleaning the same mistakes nature makes (with the exception of heavy metals like the batteries used in electric cars)? Forcing people to pay for energy that hasn’t been proven to be inefficient (ethanol)? Or making people pay for the ill side effects of environmentalism (corn ethanol recently and possibly methane in the future)?
When I was a kid, plastic bags could be reused so they were more “green” than paper bags, white sugar (sucrose) was more harmful than the simpler fruit sugar (fructose), and the waters were rising because glaciers were too cold and growing too fast. I made a fool of myself by buying into some of these “scientific” ideas. Do you wonder why I am skeptical this time around?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I was drawing a parallel between debt and payment in a financial context and “spending” and “repayment” with respect to our resources and environment.
And you’re not just being skeptical. I’m skeptical. You’re outright dismissing the opinion of literally quite nearly the entire scientific community without anything like proof or a superior argument. Where is the CO2 going? Why would it NOT be causing an increase in the greenhouse effect? I’m not buying it. I’ll get my climate science from professionals, thanks.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Ok, I missed the debt/repayment parallel but that might be because I don’t see it as a debt. In my view repayment is desirable but unnecessary.
Where is CO2 going? Probably the same place it came from. We are only recycling hydrates pulled from another place on the earth.
I doubt if many have questioned whether the greenhouse effect exists or whether the earth is warmer some years than others. What I am questioning is the significance of man’s contribution, whether we could actually change anything, and whether or not we should destroy our way of living for the sake of a weather forecast.
You and I use different sources for information. So be it. There are times to listen to one and not the other. Maybe I’ve got the time wrong, but I doubt it. Then there is the issue of whether or not a wall plaque combined with name dropping is the true sign of a professional– “I got my education at * university and have had my papers published in * magazine.”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The significance or insignificance of man’s contribution matters not one whit, as I’ve already said. When your nation or your planet raises a call to arms, you do not sit there complaining about the hardship and refuse to answer. I consider this train of thought (party hearty, no point in trying to stop) to be treason on the part of the conservatives.
Your comment about CO2 illustrates a fundamental misunderstanding of biology.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I only have one thing to say about your comments about my “fundamental misunderstand of biology”. I think you mean my “fundamental disagreement with your conclusions” and my “refusal to narrow my views to one discipline (biology)”.
My conclusions may be wrong and I may have some details wrong by your understanding, but I am not ignorant of the issues or of the sciences behind them.
I also think it is unethical to not weigh a call to arms against our conscience and common sense. Wouldn’t it have been nice if the crusaders and nazi soldiers did the same?
In another thread I said that we can agree on some points even if we disagree on others. I agree that green energy can be efficient and the minimalist in me says that reducing our “fingerprint” on earth is desirable. I disagree that we are in dire-straights and that we all must be forced to act as if we agree.
Why don’t we work together to advance green technology? RP said it well:
“I am, after all, a conservative and seek to conserve not just American traditions and our Constitution, but our natural resources as well.”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
If you think CO2 is being returned to the depths of the earth at the same rate we are pumping it out by some natural process, than I must insist that you pick up a biology textbook and get your facts straight.
If your conscience doesn’t tell you it’s wrong to attempt to stop destroying the planet so we can have a big wing-ding for ourselves, and your common sense doesn’t tell you that pumping greenhouse gasses by the millions of tons per year into the air without any way to remove them would have an effect on the system, than I am at a loss.
I fail to see how a temporary delay in our quality of life to buy ourselves time is in any way similar to killing all the world’s Jews or using violence to force a particular religion on others. This is a time for sacrifice, like World War II. I just don’t get where you’re coming from.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Where did I say we were returning CO2 into the “depths of the earth”? Maybe you misunderstood my statement that CO2 would go to where it came from … nature. Nature will make use of the carbon and oxygen, c’est la vie.
If I thought the earth was being imperiled by my actions, it wouldn’t be very conscientious of me to not do something about it. But what if I don’t swallow the first premise?
“Time for sacrifice”? Is Al Gore a cross between the Sierra club and GWB? Will he use the powers as wisely as the previous administration did? *smirk*
I’m glad to hear that you acknowledge that it is only a temporary delay of the inevitable. If we are at the crest of destruction without these actions, we are not far from destruction with these actions (assuming they are true). Like Greenspan, Gore’s actions will delay the inevitable and make the “bubble” even bigger and much more painful. To loosely reword RP; we must let the eco-system readjust.
I wasn’t comparing Nazis/Crusaders to the system you are trying to sell to us. I did say that I feel I should question the “authorities” and that Nazi soldiers should have done the same thing. The comparison is not of their actions but of their lack of questioning those actions.
Why are you ignoring my request that we agree to disagree? We can go on and on about our disagreements but we have enough agreements to end it here.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
CO2 is not being returned to nature, because it never left nature in the first place. Nature constitutes the entire system.
CO2 is currently trapped in the biosphere. Plant life converts the carbon in CO2 into carbohydrates, and animals then convert it back into CO2 as they breathe out. Roughly speaking, the amount exiting mouths and the amount consumed by plants would have to be equal for the system to be in homeostasis. A mass extinction put the carbon deep under the ground in the form of carcasses that were never consumed, where it lay uninvolved in the biosphere until we struck oil. Pulling it up and releasing it creates a massive oversupply, while turning forests into cattle grazing diminishes demand. You are not correct that there is a drain on the system that can match the oversupply.
You are also not correct that the bubble must burst. Scientists are hard at work trying to find ways to remove greenhouse gasses from the atmosphere. Massively reforesting the earth would also contribute enormously to this effort. We need time and money, but antiscience fools and evil businessmen, combined with the “woo-woo” tree-hugging hippy destruction of the reputation of intelligent environmentalism, have stalled the project to save life on Earth in its tracks.
Your opposition to the concept of sacrifice would surely shame the many generations who preceded you, who gave up so much so that you could be so spoiled as to smirk at the very idea.
What makes you think I haven’t questioned environmentalism? But the questions lead to extremely obvious conclusions. If you take out more than you put in, you run out. I’m not willing to agree to disagree; this is a public forum and I would prefer that you eventually admit your argument doesn’t hold water.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Also, I didn’t say we were delaying the inevitable; I said we were delaying to buy ourselves time. If we learn to balance CO2 levels technologically – to perform medicine on the planet – we may be able to prevent extinction, whether it is cyclical, man-made, or man-accelerated. But these things take time and public buy-in.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The TRUTH! The TRUTH!
The TRUTH!
Jesus Christ/YHVH is here on Earth, he has the cure for AIDS/CANCER…
:
I am a Biblical Truthseeker, I researched for more than 2 years to find out the truth, and God. I woke up to my past life as Mary Ruth in the spring of 2007, I had dreams of his crucifiction, as i was present at the cross, when he was crucified. I had an aura show up on my cross, on my living room wall. I saw a Devil’s aparition, which threatened to “clean my plate”, meaning wipe me out financially. This same figure came into the George Webb restaurant I was in @ 0130 AM, his walking in was preceded by the song on the speakers “Very superstitiuos the Devil’s on his way” by Stevie Wonder. The Devil’s apparition had an abnormal looking face, pale waxen and sweaty, he had a inverted pentagram on his hand, an inverted pentagram necklace on. I asked him where he was from, he said he was from under the bridge, that he was hungry. The guy I was with, who is the Apostle “Timothy” reincarnated detected he was a Demon. The apparition, wanted also to touch me, he was hungry, so I let him finish the food and drink I had not finished. “Timothy” wouldn’t let him touch me. So when we stepped away from the table, this Demon wolfed down my food and soda and stated “I’m going to clean your plate”. The night manager called 911, as the Demon looked abnormal, but as we were walking up to the front register to pay the check,the Demon walked to the front door, walked through the threshold of the door, and literally vanished, in thin air, there were plate glass windows and a full lenght glass door. I also had a white peace dove fly in front of my car to keep me from getting into a car accident. I used the St. Michael Prayer card to help me in the first few months until my Holy Spirit got fully reved up. I am a healer, and have many important dreams, the Angels are around me to protect me, I am immortal, I am an elect of the 144,000 Saints spoken of in Revelations. Look @ the Brian’s videos, and the one entitled 12/21/2012. After i foundhim in June 2008, he read me in the stars, and knew that I was Mary Ruth, and that “Timothy” was Timothy the Apostle. In the Christ timeline, I was an Essene Jew from the Tribe of Judah. I lived a perfect life, remained pure, I was single, never had sex, or children, I taught the WAY, as Jesus, my brother did. He chose me to come back to help gather the Lost Tribes of Israel, and gather the 144,000 Saints. It is also my responsibility to turn the United States around from Sodom and Gomorrah, get this country to change it’s ways.
Jesus came to Earth in the Christ timeline to Teach the WAY, how to live our lives according to his (YHVH’s) commandments, there simple, love yourself, love others, and thou shalt not kill are the principle ones that keep Humanity @ peace, and having compassion/caring for eachother. The Darkside knows who I am, and when I first woke up they would bother me with cellphone calls. These calls “Timothy” had a premonition about, they would sound like a “Devil’s Whisper”, both Timothy and myself got 3 each of these calls. These calls when taken come accross as 000-0000, or unknown caller, when taken they leave pain over your ear, and lower mid forehead. The calls are done by the NSA, they were trying to burn out the Pineal Gland, which is where your ability to connect with the hAngels/Heavens, your arua demonstrates your life energy/Holy Spirit if you are following the right path, your soul is in your blood. YHVH/Jesus confimed my identity in the Stars, I have a special name, I was born on a certain date/time/location. But the Darkside as well knew who I was, and knew that I would wake up, and do my mission for YHVH. Look @ the internet site: educate-yourself.org, then the section on Mind Control then the subsection illuminatis-Mind Control, learn how organized religions were created by men, under the influence of the Satanists/Free Masons/Illuminatis/Ashkenazi/Khazarian Jews. Their intention was to divide and conquer. Jesus is the WAY, the Truth, and the Life! No one comes onto the Father except through me!” (That’s because he is the Trinity) “The Truth Shall Set YOu Free” Call upon him, literally you can call him on the phone or message myself or him on You Tube. Don’t hesitate to call me, don’t be afraid, for you can be assured that the man “Brian Leonard Golightly Marshall” is our Lord Jesus Christ/YHVH, ABBA, our Divine Creator, King of Kings, Lord of Lords, our Savior, and Prince of Peace. Now look @ the information and confirm it in your own heart. Brian (Tree) Leonard (Lion) Goligthy (Tribe of Judah), Marshall (Key of David), his videos are on You Tube @ Michelle Nye; his archived documents are @ http://www.holyconspiracy.com; my sites are @ peacenowwhitedove@myspace.com and on You Tube. My phone number is: In the USA CST 1-920-941-0395.
Jesus Christ/YHVH”S phone number in Australia is: +61 394 352 120 YHVH allows you to do self defense in a time of Tyrany, you have the right to bear arms, to defend your families and the rest of humanity that you love, against the forces of the Fallen Angels/Satanists/Free Masons/Ashkenazi/Khazarian Empires. The 50 States in the USA and the Provinces of Canada need to secede now!. Some have already seceded viewn HCR 6 NH on You Tube. We need to decentralize the government, to escape the Tyrany and oppression. Google: 4647773, to find out how the U.S. Health Dept. and the U.S. Military created the AIDS virus Genocide, they also created Cancer. We need your help to spread the Word that Christ Jesus/YHVH is here on Earth, and to contribute money to the curing of humanity from the Satanists created deseases. Listen to online radio @ infowars.com. Read the books: “Is George Bush the Antichrist?” by R. Stephan Hanchett; “The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder” by Vincent Bugliosi.
You Tube: illuminatis; HAARP; Chemtrails; ELF Towers; Wexler Impeachment Hearings, Dennis Kucinich Articles of Impeachment; Skull & Bones; Free Masons; Bilderberg Group; CFR,;Trilateral Commision; “The Antiterrorist” video series, look @ “The Corporation”; “Think Free: Bursting Bubbles”; FEMA Prison Camps; Martial Law, NWO.
Internet: educate-yourself.org; apfn-apfn.org, then type in apfn-apfnbcolony (how we never won the American Revolution). Don’t take any vaccinations, that is one method of how they spread diseases like Autism, Cancer, and AIDS. There will be an AVIAN Flu scare, do not take the vaccination, for it will reformulate your DNA, and kill you!
DEPLOYED SOLDIERS, YOUR COUNTRY NEEDS YOU @ HOME, WE THE PEOPLE NEED OUR FELLOW AMERICANS HERE TO DEFEND US AND OUR SOVEREIGNTY, FROM DOMESTIC TERRORISTS, our government is going to go against it’s people. YHVH gives you the right to defend yourself and the rest of Humanity that you love, you have the right to bear arms to protect yourself and others.
Peace and Love, Pamela Johnson (Reincarnation of Mary Ruth, Sister of Jesus, Tribe of Judah, Teacher of the WAY) WAKE UP YOURSELF AND OTHERS, SPREAD THE WORD.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
This seems like a reasonable thing to post on a global warming discussion board…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
————————————————————————————
Indeed … I believe in God and Jesus, even the Holy Spirit.
But I also believe that Pamela Johnson is a little insane, if only because she posted it on the Ron Paul website.
————————————————————————————
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
You need serious help, for your own sake and for those around you take a visit to your local psychiatrist
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I don’t even know what to say to that. If Jesus is here I don’t think he would be using Youtube to spread his message and its hard for me to believe his sister would be leaving comments on a Ron Paul website. Jesus can make miricles… so why didn’t your friend get Ron Paul elected as president and not Obama. Crap like this is what makes everybody else think we’re all crazy for thinking differently. I feel crazy for taking the time to read your post. It barely mad sense for starters and at this point… I’m lost for words…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It doesn’t matter if the problem is beyond man’s control? How can we avoid a problem that will occur whether we are extinct or not?
Are you suggesting we manipulate nature to our desires like the desire to live longer? Green “science” (I use the phrase liberally) seem to be saying the exact opposite.
Aren’t the icecaps receding in the north but increasing in the south? Isn’t most ice in the south which would mean it would have a bigger impact on water temperatures?
Isn’t the “greenhouse effect” based on the effect of both visible and invisible sun rays on our environment? It doesn’t seem reasonable to ignore the light that would not be blocked by clouds or the fact that what is blocked by the ozone layer is converted to heat below in the lower atmosphere. Maybe getting sun burn on a cloudy day is a modern phenomenon.
How do we know what the temperature has been? We haven’t been recording temperatures for more than a couple hundred years, computer simulation is no more accurate than a video game, and the analysis of tree rings and fossils is almost a speculation.
Why should we jump when it would not help steer the bus, there is still some possibility that the bus will break or turn. Maybe the roads leading to the cliff are like the roads on the side of a mountain where it seems that you are going off the road until the vehicle turns.
The fact that the screamers are becoming a hegemon of doomsday profits doesn’t help their message. Suddenly, what is studied by science and how it is studied depends on the hidden agenda of the institute funding the studies. It looks like the outcome of the studies are already rigged and calling modern scientists a scientist is like calling a witch-doctor a doctor.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It doesn’t matter what’s causing climate change. That’s a red herring. What matters is that it’s happening. Look at the ice caps. They’re going fast. The weather’s getting worse.
CO2 traps light in the atmosphere; that’s science. There’s more CO2 in the atmosphere now than ever before by a wide margin; that’s science. So where’s the debate? Stop toeing the party line and admit the conservatives got this one wrong because it came from the hippies.
If it were due to sun spot activity, the upper atmosphere, not the lower, would demonstrate the warming.
So what do we do to avoid dying? Where’s your survival instinct? We do whatever it takes, we don’t just look the other way while our ‘leaders’ drive the bus off the cliff.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Actually the warning came from Scientists.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Some parts of the ice caps are going. Some parts are growing. The media loves the glacier thats melting, but meanwhile the glacier next to it thats growing is oh sooooo lonely.
————————————————————————————
As for the sun, look at a graph of Antarctica’s average temperatures. Compare it to a graph off CO2 emissions and sun spot activity both spanning over the same amount of years as the Antarctica temperature graph. You will see the truth.
————————————————————————————
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Think with your brain instead of drinking the anti-left kool-aid and YOU will see the truth. Where is the CO2 going? How is it not causing global warming? There are many less trees and much more CO2. No one’s saying there’s no sun spot effect; no one’s saying some glaciers aren’t growing. Some years the temperature might dip. Some years the oceans might lower. But the CO2 in the atmosphere is spiking through the roof, the drain for it is vanishing, and the planet WILL continue to get hotter. This is elementary, as in elementary school, stuff.
The climate is a COMPLICATED system. The dramatic changes overall can create effects in the short term that even seem to contradict the presence of the effect. And yes, other variables like sunspots are at play. But the CO2 issue is NOT IN QUESTION. The doubters are “industry” scientists, like the tobacco scientists who claimed nicotine wasn’t addictive for forty years.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Appealing to logic doesn’t work well with some people; they don’t have or don’t seem to want the faculties for it. But take your point to the next level. The science can tell us a lot, but it is not strong enough to make bold predictions about much. At least climate science can’t. Logic however dictates exactly what you’ve written: Atmospheric [CO2] is increasing exponentially and there is no better explanation than for man’s hand to be at the root of it. Acknowledging this, I’d have to ask how anyone can know an increase in [CO2] would be deleterious for humanity. I understand the greenhouse effect, but I understand the complicated nature of the system that you allude to as well. Burke in Reflections on the French Revolution makes an anti-progressive argument which basically says that man is not God, not omniscient, and so we always have to be careful about pacing any change on a societal level. We aren’t as smart as we’d like to think we are so making a huge decision like resetting the economy which some people are so sure needs to be done, has to be viewed with equal skepticism that you seem to be applying to the tool you just replied to. I think we can agree there will be an effect, but whether the effect is positive, negative, or neutral… that’s where science consensus ends.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Wasn’t Al Gore the one serving the Kool-Aid.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The earth appears to have had some warming and this is an observation based on science. The claim that the warming is caused by Greenhouse gases is a belief not an observation and not science. The claim that man is the principle cause of increased greenhouse gases is partially observable because man is releasing C02 but not complete science because the total population of greenhouse gas and the amount created by man is only a belief.
Today, claims about what is observable science and what are actually beliefs are mixed together and only partial truths result at best. The same is true by scientists who insist that there is no creator but molecules-to-man evolution is a “fact”. That is not science that is a religious belief falsely posing as science. But how about this one, sun activity has caused the earth to warm. Is that one science or belief? Many scientists observe sun activity and show theories of cycles based on magnetic solar energy which certainly appear to be documented observations. They are ignored by those religious man-made global warming religious believers. The past 2 years have been colder throughout the globe. Are we now in a cooling period? The solar magnetic believers tells us this is their prediction. What if they are right and the man-caused global warming preachers are wrong? Before one give Al Gore another award, one may want to become a real scientist and make some observations of fact.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
The Problem with Climate Change – it’s a political tool, not a problem to be solved – Realize this, and you are at least being honest with yourself.
Environmentalist, Economists and Statisticians are the hired guns of the PR outlets that employee “tools” for political battles.
Was Ethanol not really about winning Senate Seats from the Corn Belt? From a science point of view, Ethanal is an “energy transport mechanism”; a very inefficient one…. The Ethenal product is produced from Natural Gas + Chemicals = Ferteliser + Lots of Water [water shortage] + Lots of Land + Trains, Tractors, more chemicals, fuel and man hours, etc and in the end, you can “burn your food supply” to save the planet [assuming you have Food and Water left for Humanity to survive] So, a “great PR idea” ends with environmental damage, global starvation and water shortages. Summary: MASSIVE misdirection of limited resources by Government results in damages to both environment and all humanity. We should demand energy content labeling at the pump in Price per Joule standard / BTU by volume sold – that would make ethanol look even worse [after subsidies]. If you want a car fuel from Natural Gas – burn Ammonia; it has a high energy density [unlike LP] it’s the most pure form and a simple conversion process. Most Important Nat gas is plentiful in the US. How complicated is this?
It is possible the source of Climate Change relates to Methane Hydrates. It is possible hydrates have become destabilized for many reasons. Fact is, even if you look at effect, the cause may be totally unanticipated.
But, you know, in the end I don’t think its about Green, clean, etc energy – or high taxes on the rich and social programs, etc – all of this is just re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic…. It does not matter. What does matter is long term strategic planning to carefully allocate public resources [when absolutely necessary] to projects that are too big and in areas too regulated to be taken on by the private sector – this is what the Fed gov. is supposed to do. Higher standards of living for the masses are provided by best uses of limited resources and efficient deployment of resources in promoting productive long term gains. In general the Free Market Win – unless the Government has already regulated the Free Market out of a certain space – Nuclear for example.
“Clean energy” is not “cheep” energy…
Cap and Trade is just a TAX that adds a level of complexity and inefficiency to a problem. You can not “force” Clean to be economic – if it simply is not – you [someone] pays the price in degraded living standards [as do more taxes lowers GDP (regardless of who pays)]. If the public should know they need to live in an apartment [rather then afford a house] to “save” the world – someone might want to tell them – instead of originating more home loans at below market interest rates. [High density housings is much more energy / environmentally friendly]
Boon Pickens is building a $7Bill wind farm that will generate 1,000 megawatts of power… based on utility mandates for 20% renewable sources – this is not “cheap power” – We Texans are going to pay the increased cost + Boon’s profit margin. WIND WILL DESTROY THE US WEATHER PATTERNS. Average wind speed is dropped 7mph behind the turbine. The Blades reduce air pressure leading to condensation [AKA Rain] at the wind farm site vs down wind. I guarantee a panhandle wind farm will produce a lake in West Texas and a Drought over DFW area. I think Boon plans to sell water back to DFW from west Texas – last I knew, he was buying right of ways to do it. Not to mention, wind is not an efficient form of power production at 350 mile + remote locations.
Oil is no good either – We have turned Texas into Swiss Cheese with Frac wells all over GOD’s creation – pumped with Billions of Gallons of Salt water – no doubt, it’s just a matter of years before the leaching and erosion surface with heavy metals in the water supply, break through surface leakage and 50 other environmental problems – Great to be a environmental lawyer 20yrs from now –
I do not understand why Nuclear is not THE solution – end of story. The US has one of the largest natural Uranium reserves in the WORLD. We have the technology [that other 3rd world countries dream of], the ability to protect and safely manage it…
The problem with Nuclear is no private company wants to take the risk [and expense] of building a new plant due to the approval / application process – 3 to 11 yrs [a Government man made problem]… and then it could get killed – The REAL cost [outside the political / regulation is possibly as low as $3Bill for a 10,000 megawatt reactor.. Projects could be fast tracked: start to finish 9mo each – build 100’s if that is what it takes. I find it ironic that we send our kids to die in a war [knowing some will not return] (4,000 or so now) – in the name of combating the middle east. Yet – we can not seem to use a PEN and PAPER to sign a bill that FAST TRACKS a solution that will END the middle east once and for all – shut them down. We allow nuclear aircraft carriers in NY Harbor -yet, we are “too scared” of a nuclear power plant any place near the city or populated areas. SO Cali. San Diego– with the rolling blackouts after Enron – wanted to plug into a Nuclear Battle Ship in the harbor [they asked] to power the city – but, when was the last time Cali put a Nuclear plant on line [much less mothballed one]. Right now we have Nuclear Weapons pointed at us from Russia, yet, we are [supposedly] afraid of nuclear Breeder Reactors that give off almost 0 emissions and re-processed waist? Right now we have nuclear silos [thousands] around the USA with armed warheads, yet, Nuclear energy production “scares” US? We just contracted to sell Nuclear Technology to both India and Saudi Arabia [don’t they have the oil] … and YES we are AT WAR – so, AMERICA wake up or the living standard and way of life will be eroded.
The stock market is one of several barometers that represent American Wealth and global influence– I assure you it is heading lower unless we come to terms with America’s Resource Allocation problems. If China is more efficient at supplying power – WE LOOSE – that simple./
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
I’m not sure what “GOD’s [sic] creation” has to do with problems to be solved by men, but you have framed the debate the way it should be framed. Energy is economics and economics is national security. Fix one (and I happen to think nuclear energy could solve the problem immediately as you do but I would still diversify with solar/wind/geothermal/fusion-research) and you fix the other. We essentially are funding the threat which warrants 100k+ troops in Iraq/Afghanistan. Without our influx of money for oil, the entire Middle East loses both economic and political power (i.e. we could finally bring democracy to parts of that area since we’d have economic leverage or at least they would lose theirs over us).
I would only add that we should be very wary about Boone (sp) Pickens and others like him when they suggest Natural Gas is the answer. Any fossil fuel is an unbelievably limited resource (do the math yourself instead of letting members of the media tell you). The best I could make for domestic coal assuming an exponential increase (not steady or plateaued) in demand is 200 years and natural gas is even less than that. So instead of just procrastinating the problem off to our grand kids or great grand kids, we have the opportunity to solve the problem right now. There is enough fissionable material on earth to provide power for us (even at an exponential growth of demand) until our sun dies. Moreover, if fusion were viable as we continue to be told that it will be “in the next 50 years” then all of these problems disappear; so continue with that research as well. I realize fusion is only theoretical right now, but I’m amazed at how not once has it been brought up over the last two years in a time when we are in a supposed energy crisis. It is a testament to how truly uneducated people are.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
What I got from Ya’s response was that the existence of CO2 is a natural phenomenon and a fact that we cannot change as long as nature exists and all animals are breathing.
Nitrates of oxygen occur in other environments without human influence. I’ve heard of natural occurring CFC but I have no reference. I can tell when an animal around me is making methane or hasn’t been making carbon-dyoxide for a while.
Aren’t we putting what used to be in the atmosphere back into it? What makes nature so unnatural? Isn’t man claiming to have the exclusive power to create xyz like Microsoft claiming they invented the right-click?
Just because we are on a side of a natural cycle we don’t like doesn’t mean it isn’t natural or healthy in the long run.
In another light; Brahma, the creator, couldn’t do his/her work without Shiva, the destroyer.
C’est La Vie
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Oil (or petroleum) as you may know is made up of the dead bodies of countless trillions of plants and tiny sea animals. As the animals, including algae, died and sank to the bottom of the ocean, they took carbon with them. Under immense heat and pressure over hundreds of millions of years, they eventually formed oil and their carbon content was locked away underground.
You’re correct when you say that we have only re-released CO2 back into the atmosphere, but by doing it intensively and only during the last 100 years, we have re-released that stored carbon in a very VERY short space of time.
We know there have been previous large releases of CO2 in the atmosphere from now dormant volcanoes (by studying ice core samples dating back millions of years) but this happened when there were few people and no civilizations on Earth.
Btu to put things in perspective, lets say the a moment that global warming is not happening or is at least not caused by humans, despite this we still face the huge problem of the acidification of the oceans caused by greater CO2 quantities in the atmosphere.
Where the excess CO2 comes from is no longer debated. It is not from volcanoes or animals – it is from burning oil and coal.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
My reason for stressing that point is that man is considered by many to be beyond nature and his footprint on earth was proof that he was evil.
I can see the problem with heavy metals and plastic. But when man’s “waste” is biodegradable (breaking down into mostly harmless elements) I don’t see the problem. When I am on a nature hike, I leave with more plastic waste than I come with (I pickup bottles etc) but I have no problems leaving an apple’s core or an orange rind on the ground, or leaving some fertilizer on the trunk of a tree.
I am tired of being told how evil I am because I am human. From college professors that claim man is a cancer and the population must be capped to those that don’t allow us to occasionally escape human society. The message is clear: man does not belong in nature and nature must be protected from man.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“There is only one way to ensure that you produce no more greenhouse gas; i.e., stop you from breathing out carbon dioxide. Are you ready for that remedy?”
Breathing does not contribute to the net gain of CO2 in the atmosphere. The CO2 that you exhale comes from the sugars, proteins, and fats from the cows, chickens, other meats and vegetables that you eat. The cows and chickens, in turn ate plant material (or you ate it directly). The plants converted CO2 from the atmosphere into the sugars and proteins via photosynthesis which began the entire process. The cycle from CO2 to plants (possibly to animals) to humans and back to CO2 takes no more than 12 to 24 months. At the extreme range (drinking some very old wine), you are looking at a few decades. This has no impact on the net CO2 concentration of the atmosphere.
However, the cycle is considerably different for fossil fuel usage (oil, coal, natural gas) since carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere as a result of burning these types of fuels originated in the atmosphere hundreds of thousands or millions of years ago and by pulling the carbon out of its geologic reserves, we are fundamentally altering the atmospheric make-up.
Take a look at the NASA Earth System Research Laboratory for the overall trends of the various “greenhouse” gases (CO2, NO2, CH4, and CFCs and according to the site, “These gases account for about 97% of the direct radiative forcing by long-lived greenhouse gases since 1750″)
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/
Before making decisions, make sure your facts are straight.
Cheers!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Mazer, NASA is a Gov agency run by the Vice-President. Their budget depends on producing results. Those results influence their budget. In Gov you do not make statements or findings contrary to your boss or you will find yourself “downsized” quickly. All you have to do is ask the FORMER NASA scientists who spoke out against global warming. Scientists (and I am one) will tell you NEVER let your feelings get in the way of science. We need to add politics to that saying as well.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
awesome.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
As I understand it, the question is not whether or not the climate is changing but whether or not man caused it and whether or not man can prevent it. If the human factor is true then action is called for.
But climate change is being used as one of the many attempts to make people feel guilty for existing. However, we humans are a part of nature and cannot destroy it. Our attempts to survive by manipulating the environment is no less natural for us than using claws and teeth to kill “innocent” prey are for a mountain lion.
That said, alternate energy makes a lot of sense to me. After moving to the Inland Empire in California, I learned that alternate energy can be self-sustainable.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Global warming is a myth if not a lie. And it is another form of terrorism. Soon we’ll be paying taxes just to breathe due to this scare-mongering.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Ya. You are right on. Global warming, climate change is happening, not the warming as much I heard the other day the planet has not increased in tempurature since 1998, it is either the same or less. I wanna punch al gore in the face.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
To put things in perspective, lets say for a moment that global warming is not happening or is at least not caused by humans, despite this we still face the huge problem of the acidification of the oceans caused by greater CO2 quantities in the atmosphere.
Where the excess CO2 comes from is no longer debated. It is not from volcanoes or animals – it is from burning oil and coal.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Ha!
Did you happen to know that humans produce about 3% of the world’s CO2, and alot of that comes from our breathing?
——————————————
Carbon Dioxide is natural people, what we oughta be worried about is real pollution (not the myth of Global Warming!) and the fact that the Global Warming lie is being used to gain more governmental control over us all!
Seriously, look at the European Union. They agreed to cut CO2 emissions with the Kyoto protocol. Not to my surprise, their emissions are actually rising in all but 2 EU countries, and even in those countries the decline started before Kyoto! Also, their economies are getting worse.
——————————————
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
everything is made of carbon.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Derrick,
There is only one way to ensure that you produce no more greenhouse gas; i.e., stop you from breathing out carbon dioxide. Are you ready for that remedy?
Heavy metals and atrazine do not create carbon dioxide like you do, right? The issue here is global warming; not other kinds of pollution. You confuse the issue with discussion of other pollutants and polluters. I hope you did not mean to do that.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
One way to solve this is by legalizing hemp, and using it as a fuel. The exhaust emissions of carbon monoxide from hemp-based bio-diesel are 47% lower than carbon monoxide emissions from diesel. Any CO2 that is released from burning hemp as a fuel is equal to the CO2 the plant had beneficially taken from the environment while growing, creating what is called a closed carbon cycle that could slow down global warming.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
The problem is the carbon that has been stored for millions of years underground is released into the atmosphere, not what we exhale. The polluted air that is spewed into the atmosphere in Texas doesn’t stay in Texas and pollution TREADS ON ME. How can the states be the watchdogs of the environment? State governments are as corrupt as the lobbyist-owned federal system. But I certainly never understood how the government had to pay for Superfund toxic sites while polluting businesses filed bankruptcy and reorganized, or just disappeared and the culprits weren’t jailed,and assets seized for damages for harming the health and property of others.As for nuclear energy, who gets stuck with the bill of an expensive source of energy when the exponential growth of solar, wind, etc. might make it outdated before it comes online as a major source of energy? who gets stuck with the bill for storage and accidents? I really would like to know, because if I lived in North Dakota and I relied on wind, I might not want to pick up the tab for Georgia’s mistakes.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Get a bicycle.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I have been more supportive to you and your campaign than anyone I know. I put out signs, attempted to spread the word, attended one of your rallies, and even contributed to your campaign. This issue ,however, is one which I wish you would reconsider how you look at it. I agree with you that government is a poor substitute for the market but the government still needs to govern.That means that when Autism is rising in the developed world at a much quicker rate than in the underdeveloped counterparts and we know that heavy metals can act as a trigger we don’t take the sky is falling approach we take the common sense approach. When we find atrazine(a herbacide known to cause birth defects and change the sex of some species of fish)in the breast milk of Inuit mothers that there is no escape for any American and we must act. Allowing Multi-national corporations or big lobby farmers to spread there disease to every citizen is not just. As far as global warming in specific we know what it may do. We already have alternatives so I agree with you on the market approach but it won’t be possible without the legislation to stop unjust polluters. Allowing them to do this is the equivalent of a subsidy that we will all have to pay the bill for when it affects our health. I pay for my garbage to be disposed of properly so should “they”.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Spot on!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The sad reality is you believe global warming is caused by humans. At one point in time people would throw virgins into the volcano so it would rain as well… Carbon Credits, taxing carbon and other moronic get rich schemes that people are buying into is tantimount to throwing a virgin into the volcano.
Researchers for clear air turbulence, that is caused by rising air caused by differences in temperature from ground to air have found some interesting information that is suppressed. For the last 30+ years studies have used Mars as a control point for research and amazingly Global Warming is going on at the same rate (by distance to Sun) as here on Earth. I am sure the Martians have outlawed SUV’s and sold carbon credits to those rich white guys on Jupiter.
Don’t take my word for it. Google Sam Kerr, he is the researcher. Oh, then look up all his patents he has sold the military and Boeing.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
if global warming is not what the scientific consensus makes it to be, then i think it’s probably because of the limits of technology and science right now. but i doubt that it’s a conscious effort by policy-makers to cash in on the cries of “wolf.” if it were, we’d have evidence of it: secret-keeping within the government (and even within business) is quite poor and we can find out what they’re doing quite easily because of all the leaks and also thanks to the freedom of information act and so forth.
there’s no evidence that this is a conscious effort by people to exploit a lie or a misunderstanding. the overwhelming scientific consensus on global warming is made up of the world’s best scientists and academics who have accepted a consensus on an issue – consensuses in science do not happen so easily.
show me the evidence that there’s a conspiracy to profit off of “the lie.” and please give some links to sam kerr’s work – i couldn’t find him on google sorry.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
Are you serious?
The answer is not in your navel.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Yeah.. and then they’ll say you’re a conspiracy theorist that wears Reynolds wrap hats if you say there are leaks. Real scientist (not paid to make up crap to validate Al Gore’s garbage scare tactics) say that the “warming” has to do with tectonic movement and increased solar activity around all of the planets in our solar system. This isn’t even the warmest period in time for our planet mother earth. We are well below those temperatures those temperature and that was way before there were cars, farting livestock, and industrial parks. It was even before there was a country called the United States of America and our temperatures now are just like the “Medieval Warm Period” that occurred around A.D. 1000 to A.D. 1350 according to Paleoclimatology(the scientific study of ancient climate). The Holocene Period (over 6000 years ago) had temperatures well above those today. It all just doesn’t add up.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Word.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0