HOLY FUCK !! "The Great Global Warming Swindle" - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

KimJI · 07-13-2007, 05:51 AM

50 new lies about global warming

tony286 · 07-13-2007, 07:32 AM

sheep, think about who benefits from you believing global warming is a lie,use your thinking caps. There is a lot more money to be made in you believing its not real and you keep doing as you have been doing then if you believed its real.

Dollarmansteve · 07-13-2007, 07:54 AM

FACT: You can be "agnostic" towards Global Warming and still be environmentally conscious - they are not mutually exclusive. People don't need a political or 'scientific' motivation to be kind to mother nature.

Face reality - Global Warming has been hijacked by environmental zealots who are more motivated by their own narcissistic desire for recognition or political gain than by the health of the planet.

Bbaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa - follow the herd! Buy a Prius! Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Dollarmansteve · 07-13-2007, 07:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony404

sheep, think about who benefits from you believing global warming is a lie,use your thinking caps. There is a lot more money to be made in you believing its not real and you keep doing as you have been doing then if you believed its real.

I would argue the EXACT opposite - there is an entirely new industry that is growing everyday that uses 'global warming' as it's marketing pitch.

Hybrid vehicles (scam), environmentally friendly food, consumer goods, etc. Companies charge a premium for this 'perceived' value - global wamring is driving inflation through higher consumer prices by charging a 'green tax' that goes right to the corporate bottom line.

Use YOUR thinking cap, and you can really see what's happening.... Who's the sheep???

KimJI · 07-13-2007, 08:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dollarmansteve

I would argue the EXACT opposite - there is an entirely new industry that is growing everyday that uses 'global warming' as it's marketing pitch.

Hybrid vehicles (scam), environmentally friendly food, consumer goods, etc. Companies charge a premium for this 'perceived' value - global wamring is driving inflation through higher consumer prices by charging a 'green tax' that goes right to the corporate bottom line.

Use YOUR thinking cap, and you can really see what's happening.... Who's the sheep???

Glat to see not everyone are blind

Tom_PM · 07-13-2007, 08:13 AM

People believing in Al Gore is the problem? He's just a messenger, fuck him. Who cares about him? Yes he didn't get awarded the election over bush, but more people voted for him. Who cares, it's all old news now.

If "global warming" turns out to be a global scam, dont you think it'll come out in the end? The pace things move, there'll be at least one whole new generation of scientists coming up doing their own research before anything is actually decided.

Anyway, no need to get all bunched up about global warming. Look in your own house and car and do whatever you think you should and let your neighbor do the same.

I see nothing wrong with a whole new industry of "green" buildings and crap at all. It's mostly capitalist societies anyway that'll grow from it.

stickyfingerz · 07-13-2007, 08:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crockett

Umm I don't know anyone with any comon sense that actually believed the crap in the movie Loose Change. You didn't see anyone in mainstream media supporting the movie lose change, because everyone knew it was a load of crap.

You can even look on the wikipedia page that this KimJ guy posted and read that scientist whom were quoted in the movie, said the film maker deliberately twisted their words to make his case. The guy cherry picked his evidence to push his agenda and I'm willing to bet big oil was behind the film's production.

It's pretty clear as day, that we are helping speed up global warming. I haven't seen a single valid case yet to disprove that man is not helping speed up the process.

Besides that all you have to do, is search on the net to see how much of this film has been proven incorrect. There really isn't an argument as far as that goes. All you have to do is look.

I agree we are helping to speed up global warming. Ill give you an analogy for it.

It would be about the same as a 3 year old helping a train to leave the station by pushing on the back of the train. So yes I guess we are "helping" to speed it up.

Ron2k1 · 07-13-2007, 08:52 AM

BREAKING NEWS

In case you missed it, the climate on other planets in our solar system has also been changed

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...s-warming.html

This means Aliens on Mars do exist! They also have global warming!

tony286 · 07-13-2007, 08:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dollarmansteve

I would argue the EXACT opposite - there is an entirely new industry that is growing everyday that uses 'global warming' as it's marketing pitch.

Hybrid vehicles (scam), environmentally friendly food, consumer goods, etc. Companies charge a premium for this 'perceived' value - global wamring is driving inflation through higher consumer prices by charging a 'green tax' that goes right to the corporate bottom line.

Use YOUR thinking cap, and you can really see what's happening.... Who's the sheep???

Using less gas is a good thing period,getting off oil is even better.OIL SUPPORTS TERRORISTS. As far as who benefits for the sheep keeping status quo the oil companies made how much in profits this year so far?

tony286 · 07-13-2007, 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz

I agree we are helping to speed up global warming. Ill give you an analogy for it.

It would be about the same as a 3 year old helping a train to leave the station by pushing on the back of the train. So yes I guess we are "helping" to speed it up.

more and more it amazes me who ignorant you truly are.

D · 07-13-2007, 09:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ron2k1

BREAKING NEWS

In case you missed it, the climate on other planets in our solar system has also been changed

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...s-warming.html

This means Aliens on Mars do exist! They also have global warming!

I'm not saying there isn't room to debate the subject...

But to use a single article about one lone scientist's hypothesis versus the thousands of peer reviewed articles out there that support the idea humans are contributing to global warming is a bit unenlightened, imho.

Since we're talking about the other planets now, I should mention that no one's yet to address the point about Venus that I brought to light earlier. Here we have a planet that's several times hotter than it should be based on its relative distance from the sun. It's much hotter than Mercury, even though it's much further away. Why? Because of a "Runaway Greenhouse Effect." So much CO2 is present in the atmosphere of Venus that the Sun's energies are trapped in the atmosphere of the planet, bouncing back and forth between the top of the atmosphere and the planet's surface... heating the planet up like an oven. CO2 is the reason. CO2.

Let's say for a moment that the fact that the Sun is getting hotter every year is a given. That it's contributing to our own global warming. Isn't it still possible that our CO2 emissions into the atmosphere - our artificially dumping billions and billions of metric tons of CO2 into our atmosphere every year - may be speeding up the process even more?

And even if that's only a possibility - considering that global warming is having an obvious and, in many ways, detrimental impact on our environment, isn't it our place to try and do something about it?

As a child, I learned that if you make a mess, it's your responsibility to clean it up.

Dollarmansteve · 07-13-2007, 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony404

Using less gas is a good thing period,getting off oil is even better.OIL SUPPORTS TERRORISTS. As far as who benefits for the sheep keeping status quo the oil companies made how much in profits this year so far?

hybrid cars burn oil.

Please refer to my earlier post where I state "You don't have to be a global warming zealot to be environmentally conscious".

I am not brainwashed by global warming propaganda but I am an environmentally conscious person regardless.

stickyfingerz · 07-13-2007, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony404

more and more it amazes me who ignorant you truly are.

People said the same thing about those that questioned the impending ice age too.......

KimJI · 07-13-2007, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by D

Since we're talking about the other planets now, I should mention that no one's yet to address the point about Venus that I brought to light earlier. Here we have a planet that's several times hotter than it should be based on its relative distance from the sun. It's much hotter than Mercury, even though it's much further away. Why? Because of a "Runaway Greenhouse Effect." So much CO2 is present in the atmosphere of Venus that the Sun's energies are trapped in the atmosphere of the planet, bouncing back and forth between the top of the atmosphere and the planet's surface... heating the planet up like an oven. CO2 is the reason. CO2.

The temperature of a planet is not based on the distance to the sun alone, its also a question of atmosphere, and its ability to contain the heat.

Look at the moon. When the sun shine on it, its much hotter than the side where there are no sun. The temperature change is from 100degrees+ at the day, to 150degrees- at night. That is due to the atmosphere, nothing else

Again, the topic is weather or not Global warming is a result of increased CO2 emissions. And again you fail to provide evidence. And you throw in half lies to support your case, which is not helping at all.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/othervi...REF30b.article

Many of the assertions Gore makes in his movie, ''An Inconvenient Truth,'' have been refuted by science, both before and after he made them. Gore can show sincerity in his plea for scientific honesty by publicly acknowledging where science has rebutted his claims.

For example, Gore claims that Himalayan glaciers are shrinking and global warming is to blame. Yet the September 2006 issue of the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate reported, "Glaciers are growing in the Himalayan Mountains, confounding global warming alarmists who recently claimed the glaciers were shrinking and that global warming was to blame."

Gore claims the snowcap atop Africa's Mt. Kilimanjaro is shrinking and that global warming is to blame. Yet according to the November 23, 2003, issue of Nature magazine, "Although it's tempting to blame the ice loss on global warming, researchers think that deforestation of the mountain's foothills is the more likely culprit. Without the forests' humidity, previously moisture-laden winds blew dry. No longer replenished with water, the ice is evaporating in the strong equatorial sunshine."

crockett · 07-13-2007, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KimJI

Are there no "public service" agreement in the US, where radio or TV have to make information like this accessible for free? We have that here in Europe, bu I thought the radio and TV stations in the US and the same responsibility

LOL no is there is an agreement that says, they have to give away any other movies? Both of these movies were produced by private groups. So unless those private groups choose to release it via PBS.. Then there is no one that has to broadcast it.

D · 07-13-2007, 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KimJI

The temperature of a planet is not based on the distance to the sun alone, its also a question of atmosphere, and its ability to contain the heat.

Look at the moon. When the sun shine on it, its much hotter than the side where there are no sun. The temperature change is from 100degrees+ at the day, to 150degrees- at night. That is due to the atmosphere, nothing else

Again, the topic is weather or not Global warming is a result of increased CO2 emissions. And again you fail to provide evidence. And you throw in half lies to support your case, which is not helping at all.

I don't understand where you're disagreeing with me. You just restated what I said.

Venus is warmer than Mercury (which is a lot closer to the sun) because it has CO2 in its atmosphere, retaining the heat.

We're artificially injected billions of metric tons of CO2 into our own atmosphere every year.

1 + 1 = 2.

Where are my half lies? I'm not aware of any that I stated... nor would I knowlingly do so... so please point them out.

KimJI · 07-13-2007, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crockett

LOL no is there is an agreement that says, they have to give away any other movies? Both of these movies were produced by private groups. So unless those private groups choose to release it via PBS.. Then there is no one that has to broadcast it.

The public service channels here are payed for by our tax, and they buy the movies from the producers. That is the whole idea behind public service, to educate and inform the people of a country.

D · 07-13-2007, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KimJI

http://www.suntimes.com/news/othervi...REF30b.article

Many of the assertions Gore makes in his movie, ''An Inconvenient Truth,'' have been refuted by science, both before and after he made them. Gore can show sincerity in his plea for scientific honesty by publicly acknowledging where science has rebutted his claims.

For example, Gore claims that Himalayan glaciers are shrinking and global warming is to blame. Yet the September 2006 issue of the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate reported, "Glaciers are growing in the Himalayan Mountains, confounding global warming alarmists who recently claimed the glaciers were shrinking and that global warming was to blame."

Gore claims the snowcap atop Africa's Mt. Kilimanjaro is shrinking and that global warming is to blame. Yet according to the November 23, 2003, issue of Nature magazine, "Although it's tempting to blame the ice loss on global warming, researchers think that deforestation of the mountain's foothills is the more likely culprit. Without the forests' humidity, previously moisture-laden winds blew dry. No longer replenished with water, the ice is evaporating in the strong equatorial sunshine."

And, for the record, I've never watched that movie.

Everything I've said in this thread and all of my thoughts on the subject are based off of my own, personal research and study over the last twenty-or-so years.

KimJI · 07-13-2007, 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by D

I don't understand where you're disagreeing with me. You just restated what I said.

Venus is warmer than Mercury (which is a lot closer to the sun) because it has CO2 in its atmosphere, retaining the heat.

We're artificially injected billions of metric tons of CO2 into our own atmosphere every year.

1 + 1 = 2.

Where are my half lies? I'm not aware of any that I stated... nor would I knowlingly do so... so please point them out.

Because you said "Because of a "Runaway Greenhouse Effect."
There are no "Runaway Greenhouse Effect." there or here for that matter.

In a book I read about AI, one of the outhers said(found it again on google):

The planet is purposive.
It behaves the way it does in order to maintain homeostasis.
It changes in ways that result in the maintenance of homeostasis.
It changes such that it reflects more or less light depending on its current temperature.

Homeostasis requires a self regulating mechanism.
The sun grows hotter, and the planet regulates its own temperature by reflecting more of the sun's heat.
To reflect this heat it has to change its reflectance characteristics.
Again we might ask, how it is to know how to do this?
Auxiliary question - what bit of it knows? What bit of you knows?
If the regulatory mechanism already exists then this simply switches into action but what if it does not - how might the planet adapt to things of which it has no knowledge - say different types of radiation?

fuzebox · 07-13-2007, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz

Global warming is a huge sham...

And a big business

I wish I sold global warming awareness shit, I'd be retired by now.

KimJI · 07-13-2007, 03:45 PM

Even Eric McLamb said the same thing many years ago

D · 07-13-2007, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KimJI

Because you said "Because of a "Runaway Greenhouse Effect."
There are no "Runaway Greenhouse Effect." there or here for that matter.

[/I]

Sure there is.

Ask any astronomer or planetary scientist what's going on in the atmosphere of Venus, and I'll bet you any amount of money the phrase "Runaway Greenhouse Effect" is used verbatim. It's why the planet has no liquid water on the surface.

It's why the temperature is over 750 degrees F. Iron melts on the surface of Venus.

Ask them what compound is responsible for this effect.

And they'll say CO2.

Google "Venus"... Google "Runaway Greenhouse Effect".... or better yet, go to a library... and read.

I'm not sure what the rest of your post was supposed to mean - seems you're just talking about the laws relating to homeostasis... which I fully agree with, and, imho, does more to support the idea that we're affecting our environment than the idea that we're not.

uno · 07-13-2007, 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dollarmansteve

So how come when some degenerate from upstate new york (Dylan Avery) makes a fictional movie called "loose change" which is full of fallacy and cherry picking -it is trumpeted as THE "documentary" than exposes the 9/11 conspiracy...

Yet when someone does the same on the Global Warming issue, it's immediate dismissed.

I'll tell you why - It is socially acceptable to believe in 9/11 conspriacy but a social faux-pas to be against global warming.

How bout if you think Loose Change & this global warming movie are both bullshit?

crockett · 07-13-2007, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz

I agree we are helping to speed up global warming. Ill give you an analogy for it.

It would be about the same as a 3 year old helping a train to leave the station by pushing on the back of the train. So yes I guess we are "helping" to speed it up.

Funny you ever seen smog in a major city? Ever hear of Acids Rain? You ever hear that our oceans are getting over fished? Those are all effects that mankind has had on this planet.

What makes you think that we aren't having a greater effect worldwide? I'd say 7 billion people might have just a bit of an effect on our planet.

KimJI · 07-13-2007, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by D

Sure there is.

Ask any astronomer or planetary scientist what's going on in the atmosphere of Venus, and I'll bet you any amount of money the phrase "Runaway Greenhouse Effect" is used verbatim. It's why the planet has no liquid water on the surface.

It's why the temperature is over 750 degrees F. Iron melts on the surface of Venus.

Ask them what compound is responsible for this effect.

And they'll say CO2.

Google "Venus"... Google "Runaway Greenhouse Effect".... or better yet, go to a library... and read.

I'm not sure what the rest of your post was supposed to mean - seems you're just talking about the laws relating to homeostasis... which I fully agree with, and, imho, does more to support the idea that we're affecting our environment than the idea that we're not.

homeostasis is the concept of a closed systems ability to regulate itself, and that is what earth is doing now, have done for millions of years and will do so for many more. So its not supporting the idea that we're affecting our environment.

Its still not a Runaway Greenhouse Effect here on earth. What goes on Venus have nothing to do with Greenhouse Effect, its the fact that the planet have a higher concentration of CO2. The fundamental structure of earth is different and can not under any circumstances be compared

The only "runaway" thing going on here is the fearmongering

uno · 07-13-2007, 03:57 PM

Right wing conspiracy nuts are funny.

stickyfingerz · 07-13-2007, 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crockett

Funny you ever seen smog in a major city? Ever hear of Acids Rain? You ever hear that our oceans are getting over fished? Those are all effects that mankind has had on this planet.

What makes you think that we aren't having a greater effect worldwide? I'd say 7 billion people might have just a bit of an effect on our planet.

Lol so that is making the planet hotter then? Acid rain has been in the media about 3 times in the last 10 years. Smog? What L.A.? Its in a basin. The valley? No wind comes in there. Not too many cities have a large amount of smog anymore. And again how does smog make the planet overheat. Should we take a look at what cities looked like in the early 1900s till the 70s? You remember back when we were going to have an Iceage because of the smog?

D · 07-13-2007, 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KimJI

homeostasis is the concept of a closed systems ability to regulate itself, and that is what earth is doing now, have done for millions of years and will do so for many more. So its not supporting the idea that we're affecting our environment.

Its still not a Runaway Greenhouse Effect here on earth. What goes on Venus have nothing to do with Greenhouse Effect, its the fact that the planet have a higher concentration of CO2. The fundamental structure of earth is different and can not under any circumstances be compared

The only "runaway" thing going on here is the fearmongering

I'm familiar with homeostasis. It simply means a state of balance. Most natural systems tend to attract toward a state of balance. Pretty much all physical elements in the universe are related to homeostasis. Homeostasis is at the center of our understanding of how things work.

And it can be easily translated to mean that if we push, the planet pushes back. "For every action, there is an oposite and equal reaction," and all that jazz.

Look, I'm all for debating this topic, but you gotta be willing to listen as much as speak... and, honestly, you're not making a lot of sense in your last few posts. I never said the Earth has a Runaway Greenhouse effect. I said Venus does. And Venus's state of climatic homeostasis certainly has a lot to do with a "greenhouse effect," as the entire planet is experiencing a "Runaway Greenhouse effect" caused by it's high CO2 levels.

Most scientists would agree that Venus is very similar to what the Earth may have appeared like millions of years ago... there are many several similarities between the two planets - and what better model do we have in understanding how different quantities of different elements in an atmosphere may have on us than by looking at another planet in our on Solar System - as things are made of up many of the same elements that we have here on Earth?

You used Mars, yourself, as a model of what's going on here.

"cannot under any circumstances be compared" you say?

I'm thinking you're starting to get outside the bounds of what you may actually be familiar with, but have decided that not knowing shouldn't stop you from continuing to talk.

Planetary science is a hobby-subject of mine. And you're not making very much sense at this stage of our argument, and I'm beginning to realize I have better ways to spend my time.

gwkg · 07-13-2007, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dollarmansteve

So how come when some degenerate from upstate new york (Dylan Avery) makes a fictional movie called "loose change" which is full of fallacy and cherry picking -it is trumpeted as THE "documentary" than exposes the 9/11 conspiracy...

Yet when someone does the same on the Global Warming issue, it's immediate dismissed.

I'll tell you why - It is socially acceptable to believe in 9/11 conspriacy but a social faux-pas to be against global warming.

Whatever furthers their agenda is true, whatever doesnt is false.

I believe its called hypocrisy.

KimJI · 07-13-2007, 04:31 PM

- I never used Mars as a model.

- homeostasis dont mean state of balance. Homeostasis is the ability to MAINTAIN a state of balance. There is a huge difference

- There are no Runaway Greenhouse effect on Venus. Venus have a high concentration of CO2 - period. It have nothing to do with Runaway Greenhouse effect. Greenhouse effect is the ability of the atmosphere to capture and recycle energy emitted by the surface.

- You ask me to read, Im doing nothing but quoting books on the matter, so I dont get why you thing i dont read books. I made it quite clear from the beginning.

- Im out of time as well, But I do listen - just not agree all the time, mainly because you dont provide any facts to support your oppinion.

Mr. Mojo Risin · 07-13-2007, 04:45 PM

did the fossil fuel industry pay you?

http://www.fuckedupcountry.com/campa...g_science.html

KimJI · 07-13-2007, 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Mojo Risin

did the fossil fuel industry pay you?

http://www.fuckedupcountry.com/campa...g_science.html

Sure, I will belive a domain called "fuckedupcountry.com" and that propagande on the page, instead of all the books and professors quoted

fuckedupcountry.com is right, how could I be so dumb

Mr. Mojo Risin · 07-13-2007, 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KimJI

Sure, I will belive a domain called "fuckedupcountry.com" and that propagande on the page, instead of all the books and professors quoted

fuckedupcountry.com is right, how could I be so dumb

Read these:

Works Cited

?Consequences of Global Warming.? Natural Resources Defense Council

< http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/fcons.asp>

?Cheney?s Halliburton stock options rose 3,281% last year, senator finds.? The Raw Story

< http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Cheneys_stock_options_rose_3281_last_1011.html>

?Dick Cheney and Halliburton.? Citizen Works

< http://www.citizenworks.org/corp/warcontracts/cheney-halliburton.pdf>

Eilperin, Juliet and Palanzo, Eddy. ?Climate Researchers Feeling Heat From White House.?

Washingtonpost.com 6 April 2006.

<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2006/04/05/AR2006040502150_pf.html>

Eilperin, Juliet. ?Censorship Is Alleged at NOAA; Scientists Afraid to Speak Out, NASA

Climate Expert Reports.? The Washington Post 11 Feb 2006
ExxonSecrets.org. ?FACTSHEET: Patrick J. Michaels.?

< http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=4>

Goldenberg, Suzanne. ?Bush administration accused of doctoring scientists' reports on climate

change.? Guardian Unlimited 31 January 2007.

< http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2002484,00.html>

Gore, Al. An Inconvenient Truth. Emmaus: Rodale, 2006.

Gullo, Karen. ?Gore: Bush's Oil Ties an Issue.? The Associated Press 23 June 2000

?Halliburton Company Stock Chart.? MSN Money
<http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor...parisonsForm=1 &D4=1&ViewType=0&D5=0&C5=2&C6=2007&CE=0&ShowChtBt= Refresh+Chart&DateRangeForm=1&D3=0&Symbol=US%3aHAL &C8=2007&C9=1&DisplayForm=1&CP=0&PT=1>

Heib, Monte and Heib, Harrison. ?Global Warming: A Chilling Perspective

<http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/ice_ages.html>

Herrick, Catherine and Owens, Bill. ?Rewriting the Science.? CBS News 30 July 2006.

<http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/17/60minutes/main1415985.shtml>

?In denial on global warming.? International Herald Tribune 21 June 2003

Lardner Jr., George and Romano, Lois. ?The Life of George W. Bush: The Turning Point; After

Coming Up Dry, Financial Rescues Series: The Life of George W. Bush; 6/7.? The Washington Post 30 July 1999

?The Medieval Warm Period.? Windows to the Universe

<http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/earth/climate/medieval_warm_period.html>

Michaels, Patrick J. Meltdown. Washington: Cato Institute, 2004.

?NOAA REVIEWS RECORD-SETTING 2005 ATLANTIC HURRICANE SEASON.? NOAA News Online

<http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2005/s2540.htm>

Revkin, Andrew C. ?A Young Bush Appointee Resigns His Post at NASA.?

Washingtonpost.com 8 Feb. 2006.

<http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/08/politics/08nasa.html?ex=1297054800&en=dc3c509d1621f5af&ei=5 088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss>

Sandell, Clayton and Blakemore, Bill. ?Making Money by Feeding Confusion Over Global

Warming.? ABC News 27 July 2006.

< http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/GlobalWarming/story?id=2242565&page=1>

Sandell, Clayton. ?Government Accused of Censorship Over Global Warming.? ABC News 20

September 2006.

< http://abcnews.go.com/US/GlobalWarming/story?id=2467733&page=1>

?Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study.? The Heat is Online

<http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?ID=6250&Method=Full&PageCall=&Title=ExMo %20Pays%20Scientists%20To%20Trash%20IPCC%20Report& Cache=False>

?Scientists' Report Documents ExxonMobil?s Tobacco-like Disinformation Campaign on Global

Warming Science.? Union of Concerned Scientists

< http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html>

Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air. Union of Concerned Scientists January 2007

< http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_rel...g-tobacco.html

Zarembo, Alan. ?Scientists' Bush Family Ties : The Texas clan came to Mexico for oil--and have

built a complex web of friends and partners.(George W. Bush).? Newsweek International 26 Feb. 2001

Mr. Mojo Risin · 07-13-2007, 04:59 PM

go post your shit on Greenpeace and they wil give you a good debate ;)

Mr. Mojo Risin · 07-13-2007, 05:01 PM

http://members.greenpeace.org/phpBB2/

KimJI · 07-13-2007, 05:02 PM

I only read the first 3 sections but I counted at least 6 parts that were factual wrong, so I stopped reading. Most of what is there is the exact words of what Al Gore are saying over and over again. Its guesswork and have been proven to be wrong many times before.

My opinion is based on FACTS - FACTS!

KimJI · 07-13-2007, 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Mojo Risin

go post your shit on Greenpeace and they wil give you a good debate ;)

you have got to be kidding. You know one of the founders(Patrick Moore) left Greenpeace because they were distorting the FACTS to help support their political agenda right?

Greenpeace is nothing more but a extremist green party now.

Mr. Mojo Risin · 07-13-2007, 05:05 PM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6290228.stm

Mr. Mojo Risin · 07-13-2007, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KimJI

I only read the first 3 sections but I counted at least 6 parts that were factual wrong, so I stopped reading. Most of what is there is the exact words of what Al Gore are saying over and over again. Its guesswork and have been proven to be wrong many times before.

My opinion is based on FACTS - FACTS!

what is factually wrong?

D · 07-13-2007, 05:08 PM

To clear these matters up:

Quote:

Originally Posted by KimJI

- I never used Mars as a model.

You're right. I confused you with another posting in support of your argument. I apologize.

Quote:

Originally Posted by KimJI

- homeostasis dont mean state of balance. Homeostasis is the ability to MAINTAIN a state of balance. There is a huge difference

Yes, you are correct. And as my rhetoric on the word suggests, I understand that. As I said, all natural things tend toward a state of homeostasis. Continuing to argue this point would be to argue semantics, imho.

Quote:

Originally Posted by KimJI

- There are no Runaway Greenhouse effect on Venus.

You're mistaken on this point. Ask any Astronomer. Ask any Planetary Scientist. Take any elementary Astronomy class. Simply Google the words "Venus Runaway" and bask in the 500+ results that come up with the word "greenhouse" after the words in bold, and you'll understand that you are mistaken.

Quote:

Originally Posted by KimJI

Greenhouse effect is the ability of the atmosphere to capture and recycle energy emitted by the surface.

It's both surface and solar energy.... mostly solar. Not that it really matters... it's still heat energy, which is my point.

From the American Heritage Dictionary:

"greenhouse effect: 1. The phenomenon whereby the earth's atmosphere traps solar radiation, caused by the presence in the atmosphere of gases such as carbon dioxide, water vapor, and methane that allow incoming sunlight to pass through but absorb heat radiated back from the earth's surface.
2. A similar retention of solar radiation, as by another planet or in a solar panel."

Quote:

Originally Posted by KimJI

- You ask me to read, Im doing nothing but quoting books on the matter, so I dont get why you thing i dont read books. I made it quite clear from the beginning.

I never said I don't think you read books... I wouldn't make such an assumption... I'm asking you to read on particular subjects so that you understand where you may be mistaken without me having to point it out... or so that you're better rounded on a subject.

I do think that anyone saying that there's absolutely no way humans are contributing to global warming has either not bothered to read enough on the subject, or is letting someone with an agenda outside the raw science do their thinking for them...

I don't see how a reasonable mind could deny that possibility.

Just as I don't see how a reasonable mind could assume that it's the only possibility.

Quote:

Originally Posted by KimJI

- Im out of time as well, But I do listen - just not agree all the time, mainly because you dont provide any facts to support your oppinion.

I feel I've provided quite a few facts. The idea that you're not acknowledging that I have leads me to believe you're not listening.

KimJI · 07-13-2007, 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Mojo Risin

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6290228.stm

I trust Friis-Christensen over that guy any day

Mr. Mojo Risin · 07-13-2007, 05:19 PM

A new scientific study concludes that changes in the Sun's output cannot be causing modern-day climate change.

It shows that for the last 20 years, the Sun's output has declined, yet temperatures on Earth have risen.

It also shows that modern temperatures are not determined by the Sun's effect on cosmic rays, as has been claimed.

Writing in the Royal Society's journal Proceedings A, the researchers say cosmic rays may have affected climate in the past, but not the present.

"This should settle the debate," said Mike Lockwood, from the UK's Rutherford-Appleton Laboratory, who carried out the new analysis together with Claus Froehlich from the World Radiation Center in Switzerland.

Dr Lockwood initiated the study partially in response to the TV documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle, broadcast on Britain's Channel Four earlier this year, which featured the cosmic ray hypothesis.

"All the graphs they showed stopped in about 1980, and I knew why, because things diverged after that," he told the BBC News website.

"You can't just ignore bits of data that you don't like," he said.

Warming trend

The scientists' main approach on this new analysis was simple: to look at solar output and cosmic ray intensity over the last 30-40 years, and compare those trends with the graph for global average surface temperature, which has risen by about 0.4C over the period.

Temperatures have continued rising irrespective of cosmic ray flux
The Sun varies on a cycle of about 11 years between periods of high and low activity.

But that cycle comes on top of longer-term trends; and most of the 20th Century saw a slight but steady increase in solar output.

However, in about 1985, that trend appears to have reversed, with solar output declining.

Yet this period has seen temperatures rise as fast as - if not faster than - any time during the previous 100 years.

"This paper reinforces the fact that the warming in the last 20 to 40 years can't have been caused by solar activity," said Dr Piers Forster from Leeds University, a leading contributor to this year's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment of climate science.

Cosmic relief

The IPCC's February summary report concluded that greenhouse gases were about 13 times more responsible than solar changes for rising global temperatures.

GreyWolf · 07-13-2007, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony404

sheep, think about who benefits from you believing global warming is a lie,use your thinking caps. There is a lot more money to be made in you believing its not real and you keep doing as you have been doing then if you believed its real.

But... that's not what Exxon say in their TV ads - they are investing heavily in going green

Seriously - agree. The "profit center" is currently being hijacked by governments and politicised, corps are spinning whatever lies they need to spin in introducing more product while painting pictures of themselves as "friendly green". Very little of the pictures have any truth.

SPACE GLIDER · 07-13-2007, 11:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KimJI

"something" is not going on, just read the fucking scientific evidence fuck stain!

"fuck stain"? You expect someone ... ANYONE ... to take you seriously with frothing-at-the-mouth remarks like that? That's what instantly causes me (and anyone rational or just plain DECENT) to tune someone out completely.

07-13-2007, 05:51 AM	#51
KimJI Confirmed User Join Date: May 2007 Location: So fucking gone Posts: 1,839	50 new lies about global warming __________________ Trafficadept \| Best traffic I have ever tested \| web "@t" cuul.org

07-13-2007, 07:54 AM	#53
Dollarmansteve Confirmed User Join Date: May 2005 Location: T.O. Posts: 2,849	FACT: You can be "agnostic" towards Global Warming and still be environmentally conscious - they are not mutually exclusive. People don't need a political or 'scientific' motivation to be kind to mother nature. Face reality - Global Warming has been hijacked by environmental zealots who are more motivated by their own narcissistic desire for recognition or political gain than by the health of the planet. Bbaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa - follow the herd! Buy a Prius! Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa __________________ I died. Last edited by Dollarmansteve; 07-13-2007 at 07:56 AM..

07-13-2007, 08:13 AM	#56
Tom_PM Porn Meister Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 16,443	People believing in Al Gore is the problem? He's just a messenger, fuck him. Who cares about him? Yes he didn't get awarded the election over bush, but more people voted for him. Who cares, it's all old news now. If "global warming" turns out to be a global scam, dont you think it'll come out in the end? The pace things move, there'll be at least one whole new generation of scientists coming up doing their own research before anything is actually decided. Anyway, no need to get all bunched up about global warming. Look in your own house and car and do whatever you think you should and let your neighbor do the same. I see nothing wrong with a whole new industry of "green" buildings and crap at all. It's mostly capitalist societies anyway that'll grow from it. __________________ 43-922-863 Shut up and play your guitar.

07-13-2007, 03:45 PM	#71
KimJI Confirmed User Join Date: May 2007 Location: So fucking gone Posts: 1,839	Even Eric McLamb said the same thing many years ago __________________ Trafficadept \| Best traffic I have ever tested \| web "@t" cuul.org

07-13-2007, 03:57 PM	#76
uno RIP Dodger. BEST.CAT.EVER Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: NYC Area Posts: 18,450	Right wing conspiracy nuts are funny. __________________ -uno icq: 111-914 CrazyBabe.com - porn art MojoHost - For all your hosting needs, present and future. Tell them I sent ya!

07-13-2007, 07:32 AM	#52
tony286 lurker Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: atlanta Posts: 57,021	sheep, think about who benefits from you believing global warming is a lie,use your thinking caps. There is a lot more money to be made in you believing its not real and you keep doing as you have been doing then if you believed its real.

07-13-2007, 08:52 AM	#58
Ron2k1 Confirmed User Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 1,573	BREAKING NEWS In case you missed it, the climate on other planets in our solar system has also been changed http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...s-warming.html This means Aliens on Mars do exist! They also have global warming!

07-13-2007, 04:31 PM	#80
KimJI Confirmed User Join Date: May 2007 Location: So fucking gone Posts: 1,839	- I never used Mars as a model. - homeostasis dont mean state of balance. Homeostasis is the ability to MAINTAIN a state of balance. There is a huge difference - There are no Runaway Greenhouse effect on Venus. Venus have a high concentration of CO2 - period. It have nothing to do with Runaway Greenhouse effect. Greenhouse effect is the ability of the atmosphere to capture and recycle energy emitted by the surface. - You ask me to read, Im doing nothing but quoting books on the matter, so I dont get why you thing i dont read books. I made it quite clear from the beginning. - Im out of time as well, But I do listen - just not agree all the time, mainly because you dont provide any facts to support your oppinion. __________________ Trafficadept \| Best traffic I have ever tested \| web "@t" cuul.org

07-13-2007, 04:45 PM	#81
Mr. Mojo Risin Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: In the middle of nowhere Posts: 1,886	did the fossil fuel industry pay you? http://www.fuckedupcountry.com/campa...g_science.html

07-13-2007, 04:59 PM	#84
Mr. Mojo Risin Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: In the middle of nowhere Posts: 1,886	go post your shit on Greenpeace and they wil give you a good debate ;)

07-13-2007, 05:01 PM	#85
Mr. Mojo Risin Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: In the middle of nowhere Posts: 1,886	http://members.greenpeace.org/phpBB2/

07-13-2007, 05:02 PM	#86
KimJI Confirmed User Join Date: May 2007 Location: So fucking gone Posts: 1,839	I only read the first 3 sections but I counted at least 6 parts that were factual wrong, so I stopped reading. Most of what is there is the exact words of what Al Gore are saying over and over again. Its guesswork and have been proven to be wrong many times before. My opinion is based on FACTS - FACTS! __________________ Trafficadept \| Best traffic I have ever tested \| web "@t" cuul.org

07-13-2007, 05:05 PM	#88
Mr. Mojo Risin Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: In the middle of nowhere Posts: 1,886	http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6290228.stm

07-13-2007, 05:19 PM	#92
Mr. Mojo Risin Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: In the middle of nowhere Posts: 1,886	A new scientific study concludes that changes in the Sun's output cannot be causing modern-day climate change. It shows that for the last 20 years, the Sun's output has declined, yet temperatures on Earth have risen. It also shows that modern temperatures are not determined by the Sun's effect on cosmic rays, as has been claimed. Writing in the Royal Society's journal Proceedings A, the researchers say cosmic rays may have affected climate in the past, but not the present. "This should settle the debate," said Mike Lockwood, from the UK's Rutherford-Appleton Laboratory, who carried out the new analysis together with Claus Froehlich from the World Radiation Center in Switzerland. Dr Lockwood initiated the study partially in response to the TV documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle, broadcast on Britain's Channel Four earlier this year, which featured the cosmic ray hypothesis. "All the graphs they showed stopped in about 1980, and I knew why, because things diverged after that," he told the BBC News website. "You can't just ignore bits of data that you don't like," he said. Warming trend The scientists' main approach on this new analysis was simple: to look at solar output and cosmic ray intensity over the last 30-40 years, and compare those trends with the graph for global average surface temperature, which has risen by about 0.4C over the period. Temperatures have continued rising irrespective of cosmic ray flux The Sun varies on a cycle of about 11 years between periods of high and low activity. But that cycle comes on top of longer-term trends; and most of the 20th Century saw a slight but steady increase in solar output. However, in about 1985, that trend appears to have reversed, with solar output declining. Yet this period has seen temperatures rise as fast as - if not faster than - any time during the previous 100 years. "This paper reinforces the fact that the warming in the last 20 to 40 years can't have been caused by solar activity," said Dr Piers Forster from Leeds University, a leading contributor to this year's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment of climate science. Cosmic relief The IPCC's February summary report concluded that greenhouse gases were about 13 times more responsible than solar changes for rising global temperatures.