Breaking: Even more hard proof that climate change is a hoax

maxrule · Dec 17, 2009

Unlike man made climate change and some other forms of science, HARP and its ability to effect the weather is a technology that can actually be demonstrated and observed.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sn6q1LqKwow]YouTube - HAARP Conspiracy Theory Part 2 of 5 New Tv Show with Jesse Ventura[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fr6xratw1ys]YouTube - HAARP Conspiracy Theory Part 3 of 5 New Tv Show with Jesse Ventura[/ame]

maxrule · Dec 17, 2009

This is pretty good. Give it up for Jesse.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0rtJ9CYSdY]YouTube - Conspiracy Theory With Jesse Ventura: Global Warming part 2 of 7[/ame]

Green Wizard · Dec 17, 2009

Buddy Dink said:

Dude, what green piece of shit do you work for?

I'm not saying that oil companies are all that much better, but we are utilizing a resource that our infrastructure supports. Fossil fuels are necessary, even for more efficient energy. It isn't like we can pull up to a hydrogen fuel cell station every half a mile. We do not need Greenlist products or carbon credits, we need to develop better technology which doesn't happen by selling lies. It happens by the laws of supply and demand, and that will absolutely never change.

Use your head and think about the situation at hand.

Everyone is sitting here saying that they didn't really lie or that it doesn't matter.

WHY THE FUCK WOULD THEY LIE, THEN? If it doesn't make a difference then why was it hidden? Why was it not published? Why was it deleted/destroyed? This makes no fucking sense. Zero.

People are making tons and tons and tons of money by screaming at the top of their lungs how everyone needs to go green while these same people are using tons and tons and tons of fossil fuels.
Click to expand...

Your guess is as good as mine as to why the data was destroyed intentionally or accidently, or whatever. If you want to call it a conspiracy, call it a conspiracy. But to what end? And what a ridiculous effort.

Olesmoky · Dec 17, 2009

maxrule said:

This is pretty good. Give it up for Jesse.

YouTube - Conspiracy Theory With Jesse Ventura: Global Warming part 2 of 7
Click to expand...

hahaha that show is just hilarious though. It reminds me of some fruity cartoon about an older leadership figure teaching youngsters his ways. Oh yeah its called Captain Planet.

YouSuckDude · Dec 17, 2009

i dont see what the problem is with global warming anyway...fuck cold weather.

maxrule · Dec 17, 2009

Olesmoky said:

hahaha that show is just hilarious though. It reminds me of some fruity cartoon about an older leadership figure teaching youngsters his ways. Oh yeah its called Captain Planet.
Click to expand...

Its kind of cheesy but I love to hear from actual scientists on the issue.

We need more investigative journalism and less state controlled media.

maxrule · Dec 17, 2009

Green Wizard said:

Actually yes, I have seen glaciers melting away. From 97 to 2006 I made frequent mountaineering trips to the Sierra Nevada mountains. I climbed Mt Whitney in 99, and again in 2005 and noticed in that short period that the glaciers have receded. Some almost completely. Whether this is do directly from green house gases warming the planet, I can't say for sure. But it seems like a good indicator to me that the climate is getting warmer.
Click to expand...

Right.

The climate is supposed to change. That is what the climate does. It can't remain static.

It snows one year and not the next, big deal.

Unless you were out gathering climate data I hardly think your vacations are enough to prove made made global warming.

100) A report by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change concluded “We find no support for the IPCC’s claim that climate observations during the twentieth century are either unprecedented or provide evidence of an anthropogenic effect on climate.”

HERE are the 100 reasons, released in a dossier issued by the European Foundation, why climate change is natural and not man-made:

1) There is “no real scientific proof” that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from man’s activity.

2) Man-made carbon dioxide emissions throughout human history constitute less than 0.00022 percent of the total naturally emitted from the mantle of the earth during geological history.

3) Warmer periods of the Earth’s history came around 800 years before rises in CO2 levels.

4) After World War II, there was a huge surge in recorded CO2 emissions but global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940.

5) Throughout the Earth’s history, temperatures have often been warmer than now and CO2 levels have often been higher – more than ten times as high.

6) Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time.

7) The 0.7C increase in the average global temperature over the last hundred years is entirely consistent with well-established, long-term, natural climate trends.

8) The IPCC theory is driven by just 60 scientists and favourable reviewers not the 4,000 usually cited.

9) Leaked e-mails from British climate scientists – in a scandal known as “Climate-gate” - suggest that that has been manipulated to exaggerate global warming

10) A large body of scientific research suggests that the sun is responsible for the greater share of climate change during the past hundred years.

11) Politicians and activiists claim rising sea levels are a direct cause of global warming but sea levels rates have been increasing steadily since the last ice age 10,000 ago

12) Philip Stott, Emeritus Professor of Biogeography at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London says climate change is too complicated to be caused by just one factor, whether CO2 or clouds

13) Peter Lilley MP said last month that “fewer people in Britain than in any other country believe in the importance of global warming. That is despite the fact that our Government and our political class—predominantly—are more committed to it than their counterparts in any other country in the world”.

14) In pursuit of the global warming rhetoric, wind farms will do very little to nothing to reduce CO2 emissions

15) Professor Plimer, Professor of Geology and Earth Sciences at the University of Adelaide, stated that the idea of taking a single trace gas in the atmosphere, accusing it and finding it guilty of total responsibility for climate change, is an “absurdity”

16) A Harvard University astrophysicist and geophysicist, Willie Soon, said he is “embarrassed and puzzled” by the shallow science in papers that support the proposition that the earth faces a climate crisis caused by global warming.

17) The science of what determines the earth’s temperature is in fact far from settled or understood.

18) Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas, unlike water vapour which is tied to climate concerns, and which we can’t even pretend to control

19) A petition by scientists trying to tell the world that the political and media portrayal of global warming is false was put forward in the Heidelberg Appeal in 1992. Today, more than 4,000 signatories, including 72 Nobel Prize winners, from 106 countries have signed it.

20) It is claimed the average global temperature increased at a dangerously fast rate in the 20th century but the recent rate of average global temperature rise has been between 1 and 2 degrees C per century - within natural rates

21) Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski, Chairman of the Scientific Council of the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw, Poland says the earth’s temperature has more to do with cloud cover and water vapor than CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.

22) There is strong evidence from solar studies which suggests that the Earth’s current temperature stasis will be followed by climatic cooling over the next few decades

23) It is myth that receding glaciers are proof of global warming as glaciers have been receding and growing cyclically for many centuries

24) It is a falsehood that the earth’s poles are warming because that is natural variation and while the western Arctic may be getting somewhat warmer we also see that the Eastern Arctic and Greenland are getting colder

25) The IPCC claims climate driven “impacts on biodiversity are significant and of key relevance” but those claims are simply not supported by scientific research

26) The IPCC threat of climate change to the world’s species does not make sense as wild species are at least one million years old, which means they have all been through hundreds of climate cycles

27) Research goes strongly against claims that CO2-induced global warming would cause catastrophic disintegration of the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets.

28) Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, rising CO2 levels are our best hope of raising crop yields to feed an ever-growing population

29) The biggest climate change ever experienced on earth took place around 700 million years ago

30) The slight increase in temperature which has been observed since 1900 is entirely consistent with well-established, long-term natural climate cycles

31) Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, rising CO2 levels of some so-called “greenhouse gases” may be contributing to higher oxygen levels and global cooling, not warming

32) Accurate satellite, balloon and mountain top observations made over the last three decades have not shown any significant change in the long term rate of increase in global temperatures

33) Today’s CO2 concentration of around 385 ppm is very low compared to most of the earth’s history – we actually live in a carbon-deficient atmosphere

34) It is a myth that CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas because greenhouse gases form about 3% of the atmosphere by volume, and CO2 constitutes about 0.037% of the atmosphere

35) It is a myth that computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant global warming because computer models can be made to “verify” anything

36) There is no scientific or statistical evidence whatsoever that global warming will cause more storms and other weather extremes

37) One statement deleted from a UN report in 1996 stated that “none of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases”

38) The world “warmed” by 0.07 +/- 0.07 degrees C from 1999 to 2008, not the 0.20 degrees C expected by the IPCC

39) The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says “it is likely that future tropical cyclones (typhoons and hurricanes) will become more intense” but there has been no increase in the intensity or frequency of tropical cyclones globally

40) Rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere can be shown not only to have a negligible effect on the Earth’s many ecosystems, but in some cases to be a positive help to many organisms

41) Researchers who compare and contrast climate change impact on civilizations found warm periods are beneficial to mankind and cold periods harmful

42) The Met Office asserts we are in the hottest decade since records began but this is precisely what the world should expect if the climate is cyclical

43) Rising CO2 levels increase plant growth and make plants more resistant to drought and pests

44) The historical increase in the air’s CO2 content has improved human nutrition by raising crop yields during the past 150 years

45) The increase of the air’s CO2 content has probably helped lengthen human lifespans since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution

46) The IPCC alleges that “climate change currently contributes to the global burden of disease and premature deaths” but the evidence shows that higher temperatures and rising CO2 levels has helped global populations

47) In May of 2004, the Russian Academy of Sciences published a report concluding that the Kyoto Protocol has no scientific grounding at all.

48) The “Climate-gate” scandal pointed to a expensive public campaign of disinformation and the denigration of scientists who opposed the belief that CO2 emissions were causing climate change

49) The head of Britain’s climate change watchdog has predicted households will need to spend up to Â£15,000 on a full energy efficiency makeover if the Government is to meet its ambitious targets for cutting carbon emissions.

50) Wind power is unlikely to be the answer to our energy needs. The wind power industry argues that there are “no direct subsidies” but it involves a total subsidy of as much as Â£60 per MWh which falls directly on electricity consumers. This burden will grow in line with attempts to achieve Wind power targets, according to a recent OFGEM report.

51) Wind farms are not an efficient way to produce energy. The British Wind Energy Association (BWEA) accepts a figure of 75 per cent back-up power is required.

52) Global temperatures are below the low end of IPCC predictions not at “at the top end of IPCC estimates”

53) Climate alarmists have raised the concern over acidification of the oceans but Tom Segalstad from Oslo University in Norway , and others, have noted that the composition of ocean water – including CO2, calcium, and water – can act as a buffering agent in the acidification of the oceans.

54) The UN’s IPCC computer models of human-caused global warming predict the emergence of a “hotspot” in the upper troposphere over the tropics. Former researcher in the Australian Department of Climate Change, David Evans, said there is no evidence of such a hotspot

55) The argument that climate change is a of result of global warming caused by human activity is the argument of flat Earthers.

56) The manner in which US President Barack Obama sidestepped Congress to order emission cuts shows how undemocratic and irrational the entire international decision-making process has become with regards to emission-target setting.

57) William Kininmonth, a former head of the National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological Organisation, wrote “the likely extent of global temperature rise from a doubling of CO2 is less than 1C. Such warming is well within the envelope of variation experienced during the past 10,000 years and insignificant in the context of glacial cycles during the past million years, when Earth has been predominantly very cold and covered by extensive ice sheets.”

58) Canada has shown the world targets derived from the existing Kyoto commitments were always unrealistic and did not work for the country.

59) In the lead up to the Copenhagen summit, David Davis MP said of previous climate summits, at Rio de Janeiro in 1992 and Kyoto in 1997 that many had promised greater cuts, but “neither happened”, but we are continuing along the same lines.

60) The UK ’s environmental policy has a long-term price tag of about Â£55 billion, before taking into account the impact on its economic growth.

61) The UN’s panel on climate change warned that Himalayan glaciers could melt to a fifth of current levels by 2035. J. Graham Cogley a professor at Ontario Trent University, claims this inaccurate stating the UN authors got the date from an earlier report wrong by more than 300 years.

62) Under existing Kyoto obligations the EU has attempted to claim success, while actually increasing emissions by 13 per cent, according to Lord Lawson. In addition the EU has pursued this scheme by purchasing “offsets” from countries such as China paying them billions of dollars to destroy atmospheric pollutants, such as CFC-23, which were manufactured purely in order to be destroyed.

63) It is claimed that the average global temperature was relatively unchanging in pre-industrial times but sky-rocketed since 1900, and will increase by several degrees more over the next 100 years according to Penn State University researcher Michael Mann. There is no convincing empirical evidence that past climate was unchanging, nor that 20th century changes in average global temperature were unusual or unnatural.

64) Michael Mann of Penn State University has actually shown that the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age did in fact exist, which contrasts with his earlier work which produced the “hockey stick graph” which showed a constant temperature over the past thousand years or so followed by a recent dramatic upturn.

65) The globe’s current approach to climate change in which major industrialised countries agree to nonsensical targets for their CO2 emissions by a given date, as it has been under the Kyoto system, is very expensive.

66) The “Climate-gate” scandal revealed that a scientific team had emailed one another about using a “trick” for the sake of concealing a “decline” in temperatures when looking at the history of the Earth’s temperature.

67) Global temperatures have not risen in any statistically-significant sense for 15 years and have actually been falling for nine years. The “Climate-gate” scandal revealed a scientific team had expressed dismay at the fact global warming was contrary to their predictions and admitted their inability to explain it was “a travesty”.

68) The IPCC predicts that a warmer planet will lead to more extreme weather, including drought, flooding, storms, snow, and wildfires. But over the last century, during which the IPCC claims the world experienced more rapid warming than any time in the past two millennia, the world did not experience significantly greater trends in any of these extreme weather events.

69) In explaining the average temperature standstill we are currently experiencing, the Met Office Hadley Centre ran a series of computer climate predictions and found in many of the computer runs there were decade-long standstills but none for 15 years – so it expects global warming to resume swiftly.

70) Richard Lindzen, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, wrote: “The notion of a static, unchanging climate is foreign to the history of the Earth or any other planet with a fluid envelope. Such hysteria (over global warming) simply represents the scientific illiteracy of much of the public, the susceptibility of the public to the substitution of repetition for truth.”

71) Despite the 1997 Kyoto Protocol’s status as the flagship of the fight against climate change it has been a failure.

72) The first phase of the EU’s Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), which ran from 2005 to 2007 was a failure. Huge over-allocation of permits to pollute led to a collapse in the price of carbon from €33 to just €0.20 per tonne meaning the system did not reduce emissions at all.

73) The EU trading scheme, to manage carbon emissions has completely failed and actually allows European businesses to duck out of making their emissions reductions at home by offsetting, which means paying for cuts to be made overseas instead.

74) To date “cap and trade” carbon markets have done almost nothing to reduce emissions.

75) In the United States , the cap-and-trade is an approach designed to control carbon emissions and will impose huge costs upon American citizens via a carbon tax on all goods and services produced in the United States. The average family of four can expect to pay an additional $1700, or Â£1,043, more each year. It is predicted that the United States will lose more than 2 million jobs as the result of cap-and-trade schemes.

76) Dr Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, has indicated that out of the 21 climate models tracked by the IPCC the differences in warming exhibited by those models is mostly the result of different strengths of positive cloud feedback – and that increasing CO2 is insufficient to explain global-average warming in the last 50 to 100 years.

77) Why should politicians devote our scarce resources in a globally competitive world to a false and ill-defined problem, while ignoring the real problems the entire planet faces, such as: poverty, hunger, disease or terrorism.

78) A proper analysis of ice core records from the past 650,000 years demonstrates that temperature increases have come before, and not resulted from, increases in CO2 by hundreds of years.

79) Since the cause of global warming is mostly natural, then there is in actual fact very little we can do about it. (We are still not able to control the sun).

80) A substantial number of the panel of 2,500 climate scientists on the United Nation’s International Panel on Climate Change, which created a statement on scientific unanimity on climate change and man-made global warming, were found to have serious concerns.

81) The UK’s Met Office has been forced this year to re-examine 160 years of temperature data after admitting that public confidence in the science on man-made global warming has been shattered by revelations about the data.

82) Politicians and activists push for renewable energy sources such as wind turbines under the rhetoric of climate change, but it is essentially about money – under the system of Renewable Obligations. Much of the money is paid for by consumers in electricity bills. It amounts to Â£1 billion a year.

83) The “Climate-gate” scandal revealed that a scientific team had tampered with their own data so as to conceal inconsistencies and errors.

84) The “Climate-gate” scandal revealed that a scientific team had campaigned for the removal of a learned journal’s editor, solely because he did not share their willingness to debase science for political purposes.

85) Ice-core data clearly show that temperatures change centuries before concentrations of atmospheric CO2 change. Thus, there appears to be little evidence for insisting that changes in concentrations of CO2 are the cause of past temperature and climate change.

86) There are no experimentally verified processes explaining how CO2 concentrations can fall in a few centuries without falling temperatures – in fact it is changing temperatures which cause changes in CO2 concentrations, which is consistent with experiments that show CO2 is the atmospheric gas most readily absorbed by water.

87) The Government’s Renewable Energy Strategy contains a massive increase in electricity generation by wind power costing around Â£4 billion a year over the next twenty years. The benefits will be only Â£4 to Â£5 billion overall (not per annum). So costs will outnumber benefits by a range of between eleven and seventeen times.

88) Whilst CO2 levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout history, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased since the beginning of the industrial revolution, and the growth rate has now been constant for the past 25 years.

89) It is a myth that CO2 is a pollutant, because nitrogen forms 80% of our atmosphere and human beings could not live in 100% nitrogen either: CO2 is no more a pollutant than nitrogen is and CO2 is essential to life.

90) Politicians and climate activists make claims to rising sea levels but certain members in the IPCC chose an area to measure in Hong Kong that is subsiding. They used the record reading of 2.3 mm per year rise of sea level.

91) The accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998.

92) If one factors in non-greenhouse influences such as El Nino events and large volcanic eruptions, lower atmosphere satellite-based temperature measurements show little, if any, global warming since 1979, a period over which atmospheric CO2 has increased by 55 ppm (17 per cent).

93) US President Barack Obama pledged to cut emissions by 2050 to equal those of 1910 when there were 92 million Americans. In 2050, there will be 420 million Americans, so Obama’s promise means that emissions per head will be approximately what they were in 1875. It simply will not happen.

94) The European Union has already agreed to cut emissions by 20 percent to 2020, compared with 1990 levels, and is willing to increase the target to 30 percent. However, these are unachievable and the EU has already massively failed with its Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), as EU emissions actually rose by 0.8 percent from 2005 to 2006 and are known to be well above the Kyoto goal.

95) Australia has stated it wants to slash greenhouse emissions by up to 25 percent below 2000 levels by 2020, but the pledges were so unpopular that the country’s Senate has voted against the carbon trading Bill, and the Opposition’s Party leader has now been ousted by a climate change sceptic.

96) Canada plans to reduce emissions by 20 percent compared with 2006 levels by 2020, representing approximately a 3 percent cut from 1990 levels but it simultaneously defends its Alberta tar sands emissions and its record as one of the world’s highest per-capita emissions setters.

97) India plans to reduce the ratio of emissions to production by 20-25 percent compared with 2005 levels by 2020, but all Government officials insist that since India has to grow for its development and poverty alleviation, it has to emit, because the economy is driven by carbon.

98) The Leipzig Declaration in 1996, was signed by 110 scientists who said: “We – along with many of our fellow citizens – are apprehensive about the climate treaty conference scheduled for Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997” and “based on all the evidence available to us, we cannot subscribe to the politically inspired world view that envisages climate catastrophes and calls for hasty actions.”

99) A US Oregon Petition Project stated “We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of CO2, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”

100) A report by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change concluded “We find no support for the IPCC’s claim that climate observations during the twentieth century are either unprecedented or provide evidence of an anthropogenic effect on climate.”
Click to expand...

maxrule · Dec 17, 2009

Climate-gate II

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gksje-ZDNk8]YouTube - Recorded Russian Temperature Fraud Exposed[/ame]

ciao stupido · Dec 17, 2009

Buddy Dink said:

It is almost like he is better... Believing something someone said on the TV like he has actually seen it!

The only difference is that we pay attention to the minority of intelligent people on the television instead of the crap they serve to the sheep.
Click to expand...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTN3s2iVKKI]YouTube - Network[/ame]

"Because the only Truth you know, is what you get over this tube. This tube is the Gospel, The Ultimate Revelation. This Tube, can make or break Presidents, Popes & Prime Ministers. This Tube, is the most awesome god damn force in this whole godless world. And Woe is Us, if it ever falls into the hands of the wrong people.

And When the 12th Largest Company in the World, controls the most awesome god damn Propaganda Force, in the whole godless world; Who Knows what Shit will be Painted for Truth on this Network."

Mist425 · Dec 17, 2009

I'm really surprised all of you are screaming 'It doesn't make SENSE! Why would the scientists manipulate their data! I mean, I just don't GET IT!!!'

What's not to understand? I mean, you could go off the deep end like some of the posters here and assume that this is indicative of some one-world-government + the pope theory to control the planet.... Or perhaps it's just that these scientists are more likely to get funding, more likely to get recognition, more likely to further their careers if they make their data appear all the more compelling. That sort of shit is unethical, but hardly difficult to understand.

Would it make sense that some of the more fear-inducing scenarios aren't too likely to happen (i.e "Manhattan will be underwater in 2020!!1!")? Sure. But does this mean that global warming is not occurring to some degree? Certainly not.

I'd be lying if I said that there aren't people who are going to benefit from a shift towards 'green' living... Producers of hybrid/electric cars, biofuels, solar panel companies, environmental engineering firms, etc. ; they're all going to receive a greater demand for their services. That's just the nature of economics. But to assume that climate change, in its absolute entirety, is a money-making hoax is, naive, stupid and to some extent, dangerous for future populations.

Do you guys see nothing valid about efforts to wean ourselves off fossil fuels while we have the opportunity to do so? I've read people like aaronman on here talk about 'oh, we need to wait for market forces to push for this shift; we need to let that change come 'naturally' '. The fact is, it takes time to build infrastructure that can support this sort of change. I mean, hypothetically, let's say that in 2035 we're still using mostly petrol-using automobiles and other machines, then in the course of half a year oil reserves start drying up in a severe way. What then? Sure, the market forces would be there; gas prices would be sky-high, but where's that alternative to fall back on? The technology would be rudimentary, we wouldn't have proper infrastructure in place, etc. In essence we'd be fucked.

Climate change legislation is not about Uncle Sam shoving a rifle up your ass every time you fill up your SUV, it's about providing gradual economic incentives to move our nation's (and the world's I suppose) energy into a more sustainable position.

210hustla · Dec 17, 2009

Mist425 said:

I'm really surprised all of you are screaming 'It doesn't make SENSE! Why would the scientists manipulate their data! I mean, I just don't GET IT!!!'

What's not to understand? I mean, you could go off the deep end like some of the posters here and assume that this is indicative of some one-world-government + the pope theory to control the planet.... Or perhaps it's just that these scientists are more likely to get funding, more likely to get recognition, more likely to further their careers if they make their data appear all the more compelling. That sort of shit is unethical, but hardly difficult to understand.

Would it make sense that some of the more fear-inducing scenarios aren't too likely to happen (i.e "Manhattan will be underwater in 2020!!1!")? Sure. But does this mean that global warming is not occurring to some degree? Certainly not.

I'd be lying if I said that there aren't people who are going to benefit from a shift towards 'green' living... Producers of hybrid/electric cars, biofuels, solar panel companies, environmental engineering firms, etc. ; they're all going to receive a greater demand for their services. That's just the nature of economics. But to assume that climate change, in its absolute entirety, is a money-making hoax is, naive, stupid and to some extent, dangerous for future populations.

Do you guys see nothing valid about efforts to wean ourselves off fossil fuels while we have the opportunity to do so? I've read people like aaronman on here talk about 'oh, we need to wait for market forces to push for this shift; we need to let that change come 'naturally' '. The fact is, it takes time to build infrastructure that can support this sort of change. I mean, hypothetically, let's say that in 2035 we're still using mostly petrol-using automobiles and other machines, then in the course of half a year oil reserves start drying up in a severe way. What then? Sure, the market forces would be there; gas prices would be sky-high, but where's that alternative to fall back on? The technology would be rudimentary, we wouldn't have proper infrastructure in place, etc. In essence we'd be fucked.

Climate change legislation is not about Uncle Sam shoving a rifle up your ass every time you fill up your SUV, it's about providing gradual economic incentives to move our nation's (and the world's I suppose) energy into a more sustainable position.
Click to expand...

rational thinking ftw.

Buddy Dink · Dec 18, 2009

Mist425 said:

I'm really surprised all of you are screaming 'It doesn't make SENSE! Why would the scientists manipulate their data! I mean, I just don't GET IT!!!'

What's not to understand? I mean, you could go off the deep end like some of the posters here and assume that this is indicative of some one-world-government + the pope theory to control the planet.... Or perhaps it's just that these scientists are more likely to get funding, more likely to get recognition, more likely to further their careers if they make their data appear all the more compelling. That sort of shit is unethical, but hardly difficult to understand.

Would it make sense that some of the more fear-inducing scenarios aren't too likely to happen (i.e "Manhattan will be underwater in 2020!!1!")? Sure. But does this mean that global warming is not occurring to some degree? Certainly not.

I'd be lying if I said that there aren't people who are going to benefit from a shift towards 'green' living... Producers of hybrid/electric cars, biofuels, solar panel companies, environmental engineering firms, etc. ; they're all going to receive a greater demand for their services. That's just the nature of economics. But to assume that climate change, in its absolute entirety, is a money-making hoax is, naive, stupid and to some extent, dangerous for future populations.

Do you guys see nothing valid about efforts to wean ourselves off fossil fuels while we have the opportunity to do so? I've read people like aaronman on here talk about 'oh, we need to wait for market forces to push for this shift; we need to let that change come 'naturally' '. The fact is, it takes time to build infrastructure that can support this sort of change. I mean, hypothetically, let's say that in 2035 we're still using mostly petrol-using automobiles and other machines, then in the course of half a year oil reserves start drying up in a severe way. What then? Sure, the market forces would be there; gas prices would be sky-high, but where's that alternative to fall back on? The technology would be rudimentary, we wouldn't have proper infrastructure in place, etc. In essence we'd be fucked.

Climate change legislation is not about Uncle Sam shoving a rifle up your ass every time you fill up your SUV, it's about providing gradual economic incentives to move our nation's (and the world's I suppose) energy into a more sustainable position.
Click to expand...

This is a good post and it is rational thought.

You supplied a reason for these scientists to manipulate their data beyond what I was thinking of, and a very good one.

All I am saying is that there is a reason for fudging data and people are scheming others out of money because of the policies this data has influenced. It *could* be part of a one-world-government plan, but the motivation for this isn't as clear as the money making motivation of selling lies and guilt.

maxrule · Dec 18, 2009

Mist425 said:

Climate change legislation is not about Uncle Sam shoving a rifle up your ass every time you fill up your SUV, it's about providing gradual economic incentives to move our nation's (and the world's I suppose) energy into a more sustainable position.
Click to expand...

Climate change legislation is about a trillion dollar gravy train, the undermining of capitalism and the bureaucratic control over every aspect of a human life as has been routinely demonstrated.

Why don't we reign in some debt and sustain the economy, huh.

Copenhagen con: how the socialists are making capitalists pay
Andrew Bolt
Thursday, December 17, 2009

First the Copenhagen summit gives Hugo Chavez a standing ovation for savaging capitalism. Then out comes the begging bowl, to be filled by those very same evil capitalists:

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton sought to put new life into flagging U.N. talks Thursday by announcing the U.S. would join others in raising $100 billion a year by 2020 to help poorer nations cope with global warming.

But no sooner have those billions been promised, than the anti-capitalists up the ask:

China and other developing countries say the target should be in the range of $350 billion.

Copenhagen con: how the socialists are making capitalists pay
Click to expand...

President Chavez brought the house down.

When he said the process in Copenhagen was “not democratic, it is not inclusive, but isn’t that the reality of our world, the world is really and imperial dictatorship…down with imperial dictatorships” he got a rousing round of applause.

When he said there was a “silent and terrible ghost in the room” and that ghost was called capitalism, the applause was deafening.
Click to expand...

Forums

Breaking: Even more hard proof that climate change is a hoax

maxrule keeper of the faith

maxrule keeper of the faith

Green Wizard Old Skool

Olesmoky Guest

YouSuckDude LifeLoveStress&Setbacks

maxrule keeper of the faith

maxrule keeper of the faith

maxrule keeper of the faith

ciao stupido Always K.I.P.

Mist425 Registered User

210hustla $$$$$

Buddy Dink Very Expensive

maxrule keeper of the faith

Share This Page

Network

Forums

Help

Find Us On

Useful Searches

Breaking: Even more hard proof that climate change is a hoax

maxrule keeper of the faith

maxrule keeper of the faith

Green Wizard Old Skool

Olesmoky Guest

YouSuckDude LifeLoveStress&Setbacks

maxrule keeper of the faith

maxrule keeper of the faith

maxrule keeper of the faith

ciao stupido Always K.I.P.

Mist425 Registered User

210hustla $$$$$

Buddy Dink Very Expensive

maxrule keeper of the faith

Share This Page