522,002 active members*
2,570 visitors online*
Register for free
Login
Page 2 of 2 12
Results 26 to 47 of 47
  1. #26
    There is another test that can be added to TomB's list: Ask an AGW proponent to list 3 good things resulting from a warming earth.

    Virtually every imaginable change has trade-offs; any list of disadvantages is offset by a list of advantages. It's the balance between these sides that determines if a change is beneficial or harmful. AGW is the only theory I can think of that is devoid of a benefits list. This is unheard of in scientific debate but quite common for ideas in the political arena.

    If you ask an AGW proponent and he won't acknowledge a warmer earth has some benefits, you know you will be engaging in a political debate. Scientific arguments will be ignored or ridiculed even while the proponent insists it's about science. The result of the test indicates to treat what ensues as a political debate, there will be no give and take fairness you expect from a scientific discussion.

  2. #27
    Gold Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    3206

    ACGW...or...Anthropogenic City Global Warming

    Wednesday 13 October 2010

    MEDIA RELEASE

    Hot cities

    "If you thought our cities are getting warmer, you're right.

    Bureau of Meteorology researchers have found that daytime temperatures in our cities are warming more rapidly than those of the surrounding countryside and that this is due to the cities themselves.

    Bureau climate scientist, Belinda Campbell, said "we've known for a while that city night time temperatures have been warmer because the heat's retained after sunset just that much longer than the countryside, and that city daytime temperatures have been warming too."

    "But what we didn't know was whether city day time temperatures were also warmer because of the urbanisation or whether it was due to the overall warming of the planet associated with the enhanced greenhouse effect."

    "We can now confidently say that the reason our cities are warmer and warming faster than the surrounding countryside during the day is because of the urbanisation, the fact that all those offices, houses and factories absorb the heat and retain it a little bit longer," Ms Campbell said."

    Hot cities - Bureau of Meteorology

    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpre...pg?w=452&h=306

  3. #28
    Registered
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    45

    warming????????

    And more stuff to digest...

    Global Warming Science and Public Policy - 35 Inconvenient Truths The errors in Al Gore’s movie.mht

    And this came out last week...

    US physics professor: 'Global warming is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life'

    By James Delingpole Politics Last updated: October 9th, 2010


    Newton: "Fie on you, Hansen, Mann, Jones et al! You are not worthy of the name scientists! May the pox consume your shrivelled peterkins!"
    Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara. Here is his letter of resignation to Curtis G. Callan Jr, Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society.
    Anthony Watts describes it thus:

    This is an important moment in science history. I would describe it as a letter on the scale of Martin Luther, nailing his 95 theses to the Wittenburg church door. It is worthy of repeating this letter in entirety on every blog that discusses science.
    It’s so utterly damning that I’m going to run it in full without further comment. (H/T GWPF, Richard Brearley).


    Dear Curt:
    When I first joined the American Physical Society sixty-seven years ago it was much smaller, much gentler, and as yet uncorrupted by the money flood (a threat against which Dwight Eisenhower warned a half-century ago). Indeed, the choice of physics as a profession was then a guarantor of a life of poverty and abstinence—it was World War II that changed all that. The prospect of worldly gain drove few physicists. As recently as thirty-five years ago, when I chaired the first APS study of a contentious social/scientific issue, The Reactor Safety Study, though there were zealots aplenty on the outside there was no hint of inordinate pressure on us as physicists. We were therefore able to produce what I believe was and is an honest appraisal of the situation at that time. We were further enabled by the presence of an oversight committee consisting of Pief Panofsky, Vicki Weisskopf, and Hans Bethe, all towering physicists beyond reproach. I was proud of what we did in a charged atmosphere. In the end the oversight committee, in its report to the APS President, noted the complete independence in which we did the job, and predicted that the report would be attacked from both sides. What greater tribute could there be?
    How different it is now. The giants no longer walk the earth, and the money flood has become the raison d’être of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs. For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.
    It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.
    So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it. For example:
    1. About a year ago a few of us sent an e-mail on the subject to a fraction of the membership. APS ignored the issues, but the then President immediately launched a hostile investigation of where we got the e-mail addresses. In its better days, APS used to encourage discussion of important issues, and indeed the Constitution cites that as its principal purpose. No more. Everything that has been done in the last year has been designed to silence debate
    2. The appallingly tendentious APS statement on Climate Change was apparently written in a hurry by a few people over lunch, and is certainly not representative of the talents of APS members as I have long known them. So a few of us petitioned the Council to reconsider it. One of the outstanding marks of (in)distinction in the Statement was the poison word incontrovertible, which describes few items in physics, certainly not this one. In response APS appointed a secret committee that never met, never troubled to speak to any skeptics, yet endorsed the Statement in its entirety. (They did admit that the tone was a bit strong, but amazingly kept the poison word incontrovertible to describe the evidence, a position supported by no one.) In the end, the Council kept the original statement, word for word, but approved a far longer “explanatory” screed, admitting that there were uncertainties, but brushing them aside to give blanket approval to the original. The original Statement, which still stands as the APS position, also contains what I consider pompous and asinine advice to all world governments, as if the APS were master of the universe. It is not, and I am embarrassed that our leaders seem to think it is. This is not fun and games, these are serious matters involving vast fractions of our national substance, and the reputation of the Society as a scientific society is at stake.
    3. In the interim the ClimateGate scandal broke into the news, and the machinations of the principal alarmists were revealed to the world. It was a fraud on a scale I have never seen, and I lack the words to describe its enormity. Effect on the APS position: none. None at all. This is not science; other forces are at work.
    4. So a few of us tried to bring science into the act (that is, after all, the alleged and historic purpose of APS), and collected the necessary 200+ signatures to bring to the Council a proposal for a Topical Group on Climate Science, thinking that open discussion of the scientific issues, in the best tradition of physics, would be beneficial to all, and also a contribution to the nation. I might note that it was not easy to collect the signatures, since you denied us the use of the APS membership list. We conformed in every way with the requirements of the APS Constitution, and described in great detail what we had in mind—simply to bring the subject into the open.<
    5. To our amazement, Constitution be damned, you declined to accept our petition, but instead used your own control of the mailing list to run a poll on the members’ interest in a TG on Climate and the Environment. You did ask the members if they would sign a petition to form a TG on your yet-to-be-defined subject, but provided no petition, and got lots of affirmative responses. (If you had asked about sex you would have gotten more expressions of interest.) There was of course no such petition or proposal, and you have now dropped the Environment part, so the whole matter is moot. (Any lawyer will tell you that you cannot collect signatures on a vague petition, and then fill in whatever you like.) The entire purpose of this exercise was to avoid your constitutional responsibility to take our petition to the Council.
    6. As of now you have formed still another secret and stacked committee to organize your own TG, simply ignoring our lawful petition.
    APS management has gamed the problem from the beginning, to suppress serious conversation about the merits of the climate change claims. Do you wonder that I have lost confidence in the organization?
    I do feel the need to add one note, and this is conjecture, since it is always risky to discuss other people’s motives. This scheming at APS HQ is so bizarre that there cannot be a simple explanation for it. Some have held that the physicists of today are not as smart as they used to be, but I don’t think that is an issue. I think it is the money, exactly what Eisenhower warned about a half-century ago. There are indeed trillions of dollars involved, to say nothing of the fame and glory (and frequent trips to exotic islands) that go with being a member of the club. Your own Physics Department (of which you are chairman) would lose millions a year if the global warming bubble burst. When Penn State absolved Mike Mann of wrongdoing, and the University of East Anglia did the same for Phil Jones, they cannot have been unaware of the financial penalty for doing otherwise. As the old saying goes, you don’t have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing. Since I am no philosopher, I’m not going to explore at just which point enlightened self-interest crosses the line into corruption, but a careful reading of the ClimateGate releases makes it clear that this is not an academic question.
    I want no part of it, so please accept my resignation. APS no longer represents me, but I hope we are still friends.
    Hal
    Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, former Chairman; Former member Defense Science Board, chmn of Technology panel; Chairman DSB study on Nuclear Winter; Former member Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Former member, President’s Nuclear Safety Oversight Committee; Chairman APS study on Nuclear Reactor Safety
    Chairman Risk Assessment Review Group; Co-founder and former Chairman of JASON; Former member USAF Scientific Advisory Board; Served in US Navy in WW II; books: Technological Risk (about, surprise, technological risk) and Why Flip a Coin (about decision making)

  4. #29
    Gold Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    3206

    Unstoppable..Till the Butane Runs Out...

    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpre...nt_lighter.jpg

    Yes, this is essentially what the AGW crowd is doing. We have the proof.

  5. #30
    Gold Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    2010
    They have gone a bit farther into the looney bin!!

    FoxNews.com - &#39;We Are Destroying Life on Earth,&#39; UN Conference Claims

    'We Are Destroying Life on Earth,' UN Conference Claims

    Published October 18, 2010

    A U.N. biodiversity conference aims to address a simple problem: "We are destroying life on Earth," said the head of the U.N. Environment Program.

    The world cannot afford to allow nature's riches to disappear, the United Nations said on Monday at the start of a major meeting to combat losses in animal and plant species that underpin livelihoods and economies. The U.N. cited the worst extinction rate since the dinosaurs vanished 65 million years ago, saying it's a crisis that needs to be addressed by governments, businesses and communities.

    A U.N.-backed study this month said global environmental damage caused by human activity in 2008 totaled $6.6 trillion, equivalent to 11 percent of global gross domestic product.

    Despite the U.N.'s fear that biodiversity may be at risk, scientists over the past decade have identified new species at an unprecedented rate. The 2008 World Wildlife Fund (WWF) study First Contact in the Greater Mekong reported that 1,068 species were discovered or newly identified by science between 1997 and 2007 -- averaging two new species a week. And the Census of Marine Life -- an ambitious, 10-year project to catalog the diversity of the world's oceans -- recently concluded, having identified more than 6,000 potentially new ocean-going species.

    Scientists have a growing understanding of the wealth of life on Earth, and the conference argues that our diversity is being threatened. The two-week U.N. meeting faces an uphill battle as it tries to institute sweeping steps to protect and restore ecosystems such as forests, rivers, coral reefs and the oceans that are vital for an ever-growing human population. Issues of funding will be a key problem delegates will need to iron out -- both who pays for the program and who reaps the rewards of the world's biodiversity.

    Delegates from nearly 200 countries are being asked to agree to new 2020 targets after governments largely failed to meet a 2010 target of achieving a significant reduction in biological diversity losses, a goal set at the last biodiversity conference in 2002. And one of the same issues that led to failure the first time around could jeopardize this meeting: money.

    Developing nations say more funding is needed from developed countries to share the effort in saving nature. Much of the world's remaining biological diversity is in developing nations such as Brazil, Indonesia and in central Africa.

    "Especially for countries with their economies in transition, we need to be sure where the (financial) resources are," Eng. B.T. Baya, director-general of Tanzania's National Environment Management Council, told Reuters.

    "It's not helping us if you set a lot of strategic targets and there is no ability or resources to implement them," Baya said. Poorer nations want funding to protect species and ecosystems to be ramped up 100-fold from about $3 billion now.

    "What the world most wants from Nagoya are the agreements that will stop the continuing dramatic loss in the world's living wealth and the continuing erosion of our life-support systems," said Jim Leape, WWF International director-general.

    One of the issues certain to prove contentious: The WWF and Greenpeace called for nations to set aside large areas of linked land and ocean reserves.

    "If our planet is to sustain life on Earth in the future and be rescued from the brink of environmental destruction, we need action by governments to protect our oceans and forests and to halt biodiversity loss," said Nathalie Rey, Greenpeace International oceans policy adviser.

    Another area of contention: how to deal with the economic benefits of biodiversity, notably the success of big pharmaceutical companies. The conference will try to set rules on how and when companies and researchers can use genes from plants or animals that originate in countries mainly in the developing world.

    Developing nations want a fairer deal in sharing the wealth of their ecosystems and back the draft treaty, or "access and benefit-sharing" (ABS) protocol. For poorer nations, the protocol could unlock billions of dollars -- but some drug makers are wary of extra costs, squeezing investment for research while complicating procedures such as applications for patents.

    Conservation groups say failure to agree on the ABS pact could derail the talks in Nagoya, including agreement on the 2020 target that would also set goals to protect fish stocks and phase out incentives harmful to biodiversity.

    Japan, chair of the meeting, said agreement on an ambitious and practical 2020 target was key.

    "We are nearing a tipping point, or the point of no return for biodiversity loss," Japanese Environment Minister Ryu Matsumoto told the meeting.

    "Unless proactive steps are taken for biodiversity, there is a risk that we will surpass that point in the next 10 years."

    Reuters contributed to this report.
    “ In questions of power, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.” Thomas Jefferson

  6. #31
    Gold Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    6437
    Huh!.... Humanoid consideration for other species is at the very least merely a design to ensure that there are enough steak producers to ensure the Humanoids survive from cradle to grave without having to chase it and gnaw it to death.

    That the present cartload of species is experiencing a rather large turnover is a worrying fact for the Humanoid predators, but only because eventually via KFC, Mc D and co the present swag of species will go the way of all flesh and that means the Humanoids will also go, to be replaced by another species that, probably not so book savvy, will be able to at least co exist with their environment without having to herd all species agreeable to them in an enclosure to be harvested occasionally.

    It is a fact that if'n a cataclysmic occurance wiped out ALL present living species, then by the time the flora regenerated and repopulated the landscape, a whole new life generation would emerge to browse feed and pro-create, just as it always has been in the past, the only difference would be that the Humanoids wouldn't be part of that picture......who cares.....AGW lovers heart your heart out....the World would just go on turning until the Moon had drifted far enough away to eventually have no influence on the Earth's core or tidal system and so another chapter in life forming and reforming would close without even a footnote in a grubby book, and that verily is truly an inconvenient truth.
    Ian.

  7. #32
    Registered
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    3

    Re: Global Warming: Unstoppable

    There are alot of ignorant people here. Proof is in the picture and facts offered by scientist. www.c02now.org shows co2 levels on a constant rise. I dreaded the day it passed 400 ppm co2.

    United States Drought Monitor > Home shows the drought of the west coast. Prior to the tropical storm that headed into Texas, it looked alot like the west coast and was in tough shape. 2-3 years before that, Georgia was in very rough shape. Some cities were resorting to digging up pipes to stop the leaks.

  8. #33
    Gold Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    6437

    Re: Global Warming: Unstoppable

    I think you missed the interpretation.........nothing lasts forever, there is no Heaven or Hell, and eventually you also will become just a pile of rotting matter that has to be buried to prevent offending the others around you.

    Resources are finite if you treat them as infinite.

  9. #34

    Re: Global Warming: Unstoppable

    US scientist said that warming of oceans due to climate change is unstoppable, Seas will continue to warm for centuries even if manmade greenhouse gas emissions were frozen at today’s levels, say US government scientists.The warming of the oceans due to climate change is now unstoppable after record temperatures last year, bringing additional sea-level rise, and raising the risks of severe storms.Global sea-level also reached a record high, with the expansion of those warming waters, keeping pace with the 3.2 ± 0.4 mm per year trend in sea level growth over the past two decades.



    _______________________________________

  10. #35
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    477

    Re: Global Warming: Unstoppable

    the average depth of the oceans is 12,000 feet.

    i can't recall, but lets assume the average rainfall over the entire earth is 3 feet per year.

    if all the rain water entering the ocean fell into the ocean 10 degrees celcius warmer than it usually does, how long would it take for the oceans to rise 1 degree Celsius? this isn't hard to answer..

    and if the ocean rose 1 degree Celsius, how much would it rise? well we can argue the details but for the moment, a good estimate might be ... 2 feet.

    from 20 to 21 Celsius, 12,000 gallons of water will expand.. 2 gallons. we know that the ocean is not square, so with the appropriate knowledge we might be able to say exactly, 1.5 feet, or 1 foot increase per degree Celsius temperature increase of the ocean, between 20 and 21C. water of course is non linear.


    also, another thought experiment for you. tell me how long it will take sunlight, at 100 watts per square meter, heat the entire volume of the ocean up 1 degree Celsius.

    if the average depth is 12,000 feet, call it 4000 meters, that's 4000 cubic meters of water for every square meter exposed to sunlight. so, say we have an extra 100 watts of heat available (24/7/365), we can say it will take 5.2 years to heat the ocean up 1 degree Celsius. (assuming the ocean is rectangular cross section)

    except in real life we might be arguing 1 watt per square meter differences, not 100. so, figure 500 years per 2 feet ocean level rise due to the ocean warming up due to an extra 1 watt of heat per square meter.


    3.2 mm per year is about 1 foot per 100 years. this is about 10 times faster than is possible unless ice is melting..

    which it may not be. check back in a few dozen years...

  11. #36
    Registered
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    36

    Re: Global Warming: Unstoppable

    Eldon- for perspective put seas rising in perspective- https://www.fws.gov/slamm/Changes%20...n_template.pdf
    Just to summarize, after the last glacial maximum sea level started to rise, about 20m in 4500 years- about .5mm/yr, then there was a burst of about 35m in 800 years- about 4.5mm/yr, in the last 6500 years it rose another 105m- 1.1mm/yr, and 5meters in the last 6500 yrs, a logarithmic curve going down essentially to zero.

    The 3.2mm/yr figure is from NOAA, derived from satellite measurements and guesses about global isotactic adjustment. the figure is useless without some error estimate which is hard to dig up. Judging from several graphs the measurement error is on the order +/-3mm/yr. Longstanding tide guages in stable geographic areas give measurements from about .5mm-1.5mm/year. Even if it really is 3.2mm/yr(quite unlikely) it's only for ten years, which makes it a short term trend too short to be reliable.

    Thought experiments are fun but not much use except to make order of magnitude guesses- a rule of thumb, which is just as useful.

  12. #37
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    162

    Re: Global Warming: Unstoppable

    I think your missing the real point of the problem its not so much the rise of the Ocean but the loss of coral's due to temp and acidity levels which in turn will see the loss of massive fish stocks and then we will have a unrecoverable situation end of story.

  13. #38
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    477

    Re: Global Warming: Unstoppable

    Quote Originally Posted by phil c View Post
    Eldon- for perspective put seas rising in perspective- https://www.fws.gov/slamm/Changes%20...n_template.pdf
    Just to summarize, after the last glacial maximum sea level started to rise, about 20m in 4500 years- about .5mm/yr, then there was a burst of about 35m in 800 years- about 4.5mm/yr, in the last 6500 years it rose another 105m- 1.1mm/yr, and 5meters in the last 6500 yrs, a logarithmic curve going down essentially to zero.

    The 3.2mm/yr figure is from NOAA, derived from satellite measurements and guesses about global isotactic adjustment. the figure is useless without some error estimate which is hard to dig up. Judging from several graphs the measurement error is on the order +/-3mm/yr.

    Thought experiments are fun but not much use except to make order of magnitude guesses- a rule of thumb, which is just as useful.
    well so my guess is about what they predict will happen by the end of 2100. granted much of their estimate is melting sea ice.
    you can calculate how much heat will be required to melt all that ice.. its a lot.

    so, we have allegedly had bursts of rising waters at the rate of 4.5mm/yr. this is a lot more heat, a lot more melted ice than what we can estimate will happen given reasonable conditions. was there 5000ppm co2 in the atmosphere during that time?

    and as you acknowledge, their admitted error rates are significant. what about the errors that are only found after the emails are leaked?

  14. #39
    Registered
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    36

    Re: Global Warming: Unstoppable

    Quote Originally Posted by squirrel_41 View Post
    I think your missing the real point of the problem its not so much the rise of the Ocean but the loss of coral's due to temp and acidity levels which in turn will see the loss of massive fish stocks and then we will have a unrecoverable situation end of story.
    The point is, keep up to date on the latest research. There have been any number of papers published showing that corals evolved in an environment of constantly changing sea levels, temperatures, and CO2 levels, that they experience the same range of conditions today, and recover quickly(in coral terms 5-10 years) by either establishing at a new sea level or repopulating with new polyps and algae in different places. Several of the scare stories about the Great Barrier Reef bleaching, which had been in the same location for several million years, have been shown to be premature when the coral recovered in a couple of years by taking on new symbionts adapted to the new conditions, changing the conditions themselves(they do this fairly regularly), or simply repopulating a temporarily empty reef.

    Loss of fishing stocks and damage has been caused by over-fishing, poor equipment(drag seines) and and throwing away half or more of the catch and other practices already on a massive scale. There's very little evidence that changes in ocean temperatures, CO2, or other natural changes have caused any problems. Again, fish have genes going back to 4000ppm of CO2 and either move or adapt. They already do this, changing depth, location often twice a day or more. But over fishing is a good example of human behavior causing changes simply by being dumb. About 10 years ago the lobstermen around Maine overfished the area and ended up voluntarily restricting catches of the critical breeding age lobsters for some 5 years, allowing them to repopulate. Over fishing and damage to the local environment can be controlled, and not necessarily by government agreements.

  15. #40
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    162

    Re: Global Warming: Unstoppable

    So all the scientist that were involved the latest Doco series "Years of Living Dangerously" have no idea what there talking about
    Ask the scientist about the recovery rate of the lost Coral on the Great Barrier Reef there isn't any it turn's to dust

    With growth rates of 0.3 to 2 centimeters per year for massive corals, and up to 10 centimeters per year for branching corals, it can take up to 10,000 years for a coral reef to form from a group of larvae (Barnes, 1987).

  16. #41
    Gold Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    6437

    Re: Global Warming: Unstoppable

    Quote Originally Posted by squirrel_41 View Post
    So all the scientist that were involved the latest Doco series "Years of Living Dangerously" have no idea what there talking about
    Ask the scientist about the recovery rate of the lost Coral on the Great Barrier Reef there isn't any it turn's to dust

    With growth rates of 0.3 to 2 centimeters per year for massive corals, and up to 10 centimeters per year for branching corals, it can take up to 10,000 years for a coral reef to form from a group of larvae (Barnes, 1987).
    Huh........what you are missing is the fact that the mankind species is a spent force and will die out long before any coral reef is completely obliterated.......then it will be regenerated by the living remnants that likes living in sea water and without mankind to make it's day bad........what's several hundred million years to a life form that was here before the dinosaurs and will never be at the mercy of advanced technology ever again......even nuclear waste becomes inactive in that time.

  17. #42

    Re: Global Warming: Unstoppable

    University teaching and organizational development consulting.

  18. #43

    Re: Global Warming: Unstoppable

    By decreasing your dependence on energy!
    1. Cycle instead of using a car!
    2. Using Public transport instead of Private for long distances. Car-pooling is preferred if no public transport is possible.
    3. Using LED bulbs over CFLs over conventional Tungsten Filament bulbs. Do buy efficient appliances if your country has a marking system. (More efficiency of the appliance means less power consumed for same performance. India has a out-of-five star efficiency rating! )
    4. Using solar power in home. You can install them yourself!
    5. Green Architecture provides for homes that are least reliant on air conditioning throughout the air.

  19. #44
    Gold Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    6437

    Re: Global Warming: Unstoppable

    Just can/t wait to get back to the stone age........no more having to work for a living.

  20. #45
    Registered
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    71

    Re: Global Warming: Unstoppable

    Hullo stop being as Karl Marx once said a "Useful Idiot" this whole climate change scam is all about the Money ie Wealth redistribution.
    Namely take money from poor people in rich nations and give it to rich people in poor nations, The whole UN climate scam was first exposed in Copenhagen COP 17 from memory where in the actual papers the UN admitted the money from the climate change scam will be used to fund the bureaucracy for their idea of the UN being the World Government.

    Ever wondered why or do you even know that the UN officials as well as any aligned to the UN- N.G.O groups are all exempt from Criminal Prosecution in any Member Nation, Why are they above the law when it comes to prosecution for criminal activity such as the Crime of Fraud the whole climate scam just happens to be that should make you think.

    https://anhonestclimatedebate.wordpr...rmism-timelin/

    Then look up IETA the International Emissions Trading Association and check out the members all big Multinationals best known for Tax avoidance many exposed by ICIJ.Org the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists in Offfshore leaks and lately the Paradise papers.

    These people literally put their lives on the line exposing the criminals be they Big business, Politicians the UN the World bank etc if fact one of theirs was recently murdered in Italy a search will prove that to be the case.

    Of course have a look at this link about historical reporting on the earths temperature even over the last roughly 120 years we have had alarmists tell us New Ice age followed a quarter century later by We will all burn to death followed in the late sixties early seventies with yet another Ice age scare followed by the latest we are going to burn again as it gets too hot.

    Oh by the way Friends who work for a living on Australia's Great Barrier reef know it is in fine condition the reports are all Climate Alarmist Lies in fact one of the Photos used in Scientific American to show the Great barrier Reef was dying from Climate change if you are smart enough to know about EXIF Data the data attached to all digital photos showed the photo showed damage to a reef in the Philippines after a particularly bad Typhoon not the Great Barrier Reef as they purported it to be.

    So much for the Climate Change scam being as it is man made, By the way you can look up the Copenhagen papers and read for yourself it is all about funding the UN's World Government plan on their site in their own words do a search

  21. #46
    Gold Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    6437

    Re: Global Warming: Unstoppable

    LOL.....jolly good show what.......when you come to realise that Man is just another blot on the landscape and steeped with self importance, it's a comforting thought to know that his (Man's) existence is going to be of a very short term so all the damage will soon be undone.

    Then the next species that becomes dominant will rule for a while until they also succumb to environmental changes of which they know nothing.

    Eventually the Earth will be swallowed up by the Sun and we'll all go to Heaven in a hand cart.......only the very good and pious ones that is, the rest can go to Hell.

    The synopsis is that nothing lasts forever.

  22. #47
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Posts
    1

    Re: Global Warming: Unstoppable

    'We Are Destroying Life on Earth,' UN Conference Claims

    Published October 18, 2010

    A U.N. biodiversity conference aims to address a simple problem: "We are destroying life on Earth," said the head of the U.N. Environment Program.

    The world cannot afford to allow nature's riches to disappear, the United Nations said on Monday at the start of a major meeting to combat losses in animal and plant species that underpin livelihoods and economies. The U.N. cited the worst extinction rate since the dinosaurs vanished 65 million years ago, saying it's a crisis that needs to be addressed by governments, businesses and communities.

Page 2 of 2 12

Similar Threads

  1. Global Warming Poll
    By Zumba in forum Environmental / Alternate Energy
    Replies: 409
    Last Post: 12-24-2019, 07:56 AM
  2. Its all very well to talk about global warming, but....
    By ynneb in forum Environmental / Alternate Energy
    Replies: 318
    Last Post: 04-17-2013, 02:17 PM
  3. What it will really take to stop global warming???
    By Geof in forum Environmental / Alternate Energy
    Replies: 88
    Last Post: 12-16-2009, 02:43 AM
  4. Global Warming or Global Governance
    By TMaster in forum Environmental / Alternate Energy
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 03-18-2008, 03:35 PM
  5. Global Warming a positive spin
    By Shotout in forum Environmental / Alternate Energy
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 07-04-2007, 05:56 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •