Xtra News Community 2
July 11, 2020, 07:33:43 pm
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Welcome to Xtra News Community 2 — please also join our XNC2-BACKUP-GROUP.
 
  Home Help Arcade Gallery Links BITEBACK! XNC2-BACKUP-GROUP Staff List Login Register  

Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”


Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 55   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Some reading for the “anti-warmalists” and “climate-change deniers”  (Read 18025 times)
Im2Sexy4MyPants
Absolutely Fabulously Incredibly Shit-Hot Member
*
Posts: 8266



WWW
« Reply #100 on: December 07, 2009, 08:48:00 pm »

Greenpeace Leader Admits Organization Put Out Fake Global Warming Data

Greenpeace leader Gerd Leipold has been forced to admit that his organization issued misleading and exaggerated information when it claimed that Arctic ice would disappear completely by 2030, in a crushing blow for the man-made global warming movement.
In an interview with the BBC’s Stephen Sackur on the “Hardtalk” program, Leipold initially attempted to evade the question but was ultimately forced to admit that Greenpeace had made a “mistake” when it said Arctic ice would disappear completely in 20 years.
The claim stems from a July 15 Greenpeace press release entitled “Urgent Action Needed As Arctic Ice Melts,” in which it is stated that global warming will lead to an ice-free Arctic by 2030.
Sackur accused Leipold and Greenpeace of releasing “misleading information” based on “exaggeration and alarmism,” pointing out that it was “preposterous” to claim that the Greenland ice sheet, a mass of 1.6 million square kilometers with a thickness of 3 km in the middle that has survived much warmer periods in history, would completely melt when it had stood firm for hundreds of thousands of years.
“There is no way that ice sheet is going to disappear,” said Sackur.
“I don’t think it will be melting by 2030. … That may have been a mistake,” Leipold was eventually forced to admit.
However, Leipold made no apologies for Greenpeace’s tactic of “emotionalizing issues” as a means of trying to get the public to accept its stance on global warming.


He also argued that economic growth in the United States and around the world should be suppressed and that overpopulation and high standards of living should be combated because of the perceived damage they were doing to the environment, eugenicist rhetoric which will be familiar to our readers and anyone who has watched Alex Jones’ Endgame documentary.
As the Watts Up With That blog highlights, “Leipold’s admission that Greenpeace issued misleading information is a major embarrassment to the organization, which often has been accused of alarmism but has always insisted that it applies full scientific rigor in its global-warming pronouncements.”
Similar claims that the north pole will be “ice free” crop up almost every summer yet are routinely disproved.
Indeed, it was discovered that during August 2007 to August 2008, Arctic ice had in fact grown by around 30 per cent, an area equivalent to the size of Germany.
A new peer reviewed study has also discovered, “Total annual precipitation in Greenland ice sheet for 1958-2007 to be up to 24% and surface mass balance up to 63% higher than previously thought.”
As we reported last year, climate scientists allied with the UN IPCC were also caught citing fake data to make the case that global warming is accelerating, in another shocking example of mass public deception.
In November 2008, NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), run by Al Gore’s chief scientific ally, Dr James Hansen, announced that the previous month had been the hottest October on record. It later emerged that the data produced by NASA to make the claim, and in particular temperature records covering large areas of Russia, was merely carried over from the previous month. NASA had used temperature records from the naturally hotter month of September and claimed they represented temperature figures in October.
Watch a clip from the Sackur- Leipold interview below.

 
Report Spam   Logged

Are you sick of the bullshit from the sewer stream media spewed out from the usual Ken and Barby dickless talking point look a likes.

If you want to know what's going on in the real world...
And the many things that will personally effect you.
Go to
http://www.infowars.com/

AND WAKE THE F_ _K UP
DazzaMc
Don't give me Karma!
Admin Staff
Absolutely Fabulously Incredibly Shit-Hot Member
*
Posts: 5553


« Reply #101 on: December 07, 2009, 08:58:24 pm »

I - for one - am ignoring.

It's a waste of time even talking about this subject with some members in here. When their reasons become personal and they have no scientific support AT ALL to their view in what is solely a scientific arena - then it's just blar blar blar...


Lucky for us we have those non experts like the stream media and politicians they are happy to come to our aid and save us all from our future doom and destruction.

The above quote sums it up actually - the skeptics are more concerned about their personal well-being than the well-being of ALL life on planet earth and the human race as a whole.

IMO - that's incredibly selfish.

That's a big downer on you skeptic lot. Major browny point loss...

I'm ashamed I'm a member of the same race as yourself to be honest.
I find it absolutely and utterly inhumane.

« Last Edit: December 07, 2009, 09:06:12 pm by DazzaMc » Report Spam   Logged

Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
DazzaMc
Don't give me Karma!
Admin Staff
Absolutely Fabulously Incredibly Shit-Hot Member
*
Posts: 5553


« Reply #102 on: December 07, 2009, 08:59:13 pm »

Could this thread be on it's way to beating roger?

 Grin
Report Spam   Logged

Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
DazzaMc
Don't give me Karma!
Admin Staff
Absolutely Fabulously Incredibly Shit-Hot Member
*
Posts: 5553


« Reply #103 on: December 07, 2009, 09:05:20 pm »

Off to bed Sexy...  if you post something worth while then I might respond tomorrow.... if it's just blar blar blat thou - expect nothing in return.

 Wink
Report Spam   Logged

Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
Im2Sexy4MyPants
Absolutely Fabulously Incredibly Shit-Hot Member
*
Posts: 8266



WWW
« Reply #104 on: December 07, 2009, 10:33:16 pm »

The globalist warming scum want to make us feel guilty for drinking our water using power, eating food, breathing, and even farting Grin
They are saying humans are a parasite and a pox on the planet. And you GW religion people buy into all this boggy man scare mongering nature worshiping bullshit,And your even willing to pay your hard earned money to try and stop nature in it tracks;

Trying To Stop Nature In Its Tracks Good Luck With That baaa haha

The earth is a big planet it will survive,The reason it will survive is because its been through much worse changes in its past history. If humans are all dead and gone tomorrow thats just too bad, but at least it might make the greens happy.

« Last Edit: December 07, 2009, 10:44:26 pm by Im2Sexy4MyPants » Report Spam   Logged

Are you sick of the bullshit from the sewer stream media spewed out from the usual Ken and Barby dickless talking point look a likes.

If you want to know what's going on in the real world...
And the many things that will personally effect you.
Go to
http://www.infowars.com/

AND WAKE THE F_ _K UP
Im2Sexy4MyPants
Absolutely Fabulously Incredibly Shit-Hot Member
*
Posts: 8266



WWW
« Reply #105 on: December 07, 2009, 10:39:45 pm »


Co2 Don't plants just thrive on that stuff
Plants need more CO2, not less
By: H. Leighton Steward
OpEd Contributor
November 4, 2009
Congress and federal regulators are poised to make a misguided and reckless decision that will stifle our economy recovery and spur long-term damage to plant and animal life on earth.
 
In the coming months, the Environmental Protection Agency will hold hearings to justify the movement to brand carbon dioxide (CO2) as a pollutant. Congress will also consider cap-and-trade legislation that, if enacted, could also regulate CO2 as pollution.
 
Why is it such a catastrophic decision? Because there is not a single piece of evidence that CO2 is a pollutant. In fact, lower levels of carbon dioxide actually inhibit plant growth and food production. What we see happening in Washington right now is the replacement of politics for science in conversations about CO2.
 
For plants, CO2 is the greatest, naturally occurring air-borne fertilizer that exists. Even schoolchildren learn in elementary science class that plants need carbon dioxide to grow. During photosynthesis, plants use this CO2 fertilizer as their food and they “breathe out” oxygen into the air so humans can inhale it, and in turn exhale CO2. This mutually beneficial and reinforcing cycle is one of the most basic elements of life on earth.
 
An article appeared recently in the Environment and Energy Daily that claimed a “modeled” nitrogen deficiency will occur as CO2 rises. Well, CO2 has already risen over 37%, 105 parts per million, and where is the real world nitrogen deficiency?
 
Why are Earth’s forests lush if the added growth that has already occurred, due to big bursts of CO2, has depleted the nitrogen supply? The nitrogen supply of pristine ecosystems has been resupplied through natural processes for eons.
 
Computer models, manipulated to produce desired results, can generate catastrophic, front page, forecasts. We encourage our government’s scientists to step back from their models and observe what is and what has happened in the real world, as well as in actual plant experiments. Doesn’t anyone recognize the good news that is staring them in the face?
 
It simply defies imagination, let alone science, that the United Nations has now backed an arbitrary limit on atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. The chairman of the politically charged Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said he supports efforts to reduce carbon dioxide to 10% below current levels.
 
In the context of today’s political conversations, this recommendation may sound like an acceptable position to save the environment. But the scientific reality of such a step is quite the opposite. Lowering carbon dioxide in our atmosphere will have catastrophic affects on our food supply.
 
Higher concentrations of carbon dioxide support plant life and helps plants thrive. If our food supply is reduced, the hunger crisis in many parts of the world will worsen. Not only would lowering CO2 levels be wrong, one can make the argument that even higher levels would be desirable. Greenhouse operators routinely increase CO2 to about three times the current level in earth’s atmosphere in order to encourage plant growth.
 
We know CO2 is vital for plants, but what about the argument that it is a dominant contributor to the greenhouse effect? Again, science does not support this argument. CO2 is not even close to being the most important of the greenhouse gases. Most of the greenhouse effect is due to water vapor, which is more than 30 times as abundant in the atmosphere as CO2.
 
As further evidence, we find that as the post-war industrial boom began to put significant volumes of CO2 into the atmosphere, global temperatures did not rise. Since 1945, there have been about 40 years of cooling trend and only 20-plus years of warming.
While the warming is significant, it followed an unusually high period of solar activity.
 
Temperature did rise steeply in the 1920’s and in the 1930’s in the U.S. and 1934 was the warmest year of the 20th century. The rate of warming then was also higher than in the 1980’s and 1990’s, even though CO2 levels were lower.
 
Many in the scientific community reject reducing atmospheric CO2 to 350 parts per million, as Dr. Pachauri of the U.N. wishes. Thousands of peer-reviewed experiments have demonstrated CO2’ s ability to “green” the earth dramatically.
 
Nonetheless, Dr. Pachauri and those who prefer to debate science with politics are sticking to their old story and clinging to their inadequate climate models and their headline-grabbing catastrophic forces.
 
Do Americans want to see their government spend trillions of dollars removing CO2 that will not lower the Earth’s temperature but absolutely will risk harming ecologies, economies and mankind itself?

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/OpEd-Contributor/Plants-need-more-CO2-not-less-69158857.html
« Last Edit: December 07, 2009, 11:05:56 pm by Im2Sexy4MyPants » Report Spam   Logged

Are you sick of the bullshit from the sewer stream media spewed out from the usual Ken and Barby dickless talking point look a likes.

If you want to know what's going on in the real world...
And the many things that will personally effect you.
Go to
http://www.infowars.com/

AND WAKE THE F_ _K UP
sickofpollies
Shit-Hot Member
*
Posts: 1234



« Reply #106 on: December 08, 2009, 05:23:01 am »

One last time - where is the science?Huh?

 Huh

I wouldn't worry too much about "science" sexy. It's a pity I don't have the time to debate this topic like I used to, but Daz and I have thrashed this out several times over. It usually ends with Daz proclaiming that these scientists have no motivation to fudge the data. Except of course this time round (which is the pity) as we now know that Dr Phil Jones has received ₤13,700,000 for doing his research on this topic. We also now know that they have been adjusting the data to suit their hypothesis, e.g. "Used Mike's [Michael Mann] trick for hiding the decline."  Interestingly enough when Jones defended this recently he said he had to adjust the figures; apparently tree ring data before 1960 was accurate, but magically tree ring data is wrong post 1960.

For those that don't know Michael Mann is the person who fudged the data to get the "hockey stick" graph. A bit of work even other warmist have stepped away from (though there is the "Hockey team" who still support Mann and his special way of analysing data): a fantastic bit of work that dismisses the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age in his thousand year myopic view of the past. Other warmists have been unable to repeat Mann's work, which should ring alarm bells.

Obviously Mann's standard of analyses is what the East Anglian CRU team uses to give us our doom and gloom prophecies from the IPCC (Jones is an important contributor to the IPCC message) given the leaked emails and the correspondence with him. It would be interesting to know if our own NIWA used Mann's standard for their own adjustments of the raw data. Especially since NIWA's adjusted figures paint an even greater level of warming of the 20th century than their warmist mates overseas.
Report Spam   Logged

Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus
sickofpollies
Shit-Hot Member
*
Posts: 1234



« Reply #107 on: December 08, 2009, 10:03:53 am »


Ignore it and watch consumers in other countries boycott NZ products, then when our exports collapse and our jobs disappear in vast numbers, you can try to claim you are right as you starve.

Yes, and that would have to be the sole reason to buy into the scam; just like the story of the Emperor's new clothes people are too gutless to state the obvious because it would impinge on their livelihoods. Sad really.

Still, a gullible tax is the reasonable solution. All those that are gullible should pay the air tax, and those that aren't can keep our money.
Report Spam   Logged

Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus
DazzaMc
Don't give me Karma!
Admin Staff
Absolutely Fabulously Incredibly Shit-Hot Member
*
Posts: 5553


« Reply #108 on: December 08, 2009, 10:21:27 am »

I wouldn't worry too much about "science" sexy.

...you wouldn't worry about the science of your claims in what is solely a scientific matter?!
 Huh

PMSL!!!!

That my friends - that one sentence alone sums up the skeptics perfectly.



Report Spam   Logged

Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
sickofpollies
Shit-Hot Member
*
Posts: 1234



« Reply #109 on: December 08, 2009, 11:02:41 am »

I wouldn't worry too much about "science" sexy.

...you wouldn't worry about the science of your claims in what is solely a scientific matter?!
 Huh

PMSL!!!!

That my friends - that one sentence alone sums up the skeptics perfectly.





Note the quotes. I know it's hard for you to fathom Daz, but hope springs eternal.
Report Spam   Logged

Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus
Crusader
Guest
« Reply #110 on: December 08, 2009, 12:11:20 pm »

This is the biggest scam since the Y2K bug.
Report Spam   Logged
Im2Sexy4MyPants
Absolutely Fabulously Incredibly Shit-Hot Member
*
Posts: 8266



WWW
« Reply #111 on: December 08, 2009, 01:34:15 pm »




“The common enemy of humanity is man.
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up
with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming,
water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these
dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through
changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.
The real enemy then, is humanity itself."

- Club of Rome

The First Global Revolution

The environmental movement has been described as the largest and most influential social phenomenon in modern history. From relative obscurity just a few decades ago it has spawned thousands of organisations and claims millions of committed activists. Reading the newspaper today it is hard to imagine a time when global warming, resource depletion, environmental catastrophes and 'saving the planet' were barely mentioned. They now rank among the top priorities on the social, political and economic global agenda.

Environmental awareness is considered to be the mark of any good honest decent citizen. Multi-national companies compete fiercely to promote their environmental credentials and 'out-green' each other. The threat of impending ecological disasters is uniting the world through a plethora of international treaties and conventions. But where did this phenomenon come from, how did it rise to such prominence, and more importantly, where is it going?

While researching for these articles, and during my academic studies, I have come across many references to the The Club of Rome (CoR), and reports produced by them. Initially I assumed that they were just another high-level environmental think-tank and dismissed the conspiracy theories found on many websites claiming that the CoR is a group of global elitists attempting to impose some kind of one world government.

I am not a conspiratorial person by nature and was faced with a dilemma when I first read their reports. But it's all there - in black and white. The CoR claims that "we are facing an imminent catastrophic ecological collapse" and "our only hope is to transform humanity into a global interdependent sustainable society, based on respect and reverence for the Earth." In the end I came to the conclusion that there are two possibilities – either the CoR wrote all these reports and setup a vast network of supporting organisations just for fun or they actually believe what they have written and are working hard to fulfill their role as the self-appointed saviours of Gaia.

Based on my close observation of their actions, and watching the recommendations made by the CoR many years ago now being adopted as official UN and government policy – well, I have become personally convinced that they are deadly serious. On this website I try to use quotes and excerpts as much as possible and let the reader reach their own conclusions.

So, what exactly is the Club of Rome and who are its members? Founded in 1968, the CoR describes itself as "a group of world citizens, sharing a common concern for the future of humanity." It consists of current and former Heads of State, UN beaureacrats, high-level politicians and government officials, diplomats, scientists, economists, and business leaders from around the globe.

The Club of Rome subsequently founded two sibling organizations, the Club of Budapest and the Club of Madrid. The former is focused on social and cultural aspects of their agenda, while the latter concentrates on the political aspects. All three of these 'Clubs' share many common members and hold joint meetings and conferences. As explained in other articles on this website it is abundantly clear that these are three heads of the same beast. The CoR has also established a network of 33 National Associations. Membership of the 'main Club' is limited to 100 individuals at any one time. Some members, like Al Gore and Maurice Strong, are affiliated through their respective National Associations (e.g. USACOR, CACOR etc).

I would like to start this analysis of the Club of Rome by listing some prominent members of the CoR and its two sub-groups, the Clubs of Budapest and Madrid. Personally it isn’t what the CoR is that I find so astonishing; it is WHO the CoR is! This isn’t some quirky little group of green activists or obscure politicians. They are the most senior officials in the United Nations, current and ex-world leaders, and the founders of some of the most influential environmental organisations. When you read their reports in the context of who they are – its gives an entirely new, and frightening, context to their extreme claims.

Some current members of the Club of Rome or its two siblings:

Al Gore – former VP of the USA, leading climate change campaigner, Nobel Peace Prize winner, Academy Award winner, Emmy winner. Gore lead the US delegations to the Rio Earth Summit and Kyoto Climate Change conference. He chaired a meeting of the full Club of Rome held in Washington DC in 1997.

Javier Solana – Secretary General of the Council of the European Union, High Representative for EU Foreign Policy.

Maurice Strong – former Head of the UN Environment Programme, Chief Policy Advisor to Kofi Annan, Secretary General of the Rio Earth Summit, co-author (with Gorbachev) of the Earth Charter, co-author of the Kyoto Protocol, founder of the Earth Council, devout Baha’i.

Mikhail Gorbachev – CoR executive member, former President of the Soviet Union, founder of Green Cross International and the Gorbachev Foundation, Nobel Peace Prize winner, co-founder (with Hidalgo) of the Club of Madrid, co-author (with Strong) of the Earth Charter.

Diego Hidalgo – CoR executive member, co-founder (with Gorbachev) of the Club of Madrid, founder and President of the European Council on Foreign Relations in association with George Soros.

Ervin Laszlo – founding member of the CoR, founder and President of the Club of Budapest, founder and Chairman of the World Wisdom Council.

Anne Ehrlich – Population Biologist. Married to Paul Ehrlich with whom she has authored many books on human overpopulation. Also a former director of Friends of the Earth and the Sierra Club, and a member of the UN's Global Roll of Honor.

Hassan bin Talal – President of the CoR, President of the Arab Thought Forum, founder of the World Future Council, recently named as the United Nations 'Champion of the Earth'.

Sir Crispin Tickell – former British Permanent Representative to the United Nations and Permanent Representative on the Security Council, Chairman of the ‘Gaia Society’, Chairman of the Board of the Climate Institute, leading British climate change campaigner.

Kofi Annan – former Secretary General of the United Nations. Nobel Peace Prize Laureate.

Javier Perez de Cuellar – former Secretary General of the United Nations.

Gro Harlem Bruntland – United Nations Special Envoy for Climate Change, former President of Norway

Robert Muller – former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations, founder and Chancellor of the UN University of Peace.

The Dalai Lama – The 'Spiritual Leader' of Tibet. Nobel Peace Prize Laureate.

Father Berry Thomas – Catholic Priest who is one of the leading proponents of deep ecology, ecospirituality and global consciousness.

David Rockefeller – CoR executive member, former Chairman of Chase Manhattan Bank, founder of the Trilateral Commission, executive member of the World Economic Forum, donated land on which the United Nations stands.

Stephen Schneider – Stanford Professor of Biology and Global Change. Professor Schneider was among the earliest and most vocal proponents of man-made global warming and a lead author of many IPCC reports.

Bill Clinton – former President of the United States, founder of the Clinton Global Iniative.

Jimmy Carter – former President of the United States, Nobel Peace Prize Laureate.

Bill Gates – founder of Microsoft, philanthropist

Garret Hardin – Professor of Human Ecology. Originator of the 'Global Commons' concept. Has authored many controversial papers on human overpopulation and eugenics.

Other current influential members:
(these can be found on the membership lists of the COR (here, here, and here), Club of Budapest, Club of Madrid and/or CoR National Association membership pages)

Ted Turner – media mogul, philanthropist, founder of CNN
George Soros – multibillionare, major donor to the UN
Tony Blair – former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom
Deepak Chopra – New Age Guru
Desmond Tutu – South African Bishop and activist, Nobel Peace Prize Laureate
Timothy Wirth – President of the United Nations Foundation
Henry Kissinger – former US Secretary of State
George Matthews – Chairman of the Gorbachev Foundation
Harlan Cleveland – former Assistant US Secretary of State and NATO Ambassador
Barbara Marx Hubbard – President of the Foundation for Conscious Evolution
Betty Williams – Nobel Peace Prize Laureate
Marianne Williamson – New Age 'Spiritual Activist'
Robert Thurman – assistant to the Dalai Lama
Jane Goodall – Primatologist and Evolutionary Biologist
Juan Carlos I – King of Spain
Prince Philippe of Belgium
Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands
Dona Sophia – Queen of Spain
José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero – current Prime Minister of Spain
Karan Singh – Former Prime Minister of India, Chairman of the Temple of Understanding
Daisaku Ikeda – founder of the Soka Gakkai cult
Martin Lees – CoR Secretary General, Rector of the UN University of Peace
Ernesto Zedillo – Director of The Yale Center for the Study of Globalization
Frithjof Finkbeiner – Coordinator of the Global Marshall Plan
Franz Josef Radermacher – Founder of the Global Marshall Plan
Eduard Shevardnadze – former Soviet foreign minister and President of Georgia
Richard von Weizsacker – former President of Germany
Carl Bildt – former President of Sweden
Kim Campbell – former Prime Minister of Canada and Senior Fellow of the Gorbachev Foundation
Vincente Fox – former President of Mexico
Helmut Kohl – former Chancellor of Germany
Romano Prodi – former Prime Minister of Italy and President of the European Commission
Vaclav Havel – former President of the Czech Republic
Hans Kung – Founder of the Global Ethic Foundation
Ruud Lubbers – United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
Mary Robinson – United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
Jerome Binde – Director of Foresight, UNESCO
Koïchiro Matsuura – Current Director General of UNESCO
Federico Mayor – Former Director General of UNESCO
Tapio Kanninen – Director of Policy and Planning, United Nations
Konrad Osterwalder – Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations
Peter Johnston – Director General of European Commission
Jacques Delors – Former President of the European Commission
Domingo Jimenez-Beltran – Executive Director of the European Environment Agency
Thomas Homer-Dixon – Director of Peace and Conflict Studies, University of Toronto
Hazel Henderson – Futurist and 'evoluntionary economist'
Emeka Anyaoku – former Commonwealth Secretary General, current President of the World Wildlife Fund
Wangari Maathai – Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, founder of the Green Belt Movement
and many more….

The concept of 'environmental sustainability' was first brought to widespread public attention in 1972 by the Club of Rome in their book entitled The Limits to Growth. The official summary can be read here. The report basically concluded that the growth of the human population, and an increase in prosperity, would cause an ecological collapse within the next hundred years:

“If the present growth trends in world population, industrialization, pollution, food production, and resource depletion continue unchanged, the limits to growth on this planet will be reached sometime within the next one hundred years. The most probable result will be a rather sudden and uncontrollable decline in both population and industrial capacity.”

“It is possible to alter these growth trends and to establish a condition of ecological and economic stability that is sustainable far into the future. The state of global equilibrium could be designed so that the basic material needs of each person on earth are satisfied and each person has an equal opportunity to realize his individual human potential.”

“The overwhelming growth in world population caused by the positive birth-rate loop is a recent phenomenon, a result of mankind's very successful reduction of worldwide mortality. The controlling negative feedback loop has been weakened, allowing the positive loop to operate virtually without constraint. There are only two ways to restore the resulting imbalance. Either the birth rate must be brought down to equal the new, lower death rate, or the death rate must rise again.”

“The result of stopping population growth in 1975 and industrial capital growth in 1985 with no other changes is that population and capital reach constant values at a relatively high level of food, industrial output and services per person. Eventually, however, resource shortages reduce industrial output and the temporarily stable state degenerates.”

“Man possesses, for a small moment in his history, the most powerful combination of knowledge, tools, and resources the world has ever known. He has all that is physically necessary to create a totally new form of human society - one that would be built to last for generations. The two missing ingredients are a realistic, long-term goal that can guide mankind to the equilibrium society and the Human Will to achieve that goal.”

“Without such a goal and a commitment to it, short-term concerns will generate the exponential growth that drives the world system toward the limits of the earth and ultimate collapse. With that goal and that commitment, mankind would be ready now to begin a controlled, orderly transition from growth to global equilibrium.”

So as you can see the even back in 1972 the Club considered modern industrial society to be completely unsustainable. They state that even if population was frozen at 1975 levels, and industrial activity at 1985 levels, then the earth’s ecosystems would still ultimately collapse. The CoR has not changed these views in the slightest, in fact, in the last three decades their warnings have become increasingly more urgent and alarmist. They call this imminent collapse the ‘World Problematique’ and their proposed solution the ‘World Resolutique.’

The Limits to Growth is considered to be the most successful environmental publication ever produced and propelled the Club of Rome to its current position of an environmental thought-leader and a major consultant to the United Nations. It has been translated into more than forty languages and sold more than 30 million copies. Throughout the 1970s and 80s the concept that humanity was irreparably damaging the earth gained popularity and facilitated the formation of mainstream and activist environmental groups.

All meetings of the CoR are held ‘behind closed doors’ and no public records are kept. However the Club does produce many ‘discussion reports’ that can be found on its website. The United Nations contracts the Club of Rome to prepare ‘Policy Guidance Documents’ which it uses in formulating its policies and programmes. A quick search for Club of Rome on the UNESCO publications site reveals 250 such documents. There are many other documents there authored by CoR members acting in other capacities. As many high ranking UN officials are actually CoR members, this is like a man asking himself for advice, and then agreeing with that advice. Not very objective! Various UN organisations also hold joint conferences with the CoR.

While checking the Club of Rome website this morning the first item in their ‘current news’ section refers to a briefing delivered by the CoR to G8 officials in preparation for the upcoming G8 meeting. The second item is a summary report from the Club of Romes ’strategy planning retreat’ with 150 senior UNESCO officials. The joint CoR/UNESCO communique states:

“We are at the end of an era – a turning point in history. We are approaching the threshold of runaway climate change. We underline the urgency of radical action to reduce emissions, by both immediate action and longer-term measures; to stress to political leaders the non-linear nature of the processes at work which will generate sudden change; and to assert that the overriding priority must be to avert the impending risk of catastrophic climate change.” - CoR/UNESCO communique

Twenty years after the Limits to Growth the CoR published another major report that became an instant best-seller. In The First Global Revolution the Club of Rome claimed that the time to act had run out. It was now or never. Delay in beginning corrective measures will increase the damage to the world ecological system and ultimately reduce the human population that will eventually be supportable. They also stated that democratic governments are far too short-sighted to deal with the ‘problematique’ and new forms of governance are urgently required.

In order not too violate any copyright protection I will not reproduce the text of the book on this site. However, it is permissible for me to quote a brief excerpt in the context of this wider discussion. The complete text (third ed.) can be read and searched online at Google Books. As you read the following quote (from page 75, first ed.), please remember the names of the leaders listed above. This is not some quirky little cult. This is the stated agenda of the leaders of the environmental movement:

“This is the way we are setting the scene for mankind’s encounter with the planet. The opposition between the two ideologies that have dominated the 20th century has collapsed, forming their own vacuum and leaving nothing but crass materialism.

It is a law of Nature that any vacuum will be filled and therefore eliminated unless this is physically prevented. “Nature,” as the saying goes, “abhors a vacuum.” And people, as children of Nature, can only feel uncomfortable, even though they may not recognize that they are living in a vacuum. How then is the vacuum to be eliminated?

It would seem that humans need a common motivation, namely a common adversary, to organize and act together in the vacuum; such a motivation must be found to bring the divided nations together to face an outside enemy, either a real one or else one invented for the purpose.

New enemies therefore have to be identified.
New strategies imagined, new weapons devised.

The common enemy of humanity is man.

In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.

The old democracies have functioned reasonably well over the last 200 years, but they appear now to be in a phase of complacent stagnation with little evidence of real leadership and innovation

Democracy is not a panacea. It cannot organize everything and it is unaware of its own limits. These facts must be faced squarely. Sacrilegious though this may sound, democracy is no longer well suited for the tasks ahead. The complexity and the technical nature of many of today’s problems do not always allow elected representatives to make competent decisions at the right time.”

So, long before Global Warming became a well known issue Al Gore and his Club of Rome colleagues stated that they would use the threat of global warming to unite humanity and "set the scene for mankind's encounter with the planet." In the same way that shamans and sooth-sayers in medieval times used their advance knowledge of when eclipses would occur to control and terrify their followers, they would use a natural phenomenon as their 'enemy' to achieve their objectives. But then they state that although Global Warming would be presented as the initial enemy, the real enemy of humanity would be portrayed as man himself. I am already noticing how frequently the terms climate change and overpopulation are being uttered in the same breath.

Having discovered that all these influential environmental leaders were associated with the Club of Rome I set about reading all the reports, lectures and speeches on their website as well as the reports commissioned by the UN. I was amazed to find that they lay out their entire agenda for anyone who has eyes to see. Exactly the same themes, concepts and phrases are repeated continuously throughout their publications. They are full of references to 'imminent collapse', 'dying planet', 'our mother Gaia', 'wrenching transformation', 'united global society', 'global consciousness', 'new forms of governance' etc. They truly intend to bring about the world's First Global Revolution.

The Kosmos Journal provides perhaps the best insight into their worldview. This Journal was founded by the Club of Rome in partnership with with several of its sibling organizations. As described in my article, The Green Web, the CoR has established a network of supporting organizations, each focusing on a different aspect of their agenda. The Kosmos Journal contains many articles written by CoR members. The basic premise of their worldview is:

"Modern industrial civilisation is fast outstripping the Earth's natural regenerative and life-supporting capacity..."

"At current rates of resource depletion and environmental degradation a near complete collapse of ecological integrity will occur within the next 100 years..."

"Gaia, our Mother, who nutured humanity for countless millenia within her womb of evolution, is dying..."

“A small window of opportunity now exists to transform humanity into a sustainable global interdepedant society based on respect and reverence for Earth..."

"A radical change from the current trajectory is required, a complete reordering of global society..."

"Humans only truly unite when faced with a powerful external enemy..."

"At this time a new enemy must be found, one either real or invented for the purpose..."

"Democracy has failed us, a new system of global governance, based on environmental imperatives, must be implemented quickly..."

Now that Obama is firmly ensconced in the White House the Club of Rome and its affiliates are swinging into high gear. The CoR recently unveiled a new 3-year programme entitled A New Path for World Development. The Club of Madrid has launched the Road to Copenhagen, a joint programme with the UN Environment Programme intended to facilitate a binding global climate change treaty in 2009. Perhaps most interesting is the State of Global Emergency declared by the Club of Budapest in October 2008. The declaration states that we only have four or five years to prevent a total collapse of the Earth's ecosystems. To quote from the document:

“If we continue on our present unsustainable path, by mid-century the Earth may become largely uninhabitable for human and most other forms of life. Such a total systems collapse could occur much sooner, however, due to runaway global warming or other ecocatastrophes, and/or by nuclear wars triggered by religious, ethnic or geopolitical conflicts or access to diminishing natural resources. The macro-trends driving these global threats and challenges have been apparent for decades and are now building toward a threshold of irreversibility. The scientific modeling of complex systems shows that when systems reach a state of critical instability, they either break down to their components or break through to a higher order of integral functioning. At these “points of no return” maintaining the status quo, or returning to a previous mode of organization and functioning, are not a feasible option.

The acceleration of critical trends and cross-impacts among them indicates that the ‘window of opportunity’ for pulling out of the present global crisis and breaking through to a more peaceful and sustainable world is likely to be no more than four to five years from the end of 2008. This is close in time to the Mayan 2012 prophecy for the end of the current world. The period around the end of 2012 is likely to be a turbulent one for this and other reasons. Predictions coming from the physical sciences foresee disturbances in the geomagnetic, electromagnetic and related fields that embed the planet causing significant damage to telecommunications and impacting many aspects of human activity and health. For the esoteric traditions the end of 2012 will be the end of the known world, although the more optimistic intepretations speak of a new world taking the place of the old.”

This may seem very strange – a group of prominent world leaders talking about ancient Mayan prophecies, but as I describe in my article, Gaia's Gurus, many leading global warming activists openly advocate earth-reverence and other New Age philosophies. Gaia, Global Warming, and Global Governance are intricately entwined, if one truly believes in Gaia, and that she is being fatally harmed by the current system, then a new system of global governance and control would appear to be the only answer. Global Warming provides the ideal 'enemy' to bring about this objective. It is easy for these global elitists to talk about sacrifice, wrenching transformation, population reduction and eliminating the use of fossil fuels but the implications are truely horrendous.

Even if you think this is all nonsense I would ask you to at least read these quotes and excerpts, and think about the implications of their agenda. Everyday I am amazed at how quickly things are changing. It is coming hard and fast. It's almost like reading a book and then watching the television adaptation, except that this adaptation is not a movie - it's on the evening news. As Al Gore said in the closing sentence of his statement after he won the Nobel Peace Prize ... "This is just the beginning."

http://green-agenda.com/globalrevolution.html
Report Spam   Logged

Are you sick of the bullshit from the sewer stream media spewed out from the usual Ken and Barby dickless talking point look a likes.

If you want to know what's going on in the real world...
And the many things that will personally effect you.
Go to
http://www.infowars.com/

AND WAKE THE F_ _K UP
DazzaMc
Don't give me Karma!
Admin Staff
Absolutely Fabulously Incredibly Shit-Hot Member
*
Posts: 5553


« Reply #112 on: December 08, 2009, 04:59:42 pm »

Blar blar blar....


Watch this - and give a shit, just for a moment......

Report Spam   Logged

Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
DazzaMc
Don't give me Karma!
Admin Staff
Absolutely Fabulously Incredibly Shit-Hot Member
*
Posts: 5553


« Reply #113 on: December 08, 2009, 05:10:56 pm »

And for a splash of logic....

« Last Edit: December 08, 2009, 05:21:57 pm by DazzaMc » Report Spam   Logged

Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
DazzaMc
Don't give me Karma!
Admin Staff
Absolutely Fabulously Incredibly Shit-Hot Member
*
Posts: 5553


« Reply #114 on: December 08, 2009, 06:19:34 pm »

And I feel - sadly - the hope of the entire human race now lays in one mans hands....



 Smiley
Report Spam   Logged

Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
DazzaMc
Don't give me Karma!
Admin Staff
Absolutely Fabulously Incredibly Shit-Hot Member
*
Posts: 5553


« Reply #115 on: December 08, 2009, 06:52:39 pm »



 Smiley
Report Spam   Logged

Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
Im2Sexy4MyPants
Absolutely Fabulously Incredibly Shit-Hot Member
*
Posts: 8266



WWW
« Reply #116 on: December 08, 2009, 09:08:13 pm »



Where’s the global warming?
Thatcher adviser: Copenhagen goal is One World Government

SUNDAY, 18 OCTOBER 2009 12:14    NEWS FROM JERUSALEM



A former science adviser to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher says the real purpose of the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen on Dec. 7-18 is to use global warming hype as a pretext to lay the foundation for a one-world government.

"At [the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference in] Copenhagen this December, weeks away, a treaty will be signed," Monkton told a Minnesota Free Market Institute audience on Thursday at Bethel University in St. Paul.

"Your president will sign it. Most of the Third World countries will sign it, because they think they're going to get money out of it. Most of the left-wing regimes from the European Union will rubber stamp it. Virtually nobody won't sign it," he told the audience of some 700 attendees.

"I read that treaty and what it says is this: that a world government is going to be created. The word 'government' actually appears as the first of three purposes of the new entity.

"The second purpose is the transfer of wealth from the countries of the West to Third World countries, in satisfaction of what is called, coyly, 'climate debt' – because we've been burning CO2 and they haven't. We've been screwing up the climate and they haven't. And the third purpose of this new entity, this government is enforcement."

In an hour and a half lecture illustrated by slides featuring scientific data on a wide range of climate issues, Monkton refuted claims made by former Vice President Al Gore in his movie and book entitled "An Inconvenient Truth," as well as scientific arguments made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Monckton argued that President Obama will sign the Copenhagen treaty at the December meeting, without seeking a two-thirds ratification of the treaty by the Senate, or any other type of Congressional approval.

"So, thank you, America. You were the beacon of freedom to the world. It is a privilege to stand on this soil of freedom while it is still free," he continued. "But, in the next few weeks, unless you stop it, your president will sign your freedom, your democracy, and your humanity away forever.

"But I think it is here, here in your great nation, which I so love and I so admire – it is here that perhaps, at this eleventh hour, at the fifty-ninth minute and fifty-ninth second, you will rise up and you will stop your president from signing that dreadful treaty, that purposeless treaty. For there is no problem with the climate and, even if there were, an economic treaty does nothing to [help] it."

Moncton is a well-known critic of the theory of anthropogenic causes for global warming who has argued repeatedly that global warming hysteria is an ideological position of the political Left advanced in the interest of imposing global taxes on the United States in the pursuit of international control of the U.S. economy under a one-world government to be administered by the U.N.

Monkton's lecture can be viewed online and his slides also can be accessed on the Internet.
As evidence mounts that the United States is headed toward a cooling cycle that may last decades, global alarmists within the Obama administration remain resolved to push cap-and-trade legislation through Congress on the increasingly dubious theory that man-made carbon emissions are creating global warming.

In what has to be seen as increasingly bad news for global warming alarmists, scientific evidence is mounting that temperatures in the United States have cooled at a rate that would be projected to lower temperatures 7.3 degrees Fahrenheit over the next century.

Source. U.S. National Climate Data Center and www.c3headlines.com

Maybe Obama’s Science Czar is Right: Is a New Ice Age on the Horizon?

WND has reported White House science czar John Holdren's prediction that one billion people will die in "carbon-dioxide induced famines" in a coming new ice age by 2020.

Even though Holdren's current position is that the U.S. needs to enact cap-and-trade to slow global warming, Holdren predicted in a 1971 textbook co-authored with Paul Ehrlich that global over-population was heading the Earth to a new ice age unless the government mandated urgent measures to control population, including the possibility of involuntary birth control measures such as forced sterilization.

Holdren's prediction that one billion people would die from a global cooling "eco-disaster" was announced by Malthusian population alarmist Ehrlich in his 1986 book entitled, "The Machinery of Nature."

Holdren based his prediction on a bizarre theory that human emissions of carbon dioxide would produce a climate catastrophe in which global warming would cause global cooling with a resultant reduction in agricultural production resulting in widespread disaster.

On pages 273-274 of "The Machinery of Nature," Ehrlich explained Holdren's theory by arguing "some localities will probably become colder as the warmer atmosphere drives the climactic engine faster, causing streams of frigid air to move more rapidly away from the poles." (Emphasis in original text.)

The movement of the frigid air from the poles caused by global warming "could reduce agricultural yields for decades or more – a sure recipe for disaster in an increasingly overpopulated world," Ehrlich wrote.
http://www.thejerusalemgiftshop.com/israelnews/new-world-order-news/60-nwo/1968-thatcher-adviser-copenhagen-goal-is-one-wor
Report Spam   Logged

Are you sick of the bullshit from the sewer stream media spewed out from the usual Ken and Barby dickless talking point look a likes.

If you want to know what's going on in the real world...
And the many things that will personally effect you.
Go to
http://www.infowars.com/

AND WAKE THE F_ _K UP
DazzaMc
Don't give me Karma!
Admin Staff
Absolutely Fabulously Incredibly Shit-Hot Member
*
Posts: 5553


« Reply #117 on: December 08, 2009, 09:18:57 pm »

thejerusalemgiftshop.com ?!?!


PMSL!!

Report Spam   Logged

Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
DazzaMc
Don't give me Karma!
Admin Staff
Absolutely Fabulously Incredibly Shit-Hot Member
*
Posts: 5553


« Reply #118 on: December 08, 2009, 09:23:44 pm »



 Wink
Report Spam   Logged

Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
Im2Sexy4MyPants
Absolutely Fabulously Incredibly Shit-Hot Member
*
Posts: 8266



WWW
« Reply #119 on: December 08, 2009, 09:34:13 pm »

Dazza do you think a one world government is a good idea Grin













http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/co2_report_july_09.pdf
« Last Edit: December 08, 2009, 10:45:13 pm by Im2Sexy4MyPants » Report Spam   Logged

Are you sick of the bullshit from the sewer stream media spewed out from the usual Ken and Barby dickless talking point look a likes.

If you want to know what's going on in the real world...
And the many things that will personally effect you.
Go to
http://www.infowars.com/

AND WAKE THE F_ _K UP
DazzaMc
Don't give me Karma!
Admin Staff
Absolutely Fabulously Incredibly Shit-Hot Member
*
Posts: 5553


« Reply #120 on: December 08, 2009, 09:54:23 pm »

Dazza do you think a one world government is a good idea Grin

Abso-bloody-lutly!

That would suggest that humans have grown up and finally learnt to live together as one - it would end wars, famine, poor country/rich country... the whole lot!
Christ - the advantages are to numerous to list!


The day we all stand united and as one on this ball of rock will be a major turning point for the human race.

Sure - we will still have our problems and still have our differences - but it would be a major turning point and a giant leap in the maturing of the race.

Bring it on I say!!




In reality though - do I think we would ever get there?
Sadly no - climate change is going to stress the geopolitical climate so much we are much more likely to be blowing each other to bits in the next 50 odd years... India is already running out of water - 1.2 billion people. China is having the same problems - 1.4 billion. Just where are they all going to go and who's going to feed them - and how?

That's one thing I've always maintained - the real threat here isn't climate change, it's the human reaction to change which holds more potential for disaster.


If only we had the ability to learn from others mistakes...

 Lips sealed
« Last Edit: December 08, 2009, 10:05:39 pm by DazzaMc » Report Spam   Logged

Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
DazzaMc
Don't give me Karma!
Admin Staff
Absolutely Fabulously Incredibly Shit-Hot Member
*
Posts: 5553


« Reply #121 on: December 08, 2009, 10:04:37 pm »

Lol...  I just looked up "Lord Christopher Monckton" in your you tube post above.... bloody funny!

The guy's a complete nut case!

In 1987 he had this to say about AIDS: "there is only one way to stop AIDS. That is to screen the entire population regularly and to quarantine all carriers of the disease for life. Every member of the population should be blood-tested every month ... all those found to be infected with the virus, even if only as carriers, should be isolated compulsorily, immediately, and permanently."


And people listen to him?!
 Huh


Report Spam   Logged

Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
Im2Sexy4MyPants
Absolutely Fabulously Incredibly Shit-Hot Member
*
Posts: 8266



WWW
« Reply #122 on: December 09, 2009, 12:33:46 am »

Dazza
I too would also like to see an end to wars.I would like to see a sharing of the worlds wealth.

But do I trust a One World Government that would control every aspect of my life= Shit No
If I wanted that kind of life I would move to China

A One World Government would be a totalitarianism regime

A totalitarian regime is a government which controls every aspect of the life of the people. People living under a totalitarian regime generally also support it, sometimes almost cultishly, thanks to extensive propaganda missions which are designed to promote a positive view of the government. Citizens are also usually afraid to criticize the government, so they may be outspoken supporters to avoid closer scrutiny.


Report Spam   Logged

Are you sick of the bullshit from the sewer stream media spewed out from the usual Ken and Barby dickless talking point look a likes.

If you want to know what's going on in the real world...
And the many things that will personally effect you.
Go to
http://www.infowars.com/

AND WAKE THE F_ _K UP
Im2Sexy4MyPants
Absolutely Fabulously Incredibly Shit-Hot Member
*
Posts: 8266



WWW
« Reply #123 on: December 09, 2009, 12:43:38 am »

Here's  some more science for Dazza  Grin

Richard S. Lindzen

Professor Lindzen is a dynamical meteorologist with interests in the broad topics of climate, planetary waves, monsoon meteorology, planetary atmospheres, and hydrodynamic instability.   His research involves studies of the role of the tropics in mid-latitude weather and global heat transport, the moisture budget and its role in global change, the origins of ice ages, seasonal effects in atmospheric transport, stratospheric waves, and the observational determination of climate sensitivity. He has made major contributions to the development of the current theory for the Hadley Circulation, which dominates the atmospheric transport of heat and momentum from the tropics to higher latitudes, and has advanced the understanding of the role of small scale gravity waves in producing the reversal of global temperature gradients at the mesopause, and provided accepted explanations for atmospheric tides and the quasi-biennial oscillation of the tropical stratosphere. He pioneered the study of how ozone photochemistry, radiative transfer and dynamics interact with each other. He is currently studying what determines the pole to equator temperature difference, the nonlinear equilibration of baroclinic instability and the contribution of such instabilities to global heat transport. He has also been developing a new approach to air-sea interaction in the tropics, and is actively involved in parameterizing the role of cumulus convection in heating and drying the atmosphere and in generating upper level cirrus clouds. He has developed models for the Earth's climate with specific concern for the stability of the ice caps, the sensitivity to increases in CO2, the origin of the 100,000 year cycle in glaciation, and the maintenance of regional variations in climate. Prof. Lindzen is a recipient of the AMS's Meisinger, and Charney Awards, the AGU's Macelwane Medal, and the Leo Huss Walin Prize. He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences, and the Norwegian Academy of Sciences and Letters, and a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Sciences, the American Geophysical Union and the American Meteorological Society. He is a corresponding member of the NAS Committee on Human Rights, and has been a member of the NRC Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate and the Council of the AMS.   He has also been a consultant to the Global Modeling and Simulation Group at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, and a Distinguished Visiting Scientist at California Institute of Technology's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. (Ph.D., '64, S.M., '61, A.B., '60, Harvard University)

Richard Lindzen, Ph.D. Lecture Deconstructs Global Warming Hysteria (High Quality Version)


www.youtube.com/        watch?v=-sHg3ZztDAw&feature=channel

Funny it wont play in here. I broke it up a bit you can reconstruct it and paste it in the top bar

Carbon Dioxide irrelevant in climate debate says MIT Scientist
August 18, 7:39 AMPortland Civil Rights ExaminerDianna Cotter

In a study sure to ruffle the feathers of the Global Warming cabal, Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT has published a paper which proves that IPCC models are overstating by 6 times, the relevance of CO2 in Earth’s Atmosphere. Dr. Lindzen has found that heat is radiated out in to space at a far higher rate than any modeling system to date can account for.
Editorial: The science is in. the scare is out. Recent papers and data give a complete picture of why the UN is wrong.
The pdf file located at the link above from the Science and Public Policy Institute has absolutely, convincingly, and irrefutably proven the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming to be completely false.
Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT’s peer reviewed work states “we now know that the effect of CO2 on temperature is small, we know why it is small, and we know that it is having very little effect on the climate.”
The global surface temperature record, which we update and publish
every month, has shown no statistically-significant “global warming”
for almost 15 years. Statistically-significant global cooling has now
persisted for very nearly eight years. Even a strong el Nino – expected
in the coming months – will be unlikely to reverse the cooling trend.
More significantly, the ARGO bathythermographs deployed
throughout the world’s oceans since 2003 show that the top 400
fathoms of the oceans, where it is agreed between all parties that at
least 80% of all heat caused by manmade “global warming” must
accumulate, have been cooling over the past six years. That now prolonged
ocean cooling is fatal to the “official” theory that “global
warming” will happen on anything other than a minute scale.
- SPPI Monthly CO2 Report: July 2009
If for no other reason than this: the IPCC assumes that the concentration of CO2 in 2100 will be 836 ppmv (parts per million volume). However, current graphs based on real data show that CO2 concentrations will only be 570 ppmv in 2100, cutting the IPCC’s estimates in half right there.
Another nail in the coffin of Global Warming is the observed rate of temperature change from 1980, which is observed to be 1.5 degrees  C per century. The IPCC modeling calls for a range of 2.4 to 5.3 degree increase per century, which is far above what is observed in real data collected between 1980 and 2009. The graph below clearly represents a far different reality as opposed to the predictions.
  Graph A


Not only is the IPCC basing its predictions on data that has been doubled from observed data, it is overstating the role of CO2 in Climate altogether. As the graph seen below shows, when charted for the years between 2002 and 2009, that solid red median line is going down, indicating global cooling.
    Graph B


As significant as the above results are, it is not the Pièce de résistance. What is - the curious minded what to know? It is the ERBE results. The Earth Radiation Budget Experiment with 15 years worth of data. The ERBE result is absolutely devastating to the entire Global Warming Theory.
The following graph (Graph C) shows the ERBE results in the upper left hand corner, which is real recorded data, not a computer model. The 11 other graphs are the results from the models used by the UN and everyone else which state that more radiation should be held within Earth’s system, thereby causing warming of the climate. More simply put, the UN results illogically predict that as the oceans got warmer, the earth would simply hold more heat. The UN explains that it is CO2 which is holding this extra energy. This theory is not supportable by the simple fact that CO2 cannot hold that much heat, it is a very poor greenhouse gas compared with water. If anything, more clouds -water vapor- would conceivably hold the extra heat, but the corresponding rise in global temperatures this would cause have not been observed. This leaves only one conclusion, the Earth is radiating the extra heat into space, and this is supported by the data.
The ERBE results, which are factual data from real measurements made by satellite, show the exact opposite result from the UN/IPCC Projections (computer models which are not real data). As seas warm on earth, the earth releases more heat into space and the satellite results prove it.
     Graph C

   
The mismatch between reality and prediction is entirely clear. It is this
astonishing graph that provides the final evidence that the UN has
absurdly exaggerated the effect not only of CO2 but of all greenhouse
gases on global mean surface temperature. - Lindzen & Choi (2009).
For the sake of making the above graphs clear in their meanings, the term ?SST stands for Change in Sea Surface Temperature measured in Kelvin (A unit of temperature like to Celsius and Fahrenheit), and is a measurement of change in sea temperatures. A -1.0 number would indicate cooling, a zero reflects no temperature change, and a +1.0 would indicate an increase in temperature.
?Flux, The Vertical line in these graphs, measures the change in the amount of radiation released by the planet in the infra-red spectrum, heat in other words. From zero to +6 shows more heat radiated out into space. From zero to -6 shows less heat being radiated into space.
0 change in ?SST equals 0 change in ?Flux or no change. Less infra-red heat radiation going out into space should correlate to cooler sea surface temperatures, as there is less heat available to radiate out. More heat radiating out appears when sea surface temperature increases have occurred and more heat is available to radiate. Heat is radiated out into space as seas warm, and  this overall maintains a climate equilibrium, This is proven by the ERBE graph in Graph C above as well as the other graphs presented in this article, which are based on observed data, not computer models.
     Graph D


The 3300 Argo bathythermograph buoys deployed throughout the world’s oceans since late in 2003 have shown a slight cooling of the oceans over the past five years, directly contrary to the official theory that any “global warming” not showing in the atmosphere would definitely show up in the first 400 fathoms of the world’s oceans, where at least 80% of any surplus heat would be stored. Source: ARGO project, June 2009.
All of this data leads to the conclusion that the UN/IPCC models are not only wrong, they are so far off the mark as to be laughable.  The satellite and bathythermograph data clearly do not match the IPCC theory, which means that the theory is incorrect.
What this data does tell us is if CO2 concentration should double, global temperatures will not rise by the devastating 6 degrees F the UN predicts, but by a completely harmless 1 degree F. The ERBE data shows an Earth system that is radiating more heat into space as sea surfaces warm, in other words a system at equilibrium, and is clearly demonstrated by observed data. The UN theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming is dead wrong.
The UN/IPCC have been using models that give a result that allow them to tell Nation States they must reduce and cap Carbon Emissions or the earth’s climate will warm by a devastating 6 degrees F. When in reality, more heat is simply radiated out into space as the ERBE OBSERVED DATA (Not a computer model) PROVES.
The United States House of Representatives has passed a Carbon tax (Cap and Trade) as have other governments in Europe, based on these completely erroneous models.
There are only a couple of conclusions to be made of this. Either the world has been misled by scientists working for the UN and IPCC due to faulty science, or faulty science has been deliberately used in a global scheme to generate tax revenues for the Governments instituting Cap and Trade Taxation policies.
Either way, the world has been the victim of some very bad science. The results of which can be seen in drastically reduced GDP in countries with the Cap and Trade laws in place, as well a a 5 - 10% decrease in standard of living for those citizens living there (Taxing Carbon designed to fail.), all with little or no effect on emissions globally.
Perhaps this will finally end the attempt by the Obama Administration as well as congress to tax a substance that trees need to survive, the very air we exhale thousands of times a day.
Thank you Professor Richard Lindzen, Dr. Ferenc M. Miskolczi, Dr. Miklós Zágoni, Dr. Mike Fox here in Oregon, and a great many other Scientists the world over, who decided to look at facts, instead of playing with models. Science is based on data, facts not theories. They took the facts, and let the theory write itself. The IPCC took theories and tried to cherry pick only the details that fit, and in the end failed to do even that.
Public policies should also be based on facts, not on unproven and in the end disproven theories. The United States and indeed the world is in the debt of these and other scientists, who relied on data and facts to describe our world and its climate! We are in their debt!
For more info: Science and Public Policy Institute, Editorial: The science is in. the scare is out. Recent papers and data give a complete picture of why the UN is wrong. Climate change? Not so fast say Scientists, Have it your way - Global warming is baloney, Einstein-like breakthrough in Climate Science (Part 1), Einstein-like breakthrough in Climate Science (Part 2), Oregon legislature plays Cap-n-Trade shell game, Democrats say Cap and Trade is a big tax, Taxing Carbon designed to fail
Updated to clarify sourcing.  All information in this article is directly from SPPI June Report. as is stated in the beginning of article. 8-18-2009 2:02pm Pacific

http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7715-Portland-Civil-Rights-Examiner~y2009m8d18-Carbon-Dioxide-irrelevant-in-climate-debate-says-MIT-Scientist

« Last Edit: December 09, 2009, 06:58:50 am by Im2Sexy4MyPants » Report Spam   Logged

Are you sick of the bullshit from the sewer stream media spewed out from the usual Ken and Barby dickless talking point look a likes.

If you want to know what's going on in the real world...
And the many things that will personally effect you.
Go to
http://www.infowars.com/

AND WAKE THE F_ _K UP
sickofpollies
Shit-Hot Member
*
Posts: 1234



« Reply #124 on: December 09, 2009, 05:12:17 am »


A One World Government would be a totalitarianism regime


So long as the drum beat was to a socialist ditty Chicken Little would support it.

Anyway, while this may or may not cause an one world socialist totalitarianism utopia, I do agree with you regarding the issue of freedom. This scaremongering is enabling our politicians to tax the air. Once we allow our politicians to do this they will continue to find ways to tax the air more. Air was once free and soon it will not be.

Once you allow a politician to tax something, it doesn't go away. For example, Napoleon has long since been defeated. Europe has long since cleaned up the aftermath of Napoleon's "freedom" rampage. Yet we still pay income tax. Why?

Closer to home: almost immediately in her power the Clark's regime instituted a new "excise" on petrol (apparently that excise wasn't a tax) to pay for Auckland's motorways. They've finished that part of it. Has the excise been revoked?

In the same way we've allowed the pond scum to tax air, so get used to having yet another choker chain on. When they get all frantic when the cooling cycle continues on longer they're willing to admit (at the moment) don't ever expect the air taxes to be revoked. No, expect them to go up as they spin the story in yet another direction.

But that's all right. So long as we march to the socialist beat played by the Chicken Littles of this world everything will be fine. No doubt they'll come up with a new word for us rather than used the tainted ones of serfs or slaves. The Ministry of Truth will make sure of it.
Report Spam   Logged

Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 55   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Open XNC2 Smileys
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
SMF For Free - Create your own Forum


Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy
Page created in 0.109 seconds with 13 queries.