FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
Global Warming Scam Latest
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 10, 11, 12 ... 56, 57, 58  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> General Discussion
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message
MichaelC



Joined: 06 Jul 2006
Posts: 2151

PostPosted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 3:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

duane wrote:

Quote:
they are just ruthless capitalists, trying to make a buck.


Al Gore is NOT a capitalist. He is a criminal thug who has never worked a day in his life and who is extracting his $$$$ at gunpoint (aided by legislation from fellow criminals) ultimately from dim-witted and duped tax-slavers.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MichaelC



Joined: 06 Jul 2006
Posts: 2151

PostPosted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 3:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Criminals continue to force tax-slavers to finance the $cam:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125606654494097035.html
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
duane



Joined: 07 Mar 2007
Posts: 554
Location: western pennsylvania

PostPosted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 8:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

i don't want to divert thread so just a quick reply

MichaelC wrote


Al Gore is NOT a capitalist. He is a criminal thug



and how would you differentiate between the two?

capitalism is the extractive process (monetizing) of removing value from a system. ruthless capitalism may use more force than other less malignant forms. it should not be confused with markets

_________________
Birth is the first example of " thinking outside the box"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MichaelC



Joined: 06 Jul 2006
Posts: 2151

PostPosted: Thu Oct 22, 2009 3:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

From where I see it, 'capitalism' is the investment of money - that has been earned in the private sector by providing a good or service to a customer who pays for it voluntarily from his own pocket - to generate a return. There is no government-enforced influence, favoritism, protection, or monopoly for either party.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fintan
Site Admin


Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 7962

PostPosted: Thu Oct 22, 2009 3:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Meanwhile, back on topic....

Quote:


Quote:
Climate change ad showing drowning puppies
to be investigated after 300 complaints


By Urmee Khan, Digital and Media Correspondent - 22 Oct 2009

A Government climate change advert featuring drowning puppies and crying rabbits will be investigated by the advertising watchdog after receiving hundreds of complaints from the public.

Cartoon images of a puppy drowning in floods, a kitten floating on an upturned table and a rabbit weeping as drought takes hold in its habitat, are all part of the advert Photo: Act on CO2

The advert begins with a father reading a bedtime story to his daughter which turns into a frightening account of the impact of climate change.

He is heard saying that “some places could even disappear under the sea” adding that “children would have to live with the horrible consequences”.

Cartoon images of a puppy drowning in floods, a kitten floating on an upturned table and a rabbit weeping as drought takes hold in its habitat, are all part of the advert.

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) said the advert had prompted 375 complaints. It will now investigate and look into claims that the 70 second advert should not have been shown before the 9pm watershed because children would have been watching.

It will also examine whether the advert would have been 'distressing' for youngsters and whether it constituted 'scaremongering'.

The Department of Energy and Climate Change launched the £6 million pound campaign earlier this month.

The DECC produced the hard-hitting advert after research showed that more than half of the UK public think climate change will have no effect on them.

A Downing Street petition that calls on the Government to 'stop wasting taxpayers' money on climate change propaganda designed to frighten out children' had attracted more than 500 signatures.

Joan Ruddock, the Energy and climate change minister, has stood by the adverts saying it was consistent with Government policy on the issue.

She said it was based on the latest science and assessments and said it was not aimed at children but adults.

The investigation is expected to last for two to three months before a ruling is made.

Link

_________________
Minds are like parachutes.
They only function when open.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
bri



Joined: 16 Jun 2006
Posts: 3174
Location: Capacious Creek

PostPosted: Thu Oct 22, 2009 2:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Americans now cool to global warming
October 22, 10:07 AMLA Ecopolitics ExaminerPAUL TAYLOR

http://www.examiner.com/x-3089-LA-Ecopolitics-Examiner~y2009m10d22-Americans-Now-Cool-to-Global-Warming

The new trend among common-sense Americans is to doubt the claims of alarmist environmentalists, “green” politicians and advertisers, Al Gore and the United Nation’s hysterical claims of a global warming apocalypse.


A new survey by the non-partisan Pew Research Center reports a sharp decline over the past year of Americans who consider global warming to be a serious problem. According to the October survey among 1,500 adults, 35% said global warming is a serious problem, down from 44% in April 2008 -- a drop of about 20%. The survey also indicates a decline of Americans convinced that global temperatures are rising because of human activity. Only 36% are now convinced, down from 47% last year -- about a 20% drop.

Regrettably, fewer than half of those surveyed have heard of the “cap-and-trade” greenhouse gas tax scheme that Democrats want to add to Obama’s other big-government policies. Cap-and-trade CO2 control systems were first adopted by the European Union (EU) countries in 2005. The theoretical climate benefit of cap-and-trade (or carbon tax) systems is that by making companies pay for CO2 emissions, government forces the switch to carbon-neutral or renewable technologies. Since 2005, the EU’s cap-and-trade system has failed both the environmental goals and the market goals; all at considerably increased costs to conventional energy users with no climate benefits.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fintan
Site Admin


Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 7962

PostPosted: Fri Oct 23, 2009 5:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Those are some seriously interesting
poll numbers on global warming. Wink

The story is predictably not getting much traction
in the mainstream, but the AP are covering it and
add interesting details:

Quote:
Skepticism over global warming on rise, poll suggests
By Dina Cappiello Associated Press / October 23, 2009

......People living in the Midwest and mountainous areas of the West are far less likely to view global warming as a serious problem and to support limits on greenhouse gases than those in the Northeast and on the West Coast. Both the House and Senate bills have been drafted by lawmakers from Massachusetts and California......

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h-ZiXMrCMn_Vo2QQJncPTUGp-sJAD9BG7BE80
http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2009/10/23/skepticism_over_global_warming_on_rise_poll_suggests/

_________________
Minds are like parachutes.
They only function when open.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Fintan
Site Admin


Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 7962

PostPosted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 9:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

More Drivel From the
Eco-Warming Loonies


Quote:
Pet dogs as bad for planet as driving 4x4s,
book claims


By Paul Stokes - 23 Oct 2009

Owners should consider doing without, downsizing or even eating their pets to help save the planet, according to a new book.

It claims that the carbon footprint left by domesticated animals is out of proportion to the size of their paws.

A medium-sized dog has the same impact as a Toyota Land Cruiser driven 6,000 miles a year, while a cat is equivalent to a Volkswagen Golf.

But rabbits and chickens are eco-friendly because they provide meat for their owners while a canary or a goldfish has little effect on the environment.

At the same time a pair of hamsters do the same damage as running a plasma television, suggests the book Time to Eat the Dog: The Real Guide to Sustainable Living.

New Zealand-based authors Robert and Brenda Vale base their findings on the amount of land needed to grow food for pets ranging from budgerigars to cats and dogs.

They say an average Collie eats 164kg of meat and 95kg of cereals a year, giving it a high impact on the planet.

But a pair of rabbits can produce 36 young annually, which would provide 72kg of meat and help decrease the owner's carbon footprint.

Mr Vale, an architect who specialises in sustainable living, said: "There are no recipes in the book. We're not actually saying it is time to eat the dog.

"We're just saying that we need to think about and know the (ecological) impact of some of the things we do and that we take for granted."

He explained that sustainability issues require us to make choices which are "as difficult as eating your dog".

Mr Vale added: "Once you see where cats and dogs fit in your overall balance of things, you might decide to have the cat but not also to have the two cars and the three bathrooms and be a meat-eater yourself."

Link

_________________
Minds are like parachutes.
They only function when open.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
atm



Joined: 16 Apr 2006
Posts: 3863

PostPosted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 11:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sanity in a mainstream nutshell.

Quote:


The real climate change catastrophe

In a startling new book, Christopher Booker reveals how a handful of scientists, who have pushed flawed theories on global warming for decades, now threaten to take us back to the Dark Ages

By Christopher Booker
Published: 7:00AM GMT 25 Oct 2009

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/6425269/The-real-climate-change-catastrophe.html

Next Thursday marks the first anniversary of one of the most remarkable events ever to take place in the House of Commons. For six hours MPs debated what was far and away the most expensive piece of legislation ever put before Parliament.

The Climate Change Bill laid down that, by 2050, the British people must cut their emissions of carbon dioxide by well over 80 per cent. Short of some unimaginable technological revolution, such a target could not possibly be achieved without shutting down almost the whole of our industrialised economy, changing our way of life out of recognition.

Even the Government had to concede that the expense of doing this which it now admits will cost us £18 billion a year for the next 40 years would be twice the value of its supposed benefits. Yet, astonishingly, although dozens of MPs queued up to speak in favour of the Bill, only two dared to question the need for it. It passed by 463 votes to just three.

One who voted against it was Peter Lilley who, just before the vote was taken, drew the Speaker's attention to the fact that, outside the Palace of Westminster, snow was falling, the first October snow recorded in London for 74 years. As I observed at the time: Who says that God hasn’t got a sense of humour?

By any measure, the supposed menace of global warming and the political response to it has become one of the overwhelmingly urgent issues of our time. If one accepts the thesis that the planet faces a threat unprecedented in history, the implications are mind-boggling. But equally mind-boggling now are the implications of the price we are being asked to pay by our politicians to meet that threat. More than ever, it is a matter of the highest priority that we should know whether or not the assumptions on which the politicians base their proposals are founded on properly sound science.

This is why I have been regularly reporting on the issue in my column in The Sunday Telegraph, and this week I publish a book called The Real Global Warming Disaster: Is the obsession with climate change turning out to be the most costly scientific delusion in history?.

There are already many books on this subject, but mine is rather different from the rest in that, for the first time, it tries to tell the whole tangled story of how the debate over the threat of climate change has evolved over the past 30 years, interweaving the science with the politicians response to it.

It is a story that has unfolded in three stages. The first began back in the Seventies when a number of scientists noticed that the world's temperatures had been falling for 30 years, leading them to warn that we might be heading for a new ice age.

Then, in the mid-Seventies, temperatures started to rise again, and by the mid-Eighties, a still fairly small number of scientists including some of those who had been predicting a new ice age began to warn that we were now facing the opposite problem: a world dangerously heating up, thanks to our pumping out CO2 and all those greenhouse gases inseparable from modern civilisation.

In 1988, a handful of the scientists who passionately believed in this theory won authorisation from the UN to set up the body known as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This was the year when the scare over global warming really exploded into the headlines, thanks above all to the carefully staged testimony given to a US Senate Committee by Dr James Hansen, head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), also already an advocate for the theory that was causing potentially catastrophic warming.

The disaster-movie scenario that rising levels of CO2 could lead to droughts, hurricanes, heatwaves and, above all, that melting of the polar ice caps, which would flood half the world's major cities, struck a rich chord. The media loved it. The environmentalists loved it. More and more politicians, led by Al Gore in the United States, jumped on the bandwagon. But easily their most influential allies were the scientists running the new IPCC, led by a Swedish meteorologist Bert Bolin and Dr John Houghton, head of the UK Met Office.

The IPCC, through its series of weighty reports, was now to become the central player in the whole story. But rarely has the true nature of any international body been more widely misrepresented. It is commonly believed that the IPCC consists of the world's top climate scientists charged with weighing all the scientific evidence for and against human-induced climate change in order to arrive at a consensus.

In fact, the IPCC was never intended to be anything of the kind.

The vast majority of its contributors have never been climate scientists. Many are not scientists at all.

And from the start, the purpose of the IPCC was not to test the theory, but to provide the most plausible case for promoting it. This was why the computer models it relied on as its chief source of evidence were all programmed to show that, as CO2 levels continued to rise, so temperatures must inevitably follow.

One of the more startling features of the IPCC is just how few scientists have been centrally involved in guiding its findings. They have mainly been British and American, led for a long time by Dr Houghton (knighted in 1991) as chairman of its scientific working group, who in 1990 founded the Met Office's Hadley Centre for research into climate change.

The centre has continued to play a central role in selecting the IPCC's contributors to this day, and along with the Climate Research Unit run by Professor Philip Jones at the University of East Anglia, controls HadCrut, one of the four official sources of global temperature data (another of the four, GIStemp, is run by the equally committed Dr Hansen and his British-born right-hand man, Dr Gavin Schmidt).

With remarkable speed, from the time of its first report in 1990, the IPCC and its computer models won over many of the world's politicians, led by those of the European Union. In 1992, the UN staged its extraordinary Earth Summit in Rio, attended by 108 prime ministers and heads of state, which agreed the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change; and this led in 1997 to the famous Kyoto Protocol, committing the world's governments to specific targets for reducing CO2.

Up to this point, the now officially accepted global-warming theory seemed only too plausible. Both CO2 levels and world temperatures had continued to rise, exactly as the IPCC's computer models predicted. We thus entered the second stage of the story, lasting from 1998 to 2006, when the theory seemed to be carrying everything before it.

The politicians, most notably in the EU, were now beginning to adopt every kind of measure to combat the supposed global-warming menace, from building tens of thousands of wind turbines to creating elaborate schemes for buying and selling the right to emit CO2;, the gas every plant in the world needs for life.

But however persuasive the case seemed to be, there were just beginning to be rather serious doubts about the methods being used to promote it.

More and more questions were being asked about the IPCC's unbalanced approach to evidence most notably in its promotion of the so-called hockey stick graph, produced in time for its 2001 report by a hitherto obscure US scientist Dr Michael Mann, purporting to show how global temperatures had suddenly been shooting up to levels quite unprecedented in history.

One of the hockey stick's biggest fans was Al Gore, who in 2006 made it the centrepiece of his Oscar-winning film, An Inconvenient Truth. But it then turned out that almost every single scientific claim in Gore's film was either wildly exaggerated or wrong. The statistical methods used to create the hockey-stick graph were so devastatingly exposed by two Canadian statisticians, Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick (as was confirmed in 2006 by two expert panels commissioned by the US Congress) that the graph has become one of the most comprehensively discredited artefacts in the history of science.

The supporters of the hockey stick, highly influential in the IPCC, hit back. Proudly calling themselves the Hockey Team their membership again reflects how small has been the number of closely linked scientists centrally driving the warming scare. They include Philip Jones, in charge of the HadCrut official temperature graph, and Gavin Schmidt, Hansen's right-hand man at GISS which itself came under fire for adjusting its temperature data to exaggerate the warming trend.

Then, in 2007, the story suddenly entered its third stage. In a way that had been wholly unpredicted by those IPCC computer models, global temperatures started to drop. Although CO2 levels continued to rise, after 25 years when temperatures had risen, the world's climate was visibly starting to cool again.

More and more eminent scientists have been coming out of the woodwork to suggest that the IPCC, with its computer models, had got it all wrong. It isn't CO2 that has been driving the climate, the changes are natural, driven by the activity of the sun and changes in the currents of the world's oceans.

The ice caps haven't been melting as the alarmists and the models predicted they should. The Antarctic, containing nearly 90 per cent of all the ice in the world, has actually been cooling over the past 30 years, not warming. The polar bears are not drowning, there are four times more of them now than there were 40 years ago. In recent decades, the number of hurricanes and droughts have gone markedly down, not up.

As the world has already been through two of its coldest winters for decades, with all the signs that we may now be entering a third, the scientific case for CO2 threatening the world with warming has been crumbling away on an astonishing scale.

Yet it is at just this point that the world's politicians, led by Britain, the EU and now President Obama, are poised to impose on us far and away the most costly set of measures that any group of politicians has ever proposed in the history of the world, measures so destructive that even if only half of them were implemented, they would take us back to the dark ages.

We have less than 50 days to save the planet, declared Gordon Brown last week, in yet another desperate bid to save the successor to the Kyoto treaty, which is due to be agreed in Copenhagen in six weeks' time.

But no one has put the reality of the situation more succinctly than Prof Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technolgy, one of the most distinguished climatologists in the world, who has done as much as anyone in the past 20 years to expose the emptiness of the IPCC's claim that its reports represent a consensus of the views of the world's top climate scientists.

In words quoted on the cover of my new book, Prof Lindzen wrote:

"...Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century's developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly exaggerated computer predictions combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a rollback of the industrial age."

Such is the truly extraordinary position in which we find ourselves.

Thanks to misreading the significance of a brief period of rising temperatures at the end of the 20th century, the Western world (but not India or China) is now contemplating measures that add up to the most expensive economic suicide note ever written.

How long will it be before sanity and sound science break in on what begins to look like one of the most bizarre collective delusions ever to grip the human race?

'The Real Global Warming Disaster’ by Christopher Booker (Continuum, £16.99) is available from Telegraph Books for £14.99 plus £1.25 postage and packing. To order, call 0844 871 1516 or go to books.telegraph.co.uk

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MichaelC



Joined: 06 Jul 2006
Posts: 2151

PostPosted: Mon Oct 26, 2009 4:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Save the planet - kill yourself now!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Peter



Joined: 26 Jun 2007
Posts: 2430
Location: The Canadian shield

PostPosted: Mon Oct 26, 2009 7:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

MichaelC wrote:
Save the planet - kill yourself now!

Nahhh. the planet will kill us when it is good and ready.... Wink

_________________
The grand design, reflected in the face of Chaos.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
MichaelC



Joined: 06 Jul 2006
Posts: 2151

PostPosted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 12:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Even the Wall Street Journal chimes in today:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125686509223717691.html
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 10, 11, 12 ... 56, 57, 58  Next
Page 11 of 58

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Theme xand created by spleen.