CLIMATEGATE!!! The Global Warming Agenda exposed.

[Outlawstar]

You're hardly opened to listen to others as well. I'm not ganging up on you, keep things civil is all I ask.

I dont see where youd get the idea I dont listen to people to be honest!

I can agree with all that (except that I believe climate change is man-made). The decimation of trees, overfishing, more poluents emission (in all three materia states, but also "ethereal" such as radio waves) - All that affects the environment. What if the increase of radio signals is what is killing bees around the world?

Yes thats all well and good, and they are real issues, so why arent we reaching international agreements on real issues instead of freaking co2?

I've said it before and I'll keep on repeating myself here. If such CO2 conspiracy existed, I trust politicians all over the world would be going at each others jugular right now.

THEY ARE, hundreds of scientists and politicians have been debating it for years now, including on live TV, but do you really thin the media are going to cover that on a regular basis?

I can only imagine the political discourse:
"In the middle of the worst economic crisis in decades, you raise business expenses with 'green taxes', when this money could actually be used to create jobs.
And now we now these 'green taxes' were based on lies. How can you even leave your house and show yourself in public?!?!"

Like I said this has been happening, but the vast majority are on the bandwagon because they believe the fraudulent science of Al Gore and his band of UN scientist, Al Gore has completely discredited the notion of AGW though CO2 emissions at this stage anyway, with his constant fuding of data, outright lies and position that the debate is over and the science is settled, I just trying to get people to look at it in a different light, nothing else!!!!

IF I knew for a fact co2 was warming the planet dangerously Id care, but i DONT know that for a fact!!

or something like that.

The false data scandal must be investigated, that's sure. But I can't believe that yo can actually involve so many people in a lie. The few that contradict the majority in this particular case, don't have the same credentials that the other possesses.

Its easy to involve a lot of people in a lie, very easy, you just dont tell them its a lie!
Oh and of course in this world money talks!

 

[Outlawstar]

70 of climate change is NOT man made

the earths rotation around the sun changes, it's a proven fact, and the earth WILL move further away from the sun sooner or later and we will reach another ice age, most of the ice melting is cause the current roation is too close to the sun, but that doesn't mean we're not helping melt the icecaps ourselves.

The icecaps are not melting unaturally and are actually increasing on average!!

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,517035,00.html

 

[Ryo Chan]

70 of climate change is NOT man made

the earths rotation around the sun changes, it's a proven fact, and the earth WILL move further away from the sun sooner or later and we will reach another ice age, most of the ice melting is cause the current roation is too close to the sun, but that doesn't mean we're not helping melt the icecaps ourselves.

The icecaps are not melting unaturally and are actually increasing on average!!

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,517035,00.html

fox news......

why not try using The Sun to prove the hillsbough disater too

 

[Outlawstar]

70 of climate change is NOT man made

the earths rotation around the sun changes, it's a proven fact, and the earth WILL move further away from the sun sooner or later and we will reach another ice age, most of the ice melting is cause the current roation is too close to the sun, but that doesn't mean we're not helping melt the icecaps ourselves.

The icecaps are not melting unaturally and are actually increasing on average!!

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,517035,00.html

fox news......

why not try using The Sun to prove the hillsbough disater too

Look, the ice caps have grown and shrunk in the past, obviously they do so during the winter and summer months, but even more dratically in the past than now, and let me tell you it was nothing to do with Viking SUVs.

There is nothing unnatural about it, I dont see what the panic is about!

 

[Ryo Chan]

i didn't say it was unnatural, i dunno why your trying to prove me wrong.

yes it's natural, but mankind is still having an effect on it, by either speeding up or slowing down the process

 

[Outlawstar]

i didn't say it was unnatural, i dunno why your trying to prove me wrong.

yes it's natural, but mankind is still having an effect on it, by either speeding up or slowing down the process

By either slowing it down or speeding it up?
Which is it?
There is no evidence for either of these things, how could we be making them grow out of interest?

 

[Ryo Chan]

i didn't say it was unnatural, i dunno why your trying to prove me wrong.

yes it's natural, but mankind is still having an effect on it, by either speeding up or slowing down the process

By either slowing it down or speeding it up?
Which is it?
There is no evidence for either of these things, how could we be making them grow out of interest?

couldn't tell you, no one was alive during the last age to tell us, why do you tell me

and u tell me how we can make them grow, your the only one who seems to think they are growing

 

[Outlawstar]

i didn't say it was unnatural, i dunno why your trying to prove me wrong.

yes it's natural, but mankind is still having an effect on it, by either speeding up or slowing down the process

By either slowing it down or speeding it up?
Which is it?
There is no evidence for either of these things, how could we be making them grow out of interest?

couldn't tell you, no one was alive during the last age to tell us, why do you tell me

and u tell me how we can make them grow, your the only one who seems to think they are growing

When did I say we are making them grow?

 

[Ryo Chan]

oh dear outlaw, if your going to post news articles to back you up, atleast read them, the title says it in big capital letters

 

[chaos]

Yes thats all well and good, and they are real issues, so why arent we reaching international agreements on real issues instead of freaking co2?

Freaking CO2 is an issue... Cause for global warming or not, it is a major issue as it causes acid rain. The oceans are responsible for purifying the air, not forests. Algae and other microorganisms purify a lot more the air than any forest.

I've said it before and I'll keep on repeating myself here. If such CO2 conspiracy existed, I trust politicians all over the world would be going at each others jugular right now.

THEY ARE, hundreds of scientists and politicians have been debating it for years now, including on live TV, but do you really thin the media are going to cover that on a regular basis?

Hundreds where? sorry, I don't see them. I couldn't care less for scientist as it's an ego-thing. An scientist back in Brazil started professing how mobile phones were prejudicial to human health after an anthenae was insttalled behind his house. I happen to know this scientist. So if you tell me they are free from bias...
As for media covering it, I believe it's more a matter of going after it yourself, but from trustworth sources.

Like I said this has been happening, but the vast majority are on the bandwagon because they believe the fraudulent science of Al Gore and his band of UN scientist, Al Gore has completely discredited the notion of AGW though CO2 emissions at this stage anyway, with his constant fuding of data, outright lies and position that the debate is over and the science is settled, I just trying to get people to look at it in a different light, nothing else!!!!

Besides telling us two important scientists lied, there is little to what you linked so far as to scientific proof.
Paper accepts anything. And so does websites. When the proofs you keep on mentioning appears on major scientific journals, I can agree with you, but so far very few have appeared and so far very little survived the scrutiny of peer review.

Its easy to involve a lot of people in a lie, very easy, you just dont tell them its a lie!
Oh and of course in this world money talks!

Sure does! That's why there is people talking about how global warming is a conspiracy =)

Basic macro-economy - greater production output, services, more taxes, more economic growth and so on. More taxes, less investments, less investments less growth. More people driving their cars, more money made on petrol, more money made by car manufacturers, etc - people taking public transport to work moves the economy slower... So basically, there is more money to be made by ignoring the environment, than money to be made by regulating CO2 emissions.

My reason to believe in Global warming is based on what I've experienced and seem, so weather related catastrophies are becoming more widely broadcasted or they are really happening with more frequency. I'm more inclined to believe in the latter. The scientific articles, just support my opinion.

Agree on disagree is the only way out here as things are now, none of us seems interested in providing proof of their views, so this is just wasted rethoric as it is.

 

[Outlawstar]

oh dear outlaw, if your going to post news articles to back you up, atleast read them, the title says it in big capital letters

I did read it thank you very much, the title says its growing, it doesint say we are doing it?

 

[ayase]

Who's panicing?

The core question for me is not "Is humanity the cause of climate change?" but "Can humanity influence the climate?" I would have to say yes. We can divert rivers, completely change ecosystems, send species extinct, improve land fertility by the use of artificial fertilisers, cause acid rain, create holes in the ozone layer, etc... So taking that to be the case, is it better if we attempt to influence the climate in our favour? Again, I say yes. It doesn't matter to me if climate change is man made or not, I'd rather live in a world where people are less likely to be flooded out of their homes or die of starvation because of drought. Of course most people don't want to see others suffer, but on top of that it's expensive to sort these 'natural' disasters out. That, I believe, is the main reason we are finally seeing action on climate change from governments of the world. They look at the cost of the clean-up operations, re-housing, food aid etc. and say "****, perhaps it would be cheaper to prevent these things from happening in the first place..." And in order to do that they need to pass laws to regulate emissions.

I appreciate that the major flaw in this argument from your point of view is that you don't think CO2 is the cause of climate change - That's fine. You have your beliefs and I have mine, but I have to ask, do you honestly think if we tapped all the oil and gas reserves in the world, opened all the coal seams and set them all alight it would have no influence on the atmosphere and by extension the climate? None?

 

[Outlawstar]

ernational agreements on real issue...s purify a lot more the air than any forest.

Co2 has been far higher in the past, it increases plant and animal ecosystems and thus agriculture, it rarely causes sever acid rain, more co2 is a good thing.!
Sulfer Dioxide is a more common cause of acid rain!
Theres nothing unatural about co2 acid rain.

Hundreds where? sorry, I don't see them. I couldn't care less for scientist as it's an ego-thing. An scientist back in Brazil started professing how mobile phones were prejudicial to human health after an anthenae was insttalled behind his house. I happen to know this scientist. So if you tell me they are free from bias...
As for media covering it, I believe it's more a matter of going after it yourself, but from trustworth sources.

My whole point is based on the bias of science, why would I think they are free from bias?
Bias insint the issue here, the issue is that teh debate is not over by any means.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...tream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

# Tim Patterson[29], paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada: "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years. On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"[30][31]

Like I said this has been happening, but the vast majority are on the bandwagon because they believe the fraudulent science of Al Gore and his band of UN scientist, Al Gore has completely discredited the notion of AGW though CO2 emissions at this stage anyway, with his constant fuding of data, outright lies and position that the debate is over and the science is settled, I just trying to get people to look at it in a different light, nothing else!!!!

Besides telling us two important scientists lied, there is little to what you linked so far as to scientific proof.
Paper accepts anything. And so does websites. When the proofs you keep on mentioning appears on major scientific journals, I can agree with you, but so far very few have appeared and so far very little survived the scrutiny of peer review.

Two scientists?
You havint adresses the points I actually made about the lie and deceit now so clear on the part of the IPCC as a whole, Id advise you read the documents and emails which have been confirmed as real by scintists involved.

Scientific journals have been shown many times in the past to cover up information and to outright screen peoples works when it is deemed unnnaceptable to the status quo.

Its easy to involve a lot of people in a lie, very easy, you just dont tell them its a lie!
Oh and of course in this world money talks!

Sure does! That's why there is people talking about how global warming is a conspiracy =)

Basic macro-economy - greater production output, services, more taxes, more economic growth and so on. More taxes, less investments, less investments less growth. More people driving their cars, more money made on petrol, more money made by car manufacturers, etc - people taking public transport to work moves the economy slower... So basically, there is more money to be made by ignoring the environment, than money to be made by regulating CO2 emissions.

It doesint mater, both together equals win-win!
And it particularly doesint matter if the endgame was to have an economy completely based on the carbon fraud, which is a possibility in th elong term.

My reason to believe in Global warming is based on what I've experienced and seem, so weather related catastrophies are becoming more widely broadcasted or they are really happening with more frequency. I'm more inclined to believe in the latter. The scientific articles, just support my opinion.

Of course global warming happens, but its due to...drumroll, the sun!!
Which weather catastrophes in particular, you wouldint be talking about the fact that hurricanes are at a 30 year low, freak weather is not an indication of Anthropogenic global warming.

Agree on disagree is the only way out here as things are now, none of us seems interested in providing proof of their views, so this is just wasted rethoric as it is.

Listen Ive posted an article about one thing, and others have turned it into another, i have posted PROOF, you have not.

 

[Outlawstar]

The core question for me is not "Is humanity the cause of climate change?" but "Can humanity influence the climate?" I would have to say yes. We can divert rivers, completely change ecosystems, send species extinct, improve land fertility by the use of artificial fertilisers, cause acid rain, create holes in the ozone layer, etc...

Thats nothing compared with what we can really do with the climate, we can seed clouds to create rain in the 60s, just think about what we can do now, the un in 1977 forbid weather warfare, you dont forbid something unless its possible, this is the other side of the whole debate, the technology that we could actually use to help clean up the planet and literally change weather patterns at will, the chinese can STOP it from raining for god sake, but lets not get into the whole black technology debate, no doubt people wont care to believe thats possible either.

So taking that to be the case, is it better if we attempt to influence the climate in our favour? Again, I say yes. It doesn't matter to me if climate change is man made or not, I'd rather live in a world where people are less likely to be flooded out of their homes or die of starvation because of drought. Of course most people don't want to see others suffer, but on top of that it's expensive to sort these 'natural' disasters out. That, I believe, is the main reason we are finally seeing action on climate change from governments of the world. They look at the cost of the clean-up operations, re-housing, food aid etc. and say "****, perhaps it would be cheaper to prevent these things from happening in the first place..." And in order to do that they need to pass laws to regulate emissions.

Okay first you say you dont care if climate change is man made or not, then you say we need to pass laws to regulate emmisions to stop it?

I appreciate that the major flaw in this argument from your point of view is that you don't think CO2 is the cause of climate change - That's fine. You have your beliefs and I have mine, but I have to ask, do you honestly think if we tapped all the oil and gas reserves in the world, opened all the coal seams and set them all alight it would have no influence on the atmosphere and by extension the climate? None?

I dont know.


See this is the problem, recently the word climate change is being bandied around more and more by the media, Ive noticed an almost complete drying up of the term global warming, for obvious reasons, the earth is not currently warming.

Its just like having a war to stop the terrorists, you cant actually do that can you, and of course its the same by using the word climate change.

 

[ayase]

Okay first you say you dont care if climate change is man made or not, then you say we need to pass laws to regulate emmisions to stop it?

I didn't say to stop it. But I think, as I said in my first paragraph (and I think you agreed with me) that we do have the power to influence the climate. So why not make it better, rather than making it worse? But I think we're going to remain at loggerheads over this simply because of our views on CO2 being a cause of climate change.

And I think the reason 'climate change' is used now instead of 'global warming' is that global warming conjured up in the minds of the public images of less rain, barren deserts etc. which could then be dismissed by people opposed to the idea of global warming "Global warming? Hah! Look at all the rain and the hurricanes!" when actually, said events are still a result of an increase in temperatures. The re-branding of global warming as climate change was a PR exercise, that I'll grant you. But only one which needed to be done because of people with fraudulent arguments seizing on the opportunities the former term presented to ridicule it.

Its just like having a war to stop the terrorists, you cant actually do that can you, and of course its the same by using the word climate change.

I'm not convinced the two are analogous. Terrorism is a method of violence no amount of conventional warfare will stop, but I think we do have the means to influence the climate in our favour. It's just the actual doing it - which I think is why we need legislation.

 

[Outlawstar]

I didn't say to stop it. But I think, as I said in my first paragraph (and I think you agreed with me) that we do have the power to influence the climate. So why not make it better, rather than making it worse? But I think we're going to remain at loggerheads over this simply because of our views on CO2 being a cause of climate change.

Im all for making the climate better, but regulating life giving co2 aint gonna do that, water vapour is a far more potent greenhouse gas than co2.

And I think the reason 'climate change' is used now instead of 'global warming' is that global warming conjured up in the minds of the public images of less rain, barren deserts etc. which could then be dismissed by people opposed to the idea of global warming "Global warming? Hah! Look at all the rain and the hurricanes!" when actually, said events are still a result of an increase in temperatures. The re-branding of global warming as climate change was a PR exercise, that I'll grant you. But only one which needed to be done because of people with fraudulent arguments seizing on the opportunities the former term presented to ridicule it.

It was changed because the globe is not warming anymore, simple as that in my humble opinion.

Its just like having a war to stop the terrorists, you cant actually do that can you, and of course its the same by using the word climate change.

I'm not convinced the two are analogous. Terrorism is a method of violence no amount of conventional warfare will stop, but I think we do have the means to influence the climate in our favour. It's just the actual doing it - which I think is why we need legislation.

A war on terrorism and a war on climate change are in analogous in that they are both equally vague and both allow legislation passed due to them to stay in place for long periods of time no matter how much personal liberty is sacraficed, i.e, Patriot act, Homland security acts.

 

[chaos]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...tream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

From your list
Timothy F. Ball associated to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_Re ... ip_Project

"The NRSP has been criticised on the basis that it is an industry-funded body which presents itself as a grassroots organization, an activity referred as Astroturfing.[1] [2] Harris rejected this criticism but refused to reveal the sources of NRSP funding."

Robert M. Carter - "Carter is a former Director of Australia's Secretariat for the Ocean Drilling Program and a Co-Chief Scientist for drilling leg 181"

"Carter's website states that his research "has been supported by grants from competitive public research agencies, especially the Australian Research Council (ARC)", and that he "receives no research funding from special interest organisations such as environmental groups, energy companies or government departments."[18] However, he is on the research committee of the Institute of Public Affairs, a right-wing group that has received funding from corporate interests including oil and tobacco companies.[14]"

Antonino Zichichi - "is an Italian physicist who has worked in the field of nuclear physics." - Not related to global warming "However, he has been criticized from many quarters for his biased views"

The list is long and I can't go through it now, but 3 out of the 5 scientists listed in that list seems to ahvbe bias and to be compromised... =)
Sounds like those scientists that couldn't prove that cigarretes were bad for you, if you ask me.

 

[Outlawstar]

There are respected climatologsts on that list too, the founder of the weather channel in America tried to sue Al Gore as he was against AGW, the debate is NOT over, that is my point and that cannot be denied!

 

[chaos]

There are respected climatologsts on that list too, the founder of the weather channel in America tried to sue Al Gore as he was against AGW, the debate is NOT over, that is my point and that cannot be denied!

Like I said, I just picked the first five. Might chekc the rest later, but after what I've seen so far, it seems that you're proving my point, rather than yours

 

[Outlawstar]

There are respected climatologsts on that list too, the founder of the weather channel in America tried to sue Al Gore as he was against AGW, the debate is NOT over, that is my point and that cannot be denied!

Like I said, I just picked the first five. Might chekc the rest later, but after what I've seen so far, it seems that you're proving my point, rather than yours

My point is that global warming by human activity in relation to co2 is not settled science, it is not a consensus, it should therefore not be used as an excuse to tax and police the public, especially in this economic state of affairs.