[quote]jlesk68 wrote:
The goal is global taxation.[/quote]
I think its more wanting to have a global central bank that can inflate with impunity. Imagine if you had no competing currency, gold was outlawed, and rigid price controls. A central bank could literally run the world, provided it had a monopoly on military force.
There would be no place that the common people could flee, unlike the old Roman Empire or the Ming. They would have to accept their lot or die.
The environmentalism as espoused by EGore is simply designed to make the USA more poor. Poor people are easier to rule. That’s why the Elite gave him the thing, to promote that.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
jlesk68 wrote:
The goal is global taxation.
I think its more wanting to have a global central bank that can inflate with impunity. Imagine if you had no competing currency, gold was outlawed, and rigid price controls. A central bank could literally run the world, provided it had a monopoly on military force.
There would be no place that the common people could flee, unlike the old Roman Empire or the Ming. They would have to accept their lot or die.
The environmentalism as espoused by EGore is simply designed to make the USA more poor. Poor people are easier to rule. That’s why the Elite gave him the thing, to promote that.
[/quote]
Hmmm…
I think it’s more likely that it’s just about reducing global warming/saving the planet as we know it etc.
[quote]100meters wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
jlesk68 wrote:
The goal is global taxation.
I think its more wanting to have a global central bank that can inflate with impunity. Imagine if you had no competing currency, gold was outlawed, and rigid price controls. A central bank could literally run the world, provided it had a monopoly on military force.
There would be no place that the common people could flee, unlike the old Roman Empire or the Ming. They would have to accept their lot or die.
The environmentalism as espoused by EGore is simply designed to make the USA more poor. Poor people are easier to rule. That’s why the Elite gave him the thing, to promote that.
Hmmm…
I think it’s more likely that it’s just about reducing global warming/saving the planet as we know it etc.
[/quote]
Is that why there have been no realistic proposals that will have any effect? (assuming the alarmists are correct)
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Is that why there have been no realistic proposals that will have any effect? (assuming the alarmists are correct)[/quote]
You know, you can reduce carbon emissions by holding your breath.
Still waiting for my Nobel Peace Prize.
[quote]100meters wrote:
Hmmm…
I think it’s more likely that it’s just about reducing global warming/saving the planet as we know it etc.
[/quote]
And if I were to accept this, would you accept that Bush’s attack on Iraq was for the reasons stated? Probably not.
You really need to read the links I posted.
I will say the most interesting thing I have found out recently is that CO2 levels are in fact correlated to historical warming trends, which I knew, but what has never been mentioned before was that those CO2 levels actually lagged behind the warming. Potentially meaning that cause and effect most likely have been reversed. CO2 may not cause global warming, but global warming may cause a rise in CO2.
Why haven’t I ever heard about this before? I have heard the pro-global warming scientists talking about the connection, but not once did they ever mention the temperature lag. Why do you think that is?
Personally I am getting tired of all the bullshit politics playing havoc with the facts. And yes this occurs on both sides, although with the media being so liberal that one side is almost all that is herd, or presented in a way that it looks intelligent.
Regardless, I simply want the facts without all the political bullshit attached. It makes it harder to form accurate opinions when people are not given the truth, or feel it is right to twist the facts to fit their point of view.
[quote]The Mage wrote:
Regardless, I simply want the facts without all the political bullshit attached. It makes it harder to form accurate opinions when people are not given the truth, or feel it is right to twist the facts to fit their point of view.[/quote]
Agreed. Can anyone recommend a reputable & comprehensive source (preferably a book) for a generalist to learn about alternative global warming theories?
And yes, that Gore was honored this way is a travesty, but I suppose it’s not all that surprising.
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
The Mage wrote:
Regardless, I simply want the facts without all the political bullshit attached. It makes it harder to form accurate opinions when people are not given the truth, or feel it is right to twist the facts to fit their point of view.
Agreed. Can anyone recommend a reputable & comprehensive source (preferably a book) for a generalist to learn about alternative global warming theories?
And yes, that Gore was honored this way is a travesty, but I suppose it’s not all that surprising.
[/quote]
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse
[quote]100meters wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
jlesk68 wrote:
The goal is global taxation.
I think its more wanting to have a global central bank that can inflate with impunity. Imagine if you had no competing currency, gold was outlawed, and rigid price controls. A central bank could literally run the world, provided it had a monopoly on military force.
There would be no place that the common people could flee, unlike the old Roman Empire or the Ming. They would have to accept their lot or die.
The environmentalism as espoused by EGore is simply designed to make the USA more poor. Poor people are easier to rule. That’s why the Elite gave him the thing, to promote that.
Hmmm…
I think it’s more likely that it’s just about reducing global warming/saving the planet as we know it etc.
[/quote]
Who doesn’t want clean water, clean air, and so forth. But (a) what does that have to do with peace? and (b) why give it to a guy who’s film is simply a slanted piece of rhetoric?
Remember how in Orwell’s 1984 everyone was kept hungry and mildly desperate? In the name of ‘saving the planet’, we’re all supposed to walk everywhere, drive shitty little cars, and be colder in our homes. Convergence?
Here are just a few paragraphs from my above link, that I think are important in this discussion:
[i]Theoretically, in a dry atmosphere, carbon dioxide could absorb about three times more energy than it actually does. Clouds, in the absence of all other greenhouse gases, could do likewise – look at it as there already being “competition” for available suitable longwave radiation (energy these gases can absorb), if you like.
Readers should be aware that the temperature effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide is logarithmic (that means there is a diminishing response as you keep adding more, like the additional window shade example, above).
If we consider the warming effect of the pre-Industrial Revolution atmospheric carbon dioxide (about 280 parts per million by volume or ppmv) as 1, then the first half of that heating was delivered by about 20ppmv (0.002% of atmosphere) while the second half required an additional 260ppmv (0.026%).
To double the pre-Industrial Revolution warming from CO2 alone would require about 90,000ppmv (9%) but we’d never see it - CO2 becomes toxic at around 6,000ppmv (0.6%, although humans have absolutely no prospect of achieving such concentrations). [/i]
[quote]The Mage wrote:
I will say the most interesting thing I have found out recently is that CO2 levels are in fact correlated to historical warming trends, which I knew, but what has never been mentioned before was that those CO2 levels actually lagged behind the warming. Potentially meaning that cause and effect most likely have been reversed. CO2 may not cause global warming, but global warming may cause a rise in CO2.
Why haven’t I ever heard about this before? I have heard the pro-global warming scientists talking about the connection, but not once did they ever mention the temperature lag. Why do you think that is?
[/quote]
Mage, thanks for the junkscience link - interesting stuff. On the CO2 correlation, the piece concludes this:
“There is no linear relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide change and global mean temperature or global mean temperature trend – global mean temperature has both risen and fallen during the period atmospheric carbon dioxide has been rising.”
So I wonder if they are correlated at all. I guess part of the problem here is the complexity - it’s difficult for a layman like myself to “read through” the bullshit.
One thing I do wonder is: if there are so many problems with the standard global warming theories/models (and, intuitively, I believe there are), why is there no whistle blower from a major academic institution speaking out about this? I would think that the attention alone would more than offset the fear of retribution from colleagues. Thoughts?
Also, I remember seeing a piece in the WSJ that was critical of Gore’s “documentary” - does anyone know of any more good sources that are likewise critical in a comprehensive way?
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
The Mage wrote:
I will say the most interesting thing I have found out recently is that CO2 levels are in fact correlated to historical warming trends, which I knew, but what has never been mentioned before was that those CO2 levels actually lagged behind the warming. Potentially meaning that cause and effect most likely have been reversed. CO2 may not cause global warming, but global warming may cause a rise in CO2.
Why haven’t I ever heard about this before? I have heard the pro-global warming scientists talking about the connection, but not once did they ever mention the temperature lag. Why do you think that is?
Mage, thanks for the junkscience link - interesting stuff. On the CO2 correlation, the piece concludes this:
“There is no linear relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide change and global mean temperature or global mean temperature trend – global mean temperature has both risen and fallen during the period atmospheric carbon dioxide has been rising.”
So I wonder if they are correlated at all. I guess part of the problem here is the complexity - it’s difficult for a layman like myself to “read through” the bullshit.
One thing I do wonder is: if there are so many problems with the standard global warming theories/models (and, intuitively, I believe there are), why is there no whistle blower from a major academic institution speaking out about this? I would think that the attention alone would more than offset the fear of retribution from colleagues. Thoughts?
Also, I remember seeing a piece in the WSJ that was critical of Gore’s “documentary” - does anyone know of any more good sources that are likewise critical in a comprehensive way?
[/quote]
Junkscience is factually junk, but you’d prefer it over sound scientific consensus? Odd.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
ephrem wrote:
…strange that nobody picked-up on it, but he and his organisation won the Nobel peace prize on Friday: MSN
T-Men know that Gore’s Crock-umentary has at least 7 known factual errors and requires disclaimers in other countries before viewing.
We also know that Rush Limbaugh should have won it.
[/quote]
I thought it was 9 errors? And if these are the 9 “errors” found by the British judge, why pay attention to them, he’s not a scientist so who cares.
Nevermind that the 9 errors aren’t actually “errors” at all…
still even though you’ve swallowed this horseshit whole and it’s repeated constantly in the wingnutosphere, even if it was totally debunked you’d still find another way to slander Gore, instead of turning on those who provided you with the misinformation. Seems strange to me.
Love the people that lie to you about the person who tells you the truth who you hate.
[quote]100meters wrote:
…
Love the people that lie to you about the person who tells you the truth who you hate.
[/quote]
Truth? Ha!
[quote]100meters wrote:
Junkscience is factually junk, but you’d prefer it over sound scientific consensus? Odd.
[/quote]
Maybe junkscience is junk - I’m not really qualified to assess it.
However, I am qualified to identify your “sound scientific consensus” as an ideology.
And I say this because every time I question the consensus, I am yelled at, scolded, chided - and, ultimately, my questions about their global warming theories/models go unanswered.
If there indeed was a “sound scientific consensus” on global warming theories/models, there would be no need to for anger and redicule, and all the reason in the world to patiently answer my questions.
[quote]The Mage wrote:
100meters wrote:
Hmmm…
I think it’s more likely that it’s just about reducing global warming/saving the planet as we know it etc.
And if I were to accept this, would you accept that Bush’s attack on Iraq was for the reasons stated? Probably not.
You really need to read the links I posted.
I will say the most interesting thing I have found out recently is that CO2 levels are in fact correlated to historical warming trends, which I knew, but what has never been mentioned before was that those CO2 levels actually lagged behind the warming. Potentially meaning that cause and effect most likely have been reversed. CO2 may not cause global warming, but global warming may cause a rise in CO2.
Why haven’t I ever heard about this before? I have heard the pro-global warming scientists talking about the connection, but not once did they ever mention the temperature lag. Why do you think that is?
Personally I am getting tired of all the bullshit politics playing havoc with the facts. And yes this occurs on both sides, although with the media being so liberal that one side is almost all that is herd, or presented in a way that it looks intelligent.
Regardless, I simply want the facts without all the political bullshit attached. It makes it harder to form accurate opinions when people are not given the truth, or feel it is right to twist the facts to fit their point of view.[/quote]
Yes C02 lags but so what? This is known issue and has nothing to do with whether C02 causes global warming. This is something brought up by skeptics to deliberately “play havoc with the facts”. It’s a classic case of skeptics “twisting the facts” to fit their (false) point of view.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
…
Love the people that lie to you about the person who tells you the truth who you hate.
Truth? Ha![/quote]
Sucks for you, because I think you called them lies. Oh well.
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
100meters wrote:
Junkscience is factually junk, but you’d prefer it over sound scientific consensus? Odd.
Maybe junkscience is junk - I’m not really qualified to assess it.
However, I am qualified to identify your “sound scientific consensus” as an ideology.
And I say this because every time I question the consensus, I am yelled at, scolded, chided - and, ultimately, my questions about their global warming theories/models go unanswered.
If there indeed was a “sound scientific consensus” on global warming theories/models, there would be no need to for anger and redicule, and all the reason in the world to patiently answer my questions.
[/quote]
There is a scientific consensus.
Junkscience is run by an oil/tobacco lobbyist, and it is factually crap.
[quote]100meters wrote:
Yes C02 lags but so what? This is known issue and has nothing to do with whether C02 causes global warming.
[/quote]
This is just so stunningly stupid.
