A MUST SEE! Global Warming Swindle!

POSTED BY: CrevanReaver
UPDATED: Friday, July 3, 2009 16:48
VIEWED: 11643
PAGE 2 of 9

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT PAGE

SIGMANUNKI

Thursday, June 28, 2007 5:05 AM

Got anything else to say aside from attempting to be clever?

EDIT: fix a typo.

----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

http://www.newsoftheverse.net
Searching the 'Verse so you don't have to.

ANTIMASON

Saturday, July 7, 2007 11:16 PM

http://prisonplanet.com/audio/060707rothschild.mp3

you guys have got to hear this, ALex Jones debates David Mayer De Rothschild(yes, of the luciferian Rothschild empire) on global warming. listen while its still free

CREVANREAVER

Friday, May 1, 2009 8:05 PM

Now that the socialists are in power in America more people need to see this documentary.

CHRISISALL

Friday, May 1, 2009 8:24 PM

I said it years ago; it's a natural trend being hurried somewhat by man. That's all. And if all the man-made pollution stopped cold tomorrow, it'd still happen.
My point is: it's REAL, and we can't deny it IS happening. But anyone who wants to debate the cause(s), feel free.

Pollution should be addressed just for it's toxic effect on us, if for no other reason.

The laughing Chrisisall

ANTHONYT

Saturday, May 2, 2009 2:38 AM

"The rich countries can afford to engage in some luxurious experimentation with other forms of energy, but the people of Africa are still at the stage of survival. The idea that the world's poorest people should be restricted to using the world's most expensive and inefficient forms of electrical generation is the most morally repugnant aspect of the global warming campaign. If we're telling the Third World that they can only have wind and solar power, what we are really telling them is, "You cannot have electricity". A solar panel is not going to power a steel industry. It is not going to power some railway train network."

Hello,

This bit at least seems logically legitimate to me. You can't restrict the development of poor nations to 'green' technologies unless you are also willing to subsidize their development.

I personally prefer not to subsidize any other nation until we get our own affairs in order. This is morally easy for me, as I believe our foreign aid to Africa is often as harmful as it is helpful.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

ANTIMASON

Friday, June 26, 2009 1:21 AM

the thing that gets me is... if the GW theory had never been propogated, no single person within their lifespan could discern a shift in climate change. even if it were true, the recordable variations are so miniscule, who would notice within their life time? i mean really?

however, the impact on western economies from GW initiatives would essentially plunge us back into the 19th century. its regressive! its purely a means of social control, plain and simple. the statist, collectivist mindset has no regard for liberty, GW theory is social engineering, plain and simple

CHRISISALL

Friday, June 26, 2009 1:24 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
no single person within their lifespan could discern a shift in climate change.

I can cast no stones as I have said things just as insipid in my own time on this planet.

The laughing Chrisisall

ANTHONYT

Friday, June 26, 2009 1:48 AM

Hello,

Sometimes, a problem can truthfully exist (Terrorism, for instance.)

And this problem can be used as an impetus to implement changes to a society.

Often, changes made in the name of solving a problem are actually implemented for undisclosed reasons far apart from the stated ones.

Universally, the more emotional you can make someone feel about a problem, the more willingly and un-critically they will embrace proposed solutions to that problem. (Say, curtailing Civil Liberties in exchange for Safety.)

I am cautious when people tell me that I have to do {A} (something they want me to do) in order to avoid {B} (something bad that I wouldn't want.)

Fortunately, I don't need to believe in Global Warming, and neither do any of you.

Fuel Economy, Toxin Reduction, and Cheap Abundant Renewable Energy are their own rewards. These are rewards we can encourage and implement for their own merits, without bringing in the specter of Global Warming, and certainly without imposing our will on other countries.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

CHRISISALL

Friday, June 26, 2009 1:54 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:

Fortunately, I don't need to believe in Global Warming, and neither do any of you.

But that won't stop the partisan bickering, Tony.

But I'm with ya.

The laughing Chrisisall

CANTTAKESKY

Friday, June 26, 2009 2:11 AM

I do not agree with this documentary.

I have seen no hard evidence that global warming exists.

The most compelling evidence of warming we have is melting ice in various regions of the world. While this demonstrates regional warming, it is a leap to generalize the observance to GLOBAL warming.

Global warming, as we know it, is entirely defined by computer modeling. They don't take average temperatures across the globe, and then average them over the year, and then compare averages year to year to find a significant increase. No....

Quote:

This is what really happens. Climate scientists take readings from weather stations and feed the data into a computer model that adjusts for all sorts of variables, including number of wet days, cloud cover, sunshine, diurnal temperature range, etc. Using computer modeling, they divide the world into 5x5 grids, and fill the boxes with known data and interpolate unknown data. They run the model for a while and come up with a single mean for a 30 year period, usually 1961 - 1990. This mean is called a climatology. The GISS site discusses the Elusive Absolute SATs (Surfact Air Temperatures):

Q. If SATs cannot be measured, how are SAT maps created ?

A. This can only be done with the help of computer models, the same models that are used to create the daily weather forecasts. We may start out the model with the few observed data that are available and fill in the rest with guesses (also called extrapolations) and then let the model run long enough so that the initial guesses no longer matter, but not too long in order to avoid that the inaccuracies of the model become relevant. This may be done starting from conditions from many years, so that the average (called a 'climatology') hopefully represents a typical map for the particular month or day of the year.

http://freedom2question.blogspot.com/2008/11/elusive-standard-deviatio
n.html

In other words, climate researchers invent something called a climatology, which they claim to represent the global average over a 30 year period. Climatologies are computed by modeling, which is basically a "Sim Climate" of sorts. But as anyone who has played sim games knows, the output depends entirely on the subjective understanding and oversimplifications of the programmer, and rarely reflects the complexities of reality.

Any conclusions derived from "Sim Climate," such as "The earth is warming," should be considered as a hypothesis at best. It is NOT a fact.

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT PAGE