Global Warming is a SCAM
category: general [glöplog]
Quote:
if any of you fsckz actually cared, you would ask different questions and most important of all: come up with potential solutions. complaining whiners..
the only thing i can think of right now is to send a nuke hurtling towards the sun, because in all likelihood that is the cause of our "problem". but i don't think blowing up the sun would make these lunatic eco-warriors very happy. :)
but then, maybe it would. they seem to hate all forms of life and anything that aids it...such as CO2 - for example. :)
no more mr. nice carebear - weve had enough!
not that I want to spoil the party or sth.
but has any one of you recognized that what I was saying ~6 pages ago was more or less what the Nazi movement ~70-80 years ago used in their speeches to gain real power ? (not the tao part but the "fuck the wealthy elites" part)
I mean you good, but think about it.
p.s.: maybe it's just me but I kinda see history repeating itself :/
have a world:
we better be careful.
but has any one of you recognized that what I was saying ~6 pages ago was more or less what the Nazi movement ~70-80 years ago used in their speeches to gain real power ? (not the tao part but the "fuck the wealthy elites" part)
I mean you good, but think about it.
p.s.: maybe it's just me but I kinda see history repeating itself :/
have a world:
we better be careful.
Stop whining that the clima is irreversible changed forever AND POST SOME FUCKING CAREBEARS!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I don't know what it is. Grown ass men acting like little kids.
rtype,
It's -20C HERE...
The Historical average LOW temperature for 15-December is only -7C
It's -20C HERE...
The Historical average LOW temperature for 15-December is only -7C
I have the feeling we are being a bit pretentious here?
of course those guys who are expert in the field overlooked that, while we super-IQ-ed demosceners can see it in a glance just by having a look to a graph in Wikipedia with one eye while we keep the other one in pouet. We should all be in Mensa!
Yeah, because the more the ratio, the more the danger? How much should be the ratio? Will you be impressed with 0.0001, 1000, 42? Is it linear? Please, you have no clue what the ratio must be to push the system out of balance. Not even is it is a "more to more" process
In general I tend to be out of the discussion when it comes to subjects I have not a clue about. I think we should always question things and not believe what they tell us, and as such, I would think before believe I have the skills to interpret any data I find just in a newspaper. "Being humble" they call it, but I know very well it's not easy, we all think we think.
Now, it's also true that one has to be terribly naive to think politicians/businessman are not taking advantage of the climate-danger trend to make money!
Quote:
Scientists "claim" that human-caused emissions cause the planet to get warmer. But what happens when we zoom out on the graph?? Ah-ha, we see that the Earth just a few billion years ago used to be completely covered in molten lava!
of course those guys who are expert in the field overlooked that, while we super-IQ-ed demosceners can see it in a glance just by having a look to a graph in Wikipedia with one eye while we keep the other one in pouet. We should all be in Mensa!
Quote:
you can't even tell me how much C02 should "naturally" occur in the atmosphere. Yet you want me to have faith & just believe that human emissions are a danger. How much so? Give me some of those magical numbers damn it! I want a ratio of naturally occurring CO2 to the quantity produced by human activity - then I may begin to believe your argument (depending on how large our contribution of CO2 is, as a proportion).
Yeah, because the more the ratio, the more the danger? How much should be the ratio? Will you be impressed with 0.0001, 1000, 42? Is it linear? Please, you have no clue what the ratio must be to push the system out of balance. Not even is it is a "more to more" process
In general I tend to be out of the discussion when it comes to subjects I have not a clue about. I think we should always question things and not believe what they tell us, and as such, I would think before believe I have the skills to interpret any data I find just in a newspaper. "Being humble" they call it, but I know very well it's not easy, we all think we think.
Now, it's also true that one has to be terribly naive to think politicians/businessman are not taking advantage of the climate-danger trend to make money!
danger is nature knows little about politicians, Wikipedia graphs and conspiratory emails.
It's nice to know that no matter how knowledgeable and prominent you get in a research area, no matter how well your research is received and accepted by your peers, no matter how well it fits with observed data, there will always be some guy with a blog who'll contest your every single finding after looking at some carefully selected graphs from old and discredited studies.
Quote:
Yeah, because the more the ratio, the more the danger? How much should be the ratio? Will you be impressed with 0.0001, 1000, 42? Is it linear? Please, you have no clue what the ratio must be to push the system out of balance. Not even is it is a "more to more" process
More danger for me and you maybe, not the earth. I asked precisely because I don’t know. I haven’t once said that i was a GW expert, i said the exact opposite. But I know whatever that magic “ratio” is, it is very important to some people. Tbh, it doesn’t matter to me what figure they gave – it would still be nothing but an excuse and have nothing to do with GW (existent or not). Just a story they could tell us to backup what they want and will be doing.
Quote:
“The authors calculate that in the US each child adds 9,441 tonnes of carbon dioxide to the carbon legacy of an average female, equivalent to 5.7 times her lifetime emissions.” See also: A Population-Based Climate Strategy (OPT Research Briefing)
They are talking about ratios. The ratio between human life and a carbon credit.
Quote:
“OPT called on climate change negotiators to ensure that population restraint policies are adopted by every state worldwide to combat climate change.” – OPT
http://www.optimumpopulation.org/releases/opt.release09Sep09.htm
If you don’t know, the Optimum Population Trust are one of the biggest funders of research into GW and they also lobby governments around the world a lot and influence heavily all our government’s various GW policies. They are basically very powerful and they seem pretty interested in numbers and ratios, because they say their “scientific research” is telling them that there’s an “optimum” rate of human carbon emission – which basically means they’ve decided how many of us should be allowed to breath. The UN basically adopts and supports every policy recommendation they make (which is why the UN/UNESCO are so obsessed with setting up abortion clinics throughout the world). So when they begin to see me as nothing but an emitter of CO2 and then begin to tell my government that they’ve got to cut their “emissions” by 90% by the year 2050 – i get a bit concerned, see. When your government devalues your life to that extent, need to become concerned.
but you are right, i should not allow myself to play this stupid game of human CO2 levels and their effect of "Climate Change"
Quote:
Now, it's also true that one has to be terribly naive to think politicians/businessman are not taking advantage of the climate-danger trend to make money!
and increase their control. we probably agree more than disagree :) as that was the main point of this thread. im not even really interested in discussing whether GW is or was once "real" - the politicians and big business have their claws into it now. which means the idea has lost all credibility
moron
iq: China have been into population control for a long time now, long before they heard of GW but for them it was for reasons to do with economics and more efficiently managing their livestock, er, I mean citizens. They still enforce population control today but now they just say it’s to help combat CO2 and everyone gives them a round of applause – including you and especially the UN. But China are still an authoritarian dictatorship – that’s all - even if they did get the Olympics and manage to hide all their starving peasants and violent abuses from our “journalists” view (they were told to turn the other way anyhow). The UN have been saying that China’s society is a role model for many years now . TThey relly are impressed by them. Funny, because only a few years back i remeber them being portrayed as brutal animals.
are we going to be ruled by the same system? ultra-socialist hardcore communism where you have to ask permission to have a child or drive a car? because some corrupt politician and his tehnocratic "scientist" say so.
are we going to be ruled by the same system? ultra-socialist hardcore communism where you have to ask permission to have a child or drive a car? because some corrupt politician and his tehnocratic "scientist" say so.
i can't wait for all of rtype's horror scenarios to come true, and then he'll say to everybody "told you so, you should've listened when i ranted about it on pouet!"
Quote:
of course those guys who are expert in the field overlooked that
No they did their best to try and hide or ignore it.
Quote:
Please, you have no clue what the ratio must be to push the system out of balance
Neither do the scientists. "if it is more, it must be bad".
Quote:
Climate Change Denial Crock of the Week - CRU emails.
Pfff now there is an authority. If that is the game you want to play you can scrap both him and Anthony for much the same reasons.
Quote:
Of course, one source is not going to compel climate change deniers to change their views. Here's what New Scientist has to say.
Deniers...Lulz... it is not religious at all.
Quote:
I hate this thread.
And I absolutely fucking loathe you, but there you are still. See how that works? Things don't go away just because we don't like them. Climategate is like that
here's a reply so iblis can delude himself into thinking anyone cares to "discuss" with him
Awwwwww Havoc, angry now?
no, just wanted to let you know i agree!
help yourself.
why do you fuck up your "own" thread with non-related pictures now? i was just about to start a serious debate...
About what?
global warming, as per the topic...
this "here's a reply so iblis can delude himself into thinking anyone cares to "discuss" with him" is about Global warming? Even if it was, that was something you could have done on page 1 before you decided to trash the whole thread for whatever your reason.
But fair enough. What have you read so far?
But fair enough. What have you read so far?
eebliss, you are also a moron.