Climate Crisis Fraud -written by a man who shares the Nobel Prize with Al Gore

medicineman

medicineman

New Member
aattocchi said:
This discussion reminds me of a funny picture I once saw. It was Galileo getting hit over the head with his telescope, by the Pope. There was a little bubble with craters on the moon. Funny shit though!

you cannot call someone a hypocrite for hating the way they have to survive!:peace:
Click to expand...
Wow, fresh discorse. There may be hope yet. I'm certainly not for one world government or one world wages either. I certainly would have to change my lifestyle if wages were $2.00 a day. These things are within the realm of the elites. They are the ones pushing for one world everything, because the rich will benefit immensely. Can you imagine if you were rich and only had to pay your employees $2.00 a day with no benefits. I watched a Chinese enterprenuer that started a bead factory with his dads money, a chinese elite. He made beads for Mardi-graw. He lived in a mansion, made 1.5 million US a year and paid his help 1.50-2.00 a day. He would "punish" them if they didn't produce their quota by docking them the whole days pay. If the boys fraternised with the girls and visa-versa, he docked them a whole months pay. Punishment was necessary to keep his employees in line. Can you even imagine that working in America?
 
ViRedd

ViRedd

New Member
yurple said:
Global warming exist, you'd have to be a FUCKING IDIOT to not know that...I've been on this planet 24 years and I can see the difference in the climate over those years, not to mention all the research I've done on it as well...
Click to expand...
Twenty-four years? Holy Cow ... that's a very long time. ~lol~

Vi
 
threatlevelorange

threatlevelorange

Well-Known Member
ViRedd said:
Twenty-four years? Holy Cow ... that's a very long time. ~lol~

Vi
Click to expand...
That IS almost the weakest entry into a debate on global warming. Not to mention the fact that the temp is raising like 3 degrees Fahrenheit a year...maby? Or is it 1 degree? I dunno...

At any rate, it reminds me of a guy on the local news that said that the day's hot temperture (91F) was "obviously the symptoms of global warming." Instead of "obviously a warm summer day" which ACTUALLY WAS obvious.
 
ViRedd

ViRedd

New Member
~lol~ That's the very same guy who only last week said that there was a twenty percent chance of rain. Why didn't the negative ass say there was an eighty percent chance of sunshine? :blsmoke:

Vi
 
aattocchi

aattocchi

Well-Known Member
"today a young man on acid realized, that mater is energy condenced to a slow vibration, that we are all one consciousness, experiencing ourselves subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is a dream or an imagination of ourselves, here's Tom with the weather"

Rev. Bill Hicks
 
threatlevelorange

threatlevelorange

Well-Known Member
aattocchi said:
"today a young man on acid realized, that mater is energy condenced to a slow vibration, that we are all one consciousness, experiencing ourselves subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is a dream or an imagination of ourselves, here's Tom with the weather"

Rev. Bill Hicks
Click to expand...
If you can fully comprehend all that, you wouldn't be worried about global warming...thats fo sho!
 
medicineman

medicineman

New Member
While we understand the evidence that has led them to view CO2 emissions as harmful, the IPCC's conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity. In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions. On top of which, because attempts to cut emissions will slow development, the current UN approach of CO2 reduction is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather than to decrease it.

The crux of the matter, future prosperity. The question should be, For who.
 
threatlevelorange

threatlevelorange

Well-Known Member
medicineman said:
While we understand the evidence that has led them to view CO2 emissions as harmful, the IPCC's conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity. In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions. On top of which, because attempts to cut emissions will slow development, the current UN approach of CO2 reduction is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather than to decrease it.

The crux of the matter, future prosperity. The question should be, For who.
Click to expand...
Is Marx taking a stand against the UN?
 
closet.cult

closet.cult

New Member
medicineman said:
While we understand the evidence that has led them to view CO2 emissions as harmful, the IPCC's conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity. In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions. On top of which, because attempts to cut emissions will slow development, the current UN approach of CO2 reduction is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather than to decrease it.

The crux of the matter, future prosperity. The question should be, For who.
Click to expand...
for all, it sounds like to me, except the federal reserve.
 
medicineman

medicineman

New Member
closet.cult said:
for all, it sounds like to me, except the federal reserve.
Click to expand...
How in the hell do you get me taking a stand for the FED. I've done nothing but rail against the private bankers that control the money since I came to this site. The profit I see diminishing would be to those gross polluters that would have to install such pollution controls as carbon scrubbers etc. Corporate profit would be affected if polution was curtailed. Hey it is a mega effort to turn it around, not just the US but all countries need to adjust. The only people that should not be concerned are all those religious fanatics that believe in the Rapture or the return of the fifth Imam, or what ever saving grace they coddle in their feeble brains. The real truth lies somewhere between 100-200 years of breathable air on this planet if the same acceleration of man made gasses are pumped into the atmosphere, shoot, maybe not even 100 years.
 
Johnnyorganic

Johnnyorganic

Well-Known Member
If 400 scientists are skeptical on global warming, is there really consensus? Should we not be sure before we debilitate, through international treaty, our economy on a theory? Is all the climate change hysteria a pig-in-a-poke?
 
towlie

towlie

Well-Known Member
Johnnyorganic said:
If 400 scientists are skeptical on global warming, is there really consensus?
Click to expand...
Wow. 400 Scientists! Assuming there are about a half million scientists in this world, you’ve got about 0.08%. So what you’re saying is there’s a better consensus on Global Warming than Evolution, UFO’s and JFK? Point taken. We should have scientific consensus regarding the electricity flowing through your keyboard in about 1,000 years. We’ll just have to turn off our computers and consider the science bunk until it is settled. It's a good thing we don't have to consider the consequence if you're wrong.

Also, and I don’t mean this to be condescending, but I think we’re having problems with the term ‘consensus’ here. ‘Consensus’ only means the majority of opinions have come to agreement. You seriously don’t believe there are less than 800 scientists, do you?

Also, how many of these are global criminologists? Go to any global climatology research center’s website (it doesn’t even have to be earth based.) Go to the NASA Goddard Climatology website. Enter the term ‘Global Warming’ in the search engine. You will find a wealth of articles (all referencing peer reviewed studies.) None of them suggest that GW is anything but a man made problem, and that we are at a critical turning point in which action must be taken.

Not enough? Go to the Army War College website. (This is no lefty pinko tree hugging organization.) Do the same search and ask yourself why they, and the US Army for that matter, consider GW to be this nation’s greatest security threat.

In all honesty, my local ski resort got 24-inches of fresh powder this weekend, so I haven’t given the peer reviewed articles that Closet.Cult reference fair review. I promise I will, but I’m headed to the resort in 10 minutes.

That said, is this what your argument boils down to?
  • Not every scientist in the world agrees on it, so there is still debate? (This is a seriously lame argument as I can’t think of a single historical instance where the consensus of science has been wrong and society has been correct.)
  • The overwhelming consensus of information found in both peer reviewed national and international scientifically published data is the result of a money making conspiracy theory who’s aim is to shift wealth from 1st-world nations to 3rd-world nation by enforcing environmental regulation. WTF? Oh and the oil industry, which made about $100-billion in profits last year has remained conveniently silent? And big business thinks it will make more money by increased regulation???
I’ve been thinking about this issue (while totally baked and sliding down fresh powder) and I don’t see why MedicineMan is getting so bent out of shape. Remember my friend; even the Bush administration is pushing for more stringent environmental regulation. This debate, in my humble opinion, is no more than the last believers holding on to what is now a debunked and almost distinct debate. My point Med, is to give them the respect they deserve and review their data as open mindedly as possible. If they prove us wrong then we should both be grateful. If not, well then I told you so.
 
Garden Knowm

Garden Knowm

The Love Doctor
There are 2 kinds of people... people wh love the planet.. and people who don't know they love the planet...

AL that matters is that the planet be kept in GREAT shape...

To think that AL GORE is pushing the GLOBAL WARMING ISSUE with such vigor for so many years JUST to make a BUCK.. that he does not need... is like claiming PHILLIP MORRIS did not KNOW that smoking is/was bad for ONES lungs..

AL GORE has more than enough money... he is just doing his part... now how about YOU.. why don't you do your part?

Are you attacking AL GORE 'cause you feel bad that you are NOT DOING your part?

YOU are clearly attacking because you are afraid of something... NO body attacks unless THEY are AFRAID...

SO just be honest.. what are you afraid of? let us help you overcome your fears..

iloveyou
 
towlie

towlie

Well-Known Member
Hey Knowm. Haven’t seen you for a while. How’s it going?

I think that Al Gore could and should have said a lot more during his 2000 bid. That really bent me. Also the carbon offsets with his home is a total bullshit answer. I ride my bike to work in the winter and this guy can’t buy a 90% condensing boiler???

My point is that the argument is taken a lot more seriously when those conducting real science are only referenced. I exchanged with Ccodaine about 5-times and he always kept slamming Gore… As if this was a legitimate argument against the science.

I’m out.

Merry X-mas.
 
Johnnyorganic

Johnnyorganic

Well-Known Member
Hey towlie, thanks for the response.

Out of hand, you are willing to dismiss 400 scientists? They disagree with your preconceived notions so they must be discredited as conspiracy theory crackpots.

My point on consensus is that if 400 prominent scientists question the cause of climate change, we should move slowly and deliberately. I seriously doubt that there are 500,000 scientists in the world who study climate change. Your .08% argument is meaningless without hard numbers to back it up.

You asked, "Not every scientist in the world agrees on it, so there is still debate? (This is a seriously lame argument as I can’t think of a single historical instance where the consensus of science has been wrong and society has been correct.)" When I was a kid in the 70's, the impending glacial age was a serious issue. The implications to our economy due to caving in to global pressure and signing an international treaty are massive. We need to consider unintended consequences. My fear is that global socialism and anti-American bias is fueling this issue I believe to be a farce.

You asked, "The overwhelming consensus of information found in both peer reviewed national and international scientifically published data is the result of a money making conspiracy theory who’s aim is to shift wealth from 1st-world nations to 3rd-world nation by enforcing environmental regulation. WTF? Oh and the oil industry, which made about $100-billion in profits last year has remained conveniently silent? And big business thinks it will make more money by increased regulation???" Part one is mostly true, I do see an anti-American bias out there. Part two, are you implying I'm a shill for the oil industry? Read my initial post. I am in favor of moving our economy from petroleum-based to sustainable. Part three, increased regulation based on international treaty will ultimately cripple our economy because that is the ultimate goal.

When I engage in discourse online it is an airing of views and perspective. I disagree with you, but I do not belittle you because we disagree. I value your opinion. Your condescension bothers me not a bit. It says a lot more about you than it does about me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top