Right Wing Anti-Global Warming Crap!

:agree:

You make such excellent points!

 

The funny thing is, Skip, there is probably some fanatical Right winger somewhere saying the same thing about his beliefs. That's why, to me, politics are a lot like religion, where a person believes only his religion is the right religion and everyone else's religion is wrong. This is where politics served useful in replacing religion as the primary way of controlling what the Elite commonly refer to as the "unenlightened masses," getting the people to war amongst themselves while remaining blind to their common enemy. Meanwhile, those at the top are laughing at these masses warring amongst themselves, which they see as nothing more than cattle, reaping the rewards of their conditioned ignorance. If you want to think the Left is "rarely wrong," when it's being manipulated by the same people who control the Right, that is your choice.

I don't believe the notion of Hillary just now learning about global warming. Sounds pretty fake if you ask me. Then again, we see a lot of politicians on BOTH SIDES of the isle all of a sudden joining the global warming bandwagon. After all, if you don't join you might be deemed a "denier" by these accepting, loving, environmentally-friendly and open-minded people.

You say I am giving the Elites more power by having the attitude I have. But what exactly is my attitude? I am trying to wake people up as to how the power structure works, and how these people control every side of every debate for their own ends. Until people understand how the system works, we're not going to change anything that's in our favor. The common people (who are indeed decent and well-meaning people for the most part) are going to continue thinking they're helping bring about change, when the only change they're going to bring about is that which is pushed from the top. Those at the top have a much different agenda than you and I at the bottom, I can assure you that!

How am I giving the Elites power by understanding how they work to exercise their control over society? How am I giving them power by refusing to accept a cause they're using for an agenda other than what the public has been told?

You ask how we can combat environmental decay and I suggested FREE ENERGY technology, which does exist as I have seen it work, which uses energy from the vacuum of the space which surrounds us to create cost-free energy. This would completely wipe out our dependence on foreign oil and fossil fuels altogether. This technology is being suppressed and you can see why. They want to keep us dependent on oil. They don't want us having technology that can liberate us from their control. They instead offer us alternatives like ethanol, which is promoted because it is deliberately inefficient and bound not to work in the long run.

The same people who are suppressing this technology from us are the same people using fear over environmental crisis (which THEY have created) to get the public into accepting drastic and extreme control measures.

 

Do you want to take this to another thread, Skip, because I have A LOT to say about this? I don't want to go anymore off topic than we already have, even though it does all tie together.

Let me know.

 

Some reading for you to help clear this up, another of your basic factual mistakes.

Atmospheric CO2 concentration is up ~34% since pre-Industrial era, this is very likely anthropogenic and exceeds atmospheric concentration from the ice core record from any point in the past 650,000 years:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-that-recent-cosub2sub-increases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=160

Breakdown of radiative forcing agents (including greenhouse gases) in global climate with net anthropogenic component (there's another version on page 4 of your IPCC report):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Radiative-forcings.svg

What's the source for your claim?

 

This is an interesting graphic showing the changes in greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere over the past 10,000 years. Notice a spike around industrialisation (that's the 34% increase).

Changes in greenhouse gases from ice core and modern data:



(taken from IPCC AR4 2007 p3) http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

 

Those charts also correspond almost exactly with increased solar activity (among other things). It is my belief that C02 and other greenhouse gases are not a precursor to temperature rise, but the exact opposite. Many climate scientists have said the same thing. In Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" (which I have seen numerous clips of) he deliberately reverses these figures to claim C02 causes temperature rise, when evidence has shown that temperature increase has almost always predated an increase in C02 levels.

I am going to gracefully butt out of this "debate" now as things are starting to turn nasty. I am in the minority here and I don't expect everyone to believe what I believe. However, I don't appreciate being associated with "Right wingers" and being called a "denier" -- a label and psychological tactic coming directly from the mainstream media to associate all those who question the political agenda of the politically-charged IPCC, and their politically-charged findings, with Holocaust denial. This is the same cheap smear tactic that is used by people who question the current war agenda as well. I have resorted to no name-calling, yet others are attacking me for having an opinion that differs from theirs, refusing to answer relevant points I have brought up. And to think this is coming from people who supposedly champion "tolerance" and "free speech," it makes me want to vomit. So the point of going any further with this is pointless. I have nothing to prove, and I could not care less about being right as seems to be the case with others, despite them having very little to bring to the table in terms of substance.

I am a person who seeks truth. I am not a follower. I am not a team-player. I am not a collectivist. I don't join groups, and I most certainly do not stick labels on myself. I am a free-thinking INDIVIDUAL who questions EVERYTHING, and it makes me quite angry when people who have little to no facts of their own must rely on attacking others to prove themselves. Sorry, but that's not my bag. I am smarter and more mature than that!

Goodbye.

 

And it's a coincidence that the Co2 increase corresponds precisely with the sudden increase in mankind's burning of fossil fuels, rises in line with the increasing use of such fuels, and that study of the carbon isotopes in atmosospheric Co2 suggest that the source of the increase Co2 is fossil fuel, not natural oceanic Co2? I think the appropriate response is "lol".

Your mistake is based on the '800 year lag' from Durkins, I assume, which suggests that Co2 is released from the ocean at the end of an ice age and at that point lags behind global temperature by 800 years as the Earth moves into an interglacial period. This Co2 increase is a *result* of warming, but then acts to reinforce *further* warming because of its *incredibly well understood* mechanism of acting as a greenhouse gas. That Co2 acts in this way as a radiative forcing agent is basic physics which has been understood since the 19th Century (link). Are you suggesting that greenhouse gases have no effect on the Earth's temperature?

Again, I ask, can you give sources for your assertions?

Perhaps because there doesn't seem to be much real evidence to support your assertions? Do you believe something despite evidence to the contrary, and without being able to provide evidence for your beliefs? Because it suits your sociopolitical agenda to do so? I hesitate to use the word "denier" but fear Skip may have a point...

 

Here is a question I presented to you previously, which you conveniently ignored....

 

Didn't ignore it, mentioned it in my first post in this thread. This is all dealt with in some depth in the literature, links to which I've already posted. Didn't you read it? The slight cooling effect in the second part of the 20th Century is explained by sulphate aerosols, which also appear as a negative radiative forcing agent in the breakdown I posted a couple of posts back. Warming would have been significantly greater if it weren't for this effect of "global dimming" which is in line with the aerosol content of manmade pollutants released during the century. Read up on it.

Your arguments are somewhat circular Rat, each time your assertions are challenged with evidence you revert to a previous assertion which has already been demonstrated false. One might even get the impression you aren't that interested in learning about the actual issues involved and engaging with the science, but just denying for the sake of it.

 

Global Warming
For a long time I have been sceptical about the idea of global warming as surreptitious means to persuade the public of the virtues of nuclear energy. The global warming theory is certainly used by the proponents of nuclear energy. The paradox of the situation is that the likes of Greenpeace while dead against the idea of nuclear energy have come up with a great deal of intellectual dishonesty in regards to climate change that in the past I have taken a dim view of the theory. To give a couple of examples of printed literature I was given at travelling road-show when they visited my town.

(1) Trees absorb CO2 from the atmosphere.

There is only a net absorption of CO2 from growing trees.

(2) The carbon only stays in the tree while it is still alive. As soon as it is cut down all the CO2 immediately is released back into the atmosphere.

No further comment needed.

Talking to Greenpeace, I got the feeling they preferred to lecture rather than get into any discussion.

Don’t get me wrong, I am all for the wise use of the world’s resources and any developments for renewable energy are welcome. I don’t see any solution in PV solar panels as they require enormous amounts electricity to manufacture. When you buy a BP-Solarex PV solar panel, you are essentially buying embedded electricity. As BP-Solarex is 50% owned by BP, I am sure BP would be quite happy for Greenpeace to beat the drum about global warming and offer PV solar panels as a sollution.

 

Did anyone in the UK see a program a while back called 'The Great Global Warming Swindle'?
It was basically saying that its not mankinds fault, and that it is just the natural course of the planet.
Its hard to believe what is true because of all the biased documentaries, but I DO know that the planet has been continuously changing climate since the beginning of time.
Personally, I feel the Earth has its own way of repairing itself. For example, the balance of CO2 becomes wrong in the atmosphere, the earth has many storms to balace it out again. I think humans are way too insignificant to have a big effect of the way the earth works. It is the planet that controls us, not the other way around.
I think the only controllable problem for mankind is the decreasing amount of fossil fuels and the disintegration of the ozone layer. We will be known as the generation who had it all, - electricity, transport etc. When the resources run out we will have to cut this down enormously, and it will be so expensive that many of us wont be able to afford it.
Yeh, its gonna be great...

 

I'm very sorry for my ignorance.
And although it may doom our race and our planet, I dont believe it is purely mankind's fault. Decadal temperature trends for both hemispheres show a slight cooling of the southern hemisphere (-0.023 degree / decade), and a slight warming of the northern hemisphere. There are factors such as solar activity that could also be taken into account.
The following graph shows the temperature change over the past 1000 years:

And this graph over the past 10,000 years:

And finally over the past 1,000,000 years:


These are just suggestions. I'm not telling you to believe any of it

 

i think if you marinated it in a miller light, or a budwiser, it would bring out the gameyness, maybe if you tried a good nutbrown ale, or an organic porter, it might add some to the overall flavor. i really suggest the author try to, infact, each the polar bears children, as they will be a bit more tender than the polar bear itself.