Daniel And All Others Please Watch This Global Warming Documentry

[LVToothmkr 0]

Environmental extremists are one of the strongest supporters of socalled Man-made Global Warming. They have alterior motives that are detrimental to the continued presperity of the Human race.A very interesting article that outlines and supports this thesis.http://www.intellectualactivist.com/php-bi...1100#Byline%201a couple of paragraphs.Environmentalists ultimately object to the amount of power produced, regardless of how it is produced. The instant that any technology promises to supply power on an industrial scale, it becomes an unpardonable evil that must be stamped out by force—either by government policy or by direct action.If a political movement were to condemn the "factory farm" as a method that will eventually cause mass starvation; if it were to propose the elimination of all tractors and combines because they "ravage" the soil and to extol the virtues of the quarter-acre garden as the only way to sustain food production in perpetuity; if such a movement were to subsidize "sustainable" food production techniques but angrily reject replacing machines with draft animals, while praising the shovel and sickle—one would conclude that the goal of this movement is the starvation of mankind.What are we to think about a movement that makes war on industrial-scale power generation?In seeking to cut off the motive power of industry, environmentalism is attempting to destroy the Industrial Revolution by starving it to death. Such a reversal would begin a new Dark Age for mankind—a Dark Age in which Americans would be compelled to accept a standard of living well below that of the Third World—a Dark Age that would begin with the deaths of billions of human beings who would have become the "surplus" population that could no longer be supported in a world without industrial production. This is the driving force behind the "science" of global warming. They want to limit the human race! Global Warming and the alarmism associate with it are just the latest and so far best stick they have available to beat down our interest in a better future.

[Zeatrix 0]

You've continually bashed us for believing "the socialist scientists" just because you believe they are just that "socialists". And then you continue to post articles written by insignificant politically biased opinion makers. This Robert Tracinski that you put all your faith in, what kind of qualification does he have? You know, anyone, and I mean anyone, can write a column that's based on no facts except personal belief.I could write an article that in a similar powerful way proclaims that global warming isn't only real, the earth will see temperature increases of up to 10 degrees in the next 50 years. I could do that, and not provide any references for my claims (like your pal Robert doesn't). The problem is, no one would take mer seriously, and no one should. Just like your pal Robert. He has 0% credibility in this matter.A sentence like this: "...we're supposed to believe that climatologists can predict the weather for the whole globe a century from now -- when they still can't predict the local weather for tomorrow." just makes the writer look stupid. He clearly fails to understand that there is a difference between climatology and meteorology, and just bunches them together. Does this guy even have an education, it seems his opinions are just created out of thin air? I've already shown you scientific reports that clearly supports the theory that man can affect the temperature to some extent, and those were written by persons that have an education and have spent their lives observing the climate. And you know, I'm 100% sure there are lots of scientists in America that supports the theory of man made global warming that votes republican. So much for your socialist "theory".Also "Last year, for example, advertisements for Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth featured a hurricane emerging from an industrial smokestack. It was an attempt to cash in on predictions of an unusually heavy hurricane season, allegedly caused by global warming. Yet last summer, hurricane activity precipitously dropped, and not a single hurricane made landfall in the United States." He even uses lies to make his point. I haven't seen any scientific report that beyond a doubt claims that hurricanes will be more common if temperatures continue to increase, some scientists have suggested that it is a possibility, but that's far from saying it is certain. Al Gore doesn't even claim that in his film. What has been claimed is that the hurricanes that do form will be stronger. How can anyone say global warming will produce more hurricanes if we don't even know completely why hurricanes form? And don't even get me started on the second article, I mean, come on. What kind of a nutcase is he? I'm sure there are people out there in the world that oppose industrialization just for the heck of it, just like there are people like Robert Tracinski that think industrialization, no matter what the cost, is ok. Both views are utterly dumb and worthy of mockery.He just seems so distressed at socialism that he thinks anything that can even be remotely linked to it is evil. Is socialism your new communism? Are you that ignorant? Heck, I really don't like the Social Democrats here in Sweden (our biggest socialist party) but I'm starting to believe more and more that you guys (and by you I mean ultra conservatists) need to be exposed to some socialism. At least it can't get any worse.Frankly, I'm starting to believe that conservatism is the new communism. Such narrow minded political views is just hurting mankind, taking us one step back in the progress of humanity. At least communism relied on empirical knowledge.Off topic: I read another of his articles, to get a sense of what this man believes. In this article he makes the point that voting for a person that supports withdrawal of troops from Iraq would be like giving up to terrorism. He supports his belief by quoting bin Laden who has said something like: Vote against Bush and we will leave you alone (this was said before the 2004 election). So now this Tracinski goes on about how bad it would be to surrender to terrorism. What kind of a nut job does it take to draw that conclusion. It's mind boggling really. He completely misses the most important point. Bin Laden is basically saying that they will leave the US alone as soon as the US leaves them alone. OF COURSE. I ask Robert Tracinski, what the heck would you do if a foreign nation invaded your country, wouldn't you be pissed, wouldn't you want to defend yourself, with ANY means necessary.The US has had it's fingers in the middle east for decades and some groups there have had enough and are willing to die in their struggle. Trust me, I think terrorists are stupid, but so is anyone who denies empirical knowledge and science. /End off topic

[LVToothmkr 0]

this was posted on Nations Review's Planet Gore blog.http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/An IPCC Reviewer Reviews the IPCC Speaking of boondoggles, over at Sp!ked, Rob Lyons interviews Aynesley Kellow, an Australian expert reviewer for the IPCC. He quickly reveals just why all those temperature predictions we hear about - and all the devastating effects associated with them - are fundamentally misguided: According to the scenarios on which the climate models are based, the developing world will go through an enormous economic leap forward over the next century - and apparently this will have many deadly consequences. Kellow is not convinced by such claims: ‘The IPCC is assuming rates of economic growth that dwarf the nineteenth-century success of the USA, the twentieth century in Japan and so on. The USA experienced, I think, a ninefold increase in GDP per capita; these are making assumptions about 30-fold increases. So you can question their credibility. But if you do that, you’re questioning the emissions scenarios that are driving the climate models.’ There seems to be a contradiction in the IPCC’s thinking. It believes developing countries will experience potentially enormous growth rates over the next 100 years - yet it treats these countries as being just as vulnerable to droughts, floods and so on as if they were trying to tackle the symptoms of climate change in their present poverty-stricken condition. Either the IPCC has overestimated the growth, in which case climate change is likely to be less severe – or it has got the growth rates right (and certainly a 30-fold increase in output in the Third World would be welcome) and these countries will therefore be more likely to have the resources to cope with climatic change.Kellow also identifies just why Jacques Chirac and even David Cameron find the IPCC and Kyoto so appealing: For Kellow, the IPCC process is hopelessly politicised. ‘The scientists are in there but it is, after all, called the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The scientists are there at the nomination of governments. Governments fund the exercise and sign-off on it ultimately’, he tells me. Kellow sees more mileage in the Asia-Pacific Partnership or AP6 (Australia, China, India, Japan, South Korea and the United States), which takes the approach of developing new technologies rather than adopting the Kyoto approach of emissions reductions. He says: ‘The emphasis on CO2 suits largely post-1990 decarbonised European economies worried about justifying high levels of taxation, energy security policies and so on. It doesn’t suit those with ample coal supplies at a quarter of the cost production of seaming coal in Europe – which includes India and China. There’s a very European slant to Kyoto.’And as Europe declines in power and India and China increase, the attractiveness of Kyoto-style mitigation policies will diminish further. Adaptation and technology transfer are the way of the future if we want to 'do something' about global warming. We throw in our lot with the Old World Order if we go for Kyoto, or even Kyoto-lite, now. That's really ignoring the future.I thought you might want to see what those who actually help to write these slanted reports actually have to say about them.There is very little in the way of facts in these IPCC reports, but there is a lot of propaganda and posturing to press forward with the socialist agenda held by those most vocal about this coming "catastrophe". Government grow and control is the ultimate goal, since the facts are that we can not effect the global climate and it will get warmer then cooler regardless of what we do now or in the future.

[Zeatrix 0]

"Planet Gore", yeah that seem like an objective source of information :DI think you should read this article too: The Real Climate CensorshipPay special attention to the paragraph were it is said that it is Saudi Arabia together with Russia and China that are now trying to censor or change IPCC, not European countries or the states. And yeah, you read that right, the author actually provides references!I also find it highly amusing that you, who accuse socialism of making up global warming, post a blogg that accuses Jacques Chirac of wanting Kyoto when he's clearly not a socialist but on the right side of the political spectrum.Here is another great biased quote that clearly has no attachment to reality:"The emphasis on CO2 suits largely post-1990 decarbonised European economies worried about justifying high levels of taxation, energy security policies and so on."Many of the European countries that work toward reducing carbon dioxide emissions are not in any way interested in higher tax levels. For example the newly elected right coalition Swedish government is one of the loudest proponents for emissions reductions in the EU but they went into the election clearly stating that they are going to lower taxes, and they have done so in the past ~6 months since elected.And why, if the US administration is so good at tackling the problems at hand, do you see a multitude of Nobel prize winners sign a report that claims that: "...the scope and scale of the manipulation, suppression and misrepresentation of science by the Bush administration is unprecedented." (reference).If the Bush administration knew what the best thing would be to combat global warming, why do they need to censor scientists?Nice to at least see that you acknowledge global warming now LVToothmkr. I see nothing in the blogg you link to that anthropogenic greenhouse gases aren't resulting in higher temperatures. You know why? Because it is accepted as a fact. Even the Bush administration and ExxonMobil now acknowledge that fact since it is impossible to deny it anymore.So someone has found one guy in the IPCC that don't fully agree with the projections made by the IPCC. Now that wasn't really something new. I've stated all along that science isn't in complete consensus of what the higher temperatures (that they agree we will see) will result in. I believe we will see big changes and so do many many scientist, but there are many others that don't agree. So what new did this blogg provide?And you are still getting it wrong:"...the facts are that we can not effect the global climate and it will get warmer then cooler regardless of what we do now or in the future."Sorry, but that is just plain wrong. Notice that nothing in your blogg supports that theory. Our current climate is a combination of natural causes and man made warming, if we continue to burn fossil fuel we will see higher temperatures, if we reduce our emissions of fossil CO2 we will not see as big a change. That is, in fact, an "effect on the global climate".Finally, here is a link that I think you need to visit: Union of Concerned Scientists

[blueodum 0]

Pollution and deforestation are bigger problems than global warming. Except for people who live near sea level (which is a lot by the way).

[blueodum 0]

It's no use arguing with the likes of LV ...I'll wager that, to him, any European to the left of Thatcher is a socialist.My personal belief is that, from a completely objective perspective, humanity is a plague on the earth.

[All_In 0]

You'll be back.That's right, call me a "Denier", try and link me to the Anti-Holocaust Pro-Nazis. That'll help foster a true debate. But a true debate isn't really what you want is it? You want to present a "Fact" and then have the rest of the World fall in line not just with the "Fact" but with your assumptive "Correct Solution", because you've thought it out for us and it makes sense to your value system. Again, if we don't happen to subscribe to that value system, then we are just not smart enough. Oh, and I REALLY love the shot you are making at martyrdom.Seriously - the elitist, "you're too stoopid to think for yourself - If you don't come to the same conclusion that I do, then you're obviously not as smart as I am" attitude of the Non-Deniers cracks me up.

there is no debate, just some lies by the people who think they have the credentials to overrule scientists who spend their lives researching this stuff.

[All_In 0]

There is NOTHING in the scientific evidence, not one thing, that points to HUMAN beings causing climatic warming on a global scale. Local warming, heat island effect, minor fluctuations in surface temps, yes. But Global warming caused by humans is nothing but pure folly and socialist BULLSHIT.The warming is cyclical, and caused by the SUN. When the sun shines brighter it gets warmer, happens every year that is how we get summer, the sun shine passes through less atmosphere and the corresponding hemisphere get warmer.

lol, i now realize that:a ) u have a loud mouth and r just trying to stir things upb ) u r a complete and utter moron with a loud mouth.'..that is how we get summer..' LOL!!!!

[cfinnn 0]

i think global warming hyope was made up by the company that make slatine crackers.dont ask me for my reasoning or proof, because im sure there is none, its just what i believethank you

HAHA LMAO Does the longest post win in this thread? I really coudn't read past page one because there is no point in beating your head against a brick wall. You just can't reason with unreasonable people. All the evidence in the world won't help convince anyone to see beyond their own nose.

[nutzbuster 7]

HAHA LMAO Does the longest post win in this thread? I really coudn't read past page one because there is no point in beating your head against a brick wall. You just can't reason with unreasonable people. All the evidence in the world won't help convince anyone to see beyond their own nose.

Oh THANKS FINski!!!I just read your post, took of my glasses and actually tried to "see the end of my nose" , went cross-eyed and strained my left eye! It's stuck over there against my left nostril!off to the doctor now.....

[Zeatrix 0]

Yes, my strategy has always been to write as long a post as possible, I know most people won't have the patience to read it all so all I have to do is write something really clever in the beginning and everyone will just assume the rest of the post is equally clever. This post obviously failed in that regard...