Anyone else finding this so-called Earth Day a joke ?

Originally posted by Long Lance
when i posted the link less than two weeks ago it was still very current, only aftet it had gotten too many views was it removed. i've seen it dozens of times and i wonder why the web archive iss till up tbh.

originally posted at www.abovetopsecret.com...

btw. what does amount to 'current' anyway? 2002 (like the article in question), 2003 or only past 2006..? 07/2007 maybe?

I would think that any reasonable person would think that anything in the current year, and/or previous year would qualify as current. Anything past 05 would be considered outdated. If you need someone to tell you that, then I feel sorry for you. Did you ever consider the possiblity that NASA themselves realized that, and removed the article?

my advice is to get real and stop dissing NASA for not properly removing incriminating information. my poits still stand as long as all you have is FUD. if large portions of the Antarctic buck the trend, you'll have to acknowledge it, refute it - or be accused of intellectual dishonesty.

My advice to you is to stop the personal attacks. Who are you to insuate that I'm guilty of intellectual dishonesty? I can give my personal opinions all I want and there isn't one thing you can do to stop me.

Your "proof" is lacking - your posting is authortarian at best (and thats being kind), you try to support your opinion as fact and indirectly accuse others who don't agree with your "proof" of intellectual dishonesty.

btw, you're dismissing Newscientist, The Times and NASA, all at the same time. rest assured i will keep this thread bookmarked (unless it ends in the deleted folder) in case i ever see you pull similar stunts elsewhere.

Again with the authortarian posting. Don't accuse me of "pulling stunts" like your my parent. Your some guy (or gal) like me, posting on an internet forum. The way you post says alot about the kind of person you really are. Are any of the sources you posted peer-reviewed scientific journals? Nope they sure aren't. If you really want, I'll smash your "proof" by posting peer-reviewed scientific research support global warming.

there's a quote which goes

'he who uses authority instead of deliberation is not using his intellect but his memory'

while you're at it, read the thread linked above, it's only two posts anyway, then come back and refute my claims one by one.

Nice way of taking that quote completely out of context. In what way am I using my "authority" instead of deliberating? Again, wow, authortarian posting.

your alledged 100.000 papers predicting our doom mean squat if the basis of their claims is false. the Antarctic ice sheet melting? says who? i don't need a 'plethora of well established academic and government (including NASA?) agencies' (wtf is an academic agency anyway?) to tell me that three weeks longer pack ice seasons go well with global warming - do you? to put it bluntly, watching the ice sheets until disintegration while counting days does not require a PhD.

I never alledged 100.000 papers (for the record, I "alledged" that I could find a plethora of articles and research backing global warming) predicting our doom. Nice way of taking my words (yet again) out of context.
Apparently your willing to take the WORD of an outdated (2002 by your own admission) NASA article and use that for the basis of your argument. Did you watch the ice sheets grow back? Were you there? No you weren't.
So really, your speculating and giving your opinions like everyone else.

science is not based on consensus, it's based on verifiable (and falsifiable) experiment. since there's no way to test, GW is a safe proposition, obviously. if it does not come to pass, a) most will have forgotten and b) it was probably the air tax. this win/win type makes it inherently unscientific, of course (but it could of course still come true - just like Nostradamus' predictions)

LOL. It's funny when you try to tell me what science is, when you can't even apply it to your own research and posting!

obvious? you know what's obvious? that you wouldn't accept any source that says something you don't want to hear. while we are at it, please tell us what it would take to convince you AGW was in fact a sham? if i'm bringing data you didn't know of, including three links, none of them to conspiratorial sources, it's automatically cherry-picking. it can't be bias or lack of research on part of the alarmists, can it?!

I'd believe some REAL Peer-reviewed scientific research that suggests global warming is not happening. Not news articles and (LOL) outdated NASA articles. Not private documentaries, not research from scientists who haven't done any peer-reviewed work in the last 20 years, not "evidence" from companies who are on big oil's payroll. DO your own research before coming around here throwing around childish insuations and proclamations. And I love how you call me an alarmist!
LOL first and foremost to start labelling people (authortarian at it's best!)

I stand by my original argument that your sources are dog poo, your "anti-global warming" theories are dog poo, and basically you lack any common sense thats granted to the average adult male.

I just want to ask... Has nobody noticed that by attacking the environmentalist movement as part of the "NWO," they are in fact throwing their unending support behind all those fun and exploitive corporations that exist primarily to control every facet of your life? Exxon wants you to die in war for their pocketbooks. Maybe your remains will make more oil, so it's like a double bonus. Coca-Cola? Poisons our rivers and lakes, and sucks all the aquifers dry to sell you the bottled water. GE? They seek a monopoly over energy in our nation and others besides, actively quash innovation in that market, and gouge you in the bills, all while pocketing billions of your tax dollars in kickbacks

These are your "good guys" because you're so desperate to spank off your political ego against the "dirty liberal hippies."

Bravo. You'd rather be an oil slave breaking your back to pay off your debt to the electric company while drinking polluted water out of a bottle because all of the water around you is even more polluted, than even possibly consider that, hey, maybe the liberal hippies are right.

No joke.

This was an incredible way to demonstrate the need and interest for concern and action for important Earth concerns.

I hope it continues in raising awareness, and more importantly, that it engages political and government attention to these problems.

Originally posted by zeeon
Your "proof" is lacking - your posting is authortarian at best (and thats being kind), you try to support your opinion as fact and indirectly accuse others who don't agree with your "proof" of intellectual dishonesty.

Umm...Pot calling the Kettle black.

Are any of the sources you posted peer-reviewed scientific journals? Nope they sure aren't. If you really want, I'll smash your "proof" by posting peer-reviewed scientific research support global warming.

Pray tell, show us these 'peer-reviewed scientific journals'. I (and I'm certain Long Lance) would love to see them. Yet again you talk as if there was some kind of epic evidence battle, with 'a plethora of evidence' (you do seem to enjoy using that word: 'plethora') as if you are the wielder of the power of Greyskull or something.

Zeeon, I don't 100% agree with everything Long Lance is saying, but I think your being rude to him. So far you have posted a Wiki article to back up your claims, he has presented a NASA article that does have credibility to it, regardless of what you say.

Also, from what I can tell, by your logic anything written before 2005 is outdated; which, quite frankly, leaves most of the CO2 Climate change data, well...outdated.

I think you need knocking down a peg or two, mate.

The biggest joke about the Global Warming Concert, is the claims of reaching 2 billion people. Why is nobody flat out debunking this?

NBC's 3 hour Global Warming Concert special reached 2.7 million viewers. Which is below average for that timeslot, and about as many people the watch Bill O'Reilly every night on a cable network.

There are 6.7 Billion people on earth. Take away the very young, the very old, people with no electricity,etc..etc. And there is no way this concert reaches 2 Billion people.

Anybody want to defend the claims of reaching 2 Billion people with this concert???

Originally posted by Chupa101

Originally posted by zeeon
Your "proof" is lacking - your posting is authortarian at best (and thats being kind), you try to support your opinion as fact and indirectly accuse others who don't agree with your "proof" of intellectual dishonesty.

Umm...Pot calling the Kettle black.

How is that the pot calling the kettle black? I never insinuated or accused Mr. Lance of anything, especially something like "Intellectual dishonesty."

Pray tell, show us these 'peer-reviewed scientific journals'. I (and I'm certain Long Lance) would love to see them. Yet again you talk as if there was some kind of epic evidence battle, with 'a plethora of evidence' (you do seem to enjoy using that word: 'plethora') as if you are the wielder of the power of Greyskull or something.

Zeeon, I don't 100% agree with everything Long Lance is saying, but I think your being rude to him. So far you have posted a Wiki article to back up your claims, he has presented a NASA article that does have credibility to it, regardless of what you say.

Also, from what I can tell, by your logic anything written before 2005 is outdated; which, quite frankly, leaves most of the CO2 Climate change data, well...outdated.

I think you need knocking down a peg or two, mate.

Fine, I'll do it. The Wiki article was posted because I simply to lazy to go about finding all the source articles used to present the wiki article. If you must know, I'm simply going to go to the wiki article, find the sources they used, verify them as scientific and peer reviewed, and then post them here. It something that anyone of you could do on your own, but instead, you'd rather have ME do it for you. Sounds pretty lazy to me.

I enjoy using the word plethora. It sounds cool, alright? I think its better than saying "a lot" all the time anyway.

How exactly is the NASA article credible? Because they're NASA? Go ask in the UFO forum if people think NASA is credible (lol!). It's credible because you and lance say it is? I don't think so.

2005 is two year old data. It takes a year to collect data, and year to present it. Therefore any current data should take no longer than 2 years to compile. Even Census data can be gathered and interpreted in 2 years.
So yes, two years I consider out dated. That NASA article is 5 years old - you don't think thats outdated?

More to come later...

[edit on 9-7-2007 by zeeon]

[edit on 9-7-2007 by zeeon]

Ok, here is a growing list of peer reviewed, scientific journals that support the hypothesis that global warming is happening, and that there are higher and more significant levels of CO2 being created continously.

*Note most, if not all the articles I'm going to post are but snippets of the entire article. The snippet will provide enough proof to support my claim.
To get the entire article, you have to pay for it, and I'm not going to pay money to disprove anyone.

To begin, here is a list of scientific journals as presented by wikipedia.
List of Scientific Journals

I'm sure that someone will find the fact that I used wikipedia for ONE thing will try to stab this post in the heart with it. But oh well onwards.

Global Warming article on IOP

Science Journal About Ice sheet melting

Global Climate Data and Models: A Reconciliation

Global temperature change

Greenhouse Gas/Temperature Feedback Mechanism May Raise Warming Beyond Previous Estimates

Is this enough proof for you? All you have to do is -
Google Scholar

And start enlightening yourself. Take the time to read some of the articles please. Almost all these articles are from universities and other academic institutions around the world. You can't blame the government on this one fellas. Click on the Google Scholar link I provided to do searching on your own.

[edit on 9-7-2007 by zeeon]

isn't it nice that once i use the word 'authority' in my postings, he immediately realises that my posting style is 'authoritarian' - even though we've both been posting here for days (my old posts outdated? shock ) and he did not seem to notice before?


well, superficial observations aside...

falsifiable experiment, the hallmark of science, everything else is based on belief because it can't be disproven and therefore is a safe claim, like betting on all natural numbers (plus zero) in roulette.

en.wikipedia.org...

GW can't be disproven, because no matter if it's cold as *** or hot as hll it's always 'climate change'. heatwaves make headlines, complete with 'death tolls' for emotional appeal, no matter how unfounded (f-ex. a toddler locked into car in a hot parking lot has noting to do with GW but everything with negligience). the usualy numbers are extremely suspicious anyway, if they say that a dozen people have died from heatwaves - out of several millions, it's statistically questionable, at best.

btw:

Source sciencemag.org

from 1998 - straight from the Stone Age, according to you. see what i mean ? claiming that anything before 2005 is irrelevant is, well, unprecedented, isn't it?


finally, you're still dodging the point: unless you and your journals are able to refute that the Antarctic is seeing partial growth of glaciers and increasingly longer pack ice seasons, the point stands. whether it is important to the discussion of global climate (it probably is, on the southern hemisphere at least) is another matter entirely.

Claims that the Antarctic Continent is undergoing unmitigated warming and melting of glaciers are afaics, misguided and false.

one last time, the article i posted was online less than two weeks ago, old articles are not removed, they remain in the database, which was readily proven by your 1998 article. your reaction to the article is damning, because you're not refuting the content, you are attacking the source. that imho, qualifies as 'stunt' and your inferring of parent/child relationships was entirely your idea. it's painfully obvious that with the arguments you've been using, wrt current publications, quality standards, etc. pretty much _any_ source can be discredited, which means you'd be very short of information to back up your arguments, IF you adhered to your own 'standards' which you definitely do not (and cannot), because:

The authors are at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, NASA, New York, NY 10025, USA. E-mail: [email protected]

using double standards, one for yourself, one for everyone else is dishonest, that much is hopefully clear. i never pretended to be a member of the PC feel-good crowd and i firmly believe that calling a spade a spade is essential to denying creeping censorship.

PS: let's take a look at:

www.sciencemag.org...

After a century of polar exploration, the past decade of satellite measurements has painted an altogether new picture of how Earth's ice sheets are changing. As global temperatures have risen, so have rates of snowfall, ice melting, and glacier flow. Although the balance between these opposing processes has varied considerably on a regional scale, data show that Antarctica and Greenland are each losing mass overall. Our best estimate of their combined imbalance is about 125 gigatons per year of ice, enough to raise sea level by 0.35 millimeters per year. This is only a modest contribution to the present rate of sea-level rise of 3.0 millimeters per year. However, much of the loss from Antarctica and Greenland is the result of the flow of ice to the ocean from ice streams and glaciers, which has accelerated over the past decade. In both continents, there are suspected triggers for the accelerated ice discharge—surface and ocean warming, respectively—and, over the course of the 21st century, these processes could rapidly counteract the snowfall gains predicted by present coupled climate models.

only a modest contribution (global scale, including northern hemisphere) 0.35 mm, that's real hard to measure i guess, so it all boils down to

Computer Models

that's not an experiment, a simulation is valuable to complement an experiment, which can't be done (in verification) because there's only one Earth. i'm well aware of an abundance of peer-reviewed papers claiming all the same thing, you're simply forgetting that millions of people claiming the earth is flat does not make it so. portraying climate as a menace and only as a menace is scaremongering.

the fact that climate was once much warmer and did not destroy the world speaks volumes, as does the deafening silence (or outright denial) by alarmists on such conflicting evidence:

www.climate.unibe.ch... (.pdf)

www.co2science.org...



[edit on 10.7.2007 by Long Lance]

Originally posted by Long Lance
GW can't be disproven, because no matter if it's cold as *** or hot as hll it's always 'climate change'. heatwaves make headlines, complete with 'death tolls' for emotional appeal, no matter how unfounded (f-ex. a toddler locked into car in a hot parking lot has noting to do with GW but everything with negligience). the usualy numbers are extremely suspicious anyway, if they say that a dozen people have died from heatwaves - out of several millions, it's statistically questionable, at best.

I see your rambling on here about toddlers, heat waves, etc - what exactly does have to do with global warming? I fail to see how your connecting negligence (as you pointed out) with global warming. If you are saying you can't confirm global warming by those tribulations then I agree with you.

btw:
Source sciencemag.org

from 1998 - straight from the Stone Age, according to you. see what i mean ? claiming that anything before 2005 is irrelevant is, well, unprecedented, isn't it?

This was an error on my part. I missed the correct date on the article, and as such I will formely retract that article from this discussion. That oversight on my part doesn't mean I am being hyprocritical as you so eloquently suggested.

finally, you're still dodging the point: unless you and your journals are able to refute that the Antarctic is seeing partial growth of glaciers and increasingly longer pack ice seasons, the point stands. whether it is important to the discussion of global climate (it probably is, on the southern hemisphere at least) is another matter entirely.

How is the longer ice pack seasons and the growth of glaciers not important to the discussion of global climate change? I haven't the time right now to go search through google scholar and the myriad of scientific journals to prove you wrong, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. Perhaps you don't have enough will power to do your own research and see if, possibly, your information isn't as acurate as you thought it was?
I do, and will continue to do my own research and if I find conflicting information then my views will change with them. ATM I'm at work and am lacking the time to do that kind of research.

Claims that the Antarctic Continent is undergoing unmitigated warming and melting of glaciers are afaics, misguided and false.

Again you only quoted an outdated article by NASA and news articles. Atleast provide something substantial....(which leads me into my next quote)

one last time, the article i posted was online less than two weeks ago, old articles are not removed, they remain in the database, which was readily proven by your 1998 article.

The fact remains that you pulled the article from the web archive. If you can find ANY journal that has that article (or has published it) on the web, I'd take alot more confidence in it. But you have failed to do so.
The database I pulled the '98 article was a JOURNAL database, which keeps prior published articles. You pulled your article from web.archive.org which archives ALL web content. It's not a scientific or published journal.

your reaction to the article is damning, because you're not refuting the content, you are attacking the source. that imho, qualifies as 'stunt' and your inferring of parent/child relationships was entirely your idea.

My reaction is not damning, because I am questioning you pulling sources that were removed from the internet, and cannot give a reason as to why. You haven't shown that the article in question was even published at all. Thats like me posting someones blog as proof. It doesn't prove or mean anything.

it's painfully obvious that with the arguments you've been using, wrt current publications, quality standards, etc. pretty much _any_ source can be discredited,

Finally your starting to see where I'm coming from here. Pretty much ANY souce can be discredited! Thats why scientists have to put their names and reputations on the line and publish their findings in peer-reviewed journals for acceptance amoung other scientists putting their names and repuations on the line! There is NO OTHER WAY to add credability to research / experimentation otherwise.

which means you'd be very short of information to back up your arguments, IF you adhered to your own 'standards' which you definitely do not (and cannot), because:

The authors are at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, NASA, New York, NY 10025, USA. E-mail: [email protected]

It's nice to see that you could only find one article (the same one I posted by mistake for having the wrong date) to "damn" me with, lol. It was error on my part to post that particular article. What of the other 3 or so ? Got rationalizations for those too?

i'm well aware of an abundance of peer-reviewed papers claiming all the same thing, you're simply forgetting that millions of people claiming the earth is flat does not make it so. portraying climate as a menace and only as a menace is scaremongering.
the fact that climate was once much warmer and did not destroy the world speaks volumes, as does the deafening silence (or outright denial) by alarmists on such conflicting evidence

That is by far and away the funniest thing I have seen you write. ICE AGE?
There is proof of mamoths in sibera being frozen alive with undigested food in their stomachs (with no evidence of being hunted/killed/injured). They simply froze to death, extreemly quickly. Ice ages happen because of climate change. Ice Age comes - that brings death. BTW I'm not an alarmist, so please stop labeling me that (for the second time.) I'm a realist (not in denial, like you), and I see and acknowledge those who have the education and credentials who are doing the research and experimentation that might, potentially save our lives. If only people like you would get, and understand, the message.

well, let's see:

www.eurekalert.org...

www.sciencedaily.com...

www.spacedaily.com...

www.worldclimatereport.com...

visibleearth.nasa.gov...

as far as my ramblings are concerned, they were taken from what i heard in the news, as an example of biased reporting, using individual fates to generate an emotional reaction which is in turn used to create a bond with a given, unrelated, topic. i know i should use 'f-ex.' more often, though.

from what i (haven't) read so far, it seems that the concept of falsifiability has sunk in, which is nice


at this point i think it's only fair to point out that if you tell people to use a search engine, you'd better do it yourself and that you are not the one who gets to chose which sources are applicable and which aren't, because...

...that's the reader's task, isn't it?


[edit on 10.7.2007 by Long Lance]

Originally posted by zeeon

The fact remains that you pulled the article from the web archive. If you can find ANY journal that has that article (or has published it) on the web, I'd take alot more confidence in it. But you have failed to do so.
The database I pulled the '98 article was a JOURNAL database, which keeps prior published articles. You pulled your article from web.archive.org which archives ALL web content. It's not a scientific or published journal.

in a nutshell, thanks for calling me a liar. why would i post a broken link in my two weeks old post post? i've posted other links that subseuently vanished before and i've seen it too many times to number. your insistance on form and origin over content is incomprehensible to me.

it's painfully obvious that with the arguments you've been using, wrt current publications, quality standards, etc. pretty much _any_ source can be discredited,

Finally your starting to see where I'm coming from here. Pretty much ANY souce can be discredited! Thats why scientists have to put their names and reputations on the line and publish their findings in peer-reviewed journals for acceptance amoung other scientists putting their names and repuations on the line! There is NO OTHER WAY to add credability to research / experimentation otherwise.

it works both ways, once a slew of bad, yet peer-reviewed, science hits the fan, people will no longer regard it as a watermark of sorts, only as the seal of conformity. that is of course only a matter of time.
..

It's nice to see that you could only find one article (the same one I posted by mistake for having the wrong date) to "damn" me with, lol. It was error on my part to post that particular article. What of the other 3 or so ? Got rationalizations for those too?

these abstracts you linked do not say much, in fact the one on Antarctica i found following your links says nothing. local variance, 0.35 mm sea level rise (yeah, sure, got caliper?) trends could change... i mean is it only me or is this all evasive small talk? methinks the external quote was big enough, why not adress it? why insist that i did not adress anything?

btw, my beef was with the article being written ba NASA people. your idea of outdated is a complete joke, obviously and by 31.12.2007, 23:59:59 in, all your sources will suddenly become irrelevant (yes that was sarcasm, BIG FLAG), anyway.

That is by far and away the funniest thing I have seen you write. ICE AGE?

where did i write ice age in this post? i recall asking whether an ice age would be enough to refute GW in your eyes, but that was a while and a few posts ago, so

anyways, the whole issue reeks of insincerity, take a look at the following (locked) thread: www.abovepolitics.com...

Watch_the_rocks even admits that the as long as the ends are considered worthwhile, anything goes. this is of course nonsense, because the whole 'cause' (wahtever that may really be) is cast in aquestionable light by such a mentality and it begs the question whether the real goals have nothing to do with environmentalism, but more with ideology.

to put it bluntly, if you dislike the current system, that's fine and so is voicing that dissent, in a straightforward, comprehensible manner. resorting to rallying tactics and dogma and deception is essentially *their* ballpark and therefore poses exactly the same problems as the everyday misuse and abuse of power do.

iow, the self-assumed 'green' CO2-only crowd with their opaque (most likely anti-industrialist) agenda is just generating more problems in addition to the existing ones. this will become evident, once many of the alledged green technologies will complete their first lifecycle: once hybrid car batteries are due for recycling, once photovoltaic panels reach their effective lifetime and become waste before breaking even and when entire countries collapse due to food shortage, artifically generated by often subsidized energy crops, people will start to realize the cost of their ignorance.

see www.abovetopsecret.com...'

especially: www.chinadaily.com.cn...

I have been dealing with the eco freaks for years and have found that most of the leaders of the eco movement are in it for the money and nothing else.

The bans on logging were to close logging mills. The first thing you see after the mills close is that the tree huggers move in and start buying the homes in these towns at fire sale prices.

The Calif Desert Bill a few years ago was a big scam by these same people
They would buy worthless desert land and then after Feinstien got the bill passed they sold the land to the gov at inflated prices.
Feinstien had a lot of worthless railroad land that she sold to the gov at 5 time what she payed for it.

Even Al GORE is doing it he has set up a company that sells carbon ofsets
www.worldnetdaily.com...

ALL THE CARBON OFSETS COMPANIES ARE OWNED BUY TREEHUGGERS.

There should be a law that these people have to disclose the money that they making with these scams.

This is just like stock scams. They form or buy companies and then inflate the company by putting out fake information. Or they manuplate the information to get people to buy into there idea AND RAISE THE STOCK PRICE This raises the price of the stock they hold.

THESE ARE ONLY A FEW OF THE SCAMS THAT THEY HAVE RUN.
IF THE ECO FREAKS WANT SOMETHING PROTECTED YOU WILL FIND THAT SOMEONE IN THE GROUPS IS MAKING MONEY ON IT.

LOOK AT HOW RICH AL GORE AND FRIENDS COULD GET IF THEY COULD GET LAWS PASSED THAT WOULD MAKE EVERYONE BUY CARBON OFSETS.

[edit on 15-7-2007 by augoldminer]