What would it take for you to admit ManMade Global Warming is false??

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


Essan seems to be missing as of recent. How could this be? He left melatonin hanging.

I think what is needed is Deprogramming Centres to be available to the AGW cultists. I'm not sure what else would work.

After screaming for years that they're right and everyone else is wrong, it would be a serious blow to their psyche if they were actually admit anything.

Ed Begley Jr sure looks like he needs some rehab treatments.

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
What fact, development, trend, chart, etc piece of data or admission would it take for you to admit it's false / a hoax? Even better, is it possible for you to admit it ever, under any circumstances, even to yourself?

Originally posted by Animal
Consensus.

It just so happens to turn out that I started a detailed thread addressing this very issue:

DISINFO: Peer-Reviewed Climate Science & Scientific Consensus

It seems to me that this is the last string left in the ALARMISM toolbox, so I've been inspired to clear that little issue up. Dig.

reply to post by JohnBadger

First, let me apologize for the late reply. I lost my tabs and did not realize this thread was still active until today.

That said, I do understand where you are coming from,. Yes, it is a good thing to take some care in our actions. We (humans) have the ability tio understand when our habits are straining our environment, and it can only behoove us to take appropriate measures. Don't throw trash in the water. Be conservative in the use of plastics, especially in disposable products. Don't drive twice when you can make one trip do. Carpool when practical. Make sure when you cut down a tree, you plant another one. These are all self-evident, common-sense practices that harm no one.

The difference between that and the scam-based ecology comes when one begins to severely restrict freedom and the very ability of people to survive and thrive based on pseudo-science, and that is exactly what the CO2 Cap & Trade issue is. Feel free to look through some of my recent posts in this forum/topic and you will see calculations I have published that show, undoubtedly, that it is simply not possible for CO2, at the present level, to be responsible for the warming trends that did occur in the recent decades (and, incidentally, have now stopped).

I know this is probably a very disliked way of stating things, but global warming or climate change I honestly believe has done more good for the specific and real issues (such as deforestation, the tar sands, etc) than would have been done otherwise.

I have to agree with you, at least to the extent that it has raised awareness about the environment in general. However, poverty encountered as a result of legislation and regulation to fit the present agenda will not decrease pollution; someone has already stated the fact that poverty is responsible for the majority of pollution globally. Also, if total focus is on CO2, where does that leave the lesser-known chemicals that are poisonous? Will we be able to get people to understand that the factory dumping HCl into the water supply is as bad? Or will that HCl be allowed to continue to be dumped, as long as there is a CO2 filter somewhere in the plant?

I hope you see my point as well as I see yours.

TheRedneck

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by buddhasystem

You forget one important difference between CO2 and nuclear bombs: thus far we have only predictions of catastrophic warming.

Oh please. The bomb was only manufactured and successfully tested after predictions were made of its operation, based on calculations. There is no profound difference in using math as it is applied to natural sciences, whatever they are. The real difference is that we can manufacture a nuclear device and safely test it, but were aren't capable of manufacturing a duplicate Earth and destroying it for test purposes, without ourselves becoming extinct in the process. It's that simple.

Until you personally know enough math to disprove the calculations of the effect of CO2 levels on temperature trends, you have no business saying there is no such effect. You might as well say Earth is flat.

Doing nothing to prevent climate change is stupid. Carbon trading is the NWO way of saying "Were gonna screw you till the planet screws us both"

reply to post by buddhasystem

Oh please. The bomb was only manufactured and successfully tested after predictions were made of its operation, based on calculations.

More disingenuousness. The bomb was calculated to work based on predictions, yes, but it wasn't like they just built one and dropped it on poor Hiroshima. It was tested first, several times, to verify those calculations. Just like the calculations on future climate trends has to be verified. The difference is that the bomb's calculations were proven; climate changes calcs have not been proven yet. Thus, again,m your comparison is disingenuous.

Until you personally know enough math to disprove the calculations of the effect of CO2 levels on temperature trends, you have no business saying there is no such effect.

See signature... first line.

TheRedneck


[edit on 11/30/2009 by TheRedneck]

reply to post by buddhasystem

Until you personally know enough math to disprove the calculations of the effect of CO2 levels on temperature trends, you have no business saying there is no such effect.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Yeah, you need to read the first line of my signature...

TheRedneck

reply to post by melatonin


Wow, melatonin now trying to dismiss the fact that the scammers have been making statements to stop anyone who asks for any information through the FOIA, that they can't understand why temperatures haven't increased, and that data should be falsified for their agenda to be pushed......

The more you post mel, the more you show to be just a lackey of the AGW scammers..

Keep it up....

[edit on 7-12-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

Originally posted by ZombieOctopus
The whole global warming hoax conspiracy is a politically embedded American creation. Since it's inception, it's gained a few foreign political interests, generally right leaning. But it could only find roots in a country like America which has right and left leaning "scientists" that back causes to the highest bidder. America has even employed the very same organization that defended the tobacco industry to skew the evidence to their favour, that's quite telling.

Real scientists, who have no part in American politics, or are connected to American interests, are basically of one stance on global warming, being that of human causes. The moment you leave America's boarders, you find the "controversy" suddenly evaporates.

Hmmm - has someone read "REpublican War on Science" great read.