How green zealots are destroying the planet!

The method used by Scientists who went to "prove" (herein lies the root problem, thats not the scientific method at all) Man Made Global Warming, (and many many many more things we take as fact in our society) has its roots in Kants philosophy.

David Harrimen explains in this interview how Physics was corrupted in the 1900s in America, using deductive only reasoning, leading to modern science being more of a faith based religion now.

www.gnosticmedia.com...

arguing about the greenie Agenda, when it is so obvious its a money scheme and herd management program, can only be stopped by understanding how these folks think, how they come to these conclusions....we need to understand the Philosophic Corruption of Physics....the people in control of your life want you to buy this lie. Some are even aware of the lie....but yes, I agree. If the greenies think man is ruining he planet, than they can help by killing themselves, so the rest of us can blog and debate about it....

www.gnosticmedia.com...

Originally posted by rainbowbear
The method used by Scientists who went to "prove" (herein lies the root problem, thats not the scientific method at all) Man Made Global Warming, (and many many many more things we take as fact in our society) has its roots in Kants philosophy.

David Harrimen explains in this interview how Physics was corrupted in the 1900s in America, using deductive only reasoning, leading to modern science being more of a faith based religion now.

www.gnosticmedia.com...

MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING
asphalt parking lots... green alt. sod
the 1932 dust bowl... lessens learned the hard way

reply to post by rebellender


and what is your point? that im wrong or something?

do you have anything worthwile to contribute? debate the OP, not me.

Im quite sure you have no interest in the links, you may learn something...

reply to post by rainbowbear


I think you misunderstood what this guy is talking about. If I am reading the articles correctly he is basically talking about the teaching methods not actual physics. In a nutshell he believes students should be taught how the theories came about how they were born from other works so that they can come to the same Eureka moment as scientists in the past discovered them. He is arguing about the dogma on how physics is taught by throwing in statements(even though they are true)

The student has no way of independently judging the truth or falsehood of what he is told. Since he is not given the observational evidence and the chain of reasoning, all of his knowledge amounts to assertions to be accepted on the basis of the teacher’s authority.

I agree with him 100% I remember back at school as to how unsatisified and unhappy I was being given facts and not being taught how these facts came to be. When I asked about it all i was told trust me that is the way it is which really didnt help my understanding of the subject.

However as far as I can tell he is not disputing any of the laws of physics only how its taught

www.fallingapple.org...

Originally posted by rainbowbear
reply to post by rebellender

 

and what is your point? that im wrong or something?

do you have anything worthwile to contribute? debate the OP, not me.

Im quite sure you have no interest in the links, you may learn something...

edit on 4-2-2012 by rainbowbear because: (no reason given)

No you dont need to hear about the largest Global Warming mistake the US has ever made,In the Era of time you speak You need a lesson on how to be nice...Unfortunately I am not that person..
Do try to have a nice day

reply to post by rebellender


i have. the Dust bowl didnt create the drought that caused the dust bowl, friend.

The Dust Bowl was caused by several different factors that all seemed to come together at the same time. The reasons for this disaster didn’t just happen overnight, they had been building up for at least a decade. Over planting of crops during World War I, the government said to plant more and the farmers did. After World War I things were great, the prices for crops were good and the rains came. In order to plant more crops, farmers were buying new land and equipment on credit. New technologies were developed that farmers used to tear up land even faster. The farmers didn’t rotate crops nor did they leave areas of native grasses, they just dug up everything and planted crops. Some people started saying this is all wrong. The ground is now upside down. And it was. The native grasses were now underneath and the dirt on top. This area of the United States was primarily in the Great Plains states, from the Rocky Mountains eastward to the high plains. Early travelers called this the Great American Desert and it was even written that way on early US maps. The entire area was mainly covered in native grasses. These grasses had been there for thousands of years, keeping the soil healthy and in place

history.factoidz.com...

Looks like it was mans making that caused the problem.....and i wouldnt call these farmers green zealots either lol

reply to post by minor007


ah yes. im referring to the beliefs we hold dear, you know, like the big bang, quantam physics--the stuff dreams are made of.....its all very nice and cool that we think we know these things-- untill they use what they think they know to tell you what you can do with YOUR property. Then I realise, most people dont own property....

no connection to the land. Its a bad disease for city folk.

Originally posted by rainbowbear
reply to post by rebellender

 

i have. the Dust bowl didnt create the drought that caused the dust bowl, friend.

Hey Rainbowbear dont continue to comment after your original verbal lashing, Its not polite...it lacks grace. Maybe next time though

reply to post by minor007


sorry, i thought the topic was man made global warming?

none of those factors has made the earth warmer----dust bowl or no.

I fail to see the your logic--maybe its just me...

reply to post by rebellender


i would hardly call the dust bowl a global warming mistake--more like ecological disaster. there is a difference, yes?

We need to be real clear on our definitions here, it seems there is much confusion over "what" AGW is.
Anyway, yes, the decisions that make your future are made from disconnected city folk. this is fact, but happens to be my opinion.

I am not sorry if thats a touchy subject for you city rats.

Originally posted by rainbowbear
reply to post by rebellender

 

i would hardly call the dust bowl a global warming mistake--more like ecological disaster. there is a difference, yes?

I'm out,, you are a xxx. and you are wrong. Thats what happens when you argue with your emotions. You stop making sense when you type out the words.

The Dust bowl was a green effort driven by Government greed that went bad. People died Lives ruined. It did cause a warming that did effect the United States. Until Soil Conservation took over and Lessens learned reversed the damage.
The Dust Bowl disaster is a great lessen to study where Corporation and Greed and Ingenuity meet at the crossroads of Disaster

reply to post by rebellender


where is the data to support your claims to Dust Bowl Warming in the US?

Originally posted by rainbowbear
reply to post by rebellender

 

where is the data to support your claims to Dust Bowl Warming in the US?

in the history books on your desk at school. do your own homework, put the dog out and don't be late to Jenny's birthday party, you know how she can be a drama queen

Originally posted by rebellender

[The Dust bowl was a green effort driven by Government greed that went bad. People died Lives ruined. It did cause a warming that did effect the United States. Until Soil Conservation took over and Lessens learned reversed the damage.]

So, you would agree with the OP, that green zealots are ruining the planet?

reply to post by rebellender


not only are you full of it, but unfortunatly, you defend your opinion so well, one wonders what your motives are..

This is a typical response from those who are met with actual questions and calls for logical conversation---its cool, im used to it!

Originally posted by rainbowbear
reply to post by rebellender

 

not only are you full of it, but unfortunatly, you defend your opinion so well, one wonders what your motives are..

This is a typical response from those who are met with actual questions and calls for logical conversation---its cool, im used to it!

edit on 4-2-2012 by rainbowbear because: (no reason given)

not seeing it that way at all. You had a shot with me on my first comment but you were to full of you self. You were high and mighty already charged you from previous posters. Now I simply dont want to have dialog with you. Now run along and be angry.
BTW man is not powerful enough to melt the Icecaps. They are doing it all on their lonesome. Its the Earth Cycle. Been going on since the start of time.

Good luck having people respect your opinions when you're all pissed off. B-bye

Originally posted by BBalazs


Telling it like it is!
Time to get rid of the watermelon people.
Green on the outside, red on the inside!

Actually, my theory is that the Green Agenda is quite the opposite.

The Green movement used to be associated with old Tories - the idle rich, conservatives. Very elitist. Think Prince Charles. The Green Party is firmly rooted in fascism.

The Green Agenda was to hi-jack the traditional Left away from labor issues. It succeeded.

Now people think Left they think environmentalist and vice versa. The NDP in Canada, Labour (the irony!) in Great Britain and the Dems in the US and other 'leftist' parties in Europe all are interchangeable with the Green Party. There's little about labor at all beyond a few bones to some of the more corrupt unions.

The coal industry came under particular attack in Great Britain because they had the strongest unions. Thatcher trumped up global warming 'science' to move the UK to natural gas but it was a tactic to bust up the miners.

If Greenies really gave a rat's ass about the planet they'd be demanding tariffs on Chinese goods until their factories were cleaned up. They don't. They're opening factories there themselves.

The former Chairman of the Sierra Club had an article in Bloomberg last week about how he was opening a factory in China because regulations in the US are too burdensome. He claims that it isn't about labor costs but really, when Chinese engineers cost $22/day who is he kidding?

www.bloomberg.com...

reply to post by rainbowbear

he “Dust Bowl” drought of the 1930s was highly unusual for North America, deviating from the typical pattern forced by “La Nina” with the maximum drying in the central and northern Plains, warm temperature anomalies across almost the entire continent, and widespread dust storms. General circulation models (GCMs), forced by sea surface temperatures (SSTs) from the 1930s, produce a drought, but one that is centered in southwestern North America and without the warming centered in the middle of the continent. Here, we show that the inclusion of forcing from human land degradation during the period, in addition to the anomalous SSTs, is necessary to reproduce the anomalous features of the Dust Bowl drought. The degradation over the Great Plains is represented in the GCM as a reduction in vegetation cover and the addition of a soil dust aerosol source, both consequences of crop failure. As a result of land surface feedbacks, the simulation of the drought is much improved when the new dust aerosol and vegetation boundary conditions are included. Vegetation reductions explain the high temperature anomaly over the northern U.S., and the dust aerosols intensify the drought and move it northward of the purely ocean-forced drought pattern. When both factors are included in the model simulations, the precipitation and temperature anomalies are of similar magnitude and in a similar location compared with the observations. Human-induced land degradation is likely to have not only contributed to the dust storms of the 1930s but also amplified the drought, and these together turned a modest SST-forced drought into one of the worst environmental disasters the U.S. has experienced.

Source
In other words man amplified the warming contributing to the prolongued drought by removing the natural grassland. Now think what man is doing on a more global scale ie deforestation.......[