It's just as retarded as the people that tell me that the fossils were placed under the earth by Satan to trick man.

The simple truth is reducing our footprint on earth EVEN IF IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CLIMATE is the only way to protect our most valuable resource - our environment.

http://thestandard.org.nz/wp-content...nge-denial.jpg

ADG

I too think the planet goes through cycles. Some decades are hotter, some are colder.

They ice ages long before man was here, so that's some indication that weather was able to change in big ways without the help of man kind.

AsianDivaGirlsWebDude

You are so damn good at image search and I have to thank you for years of entertainment :thumbsup:thumbsup

record heats were set 100 years ago before we were fucking the earth up with what we do. Doesnt matter Sun is a star, stars blow up and one day our sun will blow up!

Mr Rothschild is here to save the world with his global taxes paid into his World Bank. He'll use all the money to save us. He says this is urgent and we should stop discussing and just put the taxes in place, as he needs them quick.

I am in mont tremblant skiing this weekend. Although the ski conditions suck, I've never tanned and skied on the same day before. So this is a 1st for me

It's already too late to fix things, really.

But, if things get as bad as some of the models predict, the time will come when all over the world people will be looking for people to blame and punish.

So, take comfort in that.

I say we give Rothschild and his World Bank huge taxes so as they can save us, he seems like such a nice caring chap, even if it does sound like a sneaky world coup :upsidedow

Club of Rome (United Nations Think Tank) Report - The First Global Revolution (1992)

" in searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine, and the like would fit the bill"

" It would seem that humans need a common motivation, namely a common adversary to organize and act together in the vacuum; such a motivation must be found to bring the divided nations together to face an outside enemy, either a real one or else one imagined for this purpose"

It's not the sun, and you look like an idiot claiming it's the sun. Normally I dont bother to respond to your comments, because you seem like a religious fanatic in your rhetoric. You have the right to your religion, and I don't particulatly care if you choose to be anti-science.

I'd be happy to explain why it's not the sun - but you wouldn't listen, so there's that.

Let's see if there's a real question in your post - well, I already said nothing can stop it, it's too late.

But, lets assume you mean the question rhetorically. We havn't stopped diseases, but with better medicine, sanitation, and civic engineering we have reduced most oif them, and we enjoy a much better life because we are not constantly afflicted with many diseases.

Your use of the example of crime is a red herring and a straw man - but it's also a good example. But the reverse of what you intend.

We can't stop crime - but crime levels have never been lower in thsi country than they are right now. We can reduce crime.

We can't stop global warming, but we might, just barely, be able to slow it down and reduce it.

And, at the same time, spread out and conserve the worlds remaining fossil carbon - so that our way of life lasts LONGER.

Personally, i don't believe we are going to do anything, because we as a species are not smart enough to understand what is happening, and to think on those time scales.

You are a good example of that.

One way or another, they certainly see us as something less than them :thumbsup

A bit like where this Scientist believes it will go...

"Evolutionary theorist Oliver Curry of the London School of Economics expects a genetic upper class and a dim-witted underclass to emerge. "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/6057734.stm

johnny literally thinks aliens from the hollow earth run the planet. that is the extent of his rationality and intelligence.

so the planet does not naturally change

one simple example. how did we get to the moon?

I was just about to agree to myself with something JohnnyClips said, and then... he made a few more posts and I came to my senses. :1orglaugh

i don't "believe" anything. believing is for poor deluded simpletons like you.

I quoted the post I was going to agree with, yes, this same one you're ranting and repeating. Then, I came to my senses after you went off on the jewish alien conspiracy again.

Can we get a list of what JohnnyClips believes in a cliff notes format of some type?

What are they?

Do you believe they are aliens?

Your avoidance is telling. Obviously you know what you think they are, but you realize it sounds a little crazy even for you so you are keeping it to yourself in this instance. You're using the defense that you don't know for sure so you can't really say, yet most of the "conspiracy" related topics you don't have a problem stating opinions on are of the same nature in that you don't know for sure, you have no real proof. You're exactly like the "sheep" you complain about in that you believe what you want to believe, and there's no room to be open-minded or consider alternative explanations.

johnny what private business got us to the moon?

As you correctly intuit, it's a planetary problem, and solving it would require a planetary government.

And yes, it does mean the end of the fossil carbon secret world government. So. pretty much the end of your religion.

Thats why nothing can be done.

It's a planetary intelligence test, and we have failed.

I don't care, I'll be dead. But, before I die, assuming I live to the same age as my father, I'll get to see wether or not the models look to have been accurate.

If they prove to have been accurate, it's going to be one hell of a murder party.

I hope they were not accurate, but then. I'm not a city person, I'm a country boy, I happen to love nature, so I would just as soon that the science turns out to be wrong.

But, it won't have been wrong because of the sun, or whatever other foolish theory your religion teaches. It will have been wrong because we weren't smart enogh to see the whole pattern, and something like increased cloud cover and storms cools the surface.

Onto the weird and wonderful world of aliens or something different being involved with our planet. While it's easy to write this things off, it would be incredibly difficult to prove conclusively that there is no other involvement. Most would believe that there isn't, but at the same time it would be incredibly difficult to know 100% for certain that there is not.

It's fair to say that one believes it's unlikely, but to say that we know for certain is overconfident. Avatar is a good fictional example of how it could happen. We should at least try to keep our minds open, even if it's just a little bit. :2 cents:

It's being used as a vehicle for the elite to grab more power and control, on a larger scale than ever before. They can fund whatever they like, they can make money out of thin air. Those who work in Climate Change have to prove that Climate Change exists to continue receiving the money; if they don't prove it the money will go to others. Like the Club of Rome suggested and planned the only way to unite the nations was to find an outside enemy that could be seen as a threat to all nations, then they can put their taxes in place for a world government, all under the guise of saving the planet. :2 cents:

Arguing with religious belief is a dead end and a waste of time. Still...

Do you understand greenhouse gas theory? Yes, the majority of heat energy that drives the heat engine of the climate comes from the sun.

But the suns heat energy falling on the planet isn't changing. We measure that, and take it into account in the models. We have been measuring solar output since the 1800s, as I understand it, and our measurements over the last century are well known, commonly available, and absolutely clear - the sun's output has not increased, the amount of insolation falling on the earth has not increased. The sun has been consistent, it is not changing, and the orbit of the earth is not changing in any unusual or rapid way.

But, since we started burning larger and larger amounts of fossil carbon, a tiny percentage less heat energy from the sun can escape every year. The surface of the planet is slowly warming, and millions of measurements collected over the planet seem to be confirming this slow increase of average temperature.

So yes, the sun is the source of the heat - but what has changed in not the sun, but the amount of carbon dioxide. methane, and other greenshouses gases in the upper atmosphere.

Saying it's the sun is like saying it wasn't the fall that killed someone who jumped off the building, it was gravity. While true, it's meaningless, and inherently deceptive.

Your religious beliefs are not my concern.

But, you are a fool. Someday you may learn how to actually do research and think for yourself, but I don't expect it.

You do however understand that global warming means the end of the civilization we know.

We will know more in 20 years - and then the killing starts.

Former Thatcher adviser Lord Monckton describes what's going on

What part of "we can't do anything about it" don't you understand?

But, now you are just whining like an hysterical bitch. Get a hold of yourself, stop being hysterical.

I understand, you have your religious beliefs, and this is the most terrifying thing that could possibly happen. Nuclear war looks grandmotherly kind by comparison.

No religion over here...be on watch for propaganda disguised as science, always follow the money. The Globalist Banker's are just up to their usual tricks. I'd recommend the Lord Monckton videos above

Yes, in some places it's getting warmer, in some colder, exactly as the models predict.

WEATHER IS NOT CLIMATE. That's the principle.

You could start by trying to understand the Koch brothers funded study that produced exactly the opposite results that the oil companies hoped. The one that checked the integrity of measuring station data, tried to prove that it was an urban heat iosland effect, and instead proved that it wasn't, that the averaged data was consisitently accurate, and if anything that warming had been understated.

The problem is, if I give you the actual study website, you cant understand it, because it's written in scientific language and protocol. And NEWS is not science.

It was called as I recall the Berkely Earth Surface Tempurature project. Here's the wiki, not that wikis can ever be trusted http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkele...ce_Temperature Just type Berkely Earth Surface Tempurature into google and you can check for yourself - but remember, news is not science, you must NEVER trust any news source to report science accurately.

How can I possibly convey to you how to study climatology as a layman here on GFY. I read voraciously - but what i read are the science journals and websites, they are not the kind of thing that holds your hand and offers you the information predigested.

Pick any one point, and I'll do my best to show you some data sources.

Bill...I actually read that TIME magazine when it came out. Just like the scientists of today are being used as sources for the new "climate change" stories in the news media...the scientists in the 1970's and early 1980's were being used as the source for that story.

I'm telling you that YES there was a big uproar all through the 1970's and into the 1980's and it was being reported on the all the news (ABC, CBS, NBC, and early CNN) that climate scientists were predicting another Ice Age.

You can think whatever you like. But I was there and read it and saw it...and laughed at the complete 180 that scientists did a couple of decades later.

All I'm trying to point out is that the scientists "prove" whatever their financial backers tell them to prove. And that there are billions of dollars at stake to promote climate change.

IF you don't think so...that's cool. But you look like a guy with blinders on to me.

Dude, everything you say sounds like fanaticism to me.

You never say ANYTHING scientific, it's all conspiracy this and conspiracy that.

It's pointless to argue with fanatical belief, especially one rejects science.

Globalist barkers, usual tricks - what does any of that noise have to do with science?

By my standards you are hysterical, completely lost in an emotional haze of hatred and beliefs and obsessions about conspiacy.

And I'm sure it's just a coincidence that all this is exactly what fox news wants you to believe. A conveinient accident.

:thumbsup:thumbsup:thumbsup

Among scientists and climatologists it's still global warming, always has been, always will be.

I myslef reject the term climate change. It's accurate enough, and I understand why they started calling it that, but the accurate and accepted term is global warming.

It's unfortunate that foolish people get the wrong impression from the term global warming, but, the world is full of fools, nothing can be done about that.

You've got it wrong, it can all be backed up. I certainly don't watch the mainstream news channels. I'm sure Fox News wouldn't be quoting the Club of Rome, so you're quite confused on that, perhaps you should have a read of the 1992 Club of Rome report yourself and think carefully about what it means.

Now you are just talking like a child.

You don't need to measure every part of the planet to know the average temperature. This is basic math and statistics. It's a silly argument, it makes no sense.

That's like saying I have to take the temperature of every cell in my body to know wether I have a real fever or not.

I am not even sure how to respond to an argument like it's warmer when the sun is out. I assume you are smart enough to know that makes no sense, does not apply, and makes you look like a kid.

I'm sure where you come from that goes over like gangbusters. But I note that you don't even make an attempt to talk about the science.

I really don't care about your political beleifs, I think science is more interesting.

But go ahead, show me the report. Lets see what it means. Lets see what it says.

If true, it shoudl be trivial to find soem actual science articles that support your position.

Want to try? I'll give you the chance.

Yes, I remember all those news items too - but NEWS IS NOT SCIENCE, for christs sake. If news is science, then your side is in fucking trouble, because there is NO NEWS that supports your beliefs these days. I've been interested in science since I was a kid, I have been reading thsi shit all my life, I remember all those articles too - and they were just news then, not science. Back then people were amazed to realize that we were in an interglacial that had lasted 15k years, and to discover from the geology that the average period of interglacials was 10k years, so they were all "An ICEAGE is coming" - but that is NOT what the scientific consensus was.

Explain my blinders to me. Because I could make exactly the same statement about you - except I happen to know what the actual science says.

What am I blind about?