Global Warming is a Hoax!

I repeat my question which was ask before:
Would you bet your paycheck on a weather forecast for tomorrow? If not, then why should this country bet billions on 'global warming' predictions that have even less foundation? Simple as that.

You misinterpret my intentions when presenting these topics. They are intended for those persons who would like to read and see what others are saying along these lines. There are those who will not be swayed and to this I can only feel sorry. But as I'm not their keeper, I really could care less, so may it be.

 

Primarily the large increase in solar energy.

Also, wiki is not a credible source for anything.

 

It's pretty obvious that the believers in global warming are so emotionally attached to their beliefs that they react violently when confronted with alternative facts. The historical evidence of climate cycles and measurable increases in solar energy warming our atmosphere aren't items of interest to them. They are religious heresies to be obliterated. I can understand why our European friends would react this way because of the long-standing tradition of oppressive government. I'm disappointed in the Americans. We've gone from "give me liberty or give me death" to "please please protect me from the temperature because it's hot and I don't know what to do so please take my money and my possessions and my freedom and tell me what to do because I'll endure anything just to have someone lead me out of this scarey weather!" Now, the elite powerbrokers in the world are now doubt laughing at you in private because I'm sure that out of all of the violent schemes to attain power throughout history, I'm sure they never expected that the ultimate power would come from convincing people they need protection from the weather. When the history of this time period is written, it will probably be extremely unkind.

 

Powerful Documentary Trounces Man-Made Warning.....

In the 1980's a strange alliance between Margaret Thatcher's right wing government and the environmental left was formed to promote the idea of man-made global warming. Thatcher's agenda was to force the country to adopt nuclear power because she trusted neither the oil-rich Middle Eastern powers nor her own country's rebellious coal mining unions, therefore a propaganda war against fossil fuels was initiated.

- The documentary also highlights how elements of the scientific community exploit global warming hysteria in order to receive fast-track funding by simply tagging on a global warming aspect to their area of study.
Read all about it here (Danr likes these type of postings)
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2007/090307warminghoax.htm

 

thats odd I was thinking the exact same thing about you.

 

That's why you are on the wrong side of the facts so often. While I have looked at both sides, you are locked into one and can't even entertain alternatives. If you took the time to notice, and I'm pretty sure you didn't and won't, it's obvious that none of the global warming fans have refuted any of the alternatives. They assert what they believe but can't refute alternatives. The normal reaction of an intelligent person would be to consider alternatives to their hypothesis that are not easily refuted, but don't expect that to happen here or anyplace else with global warming.

Old Dan, the additional fact about obtaining funding that you presented is also highly important. When someone's paycheck is dependent on believing something, it isn't surprising when belief is substituted for science.

 

I really don't understand why anyone wouldn't want to clean up the planet. Do you guys really beleive pollution either doesn't exist or isn't bad? Really, what motive could someone have to be opposed to leaving a cleaner nicer planet to future generations??? You have nothing to lose from caring about the environment, and nothing to gain except maybe some money in the pockets of your already rich royal families, like the bush's.

 

Go hug a tree hippie, I'm going to continue to expand my carbon footprint until I can stomp out endangered species at will. Global warming = political poo.

 

Can you point out where I said that pollution wasn't a problem? I'll answer for you to speed things up. No you can't. But this is an entirely different problem than global warming. Pollution is a large problem, but mostly in the developing nations, less so in the West. Resource availability, particulary in the area of energy, is far more critical. Most of the increase in living standards in the world in the past few hundred years is attributable to the availability of cheap and abundant energy, primarily fossil fuels. This is ending now and the world is unprepared. This will most likely kill more people over the next century than global warming, even if it really is due to human activity, which is highly unlikely. Right now, about 60% of the oil used in the world is used directly or indirectly in the production, packaging, and transportation of food. We have built up complex production and distribution systems to feed the world, and there is a very real danger of this system breaking down. Any large-scale move to further reduce the availability of fossil fuels beyond that which is already occuring naturally will cause the death of a significant percentage of the global population long before the impact of the increased solar activity warming our atmosphere becomes a threat.

What do you have to lose by supporting global warming? Much more than money. This is the largest power grab and hoax ever attempted in the history of mankind. It will end as all others have, and will be funded on the backs of the American middle class. To think otherwise is incredibly naive. It took decades to dumb down the population through inadequate schools to the level where a majority of people are no long capable of reasoning through the arguments about global warming to recognize the hoax. I guess it was decided that enough damage has been done to pull it off at this time.

 

Must be nice to be so sure of yourself. BTW people who are that sure of themselves are usually wrong.

 

Why should they? Why shouldnt they? Why should this country spend billions of dollars a month on a country that has no interest in being democratic? Its not like our frugal government hasnt wasted money before. But I guess its just not what you want them to waste money on(col..) See i thought I'd answer your question with a question. So now go ahead and write how lazy or ignorant or misinformed I am. Oh I forgot to remark on how sad it mustve been not seeing any cartoons growing up. So did you enter a theater just as the main feature began?

 

I dont think its the emergency that people like Gore and his cronies say it is, they are using scare tactics and hyperbole. I dont think there is any way a consensus on this issue and I dont think anyone who questions it is in the pocket of and oil company, government, masons, or whatever conspiracy theory someone decides to spot off to discredit anything that opposes their opinions...Some very well respected scientist have had a lot to say about the ethics of Gore movie and how it was presented...

All that aside...I DO think that it just makes sense that we should do what we can to minimize pollution as much as possible. Its just not good to pollute...it doesnt take a scientist or simulated scenarios to know this...

 

Don't need to old buddy! You just demonstrated it for all the forum to see. thank you!

 

A boorish misanthrope

Another quote from Thomas Paine:
I am sensible that he who means to do mankind a real service must set down with the determination of putting up, and bearing with all their faults, follies, prejudices and mistakes until he can convince them that he is right."

 

I notice that you only select certain sections of a quote. Thats how you read things, huh? You just see parts of an entire body. I thought the spin stopped with guys like you. So typical.

 

Drusus, this is one time that you and I are in complete harmony and agreement. There is no question in my mind that the pollution need working on, but that is not the core of this post. Here we have people playing on the fear of the uneducated and or lazy to get people to respond to a phony cause. i.e. Global Warming!

No such thing..so lets move on..
Now if we want to start a post on the damage and 'how-to of garbage collecting, then lets start a new post. It is only brought up here by those who don't have a legitamate answer to the phony global warming scam.

 

The Jillie Spinner!

:loud:Go spin your 'jimmie' old buddy!

 

Is that an admission that you are wrong? If not, can you post your refutation to the alternatives that makes you so sure of yourself that the recent warming is due to something other than normal climate cycles or solar output? Or is this just something you have chosen to believe without understanding?

 

Like any wager it all depends on what the forecast is, and what the odds are. If the forecast was that Hurricane Katrina was bearing down directly on my house, then ABSOLUTELY YES I would take my whole paycheck and every thing else I can muster and get myself and my family out of there. And I'd call it a good bet.

Sorry Dan, you can't just try to declare yourself right and "case closed, nuff said". I think your depiction of environmentalists as playing on people's fears is unconscionable calumny and this effort to declare yourself the winner is the cheap shot of a sore loser trying to save face. There is a marked difference between playing on fear and paying attention to legitimate problems which you seem to conveniently disparage.

Your scoffing at climate-science and trying to replace it with corporate-backed spin-science is akin to the efforts of "creation science" folks to scoff at the solid evidence for the ongoing process of organic evolution. Just as those folks have conditioned their minds to reject any evidence that contradicts a pre-conceived and unreasoned belief, so you to have foisted a lie upon your own mind. You proceed backward from the aimed-for conclusion and choose only that miniscule proportion of evidence or opinion that supports your reconceived conclusion. This is called prejudice.

As Thomas Paine said:
"Considering how unwilling men are to recede from fixed opinions, and that they feel something like disgrace to being convinced, the way to obtain something is to give something." I've given you something by acknowledging the uncertainties that do in fact exist. You have not yet acknowledged anything whatsoever.

 

Thank you Tom for writing my response to you and all the preconceived responses you seem to come up with. Stop turning things around as if this is the subject and these are your ideas. Apparently if Tomas Paine didn't think it up, you would be without any thing to say. Give up and we won't call it 'prejudice' on anyones part.