Did you look up Chandlers Wobble?Maybe if we experience a sizable shift, Copenhagengate will collapse in on itself and the consensus will end up as just a plain old census.
Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History’
- Thread starter Locutus
- Start date
- Status
Did you look up Chandlers Wobble?Maybe if we experience a sizable shift, Copenhagengate will collapse in on itself and the consensus will end up as just a plain old census.
Ahh, small dead animals posts a lot of issues typically taken up, or against, by conservatives. I'm not surprised it was linked to there. The internet is a bit of an echo chamber when it comes to issues.
Explain logically please how this could cause such a phenomenon as stratospheric cooling while heating the troposphere.
It is not even winter yet and places in the mid-west are seeing temps. in the -0 numbers. Cleveland was -12 deg, F yesterday.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/00current.htm
Pantineur en Hollande ("Skaters in Holland") by Johan Barthold Jongkind.
The Global Problem of Turbulence Cooling
Pantineur en Hollande ("Skaters in Holland") by Johan Barthold Jongkind.
Dec 11, 2009
Could the widespread use of windmills be responsible for recent observations that the European continent is rapidly cooling?
[Chairman] "This session of the Rotterdam Congress on Global Turbulence Cooling in the year of our Lord 1647 will now come to order. [Gavel strikes] Before the initial period of testimony and investigation begins, the chair recognizes brief opening remarks by Mijnheer de Dokter Jut Om Brom, the leading expert on windmill effects in climate change.
"Mijnheer Om Brom has been studying the significant lowering of European temperatures since 1612, and has concluded that the then recent introduction of windmill pumping stations around the Netherlands, with their subsequent adoption in other countries as grain processors and irrigation devices for croplands, has led to an increase in wind turbulence throughout Europe and Western Asia.
"Dutch scientists have been sounding the alarm about global turbulence cooling since it was realized in the last decade that a decline in cereal grain production, as well as the freezing of previously clear winter shipping lanes, is causing food shortages and population shifts to be
"Mijnheer Om Brom has been studying the significant lowering of European temperatures since 1612, and has concluded that the then recent introduction of windmill pumping stations around the Netherlands, with their subsequent adoption in other countries as grain processors and irrigation devices for croplands, has led to an increase in wind turbulence throughout Europe and Western Asia.
"Dutch scientists have been sounding the alarm about global turbulence cooling since it was realized in the last decade that a decline in cereal grain production, as well as the freezing of previously clear winter shipping lanes, is causing food shortages and population shifts to be
Take away the bait of money and power and global warming would instantly be dropped from the human radar. The temperature is going down and has been for a decade. Our climate is totally a product of the sun, there isn't one thing we can do about that except pay the high priests of Global Warming for special dispensations from reality in the vain and stupid belief that we can adjust solar input here on the surface of the earth. We could hope with the same dull religious expectations to turn off a volcano.
The science is settled says the beaver. He can't point it out to us if asked, but so sayeth the dark rodent so we must accept his decrees. You've been chewing on bad wood beaver. The methanol is affecting your faculties.
You're going to argue are you? I said that the sun was the origin of our climate and I inferred that the effect was total. Now if you think you can disprove that my good man you just go right ahead. I have faculties to affect, you seem to have delusions about science and scientists, in fact you seem not the least bit aware of the rageing debate surrounding peer review and it's gross manipulation by money a well understood control mechanism that has from the remote past to this very day infiltrated and corrupted every human institution. To believe that science is above such corruption is the mark of a religious man Tonnington. Dog bless you.
You said our climate is totally a product of the sun. Not true. Without an optically thick atmosphere the temperature change daily would be hundreds of degrees from sunlight to darkness, and the average temperature on Earth would be close to zero.
Fan's, yes that is the reason. Causing turbulence, blowing planes out of the sky, starvation. How could the world be so blind.
So you are going to argue. Our atmosphere is totally a product of the sun. That atmosphere is driven by charge. No charge no atmosphere no weather no nothing.
More about methanol sources later eh, lets pencil in a meetin eh, after christmas sometime will be good for me, rsvp:lol:
Anyone or any group can mishandle data, including those that deny humans having anything to do with pollution.
The truth eventually leaks to the surface for all to see, though. So, the best policy is honesty to begin with. The more sources for the data the less likely chance that there is error, however. A few people claim conspiracy, but the bigger the conspiracy the more likely there's a mole leaking stuff out. This climate change "conspiracy" would have to be unbelievably, globally massive, and yet there's been no leaks from any of the sources of data. The only thing that's come to light is the attempt by one group using archaic methodology to fiddle with data. Reason has flown out the window for the most part on both sides of the issue and mostly on the side of those who deny any warming.
Krauthammers's got it right.
December 11, 2009
The Environmental Shakedown
By Charles Krauthammer
WASHINGTON -- In the 1970s and early '80s, having seized control of the U.N. apparatus (by power of numbers), Third World countries decided to cash in. OPEC was pulling off the greatest wealth transfer from rich to poor in history. Why not them? So in grand U.N. declarations and conferences, they began calling for a "New International Economic Order." The NIEO's essential demand was simple: to transfer fantastic chunks of wealth from the industrialized West to the Third World.
On what grounds? In the name of equality -- wealth redistribution via global socialism -- with a dose of post-colonial reparations thrown in.
The idea of essentially taxing hard-working citizens of the democracies in order to fill the treasuries of Third World kleptocracies went nowhere, thanks mainly to Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher (and the debt crisis of the early '80s). They put a stake through the enterprise.
But such dreams never die. The raid on the Western treasuries is on again, but today with a new rationale to fit current ideological fashion. With socialism dead, the gigantic heist is now proposed as a sacred service of the newest religion: environmentalism.
One of the major goals of the Copenhagen climate summit is another NIEO shakedown: the transfer of hundreds of billions from the industrial West to the Third World to save the planet by, for example, planting green industries in the tristes tropiques.
Politically it's an idea of genius, engaging at once every left-wing erogenous zone: rich man's guilt, post-colonial guilt, environmental guilt. But the idea of shaking down the industrial democracies in the name of the environment thrives not just in the refined internationalist precincts of Copenhagen. It thrives on the national scale too.
On the day Copenhagen opened, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency claimed jurisdiction over the regulation of carbon emissions by declaring them an "endangerment" to human health.
Since we operate an overwhelmingly carbon-based economy, the EPA will be regulating practically everything. No institution that emits more than 250 tons of CO2 a year will fall outside EPA control. This means over a million building complexes, hospitals, plants, schools, businesses and similar enterprises. (The EPA proposes regulating emissions only above 25,000 tons, but it has no such authority.) Not since the creation of the Internal Revenue Service has a federal agency been given more intrusive power over every aspect of economic life.
This naked assertion of vast executive power in the name of the environment is the perfect fulfillment of the prediction of Czech President (and economist) Vaclav Klaus that environmentalism is becoming the new socialism, i.e., the totemic ideal in the name of which government seizes the commanding heights of the economy and society.
Socialism having failed so spectacularly, the left was adrift until it struck upon a brilliant gambit: metamorphosis from red to green. The cultural elites went straight from the memorial service for socialism to the altar of the environment. The objective is the same: highly centralized power given to the best and the brightest, the new class of experts, managers and technocrats. This time, however, the alleged justification is not abolishing oppression and inequality but saving the planet.
Not everyone is pleased with the coming New Carbon-Free International Order. When the Obama administration signaled (in a gesture to Copenhagen) a U.S. commitment to major cuts in carbon emissions, Democratic Sen. Jim Webb wrote the president protesting that he lacks the authority to do so unilaterally. That requires congressional concurrence by legislation or treaty.
With the Senate blocking President Obama's cap-and-trade carbon legislation, the EPA coup d'etat served as the administration's loud response to Webb: The hell we can't. With this EPA "endangerment" finding, we can do as we wish with carbon. Either the Senate passes cap-and-trade, or the EPA will impose even more draconian measures: all cap, no trade.
Forget for a moment the economic effects of severe carbon chastity. There's the matter of constitutional decency. If you want to revolutionize society -- as will drastic carbon regulation and taxation in an energy economy that is 85 percent carbon-based -- you do it through Congress reflecting popular will. Not by administrative fiat of EPA bureaucrats.
Congress should not just resist this executive overreaching, but trump it: Amend existing clean air laws and restore their original intent by excluding CO2 from EPA control and reserving that power for Congress and future legislation.
Do it now. Do it soon. Because Big Brother isn't lurking in CIA cloak. He's knocking on your door, smiling under an EPA cap.
December 11, 2009
The Environmental Shakedown
By Charles Krauthammer
WASHINGTON -- In the 1970s and early '80s, having seized control of the U.N. apparatus (by power of numbers), Third World countries decided to cash in. OPEC was pulling off the greatest wealth transfer from rich to poor in history. Why not them? So in grand U.N. declarations and conferences, they began calling for a "New International Economic Order." The NIEO's essential demand was simple: to transfer fantastic chunks of wealth from the industrialized West to the Third World.
On what grounds? In the name of equality -- wealth redistribution via global socialism -- with a dose of post-colonial reparations thrown in.
The idea of essentially taxing hard-working citizens of the democracies in order to fill the treasuries of Third World kleptocracies went nowhere, thanks mainly to Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher (and the debt crisis of the early '80s). They put a stake through the enterprise.
But such dreams never die. The raid on the Western treasuries is on again, but today with a new rationale to fit current ideological fashion. With socialism dead, the gigantic heist is now proposed as a sacred service of the newest religion: environmentalism.
One of the major goals of the Copenhagen climate summit is another NIEO shakedown: the transfer of hundreds of billions from the industrial West to the Third World to save the planet by, for example, planting green industries in the tristes tropiques.
Politically it's an idea of genius, engaging at once every left-wing erogenous zone: rich man's guilt, post-colonial guilt, environmental guilt. But the idea of shaking down the industrial democracies in the name of the environment thrives not just in the refined internationalist precincts of Copenhagen. It thrives on the national scale too.
On the day Copenhagen opened, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency claimed jurisdiction over the regulation of carbon emissions by declaring them an "endangerment" to human health.
Since we operate an overwhelmingly carbon-based economy, the EPA will be regulating practically everything. No institution that emits more than 250 tons of CO2 a year will fall outside EPA control. This means over a million building complexes, hospitals, plants, schools, businesses and similar enterprises. (The EPA proposes regulating emissions only above 25,000 tons, but it has no such authority.) Not since the creation of the Internal Revenue Service has a federal agency been given more intrusive power over every aspect of economic life.
This naked assertion of vast executive power in the name of the environment is the perfect fulfillment of the prediction of Czech President (and economist) Vaclav Klaus that environmentalism is becoming the new socialism, i.e., the totemic ideal in the name of which government seizes the commanding heights of the economy and society.
Socialism having failed so spectacularly, the left was adrift until it struck upon a brilliant gambit: metamorphosis from red to green. The cultural elites went straight from the memorial service for socialism to the altar of the environment. The objective is the same: highly centralized power given to the best and the brightest, the new class of experts, managers and technocrats. This time, however, the alleged justification is not abolishing oppression and inequality but saving the planet.
Not everyone is pleased with the coming New Carbon-Free International Order. When the Obama administration signaled (in a gesture to Copenhagen) a U.S. commitment to major cuts in carbon emissions, Democratic Sen. Jim Webb wrote the president protesting that he lacks the authority to do so unilaterally. That requires congressional concurrence by legislation or treaty.
With the Senate blocking President Obama's cap-and-trade carbon legislation, the EPA coup d'etat served as the administration's loud response to Webb: The hell we can't. With this EPA "endangerment" finding, we can do as we wish with carbon. Either the Senate passes cap-and-trade, or the EPA will impose even more draconian measures: all cap, no trade.
Forget for a moment the economic effects of severe carbon chastity. There's the matter of constitutional decency. If you want to revolutionize society -- as will drastic carbon regulation and taxation in an energy economy that is 85 percent carbon-based -- you do it through Congress reflecting popular will. Not by administrative fiat of EPA bureaucrats.
Congress should not just resist this executive overreaching, but trump it: Amend existing clean air laws and restore their original intent by excluding CO2 from EPA control and reserving that power for Congress and future legislation.
Do it now. Do it soon. Because Big Brother isn't lurking in CIA cloak. He's knocking on your door, smiling under an EPA cap.
Oh, no! Another ice age! Better hoard food, clothing, and heating supplies; or move south:
Global Temperature Report - Nov. 2009
There's virtually no evidence that the mean temperature of the world has been dropping for the last decade. You're just spewing absolute nonsense.
Garbage. Our climates are the products of more than just the sun. You just latched onto one of them like a lamprey and totally ignored the other reasons for climate. roflmao Go back to your gnawing on sticks, Beav.
- Status