AGW Denial, The Greatest Scam in History?
- Thread starter Avro
- Start date
Just curious but where do you get your info from on the NWO? Or you were you just naturally so enlightened about our movement for global domination?
Pick a character like Strong and simply read his words quoted in the media. They don't hold anything back so I guess it must be denial that keeps the reality from setting in?
The same people who brought you global warming and the IPCC gave us this and I'm supposed to be the nut job?
http://news.cnet.com/8301-11386_3-20017655-76.html
The same people who brought you global warming and the IPCC gave us this and I'm supposed to be the nut job?
http://news.cnet.com/8301-11386_3-20017655-76.html
UN set to appoint Ambassador to handle extraterrestrial contact
Posted Sep 27, 2010 by ■ Andrew Moran
The United Nations is set to appoint Mazlan Othman, a Malaysian astrophysicist and current head of the UN Office for Outer Space Affairs (Unoosa), as the Ambassador responsible for dealing with alien contact.
lookshy.dk
If extraterrestrial visitors come to Earth and ask to speak to a leader they would be directed to Mazlan Othman, who is set to be the official United Nations Ambassador in charge of greeting the aliens when they make contact with humanity, according to CNET News.
The UN scientific advisory committee will deliberate as to whether or not Unoosa should be in charge of dealing with an alien encounter. It should also reach the UN General Assembly. If the two entities give the go ahead, Earth will have an official leader to handle alien contact.
Next week, the 58-year-old Malaysian astrophysicist will lay out a proposal at the Royal Society’s Kavli conference centre in Buckinhamshire to address a possible alien contact scenario and the political processes that would ensue after such contact.
“The continued search for extraterrestrial communication...sustains the hope that someday humankind will receive signals from extraterrestrials,” said Othman, reports the London Telegraph. “When we do, we should have in place a coordinated response that takes into account all the sensitivities related to the subject. The U.N. is a ready-made mechanism for such coordination.”
Expert on outer space law and governance at the United Kingdom Space Agency, Professor Richard Crowther, noted that Othman will be the closest thing Earth has to a “take me to your leader person.”
Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/print/article/298167#ixzz10k75cxTH
Last edited:
Like I said earlier, you're committing a pretty big hypocrisy here. You either have to accept the existence of all UN factions or deny them if you think that they shouldn't exist simply on the basis that they were founded by the UN. If you want to get rid of the IPCC, then you should also want to get rid of NATO or the NAFTA agreement as the UN is responsible for those as well.
As you and morgan already committed though - those UN sanctions are just fine. No global indoctrination there! Them's the good NWO! That's textbook hypocrisy.
Your only other option is to try and take morgan's approach and prove the IPCC committed fraud - and we all know how well that went.
As you and morgan already committed though - those UN sanctions are just fine. No global indoctrination there! Them's the good NWO! That's textbook hypocrisy.
Your only other option is to try and take morgan's approach and prove the IPCC committed fraud - and we all know how well that went.
That's because deniers are never wrong Tonn, they are also not part of a vast conspiracy.
The Moncktons , Plimers and Watt's are never ever wrong.
So they don't need to make retractions because in their world what they say is written on stone tablets.
Even in real terms the IPCC has only made two or three retractions it totally destroyed 4 decades of data collection and scientific work that every major science body agrees with.
They are all in on the conspiracy except of course the handful of true scientists who are not a victim of group think and socialist manipulation in order to set up a one world government.
Heck, 9/11 was perpetrated by scientists, who else could pull that off and make it look like a bunch of Muslims in order to invade the East which is a plot to control the worlds oil?
Scientists killed Kennedy and cloned Obama in Kenya then hacked into the US data base to make it look like he was born in Hawaii.
It is a know fact that climatologists congregate at area 51 to discusses theses plots with aliens who are the real driving force behind all conspiracies for a millenia.....them along with Jews who control the media.
Perhaps one day God will return to earth and save of us from evil science but until then.....
Wake the f**k up dude.:roll:
So, in your mind, the UN was responsible for NAFTA and NATO?.. There's not much left to say if that is your position; it's clear that you feel that any global organization is the spawn of the UN.
As far as the IPCC is concerned. They are as useless as teats on a bull.
Any organization that is forced to retract statements that they initially demanded were "fact" and "peer reviewed" speaks very clearly to the inability of these organizations to be taken seriously on any level.
People like you are entirely incapable of understanding this; you have a predetermined belief that their position is the apex of science regardless of their reluctant admission in their retractions. I have observed you parroting the sad and twisted logic of Avro and Mr. Science in the apologist position that excuses any and all transgressions of the IPCC which is viewed by you folks as nothing short of messianic idolization akin of the psychosis that was related to Jim Jones and Jonestown.
Enjoy the kool aid and strike up the band for kumbaya.
BTW - I have provided Avro with the examples that you pretend don't exist... It's part of your buddy's MO to assume a position that because he doesn't feel these issues qualify as amoral, unethical and agenda driven, then no one can question Dear Leader.
keep up the good work stormtrooper-mentalfloss and you can take solace in the notion that "you were only following orders"
Sorry, let me 'retract' that. NATO is an IGO and it operates very closely with the UN just as the IPCC does. All of these organizations are IGOs, but that doesn't mean they should be thrown away just because they are.
NATO - Topic: United Nations, NATO?s relations with the -
First off, there's a difference between a skeptic and a denier. I'm skeptical of claims like this because your claim relies on conspiracy at all levels, and cannot possibly be validated. When evidence is given against fraud and conspiracy it's just used as more evidence of conspiracy... There is no quality control, and no quality assurance amongst the quacks.
That was before I realized you are right, always.
I see the conspiracy now for what it is Captain.
All those scientists who say that AGW is real have all conspired and at best guess have been doing it for decades.
I'd like to thank you for always being right and never ever being in error.
I look forward to more info on mass conspiracies from you, Petros and Satchie.
Thanks.
Re: 2010, another year of extreme coral bleaching
Nothing is 100% certain so why should Global Warming and climate change be held up to such a high standard?
Some facts people might want to do a little bit of research on before claiming there's no factual base to Anthropogenic forcing and climate change.
- It was recognized in the late 1700s that the Earth's climate was warmer than it should be based on the amount of solar radiation received.
- In the early 1800s Fourier theorized that something in the atmosphere was blocking heat energy leaving the Earth.
- In the mid 1800s John Tyndall clearly demonstrated that gases like CO2, CH4(methane), ozone and NO2 were all opaque to thermal energy(longwave light) while oxygen , nitrogen, argon and hydrogen were transparent.
- In the late 1800s the Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius made the first calculation of climate sensitivity to CO2 or carbolic acid as he called it. He found that a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere resulted in an increase of about 6 degrees C in the global average temperature... this was over 100 years ago.
- In the 1930s Guy Callendar improved on Arrhenius' calculations and came up with a increase of about 3 C for a CO2 doubling.
- Infrared research done under US Navy funding in the 1950s-60s found that earlier spectroscopy experiments on infrared radiation that showed that water vapor blocked some or all of the effect of CO2 were in error as they used a higher pressure than actual atmospheric values causing the absorption lines to smear and become bands. At actual atmospheric conditions water vapor and CO2 absorption of longwave radiation separate into clear lines and act in concert, with water vapor being most effective at lower altitudes and CO2 forming a trapping layer above. Research also shows that as temperature decreases CO2 becomes more effective at absorbing longwave radiation.
- Computer modelling begun under John von Neuman was adapted to begin modelling of global circulation of atmosphere and later ocean incorporating more and more forcings and feedbacks over the years.
There's a massive amount of science and observational evidence backing up anthropogenic climate change and it's been building for over two centuries, it's one of the less controversial areas of science. The real controversy is the social/economic effects of actually listening to the experts who are warning us of the consequences of our current lifestyles.
How anybody can claim that a gas like carbon dioxide which has been established as absorbing and redirecting longwave radiation back towards the Earth can be increased in massive amounts by human activity without having a significant effect is truly beyond me. Photons have no memory, and all the BB radiation being emitted by the earth that would normally transit freely through the Earth's atmosphere into space is being absorbed and re-radiated based on Quantum Mechanical principles, which means it's re-radiated in all directions. You simply can't increase the amount of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere as we have without changing the energy balance of the Globe, forcing it into a state of higher average temperature.
Nothing is 100% certain so why should Global Warming and climate change be held up to such a high standard?
Some facts people might want to do a little bit of research on before claiming there's no factual base to Anthropogenic forcing and climate change.
- It was recognized in the late 1700s that the Earth's climate was warmer than it should be based on the amount of solar radiation received.
- In the early 1800s Fourier theorized that something in the atmosphere was blocking heat energy leaving the Earth.
- In the mid 1800s John Tyndall clearly demonstrated that gases like CO2, CH4(methane), ozone and NO2 were all opaque to thermal energy(longwave light) while oxygen , nitrogen, argon and hydrogen were transparent.
- In the late 1800s the Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius made the first calculation of climate sensitivity to CO2 or carbolic acid as he called it. He found that a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere resulted in an increase of about 6 degrees C in the global average temperature... this was over 100 years ago.
- In the 1930s Guy Callendar improved on Arrhenius' calculations and came up with a increase of about 3 C for a CO2 doubling.
- Infrared research done under US Navy funding in the 1950s-60s found that earlier spectroscopy experiments on infrared radiation that showed that water vapor blocked some or all of the effect of CO2 were in error as they used a higher pressure than actual atmospheric values causing the absorption lines to smear and become bands. At actual atmospheric conditions water vapor and CO2 absorption of longwave radiation separate into clear lines and act in concert, with water vapor being most effective at lower altitudes and CO2 forming a trapping layer above. Research also shows that as temperature decreases CO2 becomes more effective at absorbing longwave radiation.
- Computer modelling begun under John von Neuman was adapted to begin modelling of global circulation of atmosphere and later ocean incorporating more and more forcings and feedbacks over the years.
There's a massive amount of science and observational evidence backing up anthropogenic climate change and it's been building for over two centuries, it's one of the less controversial areas of science. The real controversy is the social/economic effects of actually listening to the experts who are warning us of the consequences of our current lifestyles.
How anybody can claim that a gas like carbon dioxide which has been established as absorbing and redirecting longwave radiation back towards the Earth can be increased in massive amounts by human activity without having a significant effect is truly beyond me. Photons have no memory, and all the BB radiation being emitted by the earth that would normally transit freely through the Earth's atmosphere into space is being absorbed and re-radiated based on Quantum Mechanical principles, which means it's re-radiated in all directions. You simply can't increase the amount of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere as we have without changing the energy balance of the Globe, forcing it into a state of higher average temperature.
Last edited:
Conspiracy? Who is doing anything in secret? It's all wide open.
The emperor is naked!!!!
So then I assume you've seen the meeting minutes and the charter that our great organization has laid out?
Seriously, you nutters are so funny.
It's just baseless conservatism at this point. And I stress baseless. There can be a legitimate conservatism - this is not it.
The Emperor's New Gas.
Let's talk ilk.
So, how well do you think a democratic totalitarian system will pan out?
Let's talk ilk.
So, how well do you think a democratic totalitarian system will pan out?
Let's hear it already. How do you have a totalitarian democracy?
Or a free market economy for that matter? How about free market economy in a totalitarian system. Possible?
How do you have choice?
Or a free market economy for that matter? How about free market economy in a totalitarian system. Possible?
How do you have choice?