Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History’

Status
Not open for further replies.

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
95
48
USA
How come all you supporters of global warming religion ignore this little fact


More serious, however, has been all the evidence accumulating to show that, despite the continuing rise in CO2 levels, global temperatures in the years since 1998 have no longer been rising and may soon even be falling.

Cause it don't fit into your religious doctrine ?:lol:

BINGO!
 

MikeyDB

House Member
Jun 9, 2006
4,612
63
48
Perhaps you could provide some scientific evidence "global" temperatures are cooling?
The issue for me is that the effects of all forms of pollution that are without any doubt "man-made" are a bane to existence. If the great global warming debate focus's attention on corporate malfeseance and the effects of mind-conditioning to create the demand for junk that no one really needs that results in some catastrophic phenomenon or even the idea that human industry and activity have impacted and will continue to impact the planet, that's a good thing. While significant numbers of species face early and perhaps unnecessary extinction at the appetites of the wealthy for more of everything, this phenomenon and the impact of human industry across the entire spectrum of human and animal existence deserves to be talked about.
Eaglesmack and many are enthusiastic and excited that they'll make windfall profits as the banter continues regarding climate change and governments and industry play the shell game with life as we know it on this planet. It's too bad that these people's children won't be able to hold the culprits responsible when water and air are no longer available and whether or not the global climate is warming...or cooling, the greed of a few has turned much of the world into a cesspool.
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
Anyone who thinks that there isn't a tremendous amount of pressure on politicians to keep the system running as it is now are missing out on some key facts. Maybe you think the whole theory is bogus, that's fine, you're entitled to your opinions. But you I think there are some factors involved you may not be aware of, or perhaps you've heard them and cast them off like some tinfoil conspiracy.

So here's some little tidbits for context. Of all the energy that we are using, among the various generating processes, a tremendous amount of the energy is given off as waste heat. Reclaiming that energy is very possible. Adding recuperative heat exchangers to capture the waste heat from generating plants can be done currently, and the capture of that heat allows for some nice benefits. As the exhaust is cooled, the particulate matter which causes much pollution, will precipitate out.

Now this would also allow the power plants to use less fuel. Sure the cost is there in the start-up, but that is reclaimed due to increased efficiency. The reality is, that power companies continue to make more profits, by passing on the rising cost of energy production to the consumer in rate hikes. There is no incentive currently to be more efficient, except in States like California where efficiency is equally as important as new generating capacity.

If you think that market forces will bring about these changes, you're way off. Regulations are what drive improving efficiency. Look at California. They generate 1/3 of the national average in emissions, while paying the same price for electricity. How was that achieved? Regulations. Companies remain profitable, they just have to give up their ever expanding profits at our expense.
 

mrmom2

Senate Member
Mar 8, 2005
5,380
6
38
Kamloops BC
If you think that market forces will bring about these changes, you're way off. Regulations are what drive improving efficiency. Look at California. They generate 1/3 of the national average in emissions, while paying the same price for electricity. How was that achieved? Regulations. Companies remain profitable, they just have to give up their ever expanding profits at our expense.
Of course their rates are cheaper they don't pay the bills from the suppliers like BC they just sue us instead and tie the bill up in court :-(
 

Cobalt_Kid

Council Member
Feb 3, 2007
1,760
17
38
Al Gore is a gold licking member of the overclass, everything he says is a lie and everything he does is false. That makes him a perfect candidate for Prezident of THE UNITED STATES of AMWAYERIA
As opposed to what, the man of the people sitting in the White House in Gore legitimate place. Bush comes from money much older than Gores and has been part of the same industry for decades that is responsible for most of the Global Warming problem.

Al Gore served in Vietnam as a Army journalist and then worked in Congress both as a Representative then Senator for years to bring more accountability to American politics.

Read his new book "The Assault on Reason" about how special interests and religious extremists have taken over the agenda in the US. He's anything but an elitist, that's something that can easily be applied to the men who robbed him of his rightful place as President of the USA however.
 

mrmom2

Senate Member
Mar 8, 2005
5,380
6
38
Kamloops BC
You mean Al Gore the creator of the internet :lol::lol::lol: Owner of emissions credits trading firm no conflict of interests there :lol::lol:Once a lying politician always a lying politician ;-)
 

Cobalt_Kid

Council Member
Feb 3, 2007
1,760
17
38
As opposed to George Bush who never did go to Vietnam (same for Cheney who got five draft defererments) and was APPOINTED by the Supreme Court in 2000 to the Presidency.

Men who have also lied about a threat to the US and started a war that has brought them personal wealth through corporations they have close contacts with while killing thousands of Americans and destroying the US economy. Men who have also thrown the Constitution in the trash and have resorted to torture and violating privacy rights of millions of Americans

I guess if you can't except the reality of having a despot ruling the US then Al Gore makes a conveinent target for your frustrations. It's those who are against freedom and the rule of law who are so opposed to Gore.
 

mrmom2

Senate Member
Mar 8, 2005
5,380
6
38
Kamloops BC
As opposed to George Bush who never did go to Vietnam (same for Cheney who got five draft defererments) and was APPOINTED by the Supreme Court in 2000 to the Presidency.

Men who have also lied about a threat to the US and started a war that has brought them personal wealth through corporations they have close contacts with while killing thousands of Americans and destroying the US economy. Men who have also thrown the Constitution in the trash and have resorted to torture and violating privacy rights of millions of Americans

I guess if you can't except the reality of having a despot ruling the US then Al Gore makes a conveinent target for your frustrations. It's those who are against freedom and the rule of law who are so opposed to Gore.
I don't see anyone here saying Bush is great Cobalt :lol:He's worse than Gore for sure but Gore really is nothing but a money grabbing ***** .The proof is in his actions
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
95
48
USA
The Bush bashing is just another way to deflect critisism on Al Gore and his brilliant... and I mean BRILLIANT money making machine that he has created. Boy, just by that alone I am tending to think he may have made a good president because he is cashing in on a windfall.

Not just that, he has reopened Zinc Mining on his land in Tennessee to the tune of $500,000.00! You know about Zinc Mining don't you? It is one of the most toxic and most destructive ways to mine. To his credit he has asked the mining company to investigate "better" ways to mine.

Sorry Al...STRIP MINING IS STRIP MINING.

You want Zinc... you have to deforest and dig massive MASSIVE holes in the ground and keep digging until you've exhausted the land. HUGE gas gobbling and C02 releasing dozers and haulers and trucks and every other type of machine you can think of to get to the good stuff and haul it away.
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
And Gore bashing is another way to deflect criticism against the business as usual approach and the lack of proof against the theory. It's an ad hominem attack, not at all an indictment of the theory. A reason not to invest in Gore's company, but that is all.
 

Cobalt_Kid

Council Member
Feb 3, 2007
1,760
17
38
Al Gore never took a vow of poverty, if Bush and Cheney can get wealthy from oil and war then Gore can do as he pleases as he works to build an altrnative to the sick and tired economic structure that is killing the planet.
 

Zzarchov

House Member
Aug 28, 2006
4,600
100
63
Extrafire: You just claimed the medieval period was 7000 years ago. Sorry, You lose.

Side note: If you think we couldn't trigger an Ice age, you are also wrong (in fact its a side effect of some things we could do, such as an atomic exchange)

I considered quoting and refuting your points, but either someone has any knowledge in history and just knows you are wrong flat out, or they don't and don't care either.

Believe what you want. Just try and keep it to one thing, know that medieval warming is not the same thing as warm periods much earlier in world history, nor are they going to be on the same level.
 

Walter

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 28, 2007
34,840
89
48
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]What About the Poles?[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]
Tuesday November 13, 2007[/SIZE][/FONT] The global warming alarmists are at it again, shrieking about “ice melt at the Poles.”
“The relentless grip of the Arctic Ocean that defied man for centuries is melting away,” warned Doug Struck in the Washington Post. “The sea ice reaches only half as far as it did 50 years ago. In the summer of 2006, it shrank to a record low. This summer, the ice pulled back even more, by an area nearly the size of Alaska.”
NASA’s James Hansen keeps claiming that CO2 is “pushing the climate past its tipping point.”
British banks are sending “volunteers” to the Arctic to see for themselves the loss of sea ice, and to view the “endangered” polar bears—whose numbers have tripled in recent years.
Ho hum. Just another day at the scare factory.

Point one: We’ve known for 20 years about the earth’s moderate, natural 1,500-year climate cycle, which we discovered in the Greenland and Antarctic ice cores. The ice shows seven previous global warmings in the past 12,000 years. Two of these—8,000 years ago and 5,000 years ago—were, for many centuries, substantially warmer than today. The Greenland and Antarctic ice caps didn’t melt.

Point two: This can’t be global warming. 1) The Arctic was also warm in the 1920s; the Russians say it happens every 70 years or so. 2) The Antarctic Ice is now at a modern high. The Antarctic has been cooling since the 1960s, according to Peter Doran’s 2002 paper in Nature. Thanks to warming’s additional snowfall, the East Antarctic ice cap is currently gaining about 45 billion tons of ice per year.

Neels Reeh of the University of Denmark says that another 1 degree C of warming would melt enough Greenland ice to raise sea levels perhaps half an inch per year—but added ice in the Antarctic would lower sea level almost that much. The net increase has been six inches per century, and it isn’t expected to change.

Why not? Cliff Ollier, well-known geoscientist from the University of Western Australia, writes to say that Hansen is just a climate modeler who doesn’t understand either ice caps or their melting. He thinks the whole ice cap melting thing is a figment of the climate modelers’ computerized imaginations, conjured up to ensure that we’re properly frightened of global warming. Otherwise, the grant money might dry up.

If the media only reported facts, who would be frightened about sea levels rising at the current rate of six inches per century? Who’d be frightened by the earth warming just two-tenths of a degree C over the past 70- years?

Ice caps don’t melt from the surface down, they melt only at the edges. Once the edges are melted, further ice loss depends on the uphill weight of the ice built up over previous centuries. The ice flows—reluctantly because it’s so cold—on the warmer ice at its base, with the upper, brittle ice carried downhill by its own weight. When a chunk of ice reaches the edge of the cap it falls off—and the AP writes a news story. That’s neither melting nor collapse.

The Greenland ice cap is 2–3 kilometers deep and much of its ice lies inside a basin that won’t slide off. Its undisturbed ice dates back at least 105,000 years. The temperatures over the ice are well below freezing, at about -30 degrees C in the north, and -20 degrees C in the south.

The Antarctic ice cores date back more than 760,000 years, in the coldest place on earth. The lowest recorded temperature was -89 C at Vostok in 1983. The highest Vostok temperature taken was -19 C in 1992—still far below freezing.

By the way, even the southernmost polar bear population is doing fine in the Davis Strait, with higher numbers and some of the largest bears yet seen.
 

The Listener

New Member
Nov 9, 2007
1
0
1
Keep On Getting Your Message Out There!

Locutus, While I have no proof to substantiate your claim, I am of the same opinion as you. I do not trust Al Gore! Then he says "the debate is over". When did it even begin. Since he will not debate anyone or go on talk shows that will challenge him for his facts, it gives anyone more reason to not trust his opinions. His agenda is POWER and since he was denied the Presidency, this "scam" is his ticket (he thinks) to an even wider base of "useful idiots" to boss around and laud over.
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
95
48
USA
And Gore bashing is another way to deflect criticism against the business as usual approach and the lack of proof against the theory. It's an ad hominem attack, not at all an indictment of the theory. A reason not to invest in Gore's company, but that is all.

There is all kinds of proof. You just will not listen to it because you have invested yourself in the theory that the sky is falling. Your savoir Al Gore has fooled you.
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
95
48
USA
Al Gore never took a vow of poverty, if Bush and Cheney can get wealthy from oil and war then Gore can do as he pleases as he works to build an altrnative to the sick and tired economic structure that is killing the planet.

No no no. You are not getting off that easy. Al Gore IS killing the planet and making millions from doing it. GW advocates are on the ropes and they know. So what shall they do?

Blame Cheney and Bush...what else is there to do! :lol:


Strip mining, private planes, three houses, mansions... but wait Al... aren't we in a "planetary emergency"?
 

Cobalt_Kid

Council Member
Feb 3, 2007
1,760
17
38
No no no. You are not getting off that easy. Al Gore IS killing the planet and making millions from doing it. GW advocates are on the ropes and they know. So what shall they do?

Blame Cheney and Bush...what else is there to do! :lol:


Strip mining, private planes, three houses, mansions... but wait Al... aren't we in a "planetary emergency"?

Give me a break, the fossil fuel industry introduces millions of barrels of oil, millions of litres of natural gas and thousands of tons of coal into the environment each day. Al Gores level of consumption is nothing remarkable in a country with many people who have a level of wealth far above his. I don't hear you complaining about the palace Bill Gates lives in. There's a log home building company not far from where I live and a few years ago I watched in wonder as they built a 115,000 square foot log house that was going to be an addition for a 25,000 square foot home already in place. It was all heading south to some dot com billionaire. Al Gore shows more responsibility than most people in his position and unless you're advocating communism get off your high horse about his right to what he has.
 

mrmom2

Senate Member
Mar 8, 2005
5,380
6
38
Kamloops BC
No no no. You are not getting off that easy. Al Gore IS killing the planet and making millions from doing it. GW advocates are on the ropes and they know. So what shall they do?

Blame Cheney and Bush...what else is there to do! :lol:


quote]
Funy thing is Bush's house is more GW friendly than the great preacher Gores :lol::lol:

recently saw Al Gore�s �An Inconvenient Truth�. It was exactly what I expected, like getting the Big Mac you expect when you go to Mac Donald�s. It is an American mainstream film that serves the same political purpose as any Hollywood blockbuster � to neutralize political awareness and response.

Yes, the atmospheric trace gas CO2 has the highest concentration it has had in the last million years. Yes, this is due to fossil fuel burning. Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Yes, there have been intense weather events in recent years and yes glaciers are melting.

Therefore, let us abstract away the greatest assault on the planet and its people in the history of humanity, namely finance-driven corporate devastation and exploitation backed by military might, and change our light bulbs to the energy saving kind!

Our moral responsibility extends far beyond checking out Al Gore�s web site, and has relatively little to do with most lifestyle choices; including vegetarianism, fair trade purchases, renewable consumer choices, not owning a car, etc. Our responsibilities instead include getting informed, and demanding moral accountability of all those who should serve people (including the corporations and private banks).

To demand is to put yourself out there. To demand is to show what you stand for. To demand is to risk. We must risk as much as will make us as effective as possible in producing justice.

Economic, human, and animal justice brings economic sustainability which in turn is based on renewable practices. Recognizing the basic rights of native people automatically moderates resource extraction and preserves natural habitats. Not permitting imperialist wars and interventions automatically quenches nation-scale exploitation. True democratic control over monetary policy goes a long way in removing debt-based extortion. Etc.

Concentrated power and capital are not about to give up their practices or their imperative for profit. Resistance to the insane return-on-investments hydra that inhabits our planet is our main responsibility if we are concerned about future generations. It�s time to declare bankruptcy and start again, in collaboration, without debt or interest.

One cannot control a monster by asking it not to **** as much. The monster is the problem, not the fact that it ****s.

In Al Gore�s masterpiece there is not a single questioning at the root. A sanitized problem of atmospheric chemistry is used to funnel attention into lifestyle choices or filling out feedback forms for the monster�s suggestion box.

My point is that global warming is part of our mainstream mental environment because it does not threaten power. Wars are being fought to secure fossil fuel exploitation and transportation profits. It is completely na�ve to think that world politics based on atmospheric chemistry and computer modelling projection arguments will lead to an effective cap on fossil fuel burning.

As a related example, the so-called �ozone victory� was a corporate ploy to eliminate CFCs just as US corporation CFC patents were running out, thereby ensuring that the replacement US products with new patent protection would have a world market.

The acid rain problem of the 70s was another such global catastrophe myth. Agriculture and forestry combined with the cottage industry and sports fishing crippled boreal forest lakes and their ecosystems, not acid rain. Nor did acid rain destroy the boreal forest � blame corporate clear cutting for that. More sulphides are being emitted by coal-burning power plants than ever before and the US has enough coal reserves to keep it in energy for the next 1000 years. SO2 is not the problem, corporate and financial power is. Pollution is a symptom, as are exploitation and oppression.

We need to see straight before we can hope to take more democratic control over our resources. The �sanitised global problem abstraction� (e.g., world overpopulation as a statistician�s dreamland) is a red herring. It deflects attention away from the root causes and neutralises effective action based in direct confrontation at the source.



by Prof. Denis Rancourt
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]University of Ottawa, Canada[/SIZE]

[/FONT]
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
95
48
USA
Give me a break, the fossil fuel industry introduces millions of barrels of oil, millions of litres of natural gas and thousands of tons of coal into the environment each day. Al Gores level of consumption is nothing remarkable in a country with many people who have a level of wealth far above his. I don't hear you complaining about the palace Bill Gates lives in. There's a log home building company not far from where I live and a few years ago I watched in wonder as they built a 115,000 square foot log house that was going to be an addition for a 25,000 square foot home already in place. It was all heading south to some dot com billionaire. Al Gore shows more responsibility than most people in his position and unless you're advocating communism get off your high horse about his right to what he has.

Yes I do not doubt that they do produce that much. It is the consumption of people like Al Gore that causes that. Al Gore has shown no responsibility whatsoever...none! He still runs three mansions, drives in SUV laden motorcades, takes private jets around the world to speak about GW, allows Zinc Mining on his lands, has swindled millions into buying carbon credits in his carbon credit company. What did he do? Change the light bulbs? He still uses gas operated torches every night at his Tennessee mansion. They ring his sprawling back yard.


Bill Gates? Are you high? Where did that come from? :lol:


I attack ALL who say conserve and do not themselves. The Hollywood elite at the Oscars last year who, because of Al Gore recieved a free years worth of carbon credits that cost nothing more than it took to print the paper because it was his company that wrote it off. All of these GW Crusaders/Scammers who collect hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars from suckers who bought into the greatest scam ever.


I am not advocating communism... I am advocating shared responsibility to those who preach GW. I have not seen it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.