Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History’

[ironsides]

Is global warming just a sign of the times, they say CO2 does not cause global warming. Environmental movement have became a political activist movement. The environmental movement is being supported and driven to stop development in developing countries. These are all statements that throw a shadow of doubt upon the reality or myth of global warming.

The Great Global Warming Swindle

 

[Extrafire]

One of the reasons CO2 is in the atmosphere is rapid deforestation in 1900 there was 5 billion hectares of forest, now less then 4 billion. This leads to less CO2 absorbed by trees and it involves eco systems being destroyed. Also, it causes soil erosion and deserts start to expand into where tress once stood.

Is that a figure for the world? Perhaps then it might be a good idea to promote western style development to the third world. In Canada and US there is more forest than there was 100 years ago. When you don't need to burn wood for all your fuel, you greatly reduce the pressure on the worlds forests.

Global warming is a problem everyone knows exists

Not so. It isn't a problem it's a blessing. While most people in Canada believe it's a problem, most in the US do not, neither do most in England or Aussie, and support for that hypothesis is falling.

and people are starting to take the blame for it, but a lot of people don't want to take on the task of fixing it before it is too late.

NOBODY is willing to make the personal sacrifices to even reduce emissions to Kyoto targets, let alone the 80% reduction the IPCC claims is necessary.

 

[Stretch]

Change is a cold certainty

Tags: SCIENCE/HEALTH/CLIMATE/NATURE
Spirit of Enderby was blocked by a wall of pack ice at the entrance to the Ross Sea, about 400km short of Shackleton's base hut at Cape Royds. Zinchenko says it was the first time in 15 years that vessels were unable to penetrate the Ross Sea in January. The experience was consistent with his impression that pack ice is expanding, not contracting, as would be expected in a rapidly warming world. "I see just more and more ice, not less ice."
Rodney Russ, whose New Zealand company Heritage Expeditions has operated tourist expeditions to Antarctica for 20 years, agrees. He says ships regularly used to able to reachthe US base of McMurdo in summer, but ice has prevented them from doing so for several years.
Change is a cold certainty | The Australian

 

[Walter]

Earth Day predictions of 1970. The reason you shouldn’t believe Earth Day predictions of 2009.

April 22, 2009, 4:00 am


For the next 24 hours, the media will assault us with tales of imminent disaster that always accompany the annual Earth Day Doom & Gloom Extravaganza.
Ignore them. They’ll be wrong. We’re confident in saying that because they’ve always been wrong. And always will be.
Need proof? Here are some of the hilarious, spectacularly wrong predictions made on the occasion of Earth Day 1970.
“We have about five more years at the outside to do something.”
• Kenneth Watt, ecologist
“Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”
• George Wald, Harvard Biologist
“We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation.”
• Barry Commoner, Washington University biologist

“Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.”
• New York Times editorial, the day after the first Earth Day
“Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”
• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist
“By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.”
• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist
“It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,”
• Denis Hayes, chief organizer for Earth Day
“Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”
• Peter Gunter, professor, North Texas State University
“Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”
• Life Magazine, January 1970
“At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”
• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist



“Air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.”
• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist
“We are prospecting for the very last of our resources and using up the nonrenewable things many times faster than we are finding new ones.”
• Martin Litton, Sierra Club director
“By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, `I am very sorry, there isn’t any.’”
• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist
“Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”
• Sen. Gaylord Nelson
“The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”
• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist
Keep these predictions in mind when you hear the same predictions made today. They’ve been making the same predictions for 39 years. And they’re going to continue making them until…well…forever.
Here we are, 39 years later and the economy sucks, but the ecology’s fine. In fact this planet is doing a lot better than the planet on which those green lunatics live.
Source: Reason.com

 

[ironsides]

Take shorter showers or suffocate

How about a shower that gives you only so much time then suffocates you.

Take shorter showers or suffocate | MNN - Mother Nature Network


Saves water and helps stop problem of to much methane in atmosphere,

 

[Scott Free]

I like it. We could get rid of some hippies too!

 

[coldstream]

“We are prospecting for the very last of our resources and using up the nonrenewable things many times faster than we are finding new ones.”
• Martin Litton, Sierra Club director

This refrain has been played out over and over, since Thomas Malthus proposed that an arithmetic increase in food production would be unable to feed a geometric increase in population in the 19th Century.

That led to policies of intentional neglect of starvations in the colonies, especially non-white populations, and to the Irish Pototo Famine, who were Catholic and not much better... in order to re-establish a natural balance. A century and half, with a population perhaps 4X what it was at that time, we see there is no lack of food in the world, simply a lack of political resolve to provide the infrastructure to deliver it. The yield rates have increased many fold that of population.

The Club of Rome put out a book called the Limits of Growth in 1970, which became a best seller, which predicted every natural resource, especially energy producing resources would be exhausted by the year 2000. And yet now reserves of all those have increased in that time, and technology has produced ever greater means of harnessing energy at higher frequencies and more efficiency.

Its the dirty secret of the radical environmentalists, that NONE of their predictions have ever come true. They are all itended as a means of implementing a political agenda, as viciously anti-human.. and racist.. as those of the British Liberals in inflicting starvation as means of protecting the environment of their day.

Such it is with their greatest lie yet, Man made Global Warming.

 

[JLM]

Take shorter showers or suffocate

How about a shower that gives you only so much time then suffocates you.

Take shorter showers or suffocate | MNN - Mother Nature Network


Saves water and helps stop problem of to much methane in atmosphere,

Yep, those showers are getting to the point where they are a sickness. In the old days we pulled the tin tub off the wall every Sunday night and had far less sickness and dried skin etc. in those days. We were on a shallow well, so there was only so much water to go around anyway- water to drink and cook were the first necessities, then the water used for cooking was saved to wash the dishes and then it was recycled to wash clothes and then to wash the floor and after that it was dumped on the garden.

 

[ironsides]

Life was much simpler then, wonder how we survived.

 

[ironsides]

Goverment won't let qualified opponents of 'Global Warming" speak. Could it be a massive world wide conspiracy? Or is he a not qualified. then again who is?

Report: Democrats Refuse to Allow Skeptic to Testify Alongside Gore At Congressional Hearing | Climate Depot

 

[Scott Free]

No conspiracy, "they" are us. People fear their freedom and seek a Shepard to protect them. They want to follow rules, prophets, gods, authority, leaders so they don't have to rely on themselves. Someone need only step up with a new fear to become a ruler. People will flock to their banner in hope of being protected from the freedom they think they crave but fear worse than death itself. Provide people with services and you buy their loyalty, build a nation and they willingly imprison themselves, they will fight for you, and will defend the nation (prison) with their very lives - these are the keys to the kingdom.

 

[Cliffy]

Scott Free,

Very astute! Do you think the sheep will listen? I see a herd heading your way with pitch forks and flaming sticks.

 

[Walter]

Obama's not-so-green machine

By EDMONTON SUN
Last Updated: 27th April 2009, 2:52am
Add another name to the ever-growing list of environmental hypocrites: That of Barack Obama.

The president celebrated the annual Earth Day festivities by jetting aboard Air Force One from Washington to Des Moines, Iowa, and from there he choppered over to the town of Newton -- delivering remarks at a plant that manufactures wind-turbine towers.
There, he called for "a new era of energy exploration in America" (except for offshore oil drilling, no doubt).
Now, Obama could have given this speech at the White House -- except that the background visuals probably wouldn't have been so, well, visual.
POLITICAL POINTS
And a trip to the nation's heartland is good for one or two political points.
Naturally, the question arises: Just how much energy was wasted on the trip?
CBS correspondent Mark Knoller wanted to find out, so he asked the folks at Andrews AFB about the fuel consumption of Air Force One and Marine One, respectively.
But the White House press office wasn't keen on that.
So Knoller got the answers from Boeing and the manufacturer of the VH-3D helicopter that carried the president in Iowa.
The sum total: At least 34,507 litres of fuel -- enough to power a Boeing 767 from New York to Los Angeles.
That's not very green, is it?

 

[Walter]

'Green initiative' by Charles will cost £80,000 and leave 53-ton carbon footprint as he flies in 12-seat private jet

By Christopher Leake
Last updated at 10:27 PM on 25th April 2009

Prince Charles is being accused of hypocrisy after it was revealed that he is chartering a luxury private jet for a five-day tour of Europe to promote environmental issues.
The Prince and the Duchess of Cornwall, plus ten Clarence House staff, will fly from London to Rome this evening. Then they will fly on to Venice and Berlin, before returning to Britain.
Clarence House aides stress that the trip is at the request of the Government to promote its climate change policies.
But instead of using scheduled flights, the Royal party has hired a private plane, thought to be an Airbus A319.

According to experts from the Carbon Managers company, which carries out environmental audits, the aircraft's four European flights over 2,200 miles will leave a carbon footprint of 52.95 tons - nearly five times the average person's 11-ton footprint for an entire year.
Each member of Charles's party will leave a carbon footprint of 4.41 tons - 13 times more than if they had used a scheduled flight on the same type of plane, which can carry up to 156 passengers.
The flights on the specially converted jet, which boasts a master suite with its own lavatory and shower, will cost an estimated £80,000 - five times more than business-class fares on scheduled airlines.
Scheduled flights would cost £1,525 per person, a total of £15,250 for the Royal party. They could have included a British Airways flight from London to Rome (£200), Alitalia from Rome to Venice (£528 economy, no business class available), Lufthansa from Venice to Berlin (£597), and BA from Berlin to London (£200).

 

[JLM]

Obama's not-so-green machine

By EDMONTON SUN
Last Updated: 27th April 2009, 2:52am
Add another name to the ever-growing list of environmental hypocrites: That of Barack Obama.

The president celebrated the annual Earth Day festivities by jetting aboard Air Force One from Washington to Des Moines, Iowa, and from there he choppered over to the town of Newton -- delivering remarks at a plant that manufactures wind-turbine towers.
There, he called for "a new era of energy exploration in America" (except for offshore oil drilling, no doubt).
Now, Obama could have given this speech at the White House -- except that the background visuals probably wouldn't have been so, well, visual.
POLITICAL POINTS
And a trip to the nation's heartland is good for one or two political points.
Naturally, the question arises: Just how much energy was wasted on the trip?
CBS correspondent Mark Knoller wanted to find out, so he asked the folks at Andrews AFB about the fuel consumption of Air Force One and Marine One, respectively.
But the White House press office wasn't keen on that.
So Knoller got the answers from Boeing and the manufacturer of the VH-3D helicopter that carried the president in Iowa.
The sum total: At least 34,507 litres of fuel -- enough to power a Boeing 767 from New York to Los Angeles.
That's not very green, is it?

Common sense would tell me that the President of the United States should be cut a little slack on certain issues. When he has to meet with Gordon Brown in London, how is he supposed to get there? By row boat? We are not going to solve the energy/environment by sudden knee jerk reactions but more likely by turning off one light switch at a time or walking to the corner store.

 

[Extrafire]

Common sense would tell me that if he doesn't practice what he preaches, he doesn't really believe it and is a hypocrite. One could argue that if he absolutely had to meet Brown for a vital conference he might be excused. But to do all that just for the proper backdrop? They could have put that in place with technology right in DC. It's done all the time in movies.

And while you might be able to think of some reason that he would absolutely have to meet with Brown (or any other human on the planet) I can't. With the wonders of modern communication technology, there's nothing he could say face to face that he can't say from Washington.

 

[JLM]

Common sense would tell me that if he doesn't practice what he preaches, he doesn't really believe it and is a hypocrite. One could argue that if he absolutely had to meet Brown for a vital conference he might be excused. But to do all that just for the proper backdrop? They could have put that in place with technology right in DC. It's done all the time in movies.

And while you might be able to think of some reason that he would absolutely have to meet with Brown (or any other human on the planet) I can't. With the wonders of modern communication technology, there's nothing he could say face to face that he can't say from Washington.

So it looks like the next step is to tell the President how to do his job. I think his behaviour when off the job should be pretty close to the rest of the population, but on the job I'd tend to mind my own business, as I don't even have an inkling what his job entails and I'm not convinced that you do. :lol::lol:

 

[Francis2004]

Obama's not-so-green machine

By EDMONTON SUN
Last Updated: 27th April 2009, 2:52am
Add another name to the ever-growing list of environmental hypocrites: That of Barack Obama.

The president celebrated the annual Earth Day festivities by jetting aboard Air Force One from Washington to Des Moines, Iowa, and from there he choppered over to the town of Newton -- delivering remarks at a plant that manufactures wind-turbine towers.
There, he called for "a new era of energy exploration in America" (except for offshore oil drilling, no doubt).
Now, Obama could have given this speech at the White House -- except that the background visuals probably wouldn't have been so, well, visual.
POLITICAL POINTS
And a trip to the nation's heartland is good for one or two political points.
Naturally, the question arises: Just how much energy was wasted on the trip?
CBS correspondent Mark Knoller wanted to find out, so he asked the folks at Andrews AFB about the fuel consumption of Air Force One and Marine One, respectively.
But the White House press office wasn't keen on that.
So Knoller got the answers from Boeing and the manufacturer of the VH-3D helicopter that carried the president in Iowa.
The sum total: At least 34,507 litres of fuel -- enough to power a Boeing 767 from New York to Los Angeles.
That's not very green, is it?

I'm actually quite disappointed.. He should have visited at minimum 10 cities and done 10 speeches while burning 10 times the fuel.. He is the President and should be doing all he can to make people aware not sit on his a$$.

While you whine about the carbon footprint he left I whine about how little of one he made, meaning he did little to enlighten those who need a reminder of how important this darn planet is..

Do you think the President will freaking BEAM himself from place to place or do you think he has magical powers ?

 

[Francis2004]

Common sense would tell me that if he doesn't practice what he preaches, he doesn't really believe it and is a hypocrite. One could argue that if he absolutely had to meet Brown for a vital conference he might be excused. But to do all that just for the proper backdrop? They could have put that in place with technology right in DC. It's done all the time in movies.

And while you might be able to think of some reason that he would absolutely have to meet with Brown (or any other human on the planet) I can't. With the wonders of modern communication technology, there's nothing he could say face to face that he can't say from Washington.

Bull... Communications is does not replace the real thing..

I attend webinars weekly and they cannot replace the real thing. Nothing can replace a real person.. Sorry but there are things that cannot be done or evoked by "Communications" alone..

 

[EagleSmack]

Bull... Communications is does not replace the real thing..

I attend webinars weekly and they cannot replace the real thing. Nothing can replace a real person.. Sorry but there are things that cannot be done or evoked by "Communications" alone..

Well then you are saying that his message is not worth giving unless he is there. I understand what you are saying... it is cooler and more fun to SEE the President or Prince Charles or Al Gore than to watch him on a TV monitor.

However if we are in a planetary emergency and the Earth is dying what is more important...seeing a celebrity or world leader in the flesh or listening and watching his message on a monitor while saving the Earth?