If the demand drops, the capitalists try other stuff because they can't supply more than demand or else they go broke.
Communism has its faults, too, you know, Comrade. lol
Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History’
- Thread starter Locutus
- Start date
- Status
Communism has its faults, too, you know, Comrade. lol
UK Weather Service to re-examine 160 years of climate data
The Met Office plans to re-examine 160 years of temperature data after admitting that public confidence in the science on man-made global warming has been shattered by leaked e-mails. The new analysis of the data will take three years, meaning that the Met Office will not be able to state with absolute confidence the extent of the warming trend until the end of 2012. The Met Office database is one of three main sources of temperature data analysis on which the UN’s main climate change science body relies for its assessment that global warming is a serious danger to the world. This assessment is the basis for next week’s climate change talks in Copenhagen aimed at cutting CO2 emissions.
more...
Met Office to re-examine 160 years of climate data - Times Online
The Met Office plans to re-examine 160 years of temperature data after admitting that public confidence in the science on man-made global warming has been shattered by leaked e-mails. The new analysis of the data will take three years, meaning that the Met Office will not be able to state with absolute confidence the extent of the warming trend until the end of 2012. The Met Office database is one of three main sources of temperature data analysis on which the UN’s main climate change science body relies for its assessment that global warming is a serious danger to the world. This assessment is the basis for next week’s climate change talks in Copenhagen aimed at cutting CO2 emissions.
more...
Met Office to re-examine 160 years of climate data - Times Online
Where on Earth would you get the idea that Al Gorepone has anything to do with research grants???
Capitalism thrives only by preventing people from choosing more leisure time over more consumption.
And his/her babble could go on and on and on ad nauseum, but I'll steer the conversation back to the topic.
Most Canadians think that Earth is warming. If it is warming as they think, obviously it isn't a scam.
The Canadian Press: Most Canadians agree warming planet is a defining crisis that demands action: survey
I don't think it matters much what caused it to start and continue warming. We know pollution is bad, we should quit it.
Most Canadians think that Earth is warming. If it is warming as they think, obviously it isn't a scam.
The Canadian Press: Most Canadians agree warming planet is a defining crisis that demands action: survey
I don't think it matters much what caused it to start and continue warming. We know pollution is bad, we should quit it.
A warming cycle probably isn't fiction ... but it IS a cycle. The scam is in people trying to make profit from it. Their futile efforts may as well be attempts to halt tides and make morning come from the west - only folk would recognize the fraud then.
It's clearly how the special interests buy scientific concensus. The dotted line between Gore and the scientific lap dancing hookers is a mile wide. The same is true of evey other branch of academia that has market value. I guess you don't want to hear anything about the medical scandals either.
it gets warm it gets cold it gets warm it gets cold it rocks and rolls and it shakes all over it gets warm it gets cold it gets warm it gets cold, like it's a natural cycle
This Thread isn't about 'big'.....so please feel free to take the Thread
back to "(insert Thread subject here)" as indicated by the Thread
title. Thank You.
back to "(insert Thread subject here)" as indicated by the Thread
title. Thank You.
Global warming is not the fault of the humans it has a lot to do with volcanoes erupting over the years and the degradation of the earth’s orbit into the sun.
In my opinion the human factor contributed less than one per cent to the problem.
I support Canada’s Prime Minister Stephen Harper original view that the Kyoto protocol plan is severely flawed.
The Kyoto protocol is an exercise in futility and does nothing to fix the problem because it can’t.
In my opinion the best way to deal with global warming is to adapt to the changes and get out of areas that will be affected the most.
In my opinion the human factor contributed less than one per cent to the problem.
I support Canada’s Prime Minister Stephen Harper original view that the Kyoto protocol plan is severely flawed.
The Kyoto protocol is an exercise in futility and does nothing to fix the problem because it can’t.
In my opinion the best way to deal with global warming is to adapt to the changes and get out of areas that will be affected the most.
Last edited:
That's not actually answering the question. But let's take it to the next step from where you're headed.
Since you're willing to tar everyone with a wide brush, lets make it a simple dichotomy Beaver. Al Gore and his bunch, who campaign to make energy generation clean, and equitable. Or the energy companies and their cabal who deny the science of the Gore side, and lobby hard at any policy which threatens their stranglehold on the economy.
Choose Beaver. Who is buying the science? Those who stand to gain, or those who stand to lose? Those who campaign for individual power generation, or those who want to keep you addicted to their product?
Aren't both sides buying the science, and attempting to influence those that can
dictate policy for profit? Hasn't it been shown that both sides are complacent in
some pretty shady behavior?
Perhaps now it's time to open up the raw data to both sides, so that the results
from both sides can be demonstrated as being repeatable and verifiable?
Maybe even an open and public debate on the subject with non-hidden data by
either side of the issue, we all end up winning by making a choice based on all
the facts....no matter which way the chips fall?
All the data on the table with the agenda's removed, for all to see, from both sides,
for both sides to dissect and repeat the findings of the other. This would remove the
tinfoil hats from the fringes of both sides, and leave (hopefully) a clearer solution in
the middle of the two extreme positions that'll make sense for everyone to follow,
with funding for research to be issued on the search for knowledge and not based
upon which side your outcome will lean towards in advance of the research.
The extremes from both sides of the current extremes of position who're influencing
policy for personal profit based on misleading or censured information will become
social pariahs in a perfect world. This would remove the Al Gore's & Christopher
Moncton's from the equation and leave the waters less muddied.
dictate policy for profit? Hasn't it been shown that both sides are complacent in
some pretty shady behavior?
Perhaps now it's time to open up the raw data to both sides, so that the results
from both sides can be demonstrated as being repeatable and verifiable?
Maybe even an open and public debate on the subject with non-hidden data by
either side of the issue, we all end up winning by making a choice based on all
the facts....no matter which way the chips fall?
All the data on the table with the agenda's removed, for all to see, from both sides,
for both sides to dissect and repeat the findings of the other. This would remove the
tinfoil hats from the fringes of both sides, and leave (hopefully) a clearer solution in
the middle of the two extreme positions that'll make sense for everyone to follow,
with funding for research to be issued on the search for knowledge and not based
upon which side your outcome will lean towards in advance of the research.
The extremes from both sides of the current extremes of position who're influencing
policy for personal profit based on misleading or censured information will become
social pariahs in a perfect world. This would remove the Al Gore's & Christopher
Moncton's from the equation and leave the waters less muddied.
Last edited:
Then you would have to believe the energy companies are purposely making it warmer. Gores only campaign is to get rich on the backs of fools who participate in cap&trade. Given the recent climategate fiasco I'm surprised anyone believes in anything the climate "science" is purporting.
Apparently in the not too distant future there is more likely to be a shortage of CO2 than an abundance. They are finding now that they can convert Algae into fuel for vehicles, planes etc. and need lots of CO2 to grow all the algae that will be required, so maybe all the global warming fanatics should maybe just take a long hard look and be prepared to change gears.
See, the thing is that there aren't these two sides like the dichotomy I set up. That's just me taking Beaver's absolute statement and making it a two-way choice.
In reality it's nothing like that at all. You can't definitively say anything about the motives of all of the thousands of scientists who have devoted their careers to answering questions about reality.
As to the raw data, NASA code and raw data is available at their site. CRU has made all the data available that they are legally allowed to make public. They are a third party holder in many cases,and are not allowed to give up that data, no matter how many FOIA requests they get. The larger point is, if someone doesn't like CRU because they can't get access to all of the raw data (some of which was scratched on parchment in the 1800's), then pick another data set measuring the same variable. They all show the same thing.
If you want to see data, try the links from these pages:
Climate Data Links « Open Mind
RealClimate: Data Sources
Open and public debates has been done...a number of times. I don't see that one more time is going to matter, but we'll get more of it anyways. For many people the thought of spending time watching scientists debate the intricacies of atmospheric chemistry and physics is incredibly boring.
The IPCC , the US Climate Change Science Program reports, and other related national programs is where the chips fall. In some cases these synthesis reports, which are very conservative estimates of reality, are underestimating magnitude and pace of changes.
Besides which, I don't think I like the idea of science and related policy matters being left to the whims of the mob. Anyone who thinks "It's happened before" is a relevant point is clearly not up to par on very basic levels of understanding, to even grasp what the salient points are.
Umm, not likely. The CO2 isn't gone once the fuel is burned, the carbon goes from plant to fuel to carbon dioxide to atmosphere, and back to algae, or spruce, or bacteria. It's called the carbon cycle. The only carbon that disappears is that which is sequestered in the deep sea, or in caverns underground. And technically it never really disappears.
- Status