Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Dishevelled Den]

]The big question is why ?.......it isnt just a matter of a government using it as an excuse to raise taxes etc,the global establishment has become consumed by this [/highlight]and I dont belive that they actually buy into it (their actions say otherwise) so they have a big long term agenda but what is it.
Global government or similar ? :-/ :-/

....all part of the design preparation for the NWO in my humble view

But he said he was confident the findings were significant and would serve as a useful guide to policymakers.


...and these comments from such 'august' sources will be the instrument used to justify such revenue raising.

(latter text highlight taken from the BBC report referred to by Brick Tamland)

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

A prediction of a 4 degrees rise by 2070......or possibly 2060...on the TV tonight.

Like I said. Utter drivel. Still as long as the masses see it on telly, it will be believed. 

 

I did not say............... that I necessarily believe that a four degree rise is inevitable Nickbat...........but we must not become complacent........best to keep an open mind.

[Dishevelled Den]

A prediction of a 4 degrees rise by 2070......or possibly 2060...on the TV tonight.

Like I said. Utter drivel. Still as long as the masses see it on telly, it will be believed. 

 

I did not say............... that I necessarily believe that a four degree rise is inevitable Nickbat...........but we must not become complacent........best to keep an open mind.

....but by the same token Optio, we shouldn't buy into this in a doe-eyed state.

[Nickbat]

Read this, folks, and check the PDFs - especially the "CO2 REALITY CHECK". I can't find any fault with Norm Kalmanovitch's maths. If correct, another part of the scam is uncovered. 

http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=4091

[Martin_1962]

As I said many times, we need to

Plant more trees
Cut energy usage
Not waste energy trying to xuck up plant food
Plant more trees
GM modifiy plants including algii to produch fuels

I have quite a few conker trees in pots 

[Nickbat]

Further news:

"A major misdirection was created when increased cost for hurricane insurance claims was incorrectly used to say hurricane frequency had increased. Zurich and Swiss Re both promote the false science of the IPCC without questioning its validity because it benefits them. Is it good business? Yes. Is it moral, scientifically accurate and good for society? No. It is pure, unadulterated, hypocritical, exploitation. Would they sponsor research that showed climate variations were quite normal and risk levels were not elevated? Of course not, any more than the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change entertains climate skeptics.

Most IPCC members are bureaucrats chosen by their governments and whose jobs depend on adhering to the political line. The others are researchers also funded by governments."

[US government funding on climate change research now exceeds $70 billion a year.]

...Climate Money, a study by Joanne Nova found, “that the federal Government has a near-monopsony on climate science funding. This distorts the science towards self-serving alarmism.” (Monopsony – a market situation in which there is only one buyer)."

http://ilovecarbondioxide.com/2009/09/climate-science-funding-hypocrisy.html

AND

"...the creation of an economic “Green Bubble” may be in the works."

http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA585.html

This may be a bit dry for many on here but, believe me, when the bubble bursts, it will be painful for us all.
Though I, for one, will feel a certain sense of satisfaction that so many greedy hypocrites (and that includes so-called scientists) will be brought to book.

[Dishevelled Den]

This may be a bit dry for many on here but, believe me, when the bubble bursts, it will be painful for us all.

Though I, for one, will feel a certain sense of satisfaction that so many greedy hypocrites (and that includes so-called scientists) will be brought to book.

....and there's the rub, few will realize until it's too late to do anything constructive about it.

[Banjax]

Breaking news: Cherry Picking of Screwball Websites to Disprove Valid Science 

[Nickbat]

Breaking news: Cherry Picking of Screwball Websites to Disprove Valid Science 

Er, I hardly think so.

Still, if it keeps you amused to say so.... 

[Banjax]

Breaking news: Cherry Picking of Screwball Websites to Disprove Valid Science 

Er, I hardly think so.

Still, if it keeps you amused to say so.... 

i'll not go over this again m8 - it's good of you to point out the error of our ways, but if it came down to a straight fight - i'll be on the side with Sir David Attenborough and the other respected scientists - or have they been "duped" by this big "conspiracy" to make us pay more taxes? next you'll be saying we didn't land on the moon - i've a stream of evidence to suggest this - all poppycock of course  8-)

[Nickbat]

Breaking news: Cherry Picking of Screwball Websites to Disprove Valid Science 

Er, I hardly think so.

Still, if it keeps you amused to say so.... 

i'll not go over this again m8 - it's good of you to point out the error of our ways, but if it came down to a straight fight - i'll be on the side with Sir David Attenborough and the other respected scientists - or have they been "duped" by this big "conspiracy" to make us pay more taxes? next you'll be saying we didn't land on the moon - i've a stream of evidence to suggest this - all poppycock of course  8-)

Attenborough studied geology and zoology and obtained a degree in Natural Sciences in 1945. He makes telly programmes.

Roger Pielke, Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer, John Christy, Reid Bryson and many others who question the "mainstream" view are qualified scientists involved in research climatology.

So the former should be a better source than the latter? I don't think so.

Your snarky remark about the moon landings doesn't warrant a response.

[Banjax]

take it easy nick! lets not go toe to toe on which scientists believe what - it's not even a debate, no reasonable, rational person can look at the data and come to any other conclusion that we do and have affected the climate - a few cranks spouting off isn't accepted wisdom - else we'd still be burning witches 

[Dishevelled Den]

Breaking news: Cherry Picking of Screwball Websites to Disprove Valid Science 

Er, I hardly think so.

Still, if it keeps you amused to say so.... 

i'll not go over this again m8 - it's good of you to point out the error of our ways, but if it came down to a straight fight - i'll be on the side with Sir David Attenborough and the other respected scientists - or have they been "duped" by this big "conspiracy" to make us pay more taxes? next you'll be saying we didn't land on the moon - i've a stream of evidence to suggest this - all poppycock of course  8-)

.......whether or not that is relevant has no bearing upon the legitimacy of their assertions bj.  You're attaching a lot of credence to what is being said and it seems to be a very big step, as far as I'm concerned, to accept the line being doled out, without question.

Can you not entertain a contrary view, or are you convinced beyond doubt and consider those who question such fundamentalist ideas are not entitled to debate the science?

[Dishevelled Den]

take it easy nick! lets not go toe to toe on which scientists believe what - it's not even a debate, no reasonable, rational person can look at the data and come to any other conclusion that we do and have affected the climate - a few cranks spouting off isn't accepted wisdom - else we'd still be burning witches 

....it's very reasonable to suspect that but to suggest, as has been done, that shifts in the global climate are solely as a result of human activity is difficult to justify - unless you have an agenda of course.

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

Breaking news: Cherry Picking of Screwball Websites to Disprove Valid Science 

Er, I hardly think so.

Still, if it keeps you amused to say so.... 

i'll not go over this again m8 - it's good of you to point out the error of our ways, but if it came down to a straight fight - i'll be on the side with Sir David Attenborough and the other respected scientists - or have they been "duped" by this big "conspiracy" to make us pay more taxes? next you'll be saying we didn't land on the moon - i've a stream of evidence to suggest this - all poppycock of course  8-)

Attenborough studied geology and zoology and obtained a degree in Natural Sciences in 1945. He makes telly programmes.

Roger Pielke, Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer, John Christy, Reid Bryson and many others who question the "mainstream" view are qualified scientists involved in research climatology.

So the former should be a better source than the latter? I don't think so.

Your snarky remark about the moon landings doesn't warrant a response.

Shades of Capricorn one................only in1969 the Russians ....and the Chinese......were just not clever enough to figure out how the Americans faked the moon landings......spooky...