Environmentalists Infiltrate to Indoctrinate

[PoliticalChic]

So…who do you believe? Well…depends: are you in the ‘believing’ mode, or the ‘thinking’ mode?

1. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) (pronounced /ˈno(&#650.ə/, like "Noah") is a scientific agency within the United States Department of Commerce focused on the conditions of theoceans and the atmosphere. NOAA warns of dangerous weather, charts seas and skies, guides the use and protection of ocean and coastal resources, and conducts research to improve understanding and stewardship of the environment. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

'Government,' 'science,'...'research,'.....Sounds legit....

Well, then....

2. “2012 hottest year on record in contiguous U.S., NOAA says…Temperatures in the contiguous United States last year were the hottest in more than a century of record-keeping, shattering the mark set in 1998 by a wide margin, the federal government announced Tuesday. The average temperature in 2012 was 55.3 degrees, one degree above the previous record and 3.2 degrees higher than the 20th-century average, scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said. They described the data as part of a longer-term trend of hotter, drier and potentially more extreme weather..... But the researchers also said the data provided further compelling evidence that human activity — especially the burning of fossil fuels, which produces greenhouse gases — is contributing to changes in the U.S. climate.”
2012 hottest year on record in contiguous U.S., NOAA says - Washington Post

Is it really 'government'...or functionaries who have seized government authority???







3. “Ron Arnold, a former executive director of the Sierra Club and founder of the unfairly maligned ‘Wise Use’ movement, has spent the last twenty years researching the cooperation among foundations, ENGOs, individual activists, and activist federal employees….Arnold proves that thousands of activist members of advocacy groups are employed by federal agencies in positions that give them opportunity to exercise agenda-driven “undue influence” over goods-production decisions applied in rural areas. Put plainly, by the early 1990s, according to Arnold, the federal agencies- the Forest Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Land Management- and many equivalent state agencies were riddled with activists.”
Nickson, “Eco-Fascists,” p.164.

4. ‘Said the New York Times climate blog, in an assertion that was echoed throughout the media: "The temperature differences between years are usually measured in fractions of a degree, but 2012 blew away the previous record, set in 1998, by a full degree Fahrenheit."
Really? If that were true, then hair-on-fire news should have been the fact that 2012 was 2.13 degrees hotter than 2011. That's a far more dramatic change, and in a single year. Nor was it mentioned that 2008, in the contiguous U.S., was two degrees cooler than 2006. Or that 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011 were all cooler than 1998 by a larger margin than 2012 was hotter than 1998.

Are you getting the picture? None of this was mentioned because it makes a mockery of using trends in the Lower 48 as a proxy for global warming, the misguided intent that permeated media coverage of the NOAA revelation….The Lower 48 represent just 1.58% of the total surface area of the Earth. The law of large numbers is at work here: The smaller the sample, the more volatile its patterns compared to a larger sample. And the fact remains, in all the authoritative studies, the warmest year on record globally is still 1998 and no trend has been apparent globally since then.’ Jenkins: Our 'Hottest Year' and Al Gore's Epic Failure - WSJ.com






5. James L. Buckley spoke at the Heritage Foundation, on his book “Freedom at Risk: Reflections on Politics, Liberty, and the State,” and commented as follows:

a. While the officials in these agencies are generally good people, they become focused on their particular portfolio of duties, that, often, they cannot see the consequences on other parts of society. Put this together with human nature, and one can see bullying, and misuse of power, especially when these individuals are immune to penalty, and supported by free and extensive legal representation: they have sovereign immunity in their positions.

b. A remedy would be the ability of citizens to sue the federal government to protect their legitimate interests, for damages. While currently unconstitutional, the Congress can waive sovereign immunity.

c. Such a congressional waiver would not only protect the citizenry, but would go far toward defining the limits of federal authority.



But....but....what would happen to the environmental movement without the backing of unlimited federal powers????

 

[Old Rocks]

Rank
1 = Warmest
Period of Record: 1880–2012

Year Anomaly °C Anomaly °F

1 2010 0.66 1.17

2 2005 0.65 1.17

3 1998 0.63 1.13

4 2003 0.62 1.11

5 2002 0.61 1.10

6 (tie)*2006 0.59 1.07

6 (tie)*2009 0.59 1.07

6 (tie)*2007 0.59 1.06

9 2004 0.58 1.04

10 2012 0.57 1.03

State of the Climate | Global Analysis | Annual 2012

A low TSI for the last ten years. Two strong La Nina's. Yet nine of ten of those years have been the warmest on record.

I suppose for people that get their science from an obese junkie on the radio, that means nothing.

 

[Old Rocks]

So…who do you believe? Well…depends: are you in the ‘believing’ mode, or the ‘thinking’ mode?

1. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) (pronounced /ˈno(&#650.ə/, like "Noah") is a scientific agency within the United States Department of Commerce focused on the conditions of theoceans and the atmosphere. NOAA warns of dangerous weather, charts seas and skies, guides the use and protection of ocean and coastal resources, and conducts research to improve understanding and stewardship of the environment. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

'Government,' 'science,'...'research,'.....Sounds legit....

Well, then....

2. “2012 hottest year on record in contiguous U.S., NOAA says…Temperatures in the contiguous United States last year were the hottest in more than a century of record-keeping, shattering the mark set in 1998 by a wide margin, the federal government announced Tuesday. The average temperature in 2012 was 55.3 degrees, one degree above the previous record and 3.2 degrees higher than the 20th-century average, scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said. They described the data as part of a longer-term trend of hotter, drier and potentially more extreme weather..... But the researchers also said the data provided further compelling evidence that human activity — especially the burning of fossil fuels, which produces greenhouse gases — is contributing to changes in the U.S. climate.”
2012 hottest year on record in contiguous U.S., NOAA says - Washington Post

Is it really 'government'...or functionaries who have seized government authority???







3. “Ron Arnold, a former executive director of the Sierra Club and founder of the unfairly maligned ‘Wise Use’ movement, has spent the last twenty years researching the cooperation among foundations, ENGOs, individual activists, and activist federal employees….Arnold proves that thousands of activist members of advocacy groups are employed by federal agencies in positions that give them opportunity to exercise agenda-driven “undue influence” over goods-production decisions applied in rural areas. Put plainly, by the early 1990s, according to Arnold, [B]the federal agencies- the Forest Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Land Management- and many equivalent state agencies were riddled with activists.”[/B] Nickson, “Eco-Fascists,” p.164.

4. ‘Said the New York Times climate blog, in an assertion that was echoed throughout the media: "The temperature differences between years are usually measured in fractions of a degree, but 2012 blew away the previous record, set in 1998, by a full degree Fahrenheit."
Really? If that were true, then hair-on-fire news should have been the fact that 2012 was 2.13 degrees hotter than 2011. That's a far more dramatic change, and in a single year. Nor was it mentioned that 2008, in the contiguous U.S., was two degrees cooler than 2006. Or that 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011 were all cooler than 1998 by a larger margin than 2012 was hotter than 1998.

Are you getting the picture? None of this was mentioned because it makes a mockery of using trends in the Lower 48 as a proxy for global warming, the misguided intent that permeated media coverage of the NOAA revelation….The Lower 48 represent just 1.58% of the total surface area of the Earth. The law of large numbers is at work here: The smaller the sample, the more volatile its patterns compared to a larger sample. And the fact remains, in all the authoritative studies, the warmest year on record globally is still 1998 and no trend has been apparent globally since then.’ Jenkins: Our 'Hottest Year' and Al Gore's Epic Failure - WSJ.com






5. James L. Buckley spoke at the Heritage Foundation, on his book “Freedom at Risk: Reflections on Politics, Liberty, and the State,” and commented as follows:

a. While the officials in these agencies are generally good people, they become focused on their particular portfolio of duties, that, often, they cannot see the consequences on other parts of society. Put this together with human nature, and one can see bullying, and misuse of power, especially when these individuals are immune to penalty, and supported by free and extensive legal representation: they have sovereign immunity in their positions.

b. A remedy would be the ability of citizens to sue the federal government to protect their legitimate interests, for damages. While currently unconstitutional, the Congress can waive sovereign immunity.

c. Such a congressional waiver would not only protect the citizenry, but would go far toward defining the limits of federal authority.



But....but....what would happen to the environmental movement without the backing of unlimited federal powers????

Yes of course. Activists, as in scientists. People that actually have some knowledge of the science that affects the areas they are responsible for. As opposed to those who would exploit the areas with no consideration for the effects of that exploitation on the area, or surrounding areas.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Rank
1 = Warmest
Period of Record: 1880–2012

Year Anomaly °C Anomaly °F

1 2010 0.66 1.17

2 2005 0.65 1.17

3 1998 0.63 1.13

4 2003 0.62 1.11

5 2002 0.61 1.10

6 (tie)*2006 0.59 1.07

6 (tie)*2009 0.59 1.07

6 (tie)*2007 0.59 1.06

9 2004 0.58 1.04

10 2012 0.57 1.03

State of the Climate | Global Analysis | Annual 2012

A low TSI for the last ten years. Two strong La Nina's. Yet nine of ten of those years have been the warmest on record.

I suppose for people that get their science from an obese junkie on the radio, that means nothing.

"... the warmest year on record globally is still 1998 and no trend has been apparent globally since then.’"

 

[Mr. H.]

Yes of course. Activists, as in scientists. People that actually have some knowledge of the science that affects the areas they are responsible for. As opposed to those who would exploit the areas with no consideration for the effects of that exploitation on the area, or surrounding areas.

All activists aren't scientists. While I won't slam scientists (not yet anyway ), activists are a bit of a different animal. They butt heads with people that actually have some knowlege of how industry works, how business is conducted, and how processes... process. Existing controls and regulations are never enough, and the only real "cure" is to shut down business and industry altogether.

 

[PoliticalChic]

So…who do you believe? Well…depends: are you in the ‘believing’ mode, or the ‘thinking’ mode?

1. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) (pronounced /ˈno(&#650.ə/, like "Noah") is a scientific agency within the United States Department of Commerce focused on the conditions of theoceans and the atmosphere. NOAA warns of dangerous weather, charts seas and skies, guides the use and protection of ocean and coastal resources, and conducts research to improve understanding and stewardship of the environment. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

'Government,' 'science,'...'research,'.....Sounds legit....

Well, then....

2. “2012 hottest year on record in contiguous U.S., NOAA says…Temperatures in the contiguous United States last year were the hottest in more than a century of record-keeping, shattering the mark set in 1998 by a wide margin, the federal government announced Tuesday. The average temperature in 2012 was 55.3 degrees, one degree above the previous record and 3.2 degrees higher than the 20th-century average, scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said. They described the data as part of a longer-term trend of hotter, drier and potentially more extreme weather..... But the researchers also said the data provided further compelling evidence that human activity — especially the burning of fossil fuels, which produces greenhouse gases — is contributing to changes in the U.S. climate.”
2012 hottest year on record in contiguous U.S., NOAA says - Washington Post

Is it really 'government'...or functionaries who have seized government authority???







3. “Ron Arnold, a former executive director of the Sierra Club and founder of the unfairly maligned ‘Wise Use’ movement, has spent the last twenty years researching the cooperation among foundations, ENGOs, individual activists, and activist federal employees….Arnold proves that thousands of activist members of advocacy groups are employed by federal agencies in positions that give them opportunity to exercise agenda-driven “undue influence” over goods-production decisions applied in rural areas. Put plainly, by the early 1990s, according to Arnold, [B]the federal agencies- the Forest Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Land Management- and many equivalent state agencies were riddled with activists.”[/B] Nickson, “Eco-Fascists,” p.164.

4. ‘Said the New York Times climate blog, in an assertion that was echoed throughout the media: "The temperature differences between years are usually measured in fractions of a degree, but 2012 blew away the previous record, set in 1998, by a full degree Fahrenheit."
Really? If that were true, then hair-on-fire news should have been the fact that 2012 was 2.13 degrees hotter than 2011. That's a far more dramatic change, and in a single year. Nor was it mentioned that 2008, in the contiguous U.S., was two degrees cooler than 2006. Or that 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011 were all cooler than 1998 by a larger margin than 2012 was hotter than 1998.

Are you getting the picture? None of this was mentioned because it makes a mockery of using trends in the Lower 48 as a proxy for global warming, the misguided intent that permeated media coverage of the NOAA revelation….The Lower 48 represent just 1.58% of the total surface area of the Earth. The law of large numbers is at work here: The smaller the sample, the more volatile its patterns compared to a larger sample. And the fact remains, in all the authoritative studies, the warmest year on record globally is still 1998 and no trend has been apparent globally since then.’ Jenkins: Our 'Hottest Year' and Al Gore's Epic Failure - WSJ.com






5. James L. Buckley spoke at the Heritage Foundation, on his book “Freedom at Risk: Reflections on Politics, Liberty, and the State,” and commented as follows:

a. While the officials in these agencies are generally good people, they become focused on their particular portfolio of duties, that, often, they cannot see the consequences on other parts of society. Put this together with human nature, and one can see bullying, and misuse of power, especially when these individuals are immune to penalty, and supported by free and extensive legal representation: they have sovereign immunity in their positions.

b. A remedy would be the ability of citizens to sue the federal government to protect their legitimate interests, for damages. While currently unconstitutional, the Congress can waive sovereign immunity.

c. Such a congressional waiver would not only protect the citizenry, but would go far toward defining the limits of federal authority.



But....but....what would happen to the environmental movement without the backing of unlimited federal powers????

Yes of course. Activists, as in scientists. People that actually have some knowledge of the science that affects the areas they are responsible for. As opposed to those who would exploit the areas with no consideration for the effects of that exploitation on the area, or surrounding areas.

1. "Yes of course. Activists, as in scientists."

Ah.....another problem!

You're gullible. Sweet, but gullible.


How about tomorrow, I write an OP eviscerating your belief as to who is a 'scientist' and who should not be considered as such?

Good idea, eh?


Any of the activists whose intention is to impose collectivist control is deemed a 'scientist.'
Clearly a self-serving definition designed to fool the gulli.....oops.




2. "As opposed to those who would exploit the areas with no consideration for the effects of that exploitation on the area, or surrounding areas."

Let's explore you misstatement, shall we?

It seems to be your belief that bureaucrats (activists) from elsewhere are better able to judge the best way to take care of the lands than the stewards of same who own it?


I guess that you'd be perfectly happy to have some Washington nobody tell you when and how to maintain your home, huh?

Well....as long as we call them 'scientists.'


Well then: Tomorrow....same time, same station!

 

[Mad Scientist]

PC makes a thread about Environmental Indoctrination and what happens? The Indoctrinated One shows up!

 

[Saigon]

Political Chic -

I'm not sure how much thought you've given to this idea of a conspiracy, but as you may have realised yourself - it doesn't stand up to a great deal of examination.

First of all, organisations like the NOAA, the American Physical Society and around 20 other major American scientific bodies all confirmed that human acitivity plays a role in climate change during the Bush Adminsitration.

Secondly, the US is hardly the only country which conducts research! Look around the world at countries with conservative governments - the UK, Germany, Finland, New Zealand - their research agencies also confirm the facts about climate change.

Thirdly, most research in Europe is conducted by universities. University funding is not linked to particular research studies, nor even to specific faculties. Hence universities have no motive at all to focus on any one topic, or to produce any particular results.

I know conspiracy theories are very attractive - unfortunately there are good reasons why so few people show any interest in them.

 

[IanC]

todays GISS global temps- http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.txt

2012/01 GISS global temps- http://web.archive.org/web/20120107141450/http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.txt

2012
1980 0.19 0.12
1981 0.26 0.16
1982 0.04 0.16
1983 0.25 0.13
1984 0.09 0.11
1985 0.04 0.15
1986 0.12 0.17
1987 0.27 0.19
1988 0.31 0.25
1989 0.19 0.30
1990 0.36 0.27
1991 0.35 0.23
1992 0.13 0.24
1993 0.13 0.24
1994 0.23 0.23
1995 0.37 0.28
1996 0.29 0.37
1997 0.39 0.39
1998 0.56 0.38
1999 0.32 0.42
2000 0.33 0.45
2001 0.47 0.45
2002 0.56 0.48
2003 0.55 0.54
2004 0.48 0.55
2005 0.63 0.56
2006 0.55 0.53
2007 0.58 0.55
2008 0.44 0.55
2009 0.57 *
2010 0.63 *


2013
1980 0.22 0.15
1981 0.28 0.19
1982 0.09 0.19
1983 0.27 0.16
1984 0.11 0.14
1985 0.07 0.18
1986 0.14 0.19
1987 0.28 0.21
1988 0.34 0.28
1989 0.23 0.32
1990 0.39 0.30
1991 0.37 0.27
1992 0.18 0.28
1993 0.19 0.29
1994 0.28 0.28
1995 0.42 0.33
1996 0.32 0.42
1997 0.45 0.44
1998 0.61 0.43
1999 0.39 0.47
2000 0.40 0.50
2001 0.52 0.50
2002 0.60 0.53
2003 0.59 0.58
2004 0.52 0.59
2005 0.65 0.59
2006 0.59 0.57
2007 0.62 0.59
2008 0.49 0.59
2009 0.59 0.58
2010 0.66 0.57

 

[IanC]

2012 GISS global-
1920 -0.19 -0.22
1921 -0.14 -0.20
1922 -0.26 -0.21
1923 -0.22 -0.20
1924 -0.22 -0.18
1925 -0.17 -0.15
1926 -0.02 -0.14
1927 -0.15 -0.14
1928 -0.12 -0.13
1929 -0.26 -0.13
1930 -0.08 -0.11
1931 -0.02 -0.13
1932 -0.08 -0.09
1933 -0.19 -0.10
1934 -0.07 -0.10
1935 -0.12 -0.07
1936 -0.05 -0.01
1937 0.07 0.00
1938 0.10 0.04
1939 0.01 0.07
1940 0.04 0.06


2013 GISS global-
1920 -0.27 -0.28
1921 -0.21 -0.26
1922 -0.29 -0.26
1923 -0.26 -0.24
1924 -0.24 -0.22
1925 -0.22 -0.20
1926 -0.09 -0.18
1927 -0.19 -0.20
1928 -0.17 -0.18
1929 -0.32 -0.18
1930 -0.12 -0.16
1931 -0.08 -0.18
1932 -0.11 -0.13
1933 -0.26 -0.14
1934 -0.10 -0.15
1935 -0.16 -0.12
1936 -0.11 -0.06
1937 0.02 -0.04
1938 0.05 0.00
1939 0.00 0.04
1940 0.06 0.04

 

[IanC]

there are the 'adjustments' to GISS in one year. about 0.03 added to recent temps, about 0.06 subtracted from historical temps.

in one year. tell me again how year xxxx is warmer than year yyyy by 0.001 degree.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Political Chic -

I'm not sure how much thought you've given to this idea of a conspiracy, but as you may have realised yourself - it doesn't stand up to a great deal of examination.

First of all, organisations like the NOAA, the American Physical Society and around 20 other major American scientific bodies all confirmed that human acitivity plays a role in climate change during the Bush Adminsitration.

Secondly, the US is hardly the only country which conducts research! Look around the world at countries with conservative governments - the UK, Germany, Finland, New Zealand - their research agencies also confirm the facts about climate change.

Thirdly, most research in Europe is conducted by universities. University funding is not linked to particular research studies, nor even to specific faculties. Hence universities have no motive at all to focus on any one topic, or to produce any particular results.

I know conspiracy theories are very attractive - unfortunately there are good reasons why so few people show any interest in them.

1. http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/276686-conservation-biology-isn-t-science.html


2. What happened to the truth?

a. In academia, truth has fallen in priority to ideology, also known as the ‘greater truth’ of pre-formed conclusions. A case in point is climate change. Normal science discovers facts, and then constructs a theory from those facts. ‘Post-modern science’ starts with a theory that is politically sensitive, and then makes up facts to influence opinion in its favor.

b. Mike Hulme is Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia (UEA), [http://mikehulme.org/] and was good enough to reveal the truth in the Guardian, 2007: “…this particular mode of scientific activity… has been labeled "post-normal" science. Climate change seems to fall in this category. Disputes in post-normal science focus as often on the process of science - who gets funded, who evaluates quality, who has the ear of policy - as on the facts of science…. Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking,… scientists - and politicians - must trade (normal) truth for influence. If scientists want to remain listened to, to bear influence on policy, they must recognise the social limits of their truth seeking and reveal fully the values and beliefs they bring to their scientific activity…. Climate change is too important to be left to scientists - least of all the normal ones.” http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2007/mar/14/scienceofclimatechange.climatechange.


 So global warming theory did not seek to establish the truth through evidence. Instead, truth had to be traded for influence: scientists presented beliefs as a basis for policy. The shame: science has been junked in the interest of promoting ideological conviction.

 

[Saigon]

1. This isn't conservation biology - it is largely physics. If you check the American Physical Society, you will find that the are absolutely certain about the human role in climate change. Likewise the American Society of Meteorologists and another 50 - yes, fifty - major international science bodies.

Perhaps you know more about science than they do - but I don't.

I don't see anything to address in your other points.

Please read what I posted earlier, and respond to it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. This isn't conservation biology - it is largely physics. If you check the American Physical Society, you will find that the are absolutely certain about the human role in climate change. Likewise the American Society of Meteorologists and another 50 - yes, fifty - major international science bodies.

Perhaps you know more about science than they do - but I don't.

I don't see anything to address in your other points.

Please read what I posted earlier, and respond to it.

I just did.

The movement is a scam designed to advance global governance.
No...it isn't physics.
It's folks who see a way to line their pockets. It is one more pseudopod of the neo-Marxist endeavor.

The Professor closest to the movement, in fact at the epicenter, East Anglia, has admitted that truth is unrelated to same.

Yet....you find that less than dispositive.
Strange.


See if you can guess why the usual suspects support 'the movement':

The Shadow Party was born July 17, 2003, at Soros’s estate. It created the largest and most powerful juggernaut in American history. Present were Madeleine Albright, John Podesta, John Pope (director of the Sierra Club), Andy Stern (SEIU), among others. The basic structure of the Shadow Party was a network of seven 527 organizations.

a. “… the network of nonprofit activist groups organized by George Soros and others to mobilize resources -- money, get-outthe-vote drives, campaign advertising and policy iniatives -- to elect Democratic candidates and guide the Democratic Party towards the left. The Internet fund-raising operation MoveOn.org is a key component. The Shadow Party in this sense was conceived and organized principally by Soros, Hillary Clinton and Harold Ickes. Its efforts are amplified by, and coordinated with, key government unions and the activist groups associated with the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN). The key organizers of these groups are veterans of the Sixties left.” http://www.churchmilitant.tv/cia/02fake/102.pdf

It's all about money and power.

You see me as engaging in 'conspiracy theories.'
I see you as burying your head in the sand.

 

[uscitizen]

NOAA and such agencies are employing scientists not politicians or CEO's hence most will be more liberal leaning.
A major DUHH! for PC.
But have your conspiracy theory if you must

 

[Saigon]

Political Chic -

Can you explain to me why almost every major conservative party in the world disagrees with your idea?

You might also consider why every major scientific organisation in the world disagrees with you.

Again, please address these points.

It's folks who see a way to line their pockets

Really?

And you can explain who you mean and how it works, of course.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Political Chic -

Can you explain to me why almost every major conservative party in the world disagrees with your idea?

You might also consider why every major scientific organisation in the world disagrees with you.

Again, please address these points.

It's folks who see a way to line their pockets

Really?

And you can explain who you mean and how it works, of course.

"almost every major conservative party in the world..."

1. So...you've finally admitted that the concept is political, rather than one of science.
Good start.

a. I don't find any links associated with you post.

2. Nor, it seems, do you wish to comment on Professor Holmes' revelation.
No cross examination?
Then his testimony is, as I stated, dispositive.


3. "It's folks who see a way to line their pockets[/quote]

Really?

And you can explain who you mean and how it works, of course."

Actually, as the answer is so plainly obvious, how about you explain why the folks listed in the 'The Shadow Party' are investing huge sums as well as time an effort....what?...out of the goodness of their hearts?
So....George Soros is out to benefit mankind? Your premise?

a. The universities and 'scientists'?
It's the same reason John Dillinger gave when asked why he robbed banks: 'That's where the money is.'

Wise up.

 

[Saigon]

P. Chic -

Perhaps get back to me if you have anything substantive to say.

I generally find conspiracies theories are strong on wild accusations - a whole lot less generous with anything approaching facts and details.

I don't find any links associated with you post.

The American Physical Society:

Greenhouse gas emissions are changing the Earth's energy balance on a planetary scale in ways that affect the climate over long periods of time (~100 years). Historical records indicate that the Earth’s climate is sensitive to energy changes, both external (the sun’s radiative output, changes in Earth’s orbit, etc.) and internal. Internal to our global system, it is not just the atmosphere, but also the oceans and land that are involved in the complex dynamics that result in global climate. Aerosols and particulates resulting from human and natural sources also play roles that can either offset or reinforce greenhouse gas effects.

http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm

I have another 50 that I can post if you ever actually get interested in this topic.

 

[PoliticalChic]

P. Chic -

Perhaps get back to me if you have anything substantive to say.

I generally find conspiracies theories are strong on wild accusations - a whole lot less generous with anything approaching facts and details.

I don't find any links associated with you post.

The American Physical Society:

Greenhouse gas emissions are changing the Earth's energy balance on a planetary scale in ways that affect the climate over long periods of time (~100 years). Historical records indicate that the Earth’s climate is sensitive to energy changes, both external (the sun’s radiative output, changes in Earth’s orbit, etc.) and internal. Internal to our global system, it is not just the atmosphere, but also the oceans and land that are involved in the complex dynamics that result in global climate. Aerosols and particulates resulting from human and natural sources also play roles that can either offset or reinforce greenhouse gas effects.

Climate Change

I have another 50 that I can post if you ever actually get interested in this topic.

Yet you are scampering away from the specifics of my previous post.....


...seems I am impinging on your religious beliefs.....so sorry.