Global Warming Genocide!

Nice to see a growing number realizing the scam that is global warming.

The tide is really turning on this topic - which has its proponenst scared to death as their investment has been a long time coming. The media blitz this summer in support of Cap n Trade is gonna be over the top.

Hold the line folks, and send Cap n Trade to the bottom of the "dumb ideas" barrel where it belongs...

While there is a valid scientific opposition to HOW global warming is increasing at a faster speed than historic cycles, I haven't seen a single scientist who denies that it IS happening. My argument forever will be why does it matter WHERE and WHY global warming is occurring? Doesn't it make sense to be PROactive and try to lessen the effect than to just pretend there won't be any consequences and thus need to be REactive?

Global warming and the related issue of alternative energy that reduces polution of the atmosphere should NOT be political. The only reason it's become a political football is because Al Gore was the first to make it front-page news. And anything proposed by anyone who isn't in the far right camp must be just be taken with a grain of salt--right?

I do believe it was more of the cherry picked data that people on the right are concerned with, not Al Gore. The IPCC had 14,000 letters from scientists around the world sent to them about global warming. The IPCC picked only 948 of them, and of the 948, they all had just one theme Maggie. They accepted 1 out of 14, this isn't science, it's just politics.
 
Last edited:
Okay first desertifcation is not increasing world wide and in fact global warming would tend to decrease desertification any way. More powerful storms would carry water vapor by most barriers more often. Rainfall has increased slightly over the last decade in the American Southwest and the Sahara, the worlds largest desert, reversing a near 1200 year trend is actually shrinking.

All of the worlds Glaciers are not shrinking. In fact we do not know with any certainty what most glaciers are doing. There are nearer to 200 thousand than one hundred thousand glaciers and we have reliable info going back more than a decade on less than 1% of them. And please note that when glaciers shrink they tend to get further from the ocean not closer. Hence the alamist photos of a glacier calving into the sea are in fact evidence of glaciers growing not shrinking.

When massive sheafs of ice break off and fall into the sea, they STAY THERE, and cause the seas to rise. If this happened all at once, where would all that water go? It would spread inland, of course, until it equalized.

Glacier and Ice-Sheet Melting, Sea-Ice Retreat and Coastal Erosion Expected as a Result - insciences
 
Hasn't hunger, sickness and weather related disasters
happened ever since the dawn of man

Sure, but at the dawn of man, the estimated number of humans was irrelevant. As the world became industrialized and now technicalized, the amount of "toys" a world population now over 3 billion and growing all must have, are contributing factors to an existing natural phenomena. The earth, after all, is still the same size it's always been.

World_population

As to what extent have we had impact?

Oh please. Smokestacks, billions of automobiles, smog, acid rain. Where have YOU been?
 
Sure, but at the dawn of man, the estimated number of humans was irrelevant. As the world became industrialized and now technicalized, the amount of "toys" a world population now over 3 billion and growing all must have, are contributing factors to an existing natural phenomena. The earth, after all, is still the same size it's always been.

World_population

As to what extent have we had impact?

Oh please. Smokestacks, billions of automobiles, smog, acid rain. Where have YOU been?

I forgot just how dense you are...let me restate the question...To what extent have we had impact on global warming?
 
According to the UN we are looking at the beginning of a fertility bust that will see the population peak at around six milion people and then begin a fairly rapid decline.

I read that by 2050, the population will be 9 billion, even more worrisome. Historically, population explosions have equaled out somewhat by other natural phenomena such as plagues (or wars). But we now do everything possible to stop plagues (not to mention force people to live longer even if they don't want to). It's becoming a Catch 22 situation.
 
So how do the determine who is dying from hunger due to "climate change" and who is dying from hunger period?

Droughts in non-industrialized agricultural third world countries are always a good clue.

droughts happened before so called climate change was an issue. How can we tell whether its natural or this climate change problem?
 
While there is a valid scientific opposition to HOW global warming is increasing at a faster speed than historic cycles, I haven't seen a single scientist who denies that it IS happening.

Then you really arent looking because there are quite alot of them out there.
 
exactly how do you propose to be proactive? CO2 only blocks certain wave lenghths of infrared light according to one eastern european scientist we've already had about 75% of the warming we are going to get from CO2.

It's also interesting to note that when you break it down almost all of the warming is occuring in Western Europe. Coincidentally or not Western europe is increasing densely populated to the point it is becoming one giant urban heat island. Guess what CO2 ain't the problem it's land use.

And Maggie no they aren't again the problem of starvation in the thrid world isn't linked to droughts so muchas the governments in many of those countries using food as a weapon against their enemies.

I guess we can agree that the damage already done is irreversable, but we CAN try to not make it any worse.

I also agree that it's no coincidence that the top ten poorest countries in the world are all in Africa, but I would say that those despotic leaders (like Mugabe) exploit an existing problem of decades of draught in those regions. Off topic, since I've forgotten the original question--lol, Africa will probably be the focus of world attention in this century, but I sure can't predict what will happen. If I make it through this year, I'll be happy!
 
As to what extent have we had impact?

Oh please. Smokestacks, billions of automobiles, smog, acid rain. Where have YOU been?

I forgot just how dense you are...let me restate the question...To what extent have we had impact on global warming?

And you only PROVE how dense you are. Did all that shit spewing into the atmosphere occur thousands of years ago? No. With billions more people, factories, cars, and everything else requiring some sort of FUEL, all of which also require some sort of exhaust mechanism, it stands to reason (at least to grownups) that PEOPLE are contributing to the CURRENT cycle. Geesh. You can get that basic info from a third grade Weekly Reader.

If the posted pound limit on an elevator says 1600, do you try to test its veracity by adding a few more fat people? I for one am not willing to "test" whether or not man contributes to climate change by just ignoring the situation as being ho-hum or denying some very real facts just because an entire POLITICAL cult has decided that global warming a hoax.
 
In geological history there have been times when GHGs were rapidly added. The present rate of addition to the GHGs is just as rapid as it was in those times. Those times were periods of extinction and rapid climate change. Here is an online book that explains exactly what happened in those times, and how we know about it.

Methane catastrophe
 
Oh please. Smokestacks, billions of automobiles, smog, acid rain. Where have YOU been?

I forgot just how dense you are...let me restate the question...To what extent have we had impact on global warming?

And you only PROVE how dense you are. Did all that shit spewing into the atmosphere occur thousands of years ago? No. With billions more people, factories, cars, and everything else requiring some sort of FUEL, all of which also require some sort of exhaust mechanism, it stands to reason (at least to grownups) that PEOPLE are contributing to the CURRENT cycle. Geesh. You can get that basic info from a third grade Weekly Reader.

If the posted pound limit on an elevator says 1600, do you try to test its veracity by adding a few more fat people? I for one am not willing to "test" whether or not man contributes to climate change by just ignoring the situation as being ho-hum or denying some very real facts just because an entire POLITICAL cult has decided that global warming a hoax.

There was a lot of other stuff spewing in the atmosphere millions of years ago...much more than what we have today, Maggie, the Earth seems to have a cleaning mechanism. Yes, we do pollute....but there are a lot of scientists that say it's not adding to global warming. As for the "Third grade Reader", that doesn't surprise me at all with the indoctination their getting. No mam, doesn't surprise me at all, doesn't mean their right.

Your not willing to test Man made global warming? But, you are willing to test the economy of the world? Hmmm, you and Old Rocks. :cuckoo:
 
I forgot just how dense you are...let me restate the question...To what extent have we had impact on global warming?

And you only PROVE how dense you are. Did all that shit spewing into the atmosphere occur thousands of years ago? No. With billions more people, factories, cars, and everything else requiring some sort of FUEL, all of which also require some sort of exhaust mechanism, it stands to reason (at least to grownups) that PEOPLE are contributing to the CURRENT cycle. Geesh. You can get that basic info from a third grade Weekly Reader.

If the posted pound limit on an elevator says 1600, do you try to test its veracity by adding a few more fat people? I for one am not willing to "test" whether or not man contributes to climate change by just ignoring the situation as being ho-hum or denying some very real facts just because an entire POLITICAL cult has decided that global warming a hoax.

There was a lot of other stuff spewing in the atmosphere millions of years ago...much more than what we have today, Maggie, the Earth seems to have a cleaning mechanism. Yes, we do pollute....but there are a lot of scientists that say it's not adding to global warming. As for the "Third grade Reader", that doesn't surprise me at all with the indoctination their getting. No mam, doesn't surprise me at all, doesn't mean their right.

Your not willing to test Man made global warming? But, you are willing to test the economy of the world? Hmmm, you and Old Rocks. :cuckoo:

There are a "lot of scientists that say it is not adding to global warming". Interesting.

Every single scientific society, every single national acedemy of science, and every major university in the world says otherwise.
Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What prestigious scientific societies do not agree with AGW theory, because the geo society does? - Yahoo! Answers

Scientific Consensus on Global Warming | Union of Concerned Scientists

FOXNews.com - Top Science Organization: Global Warming Is 'Threat to Society' - Science News | Science & Technology | Technology News
 
Oh please. Smokestacks, billions of automobiles, smog, acid rain. Where have YOU been?

I forgot just how dense you are...let me restate the question...To what extent have we had impact on global warming?

And you only PROVE how dense you are. Did all that shit spewing into the atmosphere occur thousands of years ago? No. With billions more people, factories, cars, and everything else requiring some sort of FUEL, all of which also require some sort of exhaust mechanism, it stands to reason (at least to grownups) that PEOPLE are contributing to the CURRENT cycle. Geesh. You can get that basic info from a third grade Weekly Reader.

If the posted pound limit on an elevator says 1600, do you try to test its veracity by adding a few more fat people? I for one am not willing to "test" whether or not man contributes to climate change by just ignoring the situation as being ho-hum or denying some very real facts just because an entire POLITICAL cult has decided that global warming a hoax.


The fact that Man is putting stuff in the air does not mean that this stuff causes Global Warming. As an example, sulfur put into the air causes cooling.

The increase of CO2 has been very consistant and the increase of the Global Climate has not been consistant.

The general trend of warming that we are currently enjoying pre dates the Industrial Revolution by at least 100 years. Did the future build up of CO2 cause the warming to occur early?

Are there causes in our future 100 years hence that are affecting us today? In what other examples does the future cause the past?
 
And you only PROVE how dense you are. Did all that shit spewing into the atmosphere occur thousands of years ago? No. With billions more people, factories, cars, and everything else requiring some sort of FUEL, all of which also require some sort of exhaust mechanism, it stands to reason (at least to grownups) that PEOPLE are contributing to the CURRENT cycle. Geesh. You can get that basic info from a third grade Weekly Reader.

If the posted pound limit on an elevator says 1600, do you try to test its veracity by adding a few more fat people? I for one am not willing to "test" whether or not man contributes to climate change by just ignoring the situation as being ho-hum or denying some very real facts just because an entire POLITICAL cult has decided that global warming a hoax.

There was a lot of other stuff spewing in the atmosphere millions of years ago...much more than what we have today, Maggie, the Earth seems to have a cleaning mechanism. Yes, we do pollute....but there are a lot of scientists that say it's not adding to global warming. As for the "Third grade Reader", that doesn't surprise me at all with the indoctination their getting. No mam, doesn't surprise me at all, doesn't mean their right.

Your not willing to test Man made global warming? But, you are willing to test the economy of the world? Hmmm, you and Old Rocks. :cuckoo:

There are a "lot of scientists that say it is not adding to global warming". Interesting.

Every single scientific society, every single national acedemy of science, and every major university in the world says otherwise.
Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What prestigious scientific societies do not agree with AGW theory, because the geo society does? - Yahoo! Answers

Scientific Consensus on Global Warming | Union of Concerned Scientists

FOXNews.com - Top Science Organization: Global Warming Is 'Threat to Society' - Science News | Science & Technology | Technology News


Bought and paid for old rocks, bought and paid for.
 
The "rich" countries are at fault and deserve virtually no sympathy for their "global warming disasters" in the eyes of the GHF, but the poor countries are strangely the most adversely affected countries and as a result need even more foreign aid.

Who's with me in the idea that these GHF members cherry pick disasters in poor regions, stamp "global warming" on them, and demand even more foreign dollars in a way that empowers international government?

global warming is not man made. it is questionable whether it is a problem and for that matter whether in fact it is still going on or will continue.

the *solution* to global warming ( which in fact will have no effect whatsoever on climate ) will ensure third world nations will forever stay third world nations. they will not be able to afford to industrialize because of the carbon tax.

the most advanced nations will be less affected because we have more $$$ to pay taxes and we already outsourced all of the dirty manufacturing. Israel doesn't need any heavy industry - they can make plenty of money in Software and Biotech. Some African country doesn't have such a choice for them its either heavy industry or starve to death.

global government is coming though. here in NY they are already offering "enhanced" driver license with RFID chip in it that lets you drive to Mexico and Canada without a need for a passport ( hello North American Union )

I have to disagree with you on the bolded statement. The primary reason for the carbon tax is to act as a global wealth redistribution mechanism, as well as to make some people who have invested in it already very wealthy. They will give non-industrialized nations, i.e. 3rd world countries, the same amount of credits as countries that are heavy polluters. The countries that heavily pollute will then have to purchase the carbon credits from the non-industrialized countries that do not need them in order to continue their production. Therefore, it is not really eliminating any pollution, but rather just adjusting money from economy to another, with a middle man in between taking his stake in it. It's a huge scheme that is already an established industry making millions of dollars off of every day consumers who buy the products that eventually result. It has nothing to do with pollution, which is why these environmentalist schemes are a sham and need to be stopped. You see companies like GE bowing at the global warming alter b/c they are already heavily invested in its success, there is nothing altruistic or wanting to 'save the environment' about any of it. As usual, the whole thing is about money, it ALWAYS is.
 
Scheisse man, its a slippery slope.

First off, whether you call it "Global warming" or "climate change/shift" it doesnt matter. SOMETHING is happening here. I think that most everyone can agree to that.

Now that the terminology has been set as a "C.Y.A." insurer, let me say this:

Poor countries are poor for a reason. Whether mass drought or famine or ongoing wars (and you can bet your bottom dollar that all are connected in some way shape or form) I think its agreeable that Global Warming/ Climate Change isnt helping much to hinder the effects of whatever is happening in said countries.

However, I see your point. Is the U.N. playing politics? Does a bear shit in the woods?

p.s. I know Polar Bears dont shit in the woods you smartasses.

Good post by the way bud.

Where you should start looking to try and determine why poor countries are poor is at the government/corruption that is in charge. When doing that you will start to see a very large pattern of the 'poor' and the 'rich', it typically doesn't have anything to do with the weather. Natural resources play a part, but the weather is irrelevant.

You mean if a country is mostly desert, then that is irrelevant to the fact that it is poor? Or the fact that desertification is increasing on a world wide scale has nothing to do with an increase in poverty? And a decrease in agricultural yeild in the areas affected has nothing to do with these nations problems?


You mean like Israel versus Palestine? :lol: Have you ever been to either and seen the difference up close and personal? Same climate, same topography, same natural resources. I believe I also said that natural resources play a role. A desert with oil underneath it should not result in a poor populace, unless of course there's a dictator in charge.
 
The "rich" countries are at fault and deserve virtually no sympathy for their "global warming disasters" in the eyes of the GHF, but the poor countries are strangely the most adversely affected countries and as a result need even more foreign aid.

Who's with me in the idea that these GHF members cherry pick disasters in poor regions, stamp "global warming" on them, and demand even more foreign dollars in a way that empowers international government?

global warming is not man made. it is questionable whether it is a problem and for that matter whether in fact it is still going on or will continue.

the *solution* to global warming ( which in fact will have no effect whatsoever on climate ) will ensure third world nations will forever stay third world nations. they will not be able to afford to industrialize because of the carbon tax.

the most advanced nations will be less affected because we have more $$$ to pay taxes and we already outsourced all of the dirty manufacturing. Israel doesn't need any heavy industry - they can make plenty of money in Software and Biotech. Some African country doesn't have such a choice for them its either heavy industry or starve to death.

global government is coming though. here in NY they are already offering "enhanced" driver license with RFID chip in it that lets you drive to Mexico and Canada without a need for a passport ( hello North American Union )

Every Scientific Society in the world, every National Academy of Science in the world, and every major University in the world are in on an international conspiracy, right?

Of course, it's their paycheck stupid. Global warming goes away all of the grant money and funds to keep the scam alive are suddently gone and they are all w/o purpose, not to mention employment. It's ALWAYS about money.
 
The "rich" countries are at fault and deserve virtually no sympathy for their "global warming disasters" in the eyes of the GHF, but the poor countries are strangely the most adversely affected countries and as a result need even more foreign aid.

Who's with me in the idea that these GHF members cherry pick disasters in poor regions, stamp "global warming" on them, and demand even more foreign dollars in a way that empowers international government?

global warming is not man made. it is questionable whether it is a problem and for that matter whether in fact it is still going on or will continue.

the *solution* to global warming ( which in fact will have no effect whatsoever on climate ) will ensure third world nations will forever stay third world nations. they will not be able to afford to industrialize because of the carbon tax.

the most advanced nations will be less affected because we have more $$$ to pay taxes and we already outsourced all of the dirty manufacturing. Israel doesn't need any heavy industry - they can make plenty of money in Software and Biotech. Some African country doesn't have such a choice for them its either heavy industry or starve to death.

global government is coming though. here in NY they are already offering "enhanced" driver license with RFID chip in it that lets you drive to Mexico and Canada without a need for a passport ( hello North American Union )

I have to disagree with you on the bolded statement. The primary reason for the carbon tax is to act as a global wealth redistribution mechanism, as well as to make some people who have invested in it already very wealthy. They will give non-industrialized nations, i.e. 3rd world countries, the same amount of credits as countries that are heavy polluters. The countries that heavily pollute will then have to purchase the carbon credits from the non-industrialized countries that do not need them in order to continue their production. Therefore, it is not really eliminating any pollution, but rather just adjusting money from economy to another, with a middle man in between taking his stake in it. It's a huge scheme that is already an established industry making millions of dollars off of every day consumers who buy the products that eventually result. It has nothing to do with pollution, which is why these environmentalist schemes are a sham and need to be stopped. You see companies like GE bowing at the global warming alter b/c they are already heavily invested in its success, there is nothing altruistic or wanting to 'save the environment' about any of it. As usual, the whole thing is about money, it ALWAYS is.

That's why the cap & trade proposal is in trouble. It's not a viable solution.
 
global warming is not man made. it is questionable whether it is a problem and for that matter whether in fact it is still going on or will continue.

the *solution* to global warming ( which in fact will have no effect whatsoever on climate ) will ensure third world nations will forever stay third world nations. they will not be able to afford to industrialize because of the carbon tax.

the most advanced nations will be less affected because we have more $$$ to pay taxes and we already outsourced all of the dirty manufacturing. Israel doesn't need any heavy industry - they can make plenty of money in Software and Biotech. Some African country doesn't have such a choice for them its either heavy industry or starve to death.

global government is coming though. here in NY they are already offering "enhanced" driver license with RFID chip in it that lets you drive to Mexico and Canada without a need for a passport ( hello North American Union )

Every Scientific Society in the world, every National Academy of Science in the world, and every major University in the world are in on an international conspiracy, right?

Of course, it's their paycheck stupid. Global warming goes away all of the grant money and funds to keep the scam alive are suddently gone and they are all w/o purpose, not to mention employment. It's ALWAYS about money.

So are you suggesting those scientists who dispute the findings aren't themselves making money on their published analyses and opinions? I don't think "paychecks" has anything to do with it. They all earn good salaries, even without contributing to the issue of global warming.

Some people just think everything going on in the entire world is just one great big conspiracy.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top