Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
dark4181

31,000 (and counting)

32 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Yes. 31,000+ actual scientists (not lawyers, gynocologists and others, as oppsed to Gore's statement of support) have come out in a stance against global warming. And that's just in the USA. How many more would sign if not for the actions of Agenda fanatics?

 

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=...mp;pageId=64734

 

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/f...00-deniers.aspx

 

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2018503/posts

 

http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/al_gore_g...5/19/97307.html

 

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewb...cientists_outed

 

 

And that's just the top 5 google results. The unbiased talk radio stations are all over this, while the rest of the media ignores it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Advertisement
Yes. 31,000+ actual scientists (not lawyers, gynocologists and others, as oppsed to Gore's statement of support) have come out in a stance against global warming. And that's just in the USA. How many more would sign if not for the actions of Agenda fanatics?

 

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=...mp;pageId=64734

 

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/f...00-deniers.aspx

 

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2018503/posts

 

http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/al_gore_g...5/19/97307.html

 

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewb...cientists_outed

And that's just the top 5 google results. The unbiased talk radio stations are all over this, while the rest of the media ignores it

 

It doesn't matter whether we are causing global warming or not. We should still try to be self-sustaining and produce as little of an impact on the environment as possible ANYWAY!!!

 

The reasons for this should be obvious:

 

Lower rates of cancer due to toxic chemicals

Reduced smog that people breath in at major cities

Reduced impact on the environment, opening the door to further human expansion (which we will need in the future, unless we want to have a huge population crash in which everybody is starving)

Getting off the substance that controls the world's politics (oil).

 

We are not pigs, I will support most legislation that forces companies and our own country (as well as others, through diplomacy and incentives) to reduce their harm to both the environment, human beings, and life in general.

 

When most company's objectives are "Generate as much profit as possible next quarter", they will NEVER clean up their own act. People with this mentality must be FORCED to comply. Not all companies have this view, and thank the gods! We would be dead or dying right now if that were the case.

 

This isn't about Al Gore or global warming, it is about a fundamental respect for life. A respect that most people lack...Hardcore. People who are more enlightened and who understand the kinship we must have with the life around us must convince others that this is important. Raping and pillaging the environment isn't going to get us anywhere, we will simply become rats, gorging on every piece of resource we can find until theres nothing left and 60% of us die.

 

We are kidding ourselves if we think we've really evolved past our base, idiotic nature (in general, exceptions to every rule of course).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You just don't understand how scientific method works, do you...

31,00 may disagree, but that doesn't mean they are more right or more wrong than the other thousands of scientists that do agree.

Opinion aside, no good scientist can disagree that the average surface temperature of the earth has been increasing steadily since the industrial revolution. The measurements and observations undoubtedly show this.

 

The debate and study should is about Global Climate Change not global warming, because we know global warming is happening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Global climate change" is a term that has only been bandied around for the last year or less. Before that is was only "global warming." These people seem to like changing the name to prolong the argument when it appears that the soap bubble is about to burst. But, the point is that there is far from being "a consensus" on this subject, even in the scientific community

 

I'm all for protecting the environment (and thus, the health of every person on the earth) but there's no need for the panic inducing alarmism that some try to foist upon the rest of us. That is simply the activist groups twisting the herd instincts of the average Joe (usually successfully) as part of a larger agenda. If not for those kinds of groups spouting negative doomsday bile, it would be perfectly possible to purify the environment in a reasonable manner, and at a reasonable pace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm all for protecting the environment (and thus, the health of every person on the earth) but there's no need for the panic inducing alarmism that some try to foist upon the rest of us. That is simply the activist groups twisting the herd instincts of the average Joe (usually successfully) as part of a larger agenda. If not for those kinds of groups spouting negative doomsday bile, it would be perfectly possible to purify the environment in a reasonable manner, and at a reasonable pace.

 

The way that most social change happens is that activist groups take an extreme case and make it look like the average case. This is done to cause an alarming reaction within people, forcing their hand to change. If there was no sense of urgency, fear, etc. I guarantee very little environmental change would happen. Whether we like it or not, humans DO have a herd mentality. Some people exploit it for good, some exploit it for bad, but not exploiting it will only result in something human beings do very well, laziness and inaction.

 

I agree that there is a reasonable way to accomplish anything, but it just doesn't work that way (you have no idea how badly I want it to be that way haha)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The way that most social change happens is that activist groups take an extreme case and make it look like the average case. This is done to cause an alarming reaction within people, forcing their hand to change. If there was no sense of urgency, fear, etc. I guarantee very little environmental change would happen. Whether we like it or not, humans DO have a herd mentality. Some people exploit it for good, some exploit it for bad, but not exploiting it will only result in something human beings do very well, laziness and inaction.

 

I agree that there is a reasonable way to accomplish anything, but it just doesn't work that way (you have no idea how badly I want it to be that way haha)

 

Precisely, there are many good people out there who are working hard to sort out the mysteries behind the earth's climate, but it can't help that they are being demonised for discovering trends that may lead to climate change

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although, I know as well, that Al Gore is a complete nutjob, and yes, global warming is fake, but shouldn't we be concentrating on REAL issues, such as the {censored} that is in your drinking water. Medications, chemicals, toxic wastes, among other things that are not filtered by your city, and/or dumped into your water?

 

Shouldn't we be approaching the city council, and demand that they be removed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Although, I know as well, that Al Gore is a complete nutjob, and yes, global warming is fake, but shouldn't we be concentrating on REAL issues, such as the {censored} that is in your drinking water.

 

You are the one telling me to do some reading...

 

Read the figures - the average global surface temperature has been rising since the industrial revolution. That is, by logical definition, global warming.

I can understand why you debate whether climate change is happening.

 

Global warming is the observation, climate change is the theory,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Killbot, the problem is that IF global warming is proved fake, and the governments enacted pollution controls to stop global warming...people will feel like they were screwed over in the name of pseudo-science. This won't rest well with those people.

 

Now we can all agree that pollution is bad and it should be controlled. The problem is that extremist agendas are making any rational discussion about controlling pollution impossible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are the one telling me to do some reading...

 

Read the figures - the average global surface temperature has been rising since the industrial revolution. That is, by logical definition, global warming.

I can understand why you debate whether climate change is happening.

 

Global warming is the observation, climate change is the theory,

 

10 years ago it was Global Cooling. So your claim is total BS. Not only that, but 31,000 scientists say you are full of BS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Although, I know as well, that Al Gore is a complete nutjob, and yes, global warming is fake, but shouldn't we be concentrating on REAL issues, such as the {censored} that is in your drinking water. Medications, chemicals, toxic wastes, among other things that are not filtered by your city, and/or dumped into your water?

 

Shouldn't we be approaching the city council, and demand that they be removed?

 

Whatever they put in it.... it's delicious....

 

Umm if they were really putting this stuff in there wouldn't we see people dying off at astonishing rates, in direct result to this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Whatever they put in it.... it's delicious....

 

Umm if they were really putting this stuff in there wouldn't we see people dying off at astonishing rates, in direct result to this?

 

Its called "Cancer". I old people it causes bone fractures to become far more common. It causes your joins to break down, and kidneys to fail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are the one telling me to do some reading...

 

Read the figures - the average global surface temperature has been rising since the industrial revolution. That is, by logical definition, global warming.

I can understand why you debate whether climate change is happening.

 

Global warming is the observation, climate change is the theory,

 

There are also 'figures' that say that there have been something like 72 measurable climate changes in recorded history.. all of them well before the industrial revolution. So plainly all this is an overreaction perpetuated by alarmists to get their fingers in our pockets

 

Hell, the newest reports are saying to prepare for 30 years of global COOLING... Looks like they started calling it "climate change" instead of "catastrophic global warming" just in time ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are also 'figures' that say that there have been something like 72 measurable climate changes in recorded history.. all of them well before the industrial revolution.

 

I hate replying without sources to back to up, but since that seems to be the way of this thread, I'll just shoot from the hip:

 

From what I understand, most large historical climate changes have been shown to coincide with some type of natural disaster (super volcano, etc.). The current shift in climate appears to coincide perfectly well with the human race habitually pissing in their drinking bowl.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

brainbone.. i'll dig up some links tomorrow. i'm headin to bed now

 

*edit* adding links

 

http://aftermathnews.wordpress.com/2008/01...few-years-time/

 

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1977496/posts

 

All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously. A compiled list of all the sources can be seen here. The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C -- a value large enough to erase nearly all the global warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year time. For all sources, it's the single fastest temperature change every recorded, either up or down.

 

That's just a couple of google results

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I hate replying without sources to back to up, but since that seems to be the way of this thread, I'll just shoot from the hip:

 

From what I understand, most large historical climate changes have been shown to coincide with some type of natural disaster (super volcano, etc.). The current shift in climate appears to coincide perfectly well with the human race habitually pissing in their drinking bowl.

 

Eg, the little ice age that coincided with a record solar minimum.

Funnily enough, we are at the solar minimum at the moment, so the cause of the little ice age has no effect on the current climate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1.) This isn't directly aimed at dark4181, but at what he just did. The "I'm going to post something later" thing is getting annoying. Just don't say anything..... >.>

 

2.) Jon, if there was really all that stuff being dumped into our water wouldn't the media jump all over it? Or are they in on it too?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1.) This isn't directly aimed at dark4181, but at what he just did. The "I'm going to post something later" thing is getting annoying. Just don't say anything..... >.>

 

2.) Jon, if there was really all that stuff being dumped into our water wouldn't the media jump all over it? Or are they in on it too?

 

Well to answer your question, the media has reported on it. Scientists have talked about it. Especially during the Nuremberg trials. The EPA considers it toxic waste.

 

http://rep5355.wordpress.com/history-writings/

http://www.fluoridation.com/calgaryh.htm

 

The media that you probably listen to is owned by 5 people, and I really don't give a damn what they have to say, or what their opinion is, since they are multi-billionairs. They usually talk about stupid {censored} that doesn't matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if humans haven't caused any changes yet, why are some of you people against doing anything to prevent it? We know for a fact that carbon dioxide increases the greenhouse effect. This is not disputed. We know for a fact that methane increases the greenhouse effect. This is not disputed either. Scientists have known about greenhouse gasses since the mid-19th century, and started talking about the possibility of factories causing a global increase in temperature in the late 19th century. The concept of global warming is NOT new. Al Gore did not invent it. He just made a movie about it (more than a hundred years after scientists started talking about it). The "agenda," which you guys are trying to make sound like some ulterior motive, is just to research ways to reduce how much greenhouse gas we produce. Maybe we haven't made a negative impact yet. Maybe we won't even make one for 1000 years. What's wrong with trying to have a smaller impact?

 

Can any of you come up with a downside of decreasing emissions?

 

One thing to note: 31,000 scientists is a very small number. Exxon alone employs 14,000 scientists (and Exxon is only the 6th largest oil company in the world). How hard do you think it would be to get someone whose livelihood depends on fossil fuels to say there's no problem with them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Even if humans haven't caused any changes yet, why are some of you people against doing anything to prevent it? We know for a fact that carbon dioxide increases the greenhouse effect. This is not disputed. We know for a fact that methane increases the greenhouse effect. This is not disputed either. Scientists have known about greenhouse gasses since the mid-19th century, and started talking about the possibility of factories causing a global increase in temperature in the late 19th century. The concept of global warming is NOT new. Al Gore did not invent it. He just made a movie about it (more than a hundred years after scientists started talking about it). The "agenda," which you guys are trying to make sound like some ulterior motive, is just to research ways to reduce how much greenhouse gas we produce. Maybe we haven't made a negative impact yet. Maybe we won't even make one for 1000 years. What's wrong with trying to have a smaller impact?

 

Can any of you come up with a downside of decreasing emissions?

 

One thing to note: 31,000 scientists is a very small number. Exxon alone employs 14,000 scientists (and Exxon is only the 6th largest oil company in the world). How hard do you think it would be to get someone whose livelihood depends on fossil fuels to say there's no problem with them?

 

The problem I have with it is the use of fear and smear tactics in the attempts to force changes on the world. Not to mention that scientists talk about all manner of things that end up fading back into the woodwork (ozone hole and global cooling, for example) There are plenty of instances of scientists pulling things out of the air to please a corporate backer or a political group. All the 'evidence' that exists could be chalked up to natural global cycles.. That is, if all the negativistic doomsayers could mind their own business. Anyway, I'm sure that if Earth gets too hot, then volcanic activity will pick up enough to cool things back down

 

And 31,000 may be a small number when compared to the Earth's population, but it's a large enough number to disprove Al Gore's "consensus." Oh, and let's not forget that all 31,000 of these are accredited legitimate scientists; not lawyers and psychologists and gynocologists, as a fair percentage of those on Gore's list of support were shown to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh, and let's not forget that all 31,000 of these are accredited legitimate scientists; not lawyers and psychologists and gynocologists, as a fair percentage of those on Gore's list of support were shown to be.

 

 

A random sampling of some of the 31,000 "scientists" brings:

 

1) W. Kline Bolton, M.D.: A professor of medicine and Nephrology Division Chief at the University of Virginia. Nephrology deals with the study of the function and diseases of the kidney.

 

2) Zhonggang Zeng: One of the 9,000 with a PhD. He is a professor of mathematics at Northeastern Illinois University. His most recent publication is entitled "Computing multiple roots of inexact polynomials."

 

3) Hub Hougland: A dentist in Muncie, Indiana. He was inducted into the Indiana Basketball Hall of Fame last year.

 

 

I think this list of 31,000 needs much closer inspection before you start claiming it as the last word on global climate change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not to mention that scientists talk about all manner of things that end up fading back into the woodwork (ozone hole and global cooling, for example)

Are you kidding me? The hole in the ozone layer did not "fade into the woodwork!" There was a global move to remove chlorofluorocarbons, and now they are banned in every country except for medical use. Without a global effort, the hole would have kept getting bigger.

 

You talk about "global cooling" as if it were a wide-spread, accepted theory, when it never was. While some scientists in the 70s did write papers on global cooling, most were predicting future warming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's ok Sarah.. even though the Earth will be cooling for the next 30 years, it's still global warming

 

Yea.. that makes sense

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One word: Trend

 

trend.jpg

 

That graph isn't supposed to represent anything - no data was actually used to make it. I just wanted to show that something can be decreasing while still trending up. The scientists in the early 70s were looking through a small window, only seeing 1940 to 1970.

 

But again, even if scientists are wrong (and it is a very large majority that believe there is warming caused by humans), what is wrong with trying to prevent it? The worst that can happen is we actually find reliable, clean, renewable ways to power our homes, factories, and cars. The horror!

 

And yes, I know it's possible to appear to be trending up when it's really trending down, but nothing has shown this yet:

 

trend2.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now those 31,000 scientists have signed a petition.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/...al-warming.html

 

But again, even if scientists are wrong (and it is a very large majority that believe there is warming caused by humans), what is wrong with trying to prevent it? The worst that can happen is we actually find reliable, clean, renewable ways to power our homes, factories, and cars. The horror!

 

I won't be giving up anything I own, so that a bunch of nut jobs can practice a cultish "save the planet" effort. My home is powered by a dam 120 miles north of me. Water works perfectly fine, thank you very much. And if anyone tries to prevent me from smoking, then they will have to go through my SKS first. I live in a free country, that thousands of people died for. Those who despise liberty, can go over to China. That is the perfect place for the "common good". They will love you over there.

 

Global warming is a scam to bring the idiot public into world government. A government, that I will, with all my body, and soul fight against to the death.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×