PDA

View Full Version : Climate Change Deniers Will Be Despised Just Like Racists One Day, Says Al Gore



Roderic
Wednesday, August 31st, 2011, 12:23 AM
http://stupidcelebrities.net/wp-content/old_pictures/Al-Gore-affair.jpg


Former Vice President Al Gore believes people who are sceptical about climate change will be seen in the same negative as racists in years to come.

In an interview that was broadcast on UStream on Friday, Mr Gore said that in order for climate change alarmists to succeed, they must 'win the conversation' against those who deny there is a crisis.

He told Climate Reality Project collaborator Alex Bogusky: 'I remember, again going back to my early years in the South, when the Civil Rights revolution was unfolding, there were two things that really made an impression on me.

'My generation watched Bull Connor turning the hose on civil rights demonstrators and we went, "Whoa! How gross and evil is that?"

'My generation asked old people, "Explain to me again why it is okay to discriminate against people because their skin color is different?"

'And when they couldn’t really answer that question with integrity, the change really started.'

Mr Gore recalled how society succeeded in marginalizing racists and said climate change skeptics must be defeated in the same manner.

'Secondly, back to this phrase "win the conversation,"' he continued.

'There came a time when friends or people you work with or people you were in clubs with - you’re much younger than me so you didn’t have to go through this personally - but there came a time when racist comments would come up in the course of the conversation and in years past they were just natural.

'Then there came a time when people would say, "Hey, man why do you talk that way, I mean that is wrong. I don’t go for that so don’t talk that way around me. I just don’t believe that."

'That happened in millions of conversations and slowly the conversation was won.

'We have to win the conversation on climate,' Gore added.

Mr Bogusky questioned the analogy, but Mr Gore persisted, The Daily Caller reports.

He said: 'I think it’s the same where the moral component is concerned and where the facts are concerned I think it is important to get that out there, absolutely.'

Mr Gore also took a pop at Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who has lambasted climate change alarmists on the presidential campaign trail, and at other politicians who dare to question the veracity of global warming science.

Mr Gore said: 'This is an organized effort to attack the reputation of the scientific community as a whole, to attack their integrity, and to slander them with the lie that they are making up the science in order to make money.'

It is worth noting that during Mr Perry’s days as a Democrat, the Texas governor supported Gore in his 1988 presidential bid. Mr Perry became a Republican a year later.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2031278/Climate-change-deniers-seen-racists-day-says-Al-Gore.html

Gardisten
Wednesday, August 31st, 2011, 12:45 AM
I personally don't care for the fact that climate change gets lumped together with other leftist theories. The impact that man has on the environment is quite evident and undeniable, and there are many of us here who view protection of the environment as important because we understand that preservation is largely dependent on "the land". I personally won't side with "climate change deniers" because they represent the corporate, neo-conservative establishment that is just as bent on wiping us out as are the leftists.

Austin
Wednesday, August 31st, 2011, 01:20 AM
I don't really accept it. I believe it is 100% fake and is a direct conjured ideology by professors who needed new grant money excuses.

Jäger
Wednesday, August 31st, 2011, 07:35 AM
The impact that man has on the environment is quite evident and undeniable ...
The problem are the future climate change predictions which are highly inaccurate.

Erlkönig
Thursday, September 1st, 2011, 09:10 PM
Too much money is being made off climate change for it to have credibility. If you can control carbon you can control how people live, we have already seen the greatest tax increase in human history, the carbon credit system is just a Ponzi scheme which allows large corporations to pay for pollution, rather than proactively reduce it. Al Gore is a profiteer investing in bogus carbon monitoring corporations, he is set to make billions of dollars off cap and trade laws.

Furthermore these pro climate change scientists focus solely on human impact as a cause, they do not consider the sun as a possible cause. One of the top advocates for climate change is some asshole who has had various position in the UN for 30 years named Maurice Strong who is coincidentally responsible for the establishment of the World Conservation Bank, and a long time advocate of a single global currency.

The whole thing stinks.

Hersir
Thursday, September 1st, 2011, 09:18 PM
I would rather that we change our ways for the better and actually care more for nature than risk everything by thinking humans are not part of the cause.

Scientists are not denying that the temperature on earth has varied, but we have evidence that one of the largest clima gasses C02 has had a huge rise after the industrial age started.

SpearBrave
Thursday, September 1st, 2011, 09:28 PM
I personally don't care for the fact that climate change gets lumped together with other leftist theories. The impact that man has on the environment is quite evident and undeniable, and there are many of us here who view protection of the environment as important because we understand that preservation is largely dependent on "the land". I personally won't side with "climate change deniers" because they represent the corporate, neo-conservative establishment that is just as bent on wiping us out as are the leftists.

The reason climate change is lumped together with other leftist theories is because it is a leftist theory. It never started out as a objective study, it started out as way to scheme money and sell fear. I remember back in the 1970's we were told by these same group of people that we were heading into another ice age. Then it changed to global warming, now it is 'climate change' they are using newspeak to justify themselves and the money they are making.

I'm a climate change denier, yet I don't believe in big business/industry. I wish they would be objective in their studies, but wait how would they make money that way.:(

Germaid
Thursday, September 1st, 2011, 09:45 PM
I would rather that we change our ways for the better and actually care more for nature than risk everything by thinking humans are not part of the cause.

Scientists are not denying that the temperature on earth has varied, but we have evidence that one of the largest clima gasses C02 has had a huge rise after the industrial age started.

I agree, but I also think the whole climate-change hysteria is exaggerated. Our climate has never been stable. I'm all for environmental protection, but I'm not fond of subordinating everything to climate control. Industries go hand in hand with exhausts, there is no way to avoid them completely. In Germany they are currently planning to pump compressed CO2 into an underground depot, which is a very stupid idea in my opinion. They should rather try to produce less CO2.

It reminds me of the organic food movement. It has become a mass phenomenon and even discount stores are riding the wave and offer the organic / bio stuff for very low prices. Importing organic food in large quantities from the other side of the world via airfreight doesn't seem very environmentally-friendly to me, though... :scratch

Hersir
Friday, September 2nd, 2011, 10:25 AM
I remember back in the 1970's we were told by these same group of people that we were heading into another ice age. Then it changed to global warming, now it is 'climate change' they are using newspeak to justify themselves and the money they are making.


Global warming can also lead to global cooldowns. One of the largest climate gasses is water vapors, it also works as a dimmer against the sun by blocking out and mirroring the sun back. It's the same when we have lots of ice and snow, when it melts the warming will go faster and the effect with enforce itself. Another aspect of global warming that can cause colder weather is particles in the air called aerosols, but these can both warm and cool down the climate.


Global warming is not a theory, the earth is already growing warmer. I have seen glaciers in Norway melt and recede. In USA you have had alot more extreme weather because of climate change, and it will become worse all over the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerosol#Effect_on_climate

SpearBrave
Friday, September 2nd, 2011, 11:04 AM
Global warming can also lead to global cooldowns. One of the largest climate gasses is water vapors, it also works as a dimmer against the sun by blocking out and mirroring the sun back. It's the same when we have lots of ice and snow, when it melts the warming will go faster and the effect with enforce itself. Another aspect of global warming that can cause colder weather is particles in the air called aerosols, but these can both warm and cool down the climate.


Global warming is not a theory, the earth is already growing warmer. I have seen glaciers in Norway melt and recede. In USA you have had alot more extreme weather because of climate change, and it will become worse all over the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerosol#Effect_on_climate

They have yet to prove though that it is caused by man. I'm not saying we should not clean up a few things, I saying it is still a theory that man is causing this and theory is not fact.

The extreme weather at least here in the US is no more extreme than it was thirty years ago, only now though the reporting of it is more extreme. They hype this to a point it is silly. Every thunderstorm according to them is massive when it just a normal thunderstorm. They have politicized the weather to gain a profit. What you have to ask is how long have the glaciers been receding, here in the US a very long time, before the intervention of man.

It boils down to common sense and non biased logic. It is clear that these 'scientist' did not use objective studies in the first place they have been caught at it. Until they have true objective studies that have not been politicized global warming/climate change is a hoax. Remember these studies are coming from our universities they same people that promote cultural marxism.

Another way they play with the numbers is by using things like heat index. This year is a prime example of this. The news was shouting hottest year on record yet the actual temperature was not near the record. It was the heat index that was high making it feel hotter than it actually was. Yes it was very humid but not as hot. This 'extreme' weather is no different than it was thirty years ago. We had just as many storms and just as many draughts they only hype them more.

Hersir
Friday, September 2nd, 2011, 11:07 AM
I'm with you on that it may not be caused entirely by man, but I sure believe we contributed significantly

Hamar Fox
Friday, September 2nd, 2011, 11:25 AM
It's sad to see what should be a purely scientific debate enter the political arena. It becomes more moronic by precisely the same degree that politics is more moronic than science. Anyone who forms an opinion on climatological questions purely on the basis of party affiliations (which is 99% of the people I hear talking about it, especially in the US, and includes both the left and right) should be thoroughly ashamed of himself.

SpearBrave
Friday, September 2nd, 2011, 11:37 AM
It's sad to see what should be a purely scientific debate enter the political arena. It becomes more moronic by precisely the same degree that politics is more moronic than science. Anyone who forms an opinion on climatological questions purely on the basis of party affiliations (which is 99% of the people I hear talking about it, especially in the US, and includes both the left and right) should be thoroughly ashamed of himself.

I'm not ashamed to use common sense. ;)

It is however a shame that they did not use objectivity in their 'science' when they started this. :(

Hamar Fox
Friday, September 2nd, 2011, 12:25 PM
I'm not ashamed to use common sense. ;)

It is however a shame that they did not use objectivity in their 'science' when they started this. :(

There's no common sense whatsoever in thinking a substantive change in the greenhouse-gas content of Earth's atmosphere is going to effect zero noticeable change in the terrestrial climate. There's also none in believing natural process takes into consideration anyone's political perspective before unfolding itself. There's quite a few basics of good scientific debate that seem to be lacking in the political domain. In this case, the main one seems to be lack of understanding that highlighting or imagining 'agendas' of the other side isn't the best first step towards dismantling a pretty well established, understood, and objectively supported theory. Once you debunk the theory, then sure, go wild (outside of scientific fora, however, since it's not interested in drama). But as a first line of attack? Amateurish.

As for the issue of GW itself, then like Jager said earlier, the current projections of Earth's future climate are pointless and without doubt inaccurate, as pointless and inaccurate as the predictions of 50 years ago were in anticipating the state of the world today. That said, there's obviously going to be some change, whether infinitesimal or cataclysmic; or else we'd better revise our entire notion of cause and effect above the quantum level.

But if we have to talk about political agendas, then 'GW denial' is the neo-con's answer to the left's 'race denial' -- both grounded in utter non-science. Whether race or global warming are scientifically tenable is completely inconsequential to the position of the left and right on these respective issues (of course, the conservative right has almost as much desire as the left to see the end of race, or the concept thereof) -- which would be the same regardless. The 'lie-for-grants' theory is maybe the weakest conspiracy theory I've heard in my life, at least proportionate to its prevalence. It's fairly obvious that leftist professors aren't really the biggest players in the game when it comes to political interest groups, and that the only group with anything either to win or lose in the whole matter is big business. Equally weak is the idea that GW is a strategy of the establishment to tighten its grip on the minds of the masses, when it's already as tight as it can get without crippling human productivity and consumer drive, and in fact the establishment would be the only group really to be hurt by massive cuts in corporate legal and environmental latitude. None of this is remotely relevant to what's actually going on in the natural world, but it's still the source of most (mainstream) opinions of it.

Fiona
Friday, September 2nd, 2011, 01:16 PM
I always new climate change was just an excuse for socialist redistribution of wealth. When I hear him talking about all that other stuff as though it's related, it just proves it. :)

SwordOfTheVistula
Friday, September 2nd, 2011, 01:25 PM
The lie of 'global warming' also is part of the anti-white agenda.

When they first tried to force integration, whites responded by abandoning the cities and moving out to the suburbs, and on out to the exurbs to stay away from the dark masses.

If they succeed in falsely blaming the personal automobile for the bogus claim of 'global warming', they will be able to put in a gasoline tax or other measure which will make commuting from the suburbs economically unfeasible, plus ruining the economy in rural (all white) areas. Thereby, forcing whites back into the multicult cities, or making the ones who remain outside the multicult cities much poorer.

Fiona
Friday, September 2nd, 2011, 01:30 PM
The lie of 'global warming' also is part of the anti-white agenda.

When they first tried to force integration, whites responded by abandoning the cities and moving out to the suburbs, and on out to the exurbs to stay away from the dark masses.

If they succeed in falsely blaming the personal automobile for the bogus claim of 'global warming', they will be able to put in a gasoline tax or other measure which will make commuting from the suburbs economically unfeasible, plus ruining the economy in rural (all white) areas. Thereby, forcing whites back into the multicult cities, or making the ones who remain outside the multicult cities much poorer.

I hope it doesn't get like souith africa here

Hamar Fox
Friday, September 2nd, 2011, 01:40 PM
The lie of 'global warming' also is part of the anti-white agenda.

When they first tried to force integration, whites responded by abandoning the cities and moving out to the suburbs, and on out to the exurbs to stay away from the dark masses.

If they succeed in falsely blaming the personal automobile for the bogus claim of 'global warming', they will be able to put in a gasoline tax or other measure which will make commuting from the suburbs economically unfeasible, plus ruining the economy in rural (all white) areas. Thereby, forcing whites back into the multicult cities, or making the ones who remain outside the multicult cities much poorer.

I'm fairly sure that didn't factor into even one single scientist's affirmative stance on GW.

Primus
Friday, September 2nd, 2011, 02:14 PM
Does anyone take this guy seriously these days?

Alfadur
Friday, September 2nd, 2011, 02:22 PM
I am strongly for environmental conservation. Our land should be one of our highest priorities. In fact, the environmentalist aspect is one of the things I admire the most about NS Germany. I'm all for green energy and organic farming, and I despise the destructive corporations and Jewish neo-conservatives.

It's sad that environmentalism is now associated with leftist ideologies. Although the climate panic may be exaggerated, it's better than the alternative. I'd rather be safe than sorry.


I always new climate change was just an excuse for socialist redistribution of wealth.
And I always knew climate change denial was just an excuse for the megacorporations to continue profiting.

I'm no fan of the materialist excesses of America's middle class. They're spoiled children who completely lack the Germanic frugal mentality. A family does not need a huge SUV.

Hersir
Friday, September 2nd, 2011, 03:29 PM
Irene was the US's 10th Billion-Dollar Disaster This Year (http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2011/09/and-irene-makes-10)


Over at the Daily Beast, Heidi Cullen, the senior research scientist with Climate Central, puts Irene and this year's other disasters into the broader context. Weather events are getting more extreme, and much more expensive, thanks to global warming:

Our weather is getting worse, and not saying it won’t make it go away. According to Munich Reinsurance America, one of the top providers of property and casualty reinsurance in the U.S., the number of natural disasters has tripled over the past 20 years. Average thunderstorm losses have increased five-fold since 1980. For the first half of 2011 there have been $20 billion in thunderstorm losses, up from the previous three-year average of $10 billion. The reinsurance company has also gone on the record saying, "It would seem that the only plausible explanation for the rise in weather-related catastrophes is climate change."


Just don't expect hear anything about it from the budget hawks in Congress.

Roderic
Friday, September 2nd, 2011, 03:31 PM
I am a moderate environmentalist but i think all the "man made climate change" and "carbon tax" is a money grabbing scam and tax slavery.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100058265/us-physics-professor-global-warming-is-the-greatest-and-most-successful-pseudoscientific-fraud-i-have-seen-in-my-long-life/

ua4a-AJXZq0

FfHW7KR33IQ

ztvxGbH8Mqw

Hersir
Friday, September 2nd, 2011, 04:15 PM
Al Gore has done much to ruin it for us who are serious. He's only in it to make money.

Gardisten
Friday, September 2nd, 2011, 04:20 PM
Most predictions about the future tend to be somewhat inaccurate. Yet the general notion that the climate is changing do to a warming trend is still a fact.


The problem are the future climate change predictions which are highly inaccurate.

I've had discussions about this a number of times and they never seem to turn out very well. The global cooling theory of the 1970s was based on certain evidence that reflected a short-term change, but the argument that there was in fact a trend towards an "ice age" was never universal. Nor did the subsequent general consensus that "global warming" was the key aspect of climate change constitute a complete shift in thinking by the "same group of people". If I recall correctly, some of the most vocal proponents of the 70s global cooling theory were in fact even linked in some way to corporate America. One of the most popular books--from what I understand--on the topic was entitled The Weather Conspiracy: The Coming of the New Ice Age by a group of 18 authors who called themselves the "The Impact Team". None of whom had any expertise on the subject, from what I understand. Seems to me that people were trying to cash in on the whole coming ice age fear as well, just as the current so-called deniers are now with their books and videos. Guess it goes both ways. :D


The reason climate change is lumped together with other leftist theories is because it is a leftist theory. It never started out as a objective study, it started out as way to scheme money and sell fear. I remember back in the 1970's we were told by these same group of people that we were heading into another ice age. Then it changed to global warming, now it is 'climate change' they are using newspeak to justify themselves and the money they are making.

I'm a climate change denier, yet I don't believe in big business/industry. I wish they would be objective in their studies, but wait how would they make money that way.:(

Frostbite
Friday, September 2nd, 2011, 04:22 PM
Even if it's not caused by man, noone can honestly say that we shouldn't do something about pollution and taking care of the enviorment.

velvet
Friday, September 2nd, 2011, 04:40 PM
I am a moderate environmentalist but i think all the "man made climate change" and "carbon tax" is a money grabbing scam and tax slavery.

One has nothing to do with the other. I'd agree that carbon tax is a big fraud, and it wont save one bit of our environment. It's just another way of making people give their money to one or another megacorp.

But to deny that we blow up our athmosphere, not only with CO2 but with a lot of other harmful substances (since FCKW was banned, the ozone hole over Australia has become much smaller, btw, so I dont know why deny that there was a connection) is just ridiculous. Look at any bigger city when temperatures are up:

http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/ozone-pollution-smog.jpg

http://www.gesundes-reisen.de/imgdata/smog.jpg

It's all natural? Not "man-made"? It kills several thousand people a year, but yeah, it's all totally harmless, right?

Or that the Iceberg frequency in Grönland and around the Northpole in general is much higher in recent years, it's all invented?

http://www.mz-web.de/ks/images/mdsBild/1155630107775l.jpg

I dont think the captains who go along those routes would agree that it's all invented.

The permafrost in Siberia, the Northpole region, Greenland etc is melting rapidly, sealevels have already risen and Netherlands f.e. invest billions to block out the sea because they would simply go down, literally, with another few centimeters, which will happen within the next few years because everyone thinks that the "carbon tax hoax" would "prove" that it's all invented. It does not. It just shows that people are much more interested in making profits (corp side) or in cheap products (consumer side) and no one gives a shit about the planet on which we depend. :(

Hamar Fox
Friday, September 2nd, 2011, 05:31 PM
Al Gore has done much to ruin it for us who are serious. He's only in it to make money.

Nothing can be done about it. All the electric powered milk float schemes in the world couldn't postpone climate change by an hour. What changes occur will be so slow and subtle that the average Joe will scarcely notice, and most agriculture will easily have enough time to adapt. The alarmist 90s predictions of a submerged world obviously aren't going to come true. Just a few shifts in rainfall averages and the like, and maybe a few more severe storms in places already at risk of severe storms.

Al Gore's end-of-the-world sensationalism does hurt the GW-is-important cause as much as people who think gentle old big business is being bullied and pushed around by thuggish laboratory nerds hurt the GW-isn't-important cause. But it's an interesting little show that exposes people's stupidity quite effectively and provides a fairly good argument as to why most people should be discouraged from having opinions on anything. And, like I said, nothing whatsoever can be done about it now, short of an 'Escape From LA' wholesale technological shut-down of the world (the movie sucks, so I'm not spoiling it for anyone) in addition to largescale genocide. Nature couldn't care less about climate change. Even if Gore's worst nightmares become real (which they won't), at worst still only human civilisation, rooted in assumptions of longterm continuity of so many factors, will be affected, and we deserve it anyway.

Gall Óglach
Friday, September 2nd, 2011, 05:34 PM
Carbon dioxide is used in industrial cutting lasers.

The reason is that CO2 absorbs and emits in the IR part of the spectrum, IR is heat. This is the same reason why CO2 traps heat in our atmosphere. When man burns fossil fuels he releases more CO2. More CO2, more trapped heat.

Can't get much more common sense than that.


Hopefully one day Al Gore will be remembered for his pushing of NAFTA and the destruction of the middle class in America. However he generally is correct about climate change.

Fiona
Friday, September 2nd, 2011, 10:45 PM
Even if it's not caused by man, noone can honestly say that we shouldn't do something about pollution and taking care of the enviorment.

Yes but there are many problems with the envirionment. We could easily make the pil available to everyone in africa. This would solve all the worlds problems in one hit.
Al Gore is saying that, just as the worlds personal troubles are over now that racism is gone, so too will the environment's troubles be over when we start taxing carbon.

The pro-carbon tax vs against carbon tax has been replaced with pro-environment and anti-environment.

SpearBrave
Friday, September 2nd, 2011, 10:55 PM
My thoughts are this- if you are a conservative, a true conservative than it only makes sense that you want clean air, land and water. Just because you deny the climate change theories does not mean you want to destroy the planet. It only means you want to view things in a objective manner with more proof than a few university professors that have other motives.

There is nothing wrong with protecting the earth. What is wrong however is to try a force people to believe theories and not facts.

Van Wellenkamp
Friday, September 2nd, 2011, 11:08 PM
Had one of the coldest winters ever in Florida last year. Hell it even snowed. I so wanted to get a picture of an alligator with snow on it. Other scientist believe we are going to be going through a cooling faze. I do think we should be good stewards and take care of the earth, but lets face it Al Gore!!! The man is a leftist douche bag.

Lew Skannon
Friday, September 2nd, 2011, 11:24 PM
I'm already a "denier" on a few other issues so I don't mind being a "climate denier" as well. :D

For those of you that enjoy a bit of good humour, here is a clip where Lord Moncton debates the issue with a Greenpeace activist..

KvufOvneJMk

Gardisten
Friday, September 2nd, 2011, 11:55 PM
So if we're going to complain about Al Gore--who I don't support, incidentally--what are we to make of Lord Monckton? What exactly are his qualifications, aside from being a profoundly arrogant British elitist prick and likely making money off of this as well?


Speaking at a conference in Los Angeles, Lord Monckton, an ardent climate change sceptic, claimed that Professor Ross Garnaut held fascist views.

During the presentation he stood in front of a projection of a swastika next to a quote from Prof Garnaut that read: "The outsider to climate science has no rational choice but to accept that, on the balance of probabilities, the mainstream science is right in pointing to high risks from unmitigated climate change."

"That's a fascist point of view," Lord Monckton told the audience. "That you merely accept authority without question. Heil Hitler, on we go."

Lord Monckton, a one-time adviser to Baroness Thatcher, is renowned for his belief that humans are not damaging the climate. His latest comments stunned Australians from both sides of politics.

Julia Gillard, the Australian prime minister, whose Labor government is currently trying to bring in a carbon tax on big polluters, said the remarks were "grossly inappropriate".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/8594194/Outrage-as-Lord-Monckton-calls-Australian-climate-change-adviser-a-Nazi.html

Meister
Saturday, September 3rd, 2011, 01:52 AM
I read something ages ago about an old farmer explaing that even 50 years ago they had some years where it was very cold and some that were warmer they didn't worry about it, it just was.

I am a sceptic especially when no one has been able to explain to me that if there was a major shift in the weather centuries ago (the Ice Age) before factories etc than how is the weather change now related to what we are or aren't doing.

Not too mention that in Australia atleast policy regarding this is jumbled to say the least, they want to make gas, electricity and water more expensive for the citizens and industrial/retail sector which will then cause buisnesses also to put up their prices on everything, and of course none of this will really make anyone use that much less anyway. In the meantime, lets keep flooding the nation with immigrants that in turn will use more natural rescources and of course lets sell more farm land to China because it's not like we need to grow our own food.

It just doesn't make any sense at all.

Gardisten
Saturday, September 3rd, 2011, 07:16 AM
So you will believe the science in that respect, though? Hasn't much of the research into historic climate patterns been undertaken to understand the current period of climate change? Doesn't it also show that the current global warming trend is actually somewhat anomalous? Historic climate changes--if you want to believe the science--would have come about as a result of certain natural occurrences, and none of these have been identified as sources for the current changing climate.


I am a sceptic especially when no one has been able to explain to me that if there was a major shift in the weather centuries ago (the Ice Age) before factories etc than how is the weather change now related to what we are or aren't doing.

Feu denfer
Saturday, September 3rd, 2011, 08:37 AM
-Why don't you check the facts for yourself?
- Well, I have a private life as well, so I don't have the time.

Oddly,it would seem there is always plenty of time for demonstrating.

The Aesthete
Saturday, September 3rd, 2011, 09:56 AM
I recently met a man who worked in the Antarctic as a plumber on a scientific station he told me that the majority of scientists there did not believe in climate change.

I am not saying that I don’t believe in climate change, just that the debate over it has not been a fair one.

Meister
Saturday, September 3rd, 2011, 09:59 AM
So you will believe the science in that respect, though? Hasn't much of the research into historic climate patterns been undertaken to understand the current period of climate change. Doesn't it also show that the current global warming trend is actually somewhat anomalous? Historic climate changes--if you want to believe the science--would have come about as a result of certain natural occurrences, and none of these have been identified as sources for the current changing climate.

As I said I am sceptical and although things could be done (assuming humans are the cause) as I mentioned previously they seem to do the opposite, massive immigration for a start instead of applying pressure on overpopulated countries to sort out their own mess.

It simply doesn't add up.

Hersir
Saturday, September 3rd, 2011, 10:06 AM
I recently met a man who worked in the Antarctic as a plumber on a scientific station he told me that the majority of scientists there did not believe in climate change.

I am not saying that I don’t believe in climate change, just that the debate over it has not been a fair one.

That sounds weird, since we are talking about how much money we will make by sending ships through those areas when the ice melts.

The Aesthete
Saturday, September 3rd, 2011, 10:19 AM
What do you mean?

Hersir
Saturday, September 3rd, 2011, 10:39 AM
What do you mean?

The poles are already melting because the climate is getting warmer. Glaciers here in Norway has retreated.

That the ice melts in artic areas will open up for ship traffic, and they will save alot of time and money by going through there. It will also open up for more oil drilling in those areas. What we will get is more pollution in sensitive areas, and if there are any disasters it could ruin entire ecosystems. The ice reflects the sun, but the dark water absorbs it, we will get a snowball effect. I don't think money should rule how we govern our planet.

SwordOfTheVistula
Saturday, September 3rd, 2011, 12:21 PM
A family does not need a huge SUV.

Well yeah, actually they do, especially if they have more than a couple kids. Even normal people need those. Women like them because they are safer, thanks to our government's strict 'fuel economy standards', most cars are now flimsy plastic things. Also, many places here have snow in the winter, in case you do need a SUV or truck with 4x4. Even where I live now, which has super hot weather in summer, has had huge snowstorms the last couple winters. This past winter, thanks to driving an old big steel truck (made before fuel economy standards) with 4x4 I was able to make it home in a heavy snowstorm which had all these plastic cars sliding about all over the road and even delayed the President (http://www.dbune.com/news/home/3-business/3912-severe-snow-storm-warning-for-us-canada-obamas-motorcade-stalled-in-traffic.html).

SwordOfTheVistula
Saturday, September 3rd, 2011, 12:26 PM
Article by 'Angry White Dude': Global Warming, A Religion for Stupid People

http://angrywhitedude.com/2010/01/global-warming-religion-for-stupid-people/

http://angrywhitedude.com/wp-content/uploads2/2010/01/al-gore-global-warming-300x225.jpg


With all the evidence and disclosures of falsified data concerning global warming, it has become obvious….global warming is the official religion of stupid people. AWD must confess. I never really believed global warming had a chance of being true. Along with the internet, it’s just one more thing Al Gore has invented. In AWD’s book, anything Al Gore touches is Kryptonite to thinking people!

It has been no surprise that leaks from scientists found data had been altered or plainly created. First, hacked email files showed global temperature changes were altered to show what the global warming crowd wanted the data to say. Then the rapidly melting glacier was found not to be melting at all! Today, we read the ever shrinking rain forest isn’t shrinking either! How can anyone still believe in global warming?

Because they don’t really care if the Earth is warming, cooling or flat. The global warming idiots want to destroy the Western way of life! They want to reduce Americans to driving toy cars, living without air conditioning, or watching HDTV all while paying exorbitant taxes to the government for any creature comfort we may selfishly enjoy. Liberals want to destroy the American way of life and will use made up science, political correctness or anything else to destroy us. It’s that simple! Global warming is just another tool in the toolbox to destroy America.

What surprises AWD is the number of corporations who still play along with this madness. I work for a large international company who recently announced it’s “green strategy.” Now I don’t have a problem using less paper if it saves money or turning out the lights to keep electricity costs down. But there is no shortage of energy. In fact, America sits on top of more oil than Saudi Arabia. Lots more! But don’t tell me I’m destroying the planet by tooling around town in my F-150 with the AC cranked up full blast listening to Dale Watson! Your words will fall on Texas country music-filled deaf ears. Liberals can pretend what they want, I prefer reality.

Don’t be afraid to laugh or call BS in the face of some pimply-faced green weenie when they criticize your pick up truck. You can bet your rig is putting out less polution than their 1971 Toyota Carolla with “Visualize World Peace” bumper stickers stuck all over it. The left’s manipulation of the truth, a willing media and corrupt politicians fooled a good many…well..fools with global warming. It’s truly amazing how close they came to pulling it off!

Here’s the article on the bogus rain forest data:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7009705.ece

The Aesthete
Saturday, September 3rd, 2011, 12:48 PM
Why so defensive?

I recently met a man who worked in the Antarctic as a plumber on a scientific station he told me that the majority of scientists there did not believe in climate change.

I am not saying that I don’t believe in climate change, just that the debate over it has not been a fair one.

I like to hear both sides

http://www.news.com.au/antarctic-ice-is-growing-not-melting-away/story-0-1225700043191

Ingvaeonic
Saturday, September 3rd, 2011, 12:57 PM
Climate-change "deniers" need not fear being as despised as racists in the future, as long as they are not as despised in the future as Al Gore is now.

SwordOfTheVistula
Saturday, September 3rd, 2011, 01:01 PM
It's kinda weird. We get Global Warming starting every March. Then we get Global Cooling starting every October. I blame the Illuminati, Bilderbergs, caplitalists, jews, and alien space lizards.

Hersir
Saturday, September 3rd, 2011, 01:26 PM
It's kinda weird. We get Global Warming starting every March. Then we get Global Cooling starting every October. I blame the Illuminati, Bilderbergs, caplitalists, jews, and alien space lizards.

Global warming ALSO leads to global cooldowns. I blame the lack of studying science and poor schooling.

Gall Óglach
Saturday, September 3rd, 2011, 01:32 PM
There is nothing wrong with protecting the earth. What is wrong however is to try a force people to believe theories and not facts.

The 'it's only a theory argument' doesn't really mean anything. In science the only facts are empirical observables. Take gravity for example, when Newton saw an apple fall to the ground, he observed an empiricale fact, the apple did fall to the ground. When he proposed it fell because of a force called gravity, he is making a theoretical basis, so that we can predict in future when an apple is dropped it will fall to the ground.

Science never gets more certain than theory.


Had one of the coldest winters ever in Florida last year. Hell it even snowed. I so wanted to get a picture of an alligator with snow on it. Other scientist believe we are going to be going through a cooling faze. I do think we should be good stewards and take care of the earth, but lets face it Al Gore!!! The man is a leftist douche bag.

Climate =/= weather. It's not called weather warming for a reason. A warmer climate can lead to higher rainfall, more wind and cold fronts being pushed to regions that don't normally have them. The UK has seen a warming of its summers but also colder winters. So it's weather may be colder in winter but the climate has generally gotten warmer.


The reason we don't freeze to death a night, when we are not under the heat of the sun. Is because the gases in our atmosphere trap heat. The more heat trapping gases we have (like CO2 and methane) the more heat will be trapped.

Compare Earth to our moon, we are the same distance from our sun but becasue the moon has no atmosphere it's dark side gets significantly colder.

Alfadur
Saturday, September 3rd, 2011, 08:57 PM
Well yeah, actually they do, especially if they have more than a couple kids.
Somehow, the vast majority of middle-class North Europeans can manage without a SUV. I've only seen a few over here.

I don't think this American, materialistic, environment-polluting, "bigger is better" mentality is a good thing for our preservation.

Linden
Sunday, September 4th, 2011, 04:38 PM
Global warming ALSO leads to global cooldowns. I blame the lack of studying science and poor schooling.

True. The North Atlantic Current has a considerable warming influence over the European continent (warm water from the Caribbean is carried to the shores of Western Europe). Unfortunately, as temperatures rise, the rate at which glaciers melt will continue to increase. As a result of this, trillions of gallons of fresh water (melted glaciers) are entering the North Atlantic, cooling town the temperature of the Ocean. It is possible that if this process continues, the North Atlantic Current could effectively ‘shut down’, which theoretically would lead to an ‘Ice Age’ in Europe.


The UK has seen a warming of its summers but also colder winters.

In actual fact, Britain has experienced both cooler summers and winters in recent years. This summer has been the coolest for eighteen years, and the previous winter was the coolest since records started (and the three winters before that were the coolest since the 1950s). The temperature got as low as −19 °C in the Village I lived in, and we had 16 consecutive days where the temperature didn’t get any higher than −8 °C. All of these factors suggest that global cooling is a real possibility.

Investment in renewable, eco-friendly technologies can only benefit us.

SwordOfTheVistula
Monday, September 5th, 2011, 01:22 PM
Somehow, the vast majority of middle-class North Europeans can manage without a SUV.

Well yes, because they live in cities and don't have children.



In actual fact, Britain has experienced both cooler summers and winters in recent years. This summer has been the coolest for eighteen years, and the previous winter was the coolest since records started (and the three winters before that were the coolest since the 1950s). The temperature got as low as −19 °C in the Village I lived in, and we had 16 consecutive days where the temperature didn’t get any higher than −8 °C. All of these factors suggest that global cooling is a real possibility.

Well if that's true, then 'man made global warming', if it exists, would be a good thing, and should be encouraged and increased to balance out this cooling trend?

Sigyn
Monday, September 5th, 2011, 01:58 PM
Well yes, because they live in cities and don't have children.
But even those of us who live in suburbs don't have massive SUVs and a new car for each family member. We just don't have this American "car culture" here in North Europe. Thank god.

Jäger
Monday, September 5th, 2011, 03:18 PM
The reason we don't freeze to death a night, when we are not under the heat of the sun. Is because the gases in our atmosphere trap heat. The more heat trapping gases we have (like CO2 and methane) the more heat will be trapped.
However, there is the question of saturation regarding CO2, the sun does not emit an infinite amount of IR, CO2 only "traps" a small freqnecy range of IR, so technically, it could be possible that say 50% of the current CO2 already absorbs all of the sun's IR, and an increasing amount of CO2 will thus not increase "trapped" IR radiation.


It is possible that if this process continues, the North Atlantic Current could effectively ‘shut down’, which theoretically would lead to an ‘Ice Age’ in Europe.
This is highly unlikely, since the melting of the polar ice is a relatively slow process, the current most likely will just shift.
When the northern ice barrier broke in Canada, some centuries ago, (cold) fresh water came almost in an instant, and killed off the NA current.

In any case Hamar is right, I have seen no scientific argument against global warming in this thread, and sadly on most other discussions as well. It all comes down to consipircies. :| :thumbdown

velvet
Monday, September 5th, 2011, 04:26 PM
Well if that's true, then 'man made global warming', if it exists, would be a good thing, and should be encouraged and increased to balance out this cooling trend?

It's one of those rather "paradoxic" things about global warming, because it will make the northern hemisphere in fact cooler on the year's average, since it will mess up the seasons and make farming increasingly difficult.

Global warming will make the southern hemisphere indeed warmer and dryer, the deserts will expand, farming will become increasingly difficult there too. Due to the rising sea levels, many islands are already vanishing (Malaysia, Indonesia, Maldives etc) which will cause the people to flee, as well as from many other coastal regions. But it also happens already in Europe, in Spain is a vast and growing area that is sand-silting rapidly. The inhabitable areas of earth will diminish due to sand-silting, loss of land to the sea and the messed up seasons that will make agriculture as we know it (and the plants depend on seasons) increasingly difficult and in some areas entirely impossible.

In regards to Jäger, the Humbold Stream will most likely be cut off due to the rising sea levels themselves, not so much due to the water temperatures. While the Humbold Stream is a cold stream, it makes for the mild climate in north-western Europe. If it dies off, the lack of the cold stream will, paradoxically, indeed cause another Ice Age for Europe. It's not really paradoxic when one understands the dynamics of global climate, it's just complex.

The Humbold Stream has a weird phenomenon called El Nino, which is "normal". Every few years, the stream becomes so weak that it is almost cut off, in those years Europe (but also parts of north America) face extremely harsh winters and very wet and rather cold summers, when the phenomenon persists for longer (it usually appears in December).


Another thing that is not really understood is the permafrost problem. Although the temperatures in Siberia and Greenland and around the north pole have only "risen" from average -50°C to -45°C, the ice is melting. Now, this ice stores a lot of CO2, methane, sulphure and other gases, so when it melts, which it does, it will not only increase the sea levels (if only the ice in Siberia and Greenland melts, it could raise the sea level by some 7 meters), but also will set free those gases, which would make the atmosphere a rather toxic thing for us humans, and all other bigger mammals too. It would have a similar effect like the volcano eruption of Mount Toba 75000 years ago that killed off ~80+% of all higher life on earth (and was one of the major younger bottle neck events of evolution btw).

Jäger
Monday, September 5th, 2011, 06:43 PM
It's one of those rather "paradoxic" things about global warming, because it will make the northern hemisphere in fact cooler on the year's average, since it will mess up the seasons and make farming increasingly difficult.

Global warming will make the southern hemisphere indeed warmer and dryer, the deserts will expand, farming will become increasingly difficult there too...
Actually, the IPCC defines global warming as warming of the northern hemisphere. Mainstream science thinks that the this is correct, the southern hemisphere is of less importance anyways, only a small fraction of the land mass and the population is located there.


...But it also happens already in Europe, in Spain is a vast and growing area that is sand-silting rapidly...
Sand-silting is not neccessarily dependent on rising sea levels.
In fact, predictions of future rising sea-levels are highly errenous.
And you do understand that if sea-ice melts, the sea-level will decrease.


If it dies off, the lack of the cold stream will, paradoxically, indeed cause another Ice Age for Europe. It's not really paradoxic when one understands the dynamics of global climate, it's just complex.

The Humbold Stream has a weird phenomenon called El Nino, which is "normal".
I dare to say it is so complex, that no one really understands the implications so far, this is just another "possibility".
The El Nino predictions have proven to be highly errenous as well.

Gall Óglach
Monday, September 5th, 2011, 06:45 PM
However, there is the question of saturation regarding CO2, the sun does not emit an infinite amount of IR, CO2 only "traps" a small freqnecy range of IR, so technically, it could be possible that say 50% of the current CO2 already absorbs all of the sun's IR, and an increasing amount of CO2 will thus not increase "trapped" IR radiation.



I'm not too sure about that. I think that would be true in a literal greenhouse, where the CO2 would uniformly recieve incident radiation and absorb it simultaneously. In our atmosphere where different layers move around at different speeds/temperatures/pressures, not all the CO2 will unifromly be absrobing radiation. Then different atoms can 'share' photons, so IR photons will linger in our atmosphere longer, leading to an overall increase in number.

velvet
Monday, September 5th, 2011, 07:17 PM
Actually, the IPCC defines global warming as warming of the northern hemisphere. Mainstream science thinks that the this is correct, the southern hemisphere is of less importance anyways, only a small fraction of the land mass and the population is located there.

Remember that the earth is "tilted", the geographic line of the equator is not identical with the one that seperates climates on the northern and southern hemisphere, that's somewhere around the region where the Sahara is, so it includes the most overpopulated and indiscrimately breeding countries of Africa, South America and even parts of India and Asia, and it's not a small line either, it's rather wide.


Sand-silting is not neccessarily dependent on rising sea levels.

You misunderstood. It is another phenomenon of global warming that occures as a sign of it, it has nothing to do with rising sea levels, only with the expansion of the climatological "equator" northwards.


In fact, predictions of future rising sea-levels are highly errenous.

There is not only "prediction", that is true, and the mentioned 7 meters are a rather low estimation. But if sea levels only rise by half a meter, it would drown much of the Netherlands, which are below sea level anyway, Belgium, Northern Germany, much of the coast lines of Denmark, Sweden and Norway, it would also drown parts of Iceland and France. It would already affect every country with coastlines severely, you really dont need the "horror scenario" of 7 meters, when half a meter is really enough to cause major havoc.


And you do understand that if sea-ice melts, the sea-level will decrease.

Under all those permafrost regions is landmass, the sea ice is only a minor fraction.


I dare to say it is so complex, that no one really understands the implications so far, this is just another "possibility".
The El Nino predictions have proven to be highly errenous as well.

To predict it is quite another thing than to see its effect when it had occured. Global climate and its dynamics, btw, is already understood very well (maybe not yet 100%, but still well due to more modern satelite techology), it's just that people dont look into the stuff, because it is so complex and not really entertaining and requires an attention span of more than 30 seconds. :)

And there are also many factors that influence climate, from man's pollution to volcano eruptions (the Iceland volcano last year was harsh enough to have probably bought us several years in the process), which make it quite difficult to predict anything detailed. But the point is that within the climate dynamics the implications of greenhouse gases (a volcano causes similar effects with similar gases and particles, as the pollution with particles is just as bad as with gases and also has effects) are understood.

Renwein
Monday, September 5th, 2011, 08:17 PM
"Climate Change Deniers Will Be Despised Just Like Racists One Day, Says Al Gore"

I think he is wrong.

Climate change deniers may become more reviled, but racists will become less so. :D

SpearBrave
Tuesday, September 6th, 2011, 01:44 AM
"Climate Change Deniers Will Be Despised Just Like Racists One Day, Says Al Gore"

I think he is wrong.

Climate change deniers may become more reviled, but racists will become less so. :D

The big thing wrong with this whole thread is that all of this comes from Al Gore. Just think about that for minute.;)

oh, but he did invent the Internet and the book "love story" was based on his marriage. :lmfao:

Van Wellenkamp
Tuesday, September 6th, 2011, 02:25 AM
Haha!! You funny like Bob Hope Joe!!

I guess what it boils down to is that nobody trust anything they are told anymore. The governments continue to lie to us and we no longer believe their rhetoric. Its the classic little boy who cried wolf.

Btw that really was funny.

Jäger
Tuesday, September 6th, 2011, 10:01 AM
I'm not too sure about that.
Me neither, but in any case, it is worth a closer look, and an actual argument.


Under all those permafrost regions is landmass, the sea ice is only a minor fraction.
In many regions permafrost ice melts regularly.

In any case, I am not here to argue with your "major havoc" scenarios, they are technically possible, all I am saying is that if you have to make a decision as to what to do about them, you are on thin ice :| :D

It is now evident that the CO2 emissions will not stop or decrease. Global warming or not, what we have available as fossil fuels is going to be burned.


Global climate and its dynamics, btw, is already understood very well
"Very well" is a vague expression, we know a lot more than we used to, still, we know very little about all the feedback reactions.
You know the metaphor where a butterfly can cause a hurricane? :)


But the point is that within the climate dynamics the implications of greenhouse gases (a volcano causes similar effects with similar gases and particles, as the pollution with particles is just as bad as with gases and also has effects) are understood.
Heh, this is as trivial as it gets. If CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and it increases -> it will get warmer.
This is a trivial conclusion, you don't need super computers for that, and this is the only prediction of the ICCP which is rather certain.

Hersir
Tuesday, September 6th, 2011, 10:42 AM
http://i.imgur.com/LJ12I.jpg

velvet
Tuesday, September 6th, 2011, 12:04 PM
In many regions permafrost ice melts regularly.

Yes, happens. But it used to get restored, which is no longer the case. And the less permafrost there is left, the faster the melting process of the remaining ice.


In any case, I am not here to argue with your "major havoc" scenarios, they are technically possible, all I am saying is that if you have to make a decision as to what to do about them, you are on thin ice :| :D

You used to manage better jokes :)



It is now evident that the CO2 emissions will not stop or decrease. Global warming or not, what we have available as fossil fuels is going to be burned.

Yeah, unfortunately. For some fuckn bucks of profit, humanity will extinct itself. At least the misanthrope in me can smile about this irony :shrug


"Very well" is a vague expression, we know a lot more than we used to, still, we know very little about all the feedback reactions.
You know the metaphor where a butterfly can cause a hurricane? :)

Yes, and in contrast to you, I could explain that effect :)

For the feedback reactions, I refer you to read Völuspa again.


Heh, this is as trivial as it gets. If CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and it increases -> it will get warmer.
This is a trivial conclusion, you don't need super computers for that, and this is the only prediction of the ICCP which is rather certain.

Do your own research instead of parroting lobby group stuff is all I say to that. Who cares what Al Gore, the ICCP or other political lobby groups say? I rather listen to actual scientists to understand what's happening myself. :)

Sindig_og_stoisk
Tuesday, September 6th, 2011, 12:49 PM
If you believe any of the following:

1) "Climategate" proved that global warming is a scam.
2) Scientists used to believe in global cooling and a new ice age.
3) Monckton has the necessary credentials to debate climate science and knows what he is talking about.
4) Climate and weather is the same and the fact that there was colder weather in my region. for an arbitrary period of time means that any idea of climate change is bogus.
5) All 'believers' in climate change are Al Gore fanboys and/or socialists.

... Then it is high time that you go to Potholer54's channel on YouTube and view his playlist on climate change. He covers most common myth and misunderstandings about climate science and climate change. He actually has five 12-minutes long clips about Monckton alone, tearing the poor old guy apart with superior argumentation and dry wit.

Jäger
Tuesday, September 6th, 2011, 12:59 PM
For some fuckn bucks of profit, humanity will extinct itself.
I doubt, humanity manged the ice ages, and now can't cope with a +5°C global average temperature within 100 years?


Yes, and in contrast to you, I could explain that effect :)
Then I suggest you build a weather machine and take over the world!


Do your own research instead of parroting lobby group stuff is all I say to that.
Hm? I said this is a trivial conclusion, and the ICCP actually admits that this is the only "certain" prediction.
You seem to have more knowledge, then put it to use.

ohrdruf
Tuesday, September 6th, 2011, 03:50 PM
I believe in climate change and I think the major cause is nuclear waste.

Since the first atomic experiments in the early 1940s the major problem has been the creation, release and dispersal into the atmosphere of heat which was formerly locked in uranium atoms.

A cooling pool requires five years to deplete uranium rods of heat, all of which is absorbed into the atmosphere. These rods then continue to produce heat for centuries. Not all this radioactivity can be contained in concrete tombs, there is always some escape. What the cumulative effect overall of all the world's nuclear waste for the last sixty years underground is unknown.

In the 1940s, the Swedes alleged a warning by an exterior force that the destruction of humanity in the early 21st century will be due solely to the need to shut down this nuclear technology permanently and extract all nuclear materials buried underground for disposal outside the Earth's atmosphere. Hence the constant monitoring of the planet by UFOs over the last fifty years to identify the hotspots.

Ingvaeonic
Tuesday, September 6th, 2011, 04:01 PM
http://i.imgur.com/LJ12I.jpg

This poster is outrageous! Look at it!

They didn't put an apostrophe in "it's" as it is a contraction for "it is". It's outrageous that poor punctuation such as this isn't edited out. Correct punctuation is becoming a lost art in Engliish.:~(

Fiona
Tuesday, September 6th, 2011, 09:09 PM
If you believe any of the following:

1) "Climategate" proved that global warming is a scam.
2) Scientists used to believe in global cooling and a new ice age.
3) Monckton has the necessary credentials to debate climate science and knows what he is talking about.
4) Climate and weather is the same and the fact that there was colder weather in my region. for an arbitrary period of time means that any idea of climate change is bogus.
5) All 'believers' in climate change are Al Gore fanboys and/or socialists.

... Then it is high time that you go to Potholer54's channel on YouTube and view his playlist on climate change. He covers most common myth and misunderstandings about climate science and climate change. He actually has five 12-minutes long clips about Monckton alone, tearing the poor old guy apart with superior argumentation and dry wit.

It may or may not be happening. The issue is, will carbon taxing stop it?

Of course it won't. The contraception pil will. But that's racist.

SwordOfTheVistula
Tuesday, September 13th, 2011, 12:46 PM
Actual science (not Al Gore and ZOG bullshit) proves any 'global warming' is coming from the Sun:

http://www.eutimes.net/2011/09/cern-the-sun-causes-global-warming/

As the coldest summer in Britain for 18 years draws to a close, a new study by the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) has again pointed to the conclusion that the Sun’s cosmic rays, and their role in cloud formation, rather than man-made emissions, are responsible for the Earth’s changing temperatures.

Climate realist and author Lawrence Solomon explains the results of CERN’s groundbreaking CLOUD experiment:

More at the link. Even more here (http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1267.html) if you have one of those college subscriptions.

Another link from a reputable source, not some clown on youtube:

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/08/26/lawrence-solomon-science-now-settled/

New, convincing evidence indicates global warming is caused by cosmic rays and the sun — not humans

The science is now all-but-settled on global warming, convincing new evidence demonstrates, but Al Gore, the IPCC and other global warming doomsayers won’t be celebrating. The new findings point to cosmic rays and the sun — not human activities — as the dominant controller of climate on Earth.

The research, published with little fanfare this week in the prestigious journal Nature, comes from über-prestigious CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, one of the world’s largest centres for scientific research involving 60 countries and 8,000 scientists at more than 600 universities and national laboratories. CERN is the organization that invented the World Wide Web, that built the multi-billion dollar Large Hadron Collider, and that has now built a pristinely clean stainless steel chamber that precisely recreated the Earth’s atmosphere.

In this chamber, 63 CERN scientists from 17 European and American institutes have done what global warming doomsayers said could never be done — demonstrate that cosmic rays promote the formation of molecules that in Earth’s atmosphere can grow and seed clouds, the cloudier and thus cooler it will be. Because the sun’s magnetic field controls how many cosmic rays reach Earth’s atmosphere (the stronger the sun’s magnetic field, the more it shields Earth from incoming cosmic rays from space), the sun determines the temperature on Earth.

The hypothesis that cosmic rays and the sun hold the key to the global warming debate has been Enemy No. 1 to the global warming establishment ever since it was first proposed by two scientists from the Danish Space Research Institute, at a 1996 scientific conference in the U.K. Within one day, the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Bert Bolin, denounced the theory, saying, “I find the move from this pair scientifically extremely naive and irresponsible.” He then set about discrediting the theory, any journalist that gave the theory cre dence, and most of all the Danes presenting the theory — they soon found themselves vilified, marginalized and starved of funding, despite their impeccable scientific credentials.

The mobilization to rally the press against the Danes worked brilliantly, with one notable exception. Nigel Calder, a former editor of The New Scientist who attended that 1996 conference, would not be cowed. Himself a physicist, Mr. Calder became convinced of the merits of the argument and a year later, following a lecture he gave at a CERN conference, so too did Jasper Kirkby, a CERN scientist in attendance. Mr. Kirkby then convinced the CERN bureaucracy of the theory’s importance and developed a plan to create a cloud chamber — he called it CLOUD, for “Cosmics Leaving OUtdoor Droplets.”

But Mr. Kirkby made the same tactical error that the Danes had — not realizing how politicized the global warming issue was, he candidly shared his views with the scientific community.

“The theory will probably be able to account for somewhere between a half and the whole of the increase in the Earth’s temperature that we have seen in the last century,” Mr. Kirkby told the scientific press in 1998, explaining that global warming may be part of a natural cycle in the Earth’s temperature.

The global warming establishment sprang into action, pressured the Western governments that control CERN, and almost immediately succeeded in suspending CLOUD. It took Mr. Kirkby almost a decade of negotiation with his superiors, and who knows how many compromises and unspoken commitments, to convince the CERN bureaucracy to allow the project to proceed. And years more to create the cloud chamber and convincingly validate the Danes’ groundbreaking theory.

Yet this spectacular success will be largely unrecognized by the general public for years — this column will be the first that most readers have heard of it — because CERN remains too afraid of offending its government masters to admit its success. Weeks ago, CERN formerly decided to muzzle Mr. Kirby and other members of his team to avoid “the highly political arena of the climate change debate,” telling them “to present the results clearly but not interpret them” and to downplay the results by “mak[ing] clear that cosmic radiation is only one of many parameters.” The CERN study and press release is written in bureaucratese and the version of Mr. Kirkby’s study that appears in the print edition of Nature censored the most eye-popping graph — only those who know where to look in an online supplement will see the striking potency of cosmic rays in creating the conditions for seeding clouds.

CERN, and the Danes, have in all likelihood found the path to the Holy Grail of climate science. But the religion of climate science won’t yet permit a celebration of the find.


Related graph (http://probeinternational.org/library/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/CERN-graph.doc)



But even those of us who live in suburbs don't have massive SUVs and a new car for each family member. We just don't have this American "car culture" here in North Europe. Thank god.

What will you do when nonwhites come to your city? Will you ride the bus with nonwhites? Even worse, put your children on it? You may be lucky for now to not have nonwhites in your city, but when they do arrive, public transit is no longer an option, especially for a family which has children. The 'car culture' is necessary to maintain segregation here. Otherwise people would have to live in neighborhoods within walking distances of neighborhoods where nonwhites live, maybe even send their kids to schools where nonwhites go, all sorts of bullshit. Putting your child on public transit when a nonwhite could be there is not a possibility.


I believe in climate change and I think the major cause is nuclear waste.

Hence the constant monitoring of the planet by UFOs over the last fifty years to identify the hotspots.

On the one hand, you make more sense than most believers of global warming, who think that cow farts and car exhaust cause it. On the other hand, why don't these UFOs just vaporize this nuclear waste for us?

Hersir
Tuesday, September 13th, 2011, 12:57 PM
Wrong.


What the science says...

That humans are causing global warming is the position of the Academies of Science from 19 countries plus many scientific organizations that study climate science. More specifically, around 95% of active climate researchers actively publishing climate papers endorse the consensus position
http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=144317


I wouldn't trust FINANCIAL newspapers over scientists here.


On the one hand, you make more sense than most believers of global warming, who think that cow farts and car exhaust cause it. On the other hand, why don't these UFOs just vaporize this nuclear waste for us?Nobody said they caused it, but they contribute to it. Methane and CO2 are climate gasses, it's pretty basic science. We learn it in high school in Norway.

SwordOfTheVistula
Tuesday, September 13th, 2011, 01:28 PM
How many of these 'academies' are government (ZOG) funded? They rely on creating fictions for their funding, and are thus unreliable. They are the 'scientific' version of the SPLC, creating fictitious 'evidence' in order to generate government crackdowns. Any government funded sources are thus unreliable.

Oh hey, here's some nice reliable sources from your link:

African Academy of Sciences
Cameroon Academy of Sciences
Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
Kenya National Academy of Sciences
Madagascar's National Academy of Arts, Letters and Sciences
Nigerian Academy of Sciences
l'Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
Uganda National Academy of Sciences
Academy of Science of South Africa
Tanzania Academy of Sciences
Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences
Zambia Academy of Sciences
Sudan Academy of Sciences

These academies have further determined that racism is responsible for global warming, and can be remedied by subsidies for malt liquor, watermelon, and fried chicken.

Hersir
Tuesday, September 13th, 2011, 03:12 PM
Why wouldn't your socalled ZOG be behind the climate change denial? Surely they want their j00ish corporations to make money and not have to use money on becoming greener. You can't debate the science so you trail off.

Gall Óglach
Tuesday, September 13th, 2011, 05:59 PM
How many of these 'academies' are government (ZOG) funded? They rely on creating fictions for their funding, and are thus unreliable. They are the 'scientific' version of the SPLC, creating fictitious 'evidence' in order to generate government crackdowns. Any government funded sources are thus unreliable.

Oh hey, here's some nice reliable sources from your link:

African Academy of Sciences
Cameroon Academy of Sciences
Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
Kenya National Academy of Sciences
Madagascar's National Academy of Arts, Letters and Sciences
Nigerian Academy of Sciences
l'Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
Uganda National Academy of Sciences
Academy of Science of South Africa
Tanzania Academy of Sciences
Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences
Zambia Academy of Sciences
Sudan Academy of Sciences

These academies have further determined that racism is responsible for global warming, and can be remedied by subsidies for malt liquor, watermelon, and fried chicken.

Pop quiz, which logical fallacy is this?

SwordOfTheVistula
Wednesday, September 14th, 2011, 07:14 PM
Why wouldn't your socalled ZOG be behind the climate change denial? Surely they want their j00ish corporations to make money and not have to use money on becoming greener.

The Jewish corporations are making money off of the 'climate change' nonsense. In addition to all those getting subsidies for manufacturing solar panels and windmills in China, the whole 'cap and trade' with 'carbon credits' BS is a scheme to give massive amounts of money to Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street corporations:

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/12/goldman-sachs-buys-into-carbon-offsets/

Goldman Sachs has recently bought pieces of two carbon-offset companies, in the latest sign of investment banks’ interest in the area.

On Monday E+Co, a company focused on bringing clean power to developing countries, announced that Goldman had purchased a majority of its carbon-offsets portfolio. In late October, Goldman took a minority stake in BlueSource, which is more focused on the tiny offsets market in the United States, and plans to market BlueSource offsets to clients.

Last December, Goldman also invested in APX, a California company that registers carbon offsets.

“These two deals show Goldman Sachs’ interest in the global carbon market and our commitment to assisting our clients who participate in these markets,” said Michael DuVally, a bank spokesman, in an e-mail message.

Roderic
Monday, September 19th, 2011, 03:19 AM
The global warming theory left him out in the cold.

Dr. Ivar Giaever, a former professor with Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and the 1973 winner of the Nobel Prize in physics, abruptly announced his resignation Tuesday, Sept. 13, from the premier physics society in disgust over its officially stated policy that "global warming is occurring."

The official position of the American Physical Society (APS) supports the theory that man's actions have inexorably led to the warming of the planet, through increased emissions of carbon dioxide.

Giaever does not agree -- and put it bluntly and succinctly in the subject line of his email, reprinted at Climate Depot, a website devoted to debunking the theory of man-made climate change.

"I resign from APS," Giaever wrote.

Giaever was cooled to the statement on warming theory by a line claiming that "the evidence is incontrovertible."

"In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?" he wrote in an email to Kate Kirby, executive officer of the physics society.

"The claim … is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this 'warming' period," his email message said.

A spokesman for the APS confirmed to FoxNews.com that the Nobel Laureate had declined to pay his annual dues in the society and had resigned. He also noted that the society had no plans to revise its statement.

The use of the word "incontrovertible" had already caused debate within the group, so much so that an addendum was added to the statement discussing its use in April, 2010.

"The word 'incontrovertible' ... is rarely used in science because by its very nature, science questions prevailing ideas. The observational data indicate a global surface warming of 0.74 °C (+/- 0.18 °C) since the late 19th century."

Giaever earned his Nobel for his experimental discoveries regarding tunneling phenomena in superconductors. He has since become a vocal dissenter from the alleged “consensus” regarding man-made climate fears, Climate Depot reported, noting that he was one of more than 100 co-signers of a 2009 letter to President Obama critical of his position on climate change.

Public perception of climate change has steadily fallen since late 2009. A Rasmussen Reports public opinion poll from August noted that 57 percent of adults believe there is significant disagreement within the scientific community on global warming, up five points from late 2009.

The same study showed that 69 percent of those polled believe it’s at least somewhat likely that some scientists have falsified research data in order to support their own theories and beliefs. Just 6 percent felt confident enough to report that such falsification was "not at all likely."

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/09/14/nobel-prize-winning-physicist-resigns-from-top-physics-group-over-global/