This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Climate: We Can ALL Agree On Two Things
Whatever you think about the leaked emails showing that "tricks" were used to "hide the decline" in the climate data, and the fact that the original source data showing historical climate information was destroyed, you should agree on two things.
The Carbon Footprint of War
First, as Harvey Wasserman notes,
continuing the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq will more than wipe out any
reduction in carbon from the government's proposed climate measures.
Writing about the escalation in the Afghanistan war, Wasserman says:
The
war would also come with a carbon burst. How will the massive emissions
created by 100,000-plus soldiers in wartime be counted in the 17%
reduction rubric? Will the HumVees be converted to hybrids? What is the
carbon impact of Predator bombs that destroy Afghan families and
villages?
The continuance of the Afghanistan and
Iraq wars completely and thoroughly undermines the government's claims
that there is a global warming emergency and that reducing carbon
output through cap and trade is needed to save the planet.
I
can't take anything the government says about carbon footprints
seriously until the government ends the unnecessary wars in Afghanistan
and Iraq. For evidence that the Iraq war is unnecessary, see this. Read this for evidence that the U.S. could have taken Bin Laden out years ago and avoided a decades long war in Afghanistan. And for proof that the entire war on Muslim extremists is unnecessary for our national security, see this.
War is also very harmful to the economy. See this, this and this.
Carbon Trading
Second, the proposed solution to global warming - cap and trade - is a scam. Specifically:
- The economists who invented cap-and-trade say that it won't work for global warming
- Many environmentalists say that carbon trading won't effectively reduce carbon emissions
- Our bailout buddies over at Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley,
Citigroup and the other Wall Street behemoths are buying heavily into
carbon trading. As University of Maryland professor economics professor
and former Chief Economist at the U.S. International Trade Commission
Peter Morici writes:
Obama
must ensure that the banks use the trillions of dollars in federal
bailout assistance to renegotiate mortgages and make new loans to
worthy homebuyers and businesses. Obama must make certain that banks do not continue to squander federal largess by padding executive bonuses, acquiring other banks and pursuing new high-return, high-risk lines of businesses in merger activity, carbon trading
and complex derivatives. Industry leaders like Citigroup have announced
plans to move in those directions. Many of these bankers enjoyed
influence in and contributed generously to the Obama campaign. Now it
remains to be seen if a President Obama can stand up to these same
bankers and persuade or compel them to act responsibly.In
other words, the same companies that made billions off of derivatives
and other scams and are now getting bailed out on your dime are going
to make billions from carbon trading.
Consensus
Everyone should read the leaked emails and rationally think through what they mean. But whatever one believes about climategate
(the leaked emails showing that "tricks" were used to "hide the
decline" in the climate data and the destruction of the original source
data), we should all be able to agree that:
(1) We should end the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq; and
(2) We should not let the financial giants who caused the financial crisis to profit off of cap and trade schemes.
- advertisements -
The Inquisition lasted for 600 years. It would have been easy to kill millions. A number of legitimate sources list the murdered anywhere between 50 million to 200 million.
Do not ever confuse the Nimrod Semiramis Holy Roman Babylonian Catholic Empire Church with anything associated with Christianity. The Roman Catholic Church is an apostate institution founded exclusively on pagan witchcraft beliefs spawned in ancient Babylon. Look into the eyes and into the souls of those innocent lives who were ravagedly brutalized in the name of Christianity and you will quickly realize they died purely for their belief in Christ Jesus. So openly corrupt did the fallen church become in the Middle Ages, we can readily understand why in many places men rose up in protest. Many of those noble souls who rejected the false claims of the pope, looking instead to the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation and truth. These were called "heretics" and were bitterly persecuted by the Roman Catholic Church. They are called Protestants because of their protests of the teachings of the Pope and doctrine's contrary to the Word of God.
One of the documents that ordered such persecutions was the inhuman "Ad exstirpanda" issued by Pope Innocent IV in 1252. This document stated that heretics (Protestant Christians and Jews) were to be "crushed like venomous snakes." It formally approved the use of torture. Civil authorities were ordered to burn heretics at the stake. "The aforesaid Bull 'Ad exstirpanda' remained thenceforth a fundamental document of the Inquisition, renewed or refinforced by several popes, Alexander IV (1254-61), Clement IV (1265-68), NIcholas IV (1288-92), Boniface VIII (1294-1303) and others. The civil authorities, therefore, were enjoined by the popes, under pain of excommunication to execute the legal sentences that condemned impenitent heretics to the stake. It is to be noted that excommunication itself was no trifle, for, if the person excommunicated did not free himself from the excommunication within a year (usually by paying hefty indulgences) and incurred all the penalties that affected heresy." The Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 8, p.34
Men pondered long in those days on how they could devise methods that would produce the most torture and pain. One of the most popular methods was the use of the rack, a long table on which the accused was tied by the hands and feet, back down, and stretched by rope and windlass. This process dislocated joints and caused great pain. Heavy pincers were used to tear out fingernails or were applied red-hot to sensitive parts of the body. Rollers with sharp knife blades and spikes were used, over which the heretics were rolled back and forth. There was the thumbscrew, an instrument made for disarticulating fingers and "Spanish boots" which were used to crush the legs and feet. The "iron virgin" in the statue and form of Catholicism's Mary was a hollow instrument the size and figure of a woman. Knives were arranged in pressure that the accursed were lacerated in its deadly embrace. This torture device was sprayed with "holy water" and inscribed with the Latin words meaning, "Glory be only to God." Smith, Man and His Gods, p. 286
Victims after being stripped of their clothing had their arms tied behind their backs with a hard cord. Weights were attached to their feet. The action of a pulley suspended them in mid-air or dropped and raised them with a jerk, dislocating joints of the body. While such torture was being emplyed, priests holding up crosses would attempt to get the heretics to recant.
Ridpath's History of the World includes an illustration of the work of the Inquisition in the Netherlands. Twenty-one Protestants are hanging from the tree. A man on a ladder is about to be hanged, below him is a priest holding a cross. Vol. 5, p. 304
Why would a murderous blood lusting Protestant Christian execute and hang his fellow Protestant Christian?
"In the year 1554 Francis Gamba, a Lombard, of the Protestant persuasion, was apprehended and condemned to death by the sentence of Milan. At the place of the execution, a monk presented a cross to him, to whom Gamba rightly proclaimed, 'My mind is so full of the real merits and goodness of Christ that I want not a piece of senseless stick to put me in mind of Him.' For this expression his tongue was bored through and he was afterwards burned at the stake." Fox's Book of Martyr's p.103
Does this sound like the handi-work of the teachings of Christ? Why gore out his tongue unless it was Rome's church who will not tolerate truth?
Some who rejected the teachings of the Roman church had molten lead poured into their ears and mouths. Eyes were gouged out and others were cruelly beaten with whips. Some were forced to jump from cliffs onto long spikes fixed below, where, quivering from pain, they slowly died. Others were choked to death with mangled pieces of their own bodies, with urine, or excrement. At night, the victims of the Inquisition were chained closely to the floor or wall where they were a helpless prey to the rats and vermin that populated those bloody torture chambers.
The relgious intolerance of Rome which prompted the Inquisition caused wars which involved entire cities. In 1209 the city of Beziers was taken by men who had been promised by the pope that by engaging in the crusade against heretics they would at death bypass purgatory and immediately enter heaven. Sixty thousand, it was reported, in this city perished by the sword while blood flowed in the streets. At Lavaur in 1211 the governor was hanged on a gibbet and his wife thrown into a well and crushed with stones. Four hundred people in this town were burned alive. The crusaders attended high mass in the morning, then proceeded to take other towns of the area. In this seige, it is estimated that 100,000 Albigenses (Protestants) fell in one day. Their bodies were heaped together and burned.
At the massacre of Merindol, five hundred women were locked in a barn which was set on fire. If any leaped from windows, they were received on the points of spears. Women were openly and pitifully violated. Children were murdered before their parents who were powerless to protect them. Some people were hurled from cliffs or stripped of clothing in the massacre of Orange in 1562. The Italian army was sent by Pope Pius IV and commanded to slay men, women and children. The command was carried out with terrible cruelty, the people being exposed to shame and torture of every description.
Ten thousand Hugenots (Protestants) were killed in the bloody massacre in Paris on "St. Bartholomew's Day," 1572. The French king went to mass to return solemn thanks that so many heretics were slain. The papal court received the news with great rejoicing and Pope Gregory XIII, in grand procession, went to the Church of St. Louis to give thanks! He ordered the papal mint tomake coins commemorating this event. The coins showed an angel with sword in one hand and a cross in the other, before whom a band of Hugenots, with horrow on their faces, were fleeing. The words Ugonottorum Stranges 1572 which signify "The sluaghter of the Hugenots, 1572," appeared on the coins.
Now tell me why would Christians order up a coin of the realm to commemorate their own slaughter?
An further illustration from Ridpath's History of the World shows the work of the Inquisition in Holland. A Protestant man is hanging by his feet in stocks. The fire is heating a poker to brand him and blind his eyes. Vol. 5, p. 297
Some of the popes that today are acclaimed as "great" by the Romish (Romulus) chruch lived and thrived during those days. Why didn't they open the dungeon doors and quench the murderous fires that blackened the skies of Europe for centuries? If the selling of indulgences (the root of the dispute) or people refusing to worship statues as idols or popes living in immorality can be explained as "abuses" or excused because these things were done contrary to the official laws of the church, what can be said about the Inquisition? It cannot be explained away as easily, for though sometimes torture was carried out beyond what was actually prescribed, the fact remains that the Inquisition was ordered by papal decree and repeatedly confirmed by pope after pope! Can any believe that such actions were representative of Him who said to turn the other cheek, to forgive our enemies, to do good to them that despitefully use us, to not seek vengeance and to command us in his first testimony Thou shalt not kill?
The Roman Catholic Church is not now, never has been and never ever will be a Church of the House of the Firstborn. Do not ever forget such and do not ever confuse it with anything to do with the gospel of Jesus Christ. It was, and is and always will be the incarnation of rebellion on earth.
Here's a novel concept:
Let's make all the data (that hasn't been inconveniently disposed of) and all the software source code used to promulgate the AGW contention immediately available so that true science can proceed. Sorry, but we will never trust you again when you say that you 'adjusted' the raw data for a valid reason. Sorry, but we will never trust you again when you say that your algorithm was 'adjusted' in order to augment the validity of the results.
Before we give a few trillion dollars away to a hopelessly corrupt organization (UN) to be disseminated to thugocracies and unliberated countries for our sins against Gaia, how about we let a little open source work produce some real science? Just a thought.
IMHO - Climate change is an excuse for the formation of UN21 agenda. The signing of the Copenhagen Treaty will officially launch the NEW WORLD ORDER. Our Senate will follow through and Sign the SOVERNTY of the United States away FOREVER.
CLIMATE IS ABOUT TO REALLY CHANGE!!!!!
Great article
your site is very nice and useful for me, I Bookmarked your blog
Climate study based on carbon is a fraud.
Discussing it no other way gives it credablity
What's the carbon footprint of a 25 kiloton ground burst in Manhattan from a smuggled terrorist nuclear bomb?
I disagree. I love endless war and wall street greed. Its America to the core.
And you're supposed to be a mathematician or something! How in the hell did you turn three to 5000 people executed in the Spanish Inquisition into 200,000,000 executed because of Christian theology and Papal edicts?!!
What a buffoon. Your credulity is breathtaking.
WTF! W!T!F! Did you even read what you posted? 1000+ words of conflicting testimony, most of which suggest that the inquisition did not execute more than a few thousand. Then when you're done making my case, you arbitrarily list some unsubstantiated numbers for North and South America and the time period between 600 ad and 1700 ad!? And "various theological doctrines" that suppossedly killed 100's of millions in Asia!? Huh?
You, sir, are a blithering idiot.
It amazes me that people on this site take you seriously.
GW, don't you see that the warmongers are addicts and that each time you write "end the war", you just get them started on another round of manly armchair warmongering? I agree with you, and history agrees with you, but we will just have to let those who run the USA and profit from its wars bankrupt its citizens with those wars, for that's what empires do. But life will go on. Before the fall, chop wood, carry water. After the fall, chop wood, carry water.
The STUPID... it BURNS!!!!!!!
Time to delete this LieberTARDian site from my bookmarks.
It is so fun to read these posts and the comments. Makes me think I am back in college, listening to a gaggle of semi-educated (but very earnest) know-it-alls who, after 30 or 40 years of actually learning things, remember those days themselves with the hope that nobody remembers THEM. And their dumb statements.
Global Warming Petition Project
31,478 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,029 with PhDs
http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php
"The purpose of the Petition Project is to demonstrate that the claim of “settled science” and an overwhelming “consensus” in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming and consequent climatological damage is wrong. No such consensus or settled science exists. As indicated by the petition text and signatory list, a very large number of American scientists reject this hypothesis.
Publicists at the United Nations, Mr. Al Gore, and their supporters frequently claim that only a few “skeptics” remain – skeptics who are still unconvinced about the existence of a catastrophic human-caused global warming emergency.
It is evident that 31,478 Americans with university degrees in science – including 9,029 PhDs, are not "a few." Moreover, from the clear and strong petition statement that they have signed, it is evident that these 31,478 American scientists are not “skeptics.”
These scientists are instead convinced that the human-caused global warming hypothesis is without scientific validity and that government action on the basis of this hypothesis would unnecessarily and counterproductively damage both human prosperity and the natural environment of the Earth."
Iv'e got an idea, no one say anything stupid anymore, that would cut out a lot of talking and breathing, co2 problem solved.
"And if you want to talk about murder, genocide and hatred then i will point you to app. 400 000 000 victims which were murdered directly is a consequence of Christian Theology and Papal Edicts"
You are so full of shit I can smell you from here. How about a little evidence with your bs!
The Inquisition lasted for 600 years. It would have been easy to kill millions. A number of legitimate sources list the murdered anywhere between 50 million to 200 million.
For example, the Spanish Inquisition, assuredly the most vigorous and corrupt of the various inquisitorial bodies that existed in Europe, held 49,000 trials between 1560-1700 and executed between 3 and 5,000 people.
I suggest that the read Edward Peter's Inquisition for the most up to date analysis of the topic, including the myths that have arisen surrounding the inquisitions.
Correction The Spanish Inquistition was state ministry, not papal organization. Blaming Popes for deeds of Spanish Inquistition is incorrect. However kings of Spain used Dominicans (catholic order) as judges etc. because clergy (especially mentioned monks) were genarally far more educated than ordinal people.
Breif Answer: Talking of 'the inquisition' probably refers to the whole thing ie 'retake' of land for christians and murderous rampage against heretics. It was started by Pope lucius III when he issued a bill against heretic- and the violent mesures against them. It is strongly thought by those who thouroughly study the inquisition that the death toll is indeed in the millions. Which is ofcourse denied by Christian leaders and followers.
After some thought, I'm leaving the last two contributors' responses here to give those interested some idea of the flavor of the controversy. Firstly, it is correct to state that the Spanish Inquisition was a state ministry, but that doesn't remove it from the category of "inquisition." It was authorized by the papacy and thereafter used by monarchs on the Iberian peninsula beginning with Ferdinand and Isabella as the only institution at their disposal that operated across the boundaries of the twin crowns of Aragon and Castille. Many inquisitions functioned in conjunction with secular authorities, such as in 15th century Florence. And needless to say the Roman inquisition functioned under the direct management and control of the Pope, who WAS the secular (as well as spiritual) authority in the city of Rome and the Papal States. All of this simply goes toward explaining why it makes no sense to think of a single inquisition, rather than muliple inquisitions. Again, if you are truly interested in the subject, read Edward Peters or Richard Kieckhefer.
As for how many deaths may be attributed to the various inquisitorial bodies, I'm not certain who the previous contributor refers to when he states that "those who thoroughly study the inquisition" agree that the death toll was in the millions, but he or she is quite wrong on multiple levels. I am unaware of any modern historian who would accept such ridiculous numbers and it has nothing to do with whether or not they are Christian. Again, for a general treatment of the various inquisitions, read Edward Peters' Inquistions, and for a more specialized treatment turn to Richard Kieckhefer's Repression of Heresy in Medieval Germany.
Finally, the previous contributor was correct in pointing to the papal bull of 1184, ab abolendam, which Pope Lucius III did indeed issue the year before his death, as the beginning of the papal inquisition, but episcopal inquisitions had existed prior to this, and indeed the first time heretics were burned was at Orleans in 1022. And again, even with the establishment of the papal inquisition, various judge legates, which is what individual inquisitors were, pursued their duties in differing ways and with differing agendas. In sum, there never was anything one cold refer to as THE inquisition, simply various individual inquisitions.
MORE: According to Henry Kamen's "The Spanish Inquisition: A Historical Revision" it is very difficult to determine, because if people fled - which they usually did - the Inquisition would burn them in effigy, and make no distinction in their records between whether someone was burned in effigy or in reality. According to Kamen, at the height of the Inquistion, they executed a handful of people per year, and the State of Texas executes more people in a year than the Inquisition did in ten.
And this is only in the inquisition, add to that 45+ million North and South American Natives, 2+million in the crusades, 40+ million in the period between 600 AD and 1700 AD ... i think you get the picture here ... plus add 200+ million dead from the implications of various theological doctrines and wars in Asia (particularly China, India, SE Asia)
Go crawl under a rock. I hate to let the facts get in the way of a good story, but... the population of the whole of Europe at the start of the 15th century was less than 100 million and didn't exceed 200 million till the 19th century.
I am a plant scientist at a major university that has been watching the climate debate mostly from the sidelines, although I have attended climate conferences during my time in academia. I find it frustrating that people with little to no experience in climatology or plant biology would weigh in so heavily on such a contentious debate. Their input too often creates the atmosphere of imbecils shouting at each other, when the reality is that they don't help anything but convince others that they truly are imbecils. Having said all that, let me explain my own position. There are several indisputable facts we all have to accept, whether we like it or not. First, the oil, coal, natural gas etc. that is being extracted from the ground has been there for thousands to millions of years, and we are pulling it out of the ground and burning it at massive rates, putting carbon dioxide in atmosphere. Two, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing. When I took my first plant physiology course in 1977 the professor told us that the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 0.033% (I still have my notes). Today it is at 0.038%. Three, carbon dioxide reflects infrared radiation. For those who don't know, infrared radiation is heat. So when sunlight hits the ground and reflects, more of the infrared that would be reflected out into space is reflected to the ground. Four, plants are carbon neutral. I know I know, so many people would like to think plants are a wonderful carbon sink, taking up carbon dioxide and putting all that carbon in cell walls, etc. BUT, all carbon based matter is decomposed by microbes ultimately to, guess what, carbon dioxide. The only time that is permanently fixed is over eons of time when soil is mounded up on top of organic matter and it ends up hundreds of feet down, turning into oil, gas, coal, etc. Five, the only way to get rid of the millions of tons of carbon we burn into the atmosphere every year is to put it back into the ground where it came from, and that is not going to be cheap. Having said all that, I'm opposed to cap and trade, it simply won't work because we're still pulling carbon buried millions of years and burning it, and nothing is really pulling it back out of the atmosphere and putting it back into the ground. Ethanol production is carbon NEGATIVE. The cost of fertilizers and other inputs makes ethanol made from corn and ALL other crops carbon negative. Sorry folks, the so-called zero input switch grass is an illusion. A crop like that will exhaust the soil of nutrients eventually if they're not replaced. Think of it this way, besides of C,H, and O, plants are also composed of N,P,K,Ca,Mg,Mn,Zn,Cu,Mo,B,Cl, and S. Everytime a crop is harvested, those minerals are effectively removed (mined) from the soil. They must be replaced or they'll be depleted. The making of nitrogen fertilizers is especially expensive, because so much carbon has to be burned in the Haber process (150–250 bars of pressure and 300 to 550°C!!). So what am I in favor of? First, pull our troops out of every country with oil. Let's face it, that's why they're there, and our tax dollars subsidize the oil industry to have them there. That's why we're in Iraq, that's why Cheney wanted to go into Iran. Get the troops out, save a few bucks, and let the price of oil go to its true market price. Second, create incentives for the wealthy to build electric plants to harness the energy from solar, wind, ocean current, and geothermal hotspots. Third, create tax incentives for the electric companies to upgrade the grid. Fourth, create incentives for the automobile companies to shift to electric power. See where this is going? For as much as Jimmy Carter has been maligned, I'm old enough to remember his push to do all of these things and I knew he was right, and that eventually we'd come full circle. In that way, at least, he was WAY before his time. Ronald Reagan along with the oil industry pumper George H.W. Bush as VP effectively killed those programs and ensured the rise of our oil dependency. Bush Jr. and Cheney ensured our continued dependency by convincing us of the terrible terrorists we needed to kill in Iraq, when even they admit now that it was all deceit. But for what purpose? Why oil of course!!! After all, Cheney was head of Halliburton, and if there's one thing I've learned about Republicans, they live by the motto that if someone scratches your back, you are obligated to scratch theirs back. And to hell with environment, because it's the problem of the children of the little people.
fromthedeepersouth
Can you provide Cliff Notes for your megaparagraph?
Hint: Keyboards have this fancy "return" key.
Learn it.
Use it.
Love it.
Hey, while we're at it, let's cap the volcanos. /s
Not to mention the massive amounts of aviation fuel for transporting troops to Afghani-nam...
Then the massive increase in aviation fuel for air operations and bombings, then the increase in armoured vehicles.
Diesel and aviation fuel are at the top of carbon particle pollution... third is plowing your field... for opium.
EASY SPARKY...the last one is a joke....
Most of you are bunch of intolerant fucking morons and day by day you pollute this site with your bigotry and -centrism .....
Do I have to pay a carbon tax on that centrism?
Agreed that we should end the war in Afghanistan, but only after annihilating(from the air) every Taliban position and thereby sending the survivors fleeing back to the wilds of Waziristan.
dude... the afghans have never, never lost on their home turf. get the boys out of there.
It's all Obama's fault
Chimp
In other words, the same companies that made billions off of derivatives and other scams and are now getting bailed out on your dime are going to make billions from carbon trading....
As was said in `History of the World Part 1'
Leader of Senate: All fellow members of the Roman senate hear me. Shall we continue to build palace after palace for the rich? Or shall we aspire to a more noble purpose and build decent housing for the poor? How does the senate vote?
Entire Senate: FUCK THE POOR!
October 21, 2009
Here is the letter to members of Congress from 18 top U.S. scientific organizations:
Dear Senator:
As you consider climate change legislation, we, as leaders of scientific organizations, write to state the consensus scientific view.
Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver.
These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science. Moreover, there is strong evidence that ongoing climate change will have broad impacts on society, including the global economy and on the environment. For the United States, climate change impacts include sea level rise for coastal states, greater threats of extreme weather events, and increased risk of regional water scarcity, urban heat waves, western wildfires, and the disturbance of biological systems throughout the country. The severity of climate change impacts is expected to increase substantially in the coming decades. [See Footnote #1 below]
If we are to avoid the most severe impacts of climate change, emissions of greenhouse gases must be dramatically reduced. In addition, adaptation will be necessary to address those impacts that are already unavoidable. Adaptation efforts include improved infrastructure design, more sustainable management of water and other natural resources, modified agricultural practices, and improved emergency responses to storms, floods, fires and heat waves.
We in the scientific community offer our assistance to inform your deliberations as you seek to address the impacts of climate change.
The footnote reads:
The conclusions in this paragraph reflect the scientific consensus represented by, for example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and U.S. Global Change Research Program. Many scientific societies have endorsed these findings in their own statements, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Chemical Society, American Geophysical Union, American Meteorological Society, and American Statistical Association.
Here are all the organizations that signed on:
• American Association for the Advancement of Science
• American Chemical Society
• American Geophysical Union
• American Institute of Biological Sciences
• American Meteorological Society
• American Society of Agronomy
• American Society of Plant Biologists
• American Statistical Association
• Association of Ecosystem Research Centers
• Botanical Society of America
• Crop Science Society of America
• Ecological Society of America
• Natural Science Collections
• Alliance Organization of Biological Field Stations
• Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
• Society of Systematic Biologists
• Soil Science Society of America
• University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
Tell a lie often enough, loud enough, and long enough and people will believe you. - Hitler
Did a cock crow? You posted three times - "before a rooster crows this very night, you will deny me three times."
There are six things the LORD HATES, seven that are DETESTABLE to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked schemes, feet that are quick to rush into evil, a false witness who pours out lies and a man who stirs up dissension among brothers.
Scientists and organizations have been pressured into accepting this false science and in cases acadamia has been bribed (grants, promotions, positions) to support it with money from the bankers. If the bankers could buy off key authority figures, they could convince the world to back their carbon trading schemes and implement the structure for global governance (including global taxes) tying together the command structure of banks and corporations.
You are trying so hard to try this case in the court of public opinion because you would fail in a real court. In fact, a truck driver in the UK sued because his child was shown the video in school and he argued it was not true. This is what the court had to say:
How marvelous. And what are those inaccuracies?
In the end, a climate change skeptic in the States must hope that an American truck driver files such a lawsuit here so that a U.S. judge can make similar determinations.
A list of 32,000 scientists that disagree with man made global warming, including 9,000 PHDs, over rules those now discredited organizations, clubs, or shell groups. Those bankers own the media, fortunately we have the internet and alternative media to expose the tyranny. This was not a simple statistical sampling error, it was blatant manipulation and then destruction of the evidence in the face of a FOIA request which is a crime. I am not impressed with your list of sellouts that relied on widely reported FRAUDULENT DATA. They are prostitutes.
You and they have been exposed as liars.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/05/are_32000_scientists_enough_...
October 21, 2009
Here is the letter to members of Congress from 18 top U.S. scientific organizations:
Dear Senator:
As you consider climate change legislation, we, as leaders of scientific organizations, write to state the consensus scientific view.
Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver.
These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science. Moreover, there is strong evidence that ongoing climate change will have broad impacts on society, including the global economy and on the environment. For the United States, climate change impacts include sea level rise for coastal states, greater threats of extreme weather events, and increased risk of regional water scarcity, urban heat waves, western wildfires, and the disturbance of biological systems throughout the country. The severity of climate change impacts is expected to increase substantially in the coming decades. [See Footnote #1 below]
If we are to avoid the most severe impacts of climate change, emissions of greenhouse gases must be dramatically reduced. In addition, adaptation will be necessary to address those impacts that are already unavoidable. Adaptation efforts include improved infrastructure design, more sustainable management of water and other natural resources, modified agricultural practices, and improved emergency responses to storms, floods, fires and heat waves.
We in the scientific community offer our assistance to inform your deliberations as you seek to address the impacts of climate change.
The footnote reads:
The conclusions in this paragraph reflect the scientific consensus represented by, for example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and U.S. Global Change Research Program. Many scientific societies have endorsed these findings in their own statements, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Chemical Society, American Geophysical Union, American Meteorological Society, and American Statistical Association.
Here are all the organizations that signed on:
• American Association for the Advancement of Science
• American Chemical Society
• American Geophysical Union
• American Institute of Biological Sciences
• American Meteorological Society
• American Society of Agronomy
• American Society of Plant Biologists
• American Statistical Association
• Association of Ecosystem Research Centers
• Botanical Society of America
• Crop Science Society of America
• Ecological Society of America
• Natural Science Collections
• Alliance Organization of Biological Field Stations
• Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
• Society of Systematic Biologists
• Soil Science Society of America
• University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
With all these important sounding societies endorsing this letter my mind is finally set at ease. I was afraid that I might have to think for myself but these trustworthy and impartial fellas have lifted that burden off my back.
A cabal of ClimateGate deniers! One word "ClimateGate" the KNOCKOUT punch for 30 years of Algore's lies.
October 21, 2009
Here is the letter to members of Congress from 18 top U.S. scientific organizations:
Dear Senator:
As you consider climate change legislation, we, as leaders of scientific organizations, write to state the consensus scientific view.
Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver.
These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science. Moreover, there is strong evidence that ongoing climate change will have broad impacts on society, including the global economy and on the environment. For the United States, climate change impacts include sea level rise for coastal states, greater threats of extreme weather events, and increased risk of regional water scarcity, urban heat waves, western wildfires, and the disturbance of biological systems throughout the country. The severity of climate change impacts is expected to increase substantially in the coming decades. [See Footnote #1 below]
If we are to avoid the most severe impacts of climate change, emissions of greenhouse gases must be dramatically reduced. In addition, adaptation will be necessary to address those impacts that are already unavoidable. Adaptation efforts include improved infrastructure design, more sustainable management of water and other natural resources, modified agricultural practices, and improved emergency responses to storms, floods, fires and heat waves.
We in the scientific community offer our assistance to inform your deliberations as you seek to address the impacts of climate change.
The footnote reads:
The conclusions in this paragraph reflect the scientific consensus represented by, for example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and U.S. Global Change Research Program. Many scientific societies have endorsed these findings in their own statements, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Chemical Society, American Geophysical Union, American Meteorological Society, and American Statistical Association.
Here are all the organizations that signed on:
• American Association for the Advancement of Science
• American Chemical Society
• American Geophysical Union
• American Institute of Biological Sciences
• American Meteorological Society
• American Society of Agronomy
• American Society of Plant Biologists
• American Statistical Association
• Association of Ecosystem Research Centers
• Botanical Society of America
• Crop Science Society of America
• Ecological Society of America
• Natural Science Collections
• Alliance Organization of Biological Field Stations
• Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
• Society of Systematic Biologists
• Soil Science Society of America
• University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
I don't know much about the rest of these organizations, but I am in the American Chemical Society, and I can tell you that they fall for any piece of propaganda that crosses their desk. It is sad really. The scientists, which are supposed to be bastions of critical thinking and independence have become the greatest participants in group-think.
Mr. George Washington is becoming a one-trick pony with his anti-war rants. It's getting tiresome on a financial blog. Could you folks consider finding another contributor, please. 'preciate it.
"What is the carbon impact of Predator bombs that destroy Afghan families and villages?"
Yeah, because as we all know those are their primary targets.
I don't suppose if I point out ONE MORE TIME that this sort of hyperbolic, overheated rhetoric hurts your argument, that you'll stop doing it?!
I wish people like you would stop 'helping' the peace movement.
WWII had quite a carbon footprint I'm sure. Its basically irrelevant. End the war or fight the war on its own merits. If you think war is "bad" because it causes pollution, well, no sh1t. It also kills people. Why not end all wars forever? Give me a break. Or more like a pony and some rainbows.
I heard that they did find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but the problem was that all of them said, "Made in the USA." So, it could not be reported. Saddam was provided with WMD by the US during the Iraq-Iran war. What is it that you think Saddam used to poison gas the Kurds. Courtesy Uncle Sam.
it was the iranians that gassed those kurdish villages, after occupying and then being driven out. saddam didn't have that type of gas in his arsenal, and we knew what he had, caus he got it from us, or an ally, who reports arms sales to state dept. do a little research, and get some facts, you won't always be right, but at least try.
Saddam poisoned the Kurds with German mustard gas ... Einstein
http://www2.goldmansachs.com/services/advising/environmental-markets/bus...
http://www2.goldmansachs.com/ideas/environment-and-energy/goldman-sachs/...
Whatever you think about Climategate, surely there is one thing upon which we can agree:
1) I am morally superior for being antiwar (ahem, not to say morally vain because I AM for war if it is the right, the 'necessary' war, don't you know...that is, until it's time to put up or shut up and then I'm no longer for the 'necessary' war either because it suddenly became unnecessary or something or other changed in between the presidential campaign and now). Oh wait, I was also against the Cold War where 100 million were slaughtered by the same folks who now want to control the world under the guise of 'environmentalism.' Oh well, 100 million fewer CO2 emitters. Where was I? Oh yeah. It's really cool to be antiwar, and all. It's so groovy now, that people are finally gettin' together, yeah, it's wonderful and all, that people are finally living together.
Fuck the IPCC. Fuck the UN. Fuck the WHO.
Fuck the WHO?
I saw them at Winterland in '76. Keith Moon passed out right in the middle of a song. They were so fucking loud my ears rang for a week.
It was great! The WHO were great!
Anony, you need to get out more...
1. OK, but for reasons of national security, not the environment.
2. OK, the cap and trade system will be monitored to ensure predatory profits are minimized. Some proposals in the Congress would prohibit anyone other than regulated entities from trading.
There. All fixed. Thanks for playing.
Have a problem confusing red meat vs. red herrings? I guess this is the 'redgreyzone' for this blog.
Climate science: red herring
Climate-related energy policy: red meat
Jimbo;
You and I both know your only motivation is predatory profits! Check out what happened to your buddy Algore at his book signing in Chicago. Then take a look at what happened to Turnbull. The gig is up!
You destroyed your argument with the strawman of continuing the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Stick to a valid argument next time. I agree on the Climategate....rest of your argument is not cogent.
"In addition, the US Military is the single largest user of oil in the world."
I would bet the US Military uses less oil in a year than regular Americans and American businesses and non-DOD government use in one week.
Add up the energy costs associated with:
-- Miles driven in cars, trucks, trains, etc.
-- Commercial air miles flown, passenger & freight
-- Ship miles logged in global trade with USA
-- Energy expended for climate control -- homes, businesses, etc.
-- Energy costs for manufacturing, agriculture, mining, etc.
-- Energy costs for running "Server Farms" and other IT related activities -- Google, DIA, NSA, DOE, etc.
There are probably a lot more energy intensive activities that could be added to the list.
What part of single do you not understand?