BrainMeta'   Connectomics'  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V  1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Great Global Warming Swindle
Hey Hey
post May 26, 2007, 04:37 PM
Post #1


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 7766
Joined: Dec 31, 2003
Member No.: 845



Any views on:

http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites...ndle/index.html
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Rick
post May 29, 2007, 12:35 PM
Post #2


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 5916
Joined: Jul 23, 2004
From: Sunny Southern California
Member No.: 3068



The correleations among atmospheric carbon increase, human activity, and global warming are too strong to be merely coincidence.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Hey Hey
post May 29, 2007, 12:39 PM
Post #3


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 7766
Joined: Dec 31, 2003
Member No.: 845



QUOTE(Rick @ May 29, 2007, 09:35 PM) *
The correleations among atmospheric carbon increase, human activity, and global warming are too strong to be merely coincidence.
Importance of CO2 relative to H2O vapour?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Rick
post May 29, 2007, 03:50 PM
Post #4


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 5916
Joined: Jul 23, 2004
From: Sunny Southern California
Member No.: 3068



Yes, even allowing for that, and methane too.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
simon
post May 30, 2007, 07:19 AM
Post #5


Aspiring
**

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 79
Joined: Jan 08, 2007
Member No.: 6876



I try to breath out as little as possible in order to reduce my carbon emission.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Hey Hey
post May 30, 2007, 08:17 AM
Post #6


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 7766
Joined: Dec 31, 2003
Member No.: 845



QUOTE(simon @ May 30, 2007, 04:19 PM) *
I try to breath out as little as possible in order to reduce my carbon emission.
Farting is worse! Eating your greens makes you less green!
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Hey Hey
post May 30, 2007, 08:37 AM
Post #7


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 7766
Joined: Dec 31, 2003
Member No.: 845



Methane and Vegetarianism

http://earthsave.org/globalwarming.htm

By far the most important non-CO2 greenhouse gas is methane, and the number one source of methane worldwide is animal agriculture.

Methane is responsible for nearly as much global warming as all other non-CO2 greenhouse gases put together. Methane is 21 times more powerful a greenhouse gas than CO2. While atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have risen by about 31% since pre-industrial times, methane concentrations have more than doubled. Whereas human sources of CO2 amount to just 3% of natural emissions, human sources produce one and a half times as much methane as all natural sources. In fact, the effect of our methane emissions may be compounded as methane-induced warming in turn stimulates microbial decay of organic matter in wetlands—the primary natural source of methane.

With methane emissions causing nearly half of the planet’s human-induced warming, methane reduction must be a priority. Methane is produced by a number of sources, including coal mining and landfills—but the number one source worldwide is animal agriculture. Animal agriculture produces more than 100 million tons of methane a year. And this source is on the rise: global meat consumption has increased fivefold in the past fifty years, and shows little sign of abating. About 85% of this methane is produced in the digestive processes of livestock, and while a single cow releases a relatively small amount of methane, the collective effect on the environment of the hundreds of millions of livestock animals worldwide is enormous. An additional 15% of animal agricultural methane emissions are released from the massive “lagoons” used to store untreated farm animal waste, and already a target of environmentalists’ for their role as the number one source of water pollution in the U.S.

The conclusion is simple: arguably the best way to reduce global warming in our lifetimes is to reduce or eliminate our consumption of animal products. Simply by going vegetarian (or, strictly speaking, vegan), , , we can eliminate one of the major sources of emissions of methane, the greenhouse gas responsible for almost half of the global warming impacting the planet today.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
mark71
post Jun 02, 2007, 12:10 AM
Post #8


Newbie
*

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 5
Joined: May 13, 2007
Member No.: 10861



Global warming debunked
By ANDREW SWALLOW - The Timaru Herald | Saturday, 19 May 2007



AdvertisementClimate change will be considered a joke in five years time, meteorologist Augie Auer told the annual meeting of Mid Canterbury Federated Farmers in Ashburton this week.

Man's contribution to the greenhouse gases was so small we couldn't change the climate if we tried, he maintained.

"We're all going to survive this. It's all going to be a joke in five years," he said.

A combination of misinterpreted and misguided science, media hype, and political spin had created the current hysteria and it was time to put a stop to it.

"It is time to attack the myth of global warming," he said.

Water vapour was responsible for 95 per cent of the greenhouse effect, an effect which was vital to keep the world warm, he explained.

"If we didn't have the greenhouse effect the planet would be at minus 18 deg C but because we do have the greenhouse effect it is plus 15 deg C, all the time."

The other greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen dioxide, and various others including CFCs, contributed only five per cent of the effect, carbon dioxide being by far the greatest contributor at 3.6 per cent.

However, carbon dioxide as a result of man's activities was only 3.2 per cent of that, hence only 0.12 per cent of the greenhouse gases in total. Human-related methane, nitrogen dioxide and CFCs etc made similarly minuscule contributions to the effect: 0.066, 0.047 and 0.046 per cent respectively.

"That ought to be the end of the argument, there and then," he said.

"We couldn't do it (change the climate) even if we wanted to because water vapour dominates."

Yet the Greens continued to use phrases such as "The planet is groaning under the weight of CO2" and Government policies were about to hit industries such as farming, he warned.

"The Greens are really going to go after you because you put out 49 per cent of the countries emissions. Does anybody ask 49 per cent of what? Does anybody know how small that number is?

"It's become a witch-hunt; a Salem witch-hunt," he said.

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Rick
post Jun 04, 2007, 03:29 PM
Post #9


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 5916
Joined: Jul 23, 2004
From: Sunny Southern California
Member No.: 3068



From Wikipedia article on Global Warming:

"On Earth, the major natural greenhouse gases are water vapor, which causes about 36–70% of the greenhouse effect (not including clouds); carbon dioxide (CO2), which causes 9–26%; methane (CH4), which causes 4–9%; and ozone, which causes 3–7%."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

The article also notes that

"These basic conclusions have been endorsed by at least 30 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries. The American Association of Petroleum Geologists is the only scientific society that rejects these conclusions,[4][5] and a few individual scientists also disagree with parts of them.[6]"
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Hey Hey
post Jun 28, 2007, 10:43 AM
Post #10


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 7766
Joined: Dec 31, 2003
Member No.: 845



doi:10.1016/j.ecocom.2007.03.002
Copyright © 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Viewpoint

Polar bears of western Hudson Bay and climate change: Are warming spring air temperatures the “ultimate” survival control factor?

M.G. Dycka, , , W. Soonb, , , R.K. Baydackc, D.R. Legatesd, S. Baliunasb, T.F. Balle and L.O. Hancockf
aEnvironmental Technology Program, Nunavut Arctic College, Box 600, Iqaluit, Nunavut X0A 0H0, Canada
bHarvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA
cClayton H. Riddell Faculty of Environment, Earth, and Resources, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba R3T 2N2, Canada
dCenter for Climatic Research, University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware 19716, USA
eClimate and Environment Consultant, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
fMSN H-5-503, 1818 H Street, NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA
Received 1 March 2007; accepted 2 March 2007. Available online 16 April 2007.


Abstract

Long-term warming of late spring (April–June) air temperatures has been proposed by Stirling et al. [Stirling, I., Lunn, N.J., Iacozza, J., 1999. Long-term trends in the population ecology of polar bears in western Hudson Bay in relation to climatic change. Arctic 52, 294–306] as the “ultimate” factor causing earlier sea-ice break-up around western Hudson Bay (WH) that has, in turn, led to the poorer physical and reproductive characteristics of polar bears occupying this region. Derocher et al. [Derocher, A.E., Lunn, N.J., Stirling, I., 2004. Polar bears in a warming climate. Integr. Comp. Biol. 44, 163–176] expanded the discussion to the whole circumpolar Arctic and concluded that polar bears will unlikely survive as a species should the computer-predicted scenarios for total disappearance of sea-ice in the Arctic come true. We found that spring air temperatures around the Hudson Bay basin for the past 70 years (1932–2002) show no significant warming trend and are more likely identified with the large-amplitude, natural climatic variability that is characteristic of the Arctic. Any role of external forcing by anthropogenic greenhouse gases remains difficult to identify. We argue, therefore, that the extrapolation of polar bear disappearance is highly premature. Climate models are simply not skilful for the projection of regional sea-ice changes in Hudson Bay or the whole Arctic. Alternative factors, such as increased human–bear interaction, must be taken into account in a more realistic study and explanation of the population ecology of WH polar bears. Both scientific papers and public discussion that continue to fail to recognize the inherent complexity in the adaptive interaction of polar bears with both human and nature will not likely offer any useful, science-based, preservation and management strategies for the species.

Keywords: Polar bear; Climate change; Hudson Bay; Extinction
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Hey Hey
post Jun 28, 2007, 10:46 AM
Post #11


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 7766
Joined: Dec 31, 2003
Member No.: 845



QUOTE(Rick @ Jun 05, 2007, 12:29 AM) *
From Wikipedia article on Global Warming:

The article also notes that

"These basic conclusions have been endorsed by at least 30 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries. The American Association of Petroleum Geologists is the only scientific society that rejects these conclusions,[4][5] and a few individual scientists also disagree with parts of them.[6]"
Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics

Growing Number of Scientists Convert to Skeptics After Reviewing New Research

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?Fus...4b-dccb00b51a12
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Hey Hey
post Jun 28, 2007, 11:01 AM
Post #12


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 7766
Joined: Dec 31, 2003
Member No.: 845



Original post by Marc Morano - Marc_Morano@epw.senate.gov

Warming On Jupiter, Mars, Pluto, Neptune's Moon & Earth Linked to Increased Solar Activity, Scientists Say

IN CASE YOU MISSED IT...

Bright sun, warm Earth. Coincidence?



By Lorne Gunter
National Post
Monday, March 12, 2007

Mars's ice caps are melting, and Jupiter is developing a second giant red spot, an enormous hurricane-like storm.

The existing Great Red Spot is 300 years old and twice the size of Earth. The new storm -- Red Spot Jr. -- is thought to be the result of a sudden warming on our solar system's largest planet. Dr. Imke de Pater of Berkeley University says some parts of Jupiter are now as much as six degrees Celsius warmer than just a few years ago.

Neptune's moon, Triton, studied in 1989 after the unmanned Voyageur probe flew past, seems to have heated up significantly since then. Parts of its frozen nitrogen surface have begun melting and turning to gas, making Triton's atmosphere denser.

Even Pluto has warmed slightly in recent years, if you can call -230C instead of -233C "warmer."

And I swear, I haven't left my SUV idling on any of those planets or moons. Honest, I haven't.

Is there something all these heavenly bodies have in common? Some one thing they all share that could be causing them to warm in unison?

Hmmm, is there some giant, self-luminous ball of burning gas with a mass more than 300,000 times that of Earth and a core temperature of more than 20-million degrees Celsius, that for the past century or more has been unusually active and powerful? Is there something like that around which they all revolve that could be causing this multi-globe warming? Naw!

They must all have congested commuter highways, coal-fired power plants and oilsands developments that are releasing large amounts of carbon dioxide into their atmospheres, too.

A decade ago, when global warming and Kyoto was just beginning to capture public attention, I published a quiz elsewhere that bears repeating in our current hyper-charged environmental debate: Quick, which is usually warmer, day or night?

And what is typically the warmest part of the day? The warmest time of year?

Finally, which are generally warmer: cloudy or cloudless days?

If you answered day, afternoon, summer and cloudless you may be well on your way to understanding what is causing global warming.

For the past century and a half, Earth has been warming. Coincidentally (or perhaps not so coincidentally), during that same period, our sun has been brightening, becoming more active, sending out more radiation.

Habibullah Abdussamatov of the Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in St. Petersburg, Sami Solanki of the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Germany, Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon of the Solar and Stellar Physics Division of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and a host of the rest of the world's leading solar scientists are all convinced that the warming of recent years is not unusual and that nearly all the warming in the past 150 years can be attributed to the sun.

Solar scientists from Iowa to Siberia have overlaid the last several warm periods on our planet with known variations in our sun's activity and found, according to Mr. Solanki, "a near-perfect match."

Mr. Abdussamatov concedes manmade gasses may have made "a small contribution to the warming in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance."

Mr. Soon showed as long ago as the mid-1990s that the depth of the Little Ice Age -- the coldest period in the northern hemisphere in the past 1,500 years -- corresponded perfectly with a solar event known as the Maunder Minimum. For nearly seven decades there was virtually no sunspot activity.

Our sun was particular quiet. And for those 60 to 70 years, the northern half of our globe, at least, was in a deep freeze.

Is it so hard to believe then that the sun could be causing our current warming, too?

At the very least, the fact that so many prominent scientists have legitimate, logical objections to the current global warming orthodoxy means there is no "consensus" among scientists about the cause.

Here's a prediction: The sun's current active phase is expected to wane in 20 to 40 years, at which time the planet will begin cooling. Since that is when most of the greenhouse emission reductions proposed by the UN and others are slated to come into full effect, the "greens" will see that cooling and claim, "See, we warned you and made you take action, and look, we saved the planet."

Of course, they will have had nothing to do with it.

© National Post 2007
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Rick
post Jun 28, 2007, 12:03 PM
Post #13


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 5916
Joined: Jul 23, 2004
From: Sunny Southern California
Member No.: 3068



It's a good thing there's lots of coal in Scotland and Wales, because the world's oil production will peak in three years. Now that we don't have to worry about carbon "footprints," our energy problems seem solvable.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Hey Hey
post Jun 28, 2007, 12:44 PM
Post #14


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 7766
Joined: Dec 31, 2003
Member No.: 845



QUOTE(Rick @ Jun 28, 2007, 09:03 PM) *
It's a good thing there's lots of coal in Scotland and Wales, because the world's oil production will peak in three years. Now that we don't have to worry about carbon "footprints," our energy problems seem solvable.
We're going, as your guy says, "nucilar." Actually, we have plenty of coal in England and Wales too. Over time it will become more economical to mine it, both for energy and for chemical feedstocks. A bit like the Chinese do. And there are "clean" methods to exploit and utilise coal; we just need to use them (a bit like the Chinese don't) and make them more economical. All this can be done. An 18 month old child had a heart transplant in the UK today. We can do anything ... given the funds and the inclination. You've heard of the floods in Yorkshire? Global warming - shit! I wonder why the Romans didn't build the wall along Foss Island's Road in York. 'Cos it F**KING floods!!!!

     <---
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Rick
post Jun 28, 2007, 03:14 PM
Post #15


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 5916
Joined: Jul 23, 2004
From: Sunny Southern California
Member No.: 3068



He's not my guy. I warned everyone I could back in '00, but did they listen? They re-elected him in '04! Now they're all moaning about how they got screwed, but do they blame themselves? They're such idiots.

Actually, I think they're all suffering from PADD:

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_2122.shtml
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Hey Hey
post Jun 28, 2007, 03:23 PM
Post #16


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 7766
Joined: Dec 31, 2003
Member No.: 845



QUOTE(Rick @ Jun 29, 2007, 12:14 AM) *
Actually, I think they're all suffering from PADD
biggrin.gif or rather sad.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
clastraphyx
post Jun 29, 2007, 05:05 PM
Post #17


Newbie
*

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 2
Joined: Jun 29, 2007
Member No.: 12053



Global Warming is probably a swindle created to distract us from arguing about whether industrial activity is positive to the planet. I have a psychological based theory on this.
Basically it goes like this : "The higher level conscious (some might call it the sub-conscious) is aware that it cant think of a solution to the problem so it defends by doing its best to make sure we dont become conscious of truth of a depth that we cant deal with". The difficult truth on this one is that we would like to think of ourselves as being positive to the planet but clearly we are not if we are negatively impacting upon it so we deny it. There is a way beyond this of course and it relates to (annoyingly) another theory called the Apex Ape Theory. In brief the Apex Ape Theory suggests that at various intervals in evolution there is an individual that makes such a quantum leap of leadership or evolution that they are considered "god like" (not literally just the general heirarchical positioning of intellect). If thats true then what we should see before long is an individual that actually comes up with a way of taking humanity to another level of existence and in the process resolving the planetary life expectancy problem. Once that person creates a logical and truthful solution the mechanism that stops us from deeply considering the future of the planet will be disengaged because those sorts of thoughts then no longer present a threat to our synapses (if thats the right way of putting it).

From the point of view of the person in the Apex Ape position there would be a number of issues to resolve. Firstly lets say they had a solution but no one could believe it could be possible to do. So in advance they would have to dismantle the conditioning that had lead people to believe that things on a massive scale are impossible to achieve. Even after that some negativity would remain because even though the Apex Ape had the answer many people would be negative to that fact being recognised because of the ramifications in regards to Kingship etc and also the second coming because if you had an actual strategy to safely take life on Earth to a much more livable and desirable point you may as well be Christ and some religions are not going to cope well with that mindset shift from it being some far off point in time to the actual hear and now. Thats what they defend against.

So to return to the global warming swindle I consider it a swindle because symbiotic matrix breakdown is a much more disastrous concept to deal with and its already confirmed to be in progress.

This is where the conundrum for the world leaders comes in because they know we are all going to have to be thinking on a symbiotic level to fully express the potentiality of our species...but to do this we have to understand symbiotic logic..and unfortunately this may lead to a realisation of "My goodness things are much worse than I first thought" and so its better to perpetuate the denial because if everybody on the planet became conscious of the true situation there would be ramifications.

First we would have to set a goal for mankind that was incorporative of the concept of symbiotic harmony. We would all have to take a position of agreement or disagreement towards the virtue of that. In agreeing one of the consequences unfortunately would be that those that agreed would have to start doing due deference to nature to maintain a sense of connection at a symbiotic level taking the opportunity to advantage another species as we became conscious of the opportunities. This would begin to even up the balance of long term survival probabilities. For those that understood symbiotics they would realise that to aid the concept that aids you was a proper thing to do for simultaneous reasons. Some would deny it of course but they were the ones who would be required to maintain a sense of the old style negativity of mindset. This would allow us to think from their perspective of negativity and defeat them in advance.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Rick
post Jul 07, 2007, 10:41 AM
Post #18


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 5916
Joined: Jul 23, 2004
From: Sunny Southern California
Member No.: 3068



It's not the sun, according to this site:

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/28/090/30666
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Hey Hey
post Jul 11, 2007, 04:38 AM
Post #19


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 7766
Joined: Dec 31, 2003
Member No.: 845



Again, not the sun:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6290228.stm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Rick
post Jul 11, 2007, 10:15 AM
Post #20


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 5916
Joined: Jul 23, 2004
From: Sunny Southern California
Member No.: 3068



Nice one. Thanks for the link. Carbon footprint matters after all.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Rick
post Jul 11, 2007, 12:10 PM
Post #21


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 5916
Joined: Jul 23, 2004
From: Sunny Southern California
Member No.: 3068



This just in:

John Edwards Wins Straw Poll on Climate Change

http://www.moveon.org/press/pr/release071107.html
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
xanadu
post Jul 11, 2007, 01:41 PM
Post #22


Awakening
***

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 174
Joined: Mar 10, 2006
Member No.: 4955



Lets have a debate on whether the earth is flat or not. I'm sure you can find someone who will argue it is flat.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Hey Hey
post Jul 11, 2007, 02:49 PM
Post #23


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 7766
Joined: Dec 31, 2003
Member No.: 845



It's flat where I'm standing biggrin.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Rick
post Jul 12, 2007, 11:38 AM
Post #24


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 5916
Joined: Jul 23, 2004
From: Sunny Southern California
Member No.: 3068



QUOTE(Hey Hey @ Jul 11, 2007, 03:49 PM) *

It's flat where I'm standing biggrin.gif

When one visits the tropics, e.g., Hawaii, one frequently sees skies that are filled as far as the eye can see with cumulus clouds at about 5,000 feet. In such a configuration of clouds forming a "ceiling" over the sea, the curvature of the earth is very easy to see. It's damned obvious!
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Hey Hey
post Jul 12, 2007, 03:00 PM
Post #25


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 7766
Joined: Dec 31, 2003
Member No.: 845



QUOTE(Rick @ Jul 12, 2007, 08:38 PM) *

QUOTE(Hey Hey @ Jul 11, 2007, 03:49 PM) *

It's flat where I'm standing biggrin.gif

When one visits the tropics, e.g., Hawaii, one frequently sees skies that are filled as far as the eye can see with cumulus clouds at about 5,000 feet. In such a configuration of clouds forming a "ceiling" over the sea, the curvature of the earth is very easy to see. It's damned obvious!

No, I've checked it with a spirit level ...
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Rick
post Jul 16, 2007, 04:42 PM
Post #26


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 5916
Joined: Jul 23, 2004
From: Sunny Southern California
Member No.: 3068



I put a spirit level on a bowling ball once. It was level too.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Hey Hey
post Aug 01, 2007, 06:50 PM
Post #27


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 7766
Joined: Dec 31, 2003
Member No.: 845



User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Rick
post Aug 07, 2007, 04:18 PM
Post #28


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 5916
Joined: Jul 23, 2004
From: Sunny Southern California
Member No.: 3068



From CommonDreams.org News Center:

Research aimed at disputing the scientific consensus on global warming is part of a huge public misinformation campaign funded by some of the world’s largest carbon polluters, former Vice President Al Gore said Tuesday.

”There has been an organized campaign, financed to the tune of about $10 million a year from some of the largest carbon polluters, to create the impression that there is disagreement in the scientific community,” Gore said at a forum in Singapore. ”In actuality, there is very little disagreement.”

Gore likened the campaign to the millions of dollars spent by U.S. tobacco companies years ago on creating the appearance of scientific debate on smoking’s harmful effects.

”This is one of the strongest of scientific consensus views in the history of science,” Gore said. ”We live in a world where what used to be called propaganda now has a major role to play in shaping public opinion.”

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/08/07/3038/
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
jack1211
post Oct 22, 2008, 09:53 AM
Post #29


Newbie
*

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 3
Joined: Oct 22, 2008
Member No.: 31663



QUOTE(simon @ May 30, 2007, 08:49 PM) *

I try to breath out as little as possible in order to reduce my carbon emission.


Now, thats ridiculous . Next, you will say i won't breathe at all. lol
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Hey Hey
post Dec 09, 2008, 10:56 AM
Post #30


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 7766
Joined: Dec 31, 2003
Member No.: 845



Notwithstanding the argument as to whether global warming is a man-made phenomenon or not:

Low-carbon Britain: a pointless distraction
The UK's new climate change plan suggests we make considerable sacrifices for little practical benefit.

You can find the article at spiked online. I cant post URLs.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 17th November 2017 - 10:19 PM


Home     |     About     |    Research     |    Forum     |    Feedback  


Copyright BrainMeta. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use  |  Last Modified Tue Jan 17 2006 12:39 am

Consciousness Expansion · Brain Mapping · Neural Circuits · Connectomics  ·  Neuroscience Forum  ·  Brain Maps Blog
 · Connectomics · Connectomics  ·  shawn mikula  ·  shawn mikula  ·  articles