Originally posted by tom502
I watched the first 15 minutes. what a waste of time.
-
Huh global warming = climategate now?
I watched the first 15 minutes. what a waste of time. -
Follow the money, it's what it's ALL about.Comment
-
It comes from people like who thinks he's an idiot. I can't watch more than 10 minutes of him.Originally posted by RRK
Jon Stewart
"Finally, a guy who says what people who aren't thinking are thinking."Comment
-
Sorry, but I think you haven't watched more then ten minutes of him and your quote shows me that it is just people who take the daily show too seriously. Can you offer something that he has said that you disagree with that is not just copied from someone else.Originally posted by justintemplerComment
-
I don't like Glen Beck, but I think most people don't like him because he speaks the unpopular truth. My problem with him, is I don't like his personality. I think he knows what he is saying, and is right, but his persona does not appeal to me. Same with Rush. Now I don't agree 100% with any of them, or anyone. I like O'Reilly, and Malkin(for other reasons).
But these are just pundits, or commentators. The only politician I think I agree with the most, is Ron Paul.Comment
-
I guess you don't know me too well.Originally posted by RRK
Yesterday's show
A rant about him whining about Time's Person of the Year.
Person of the Year (formerly Man of the Year) is an annual issue of the United States newsmagazine Time that features and profiles a man, woman, couple, group, idea, place, or machine that "for better or for worse, ...has done the most to influence the events of the year."
I guess he missed the words....most to influence... for better or for worse..
Time has also picked Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Ayatollah Khomeini
Glenn wants to turn Person of The Year into an award
Next he quote mines from a speech Michelle Obama gave back in May of 2008 in Puerto Rico. I don't know if you realize how poor most Puerto Rican children are and that Puerto Rico is a US territory but this speech was about giving hope to Puerto Ricans and their children. He takes snippets of her speech out of context and then proceeds to twist it into a rant about progressives trying to take god out of schools.
That's about as dishonest as you can get.
There's your first ten minutes.........Comment
-
Thought the new Ventura show was excellent at showing what the real plan is about the global warming tax on humanity.
Glen Beck has done such a 180 from his NeoCon days that I actually tell the hardest of the hardest kool aid drinkers and the Hannity type republicans like my parents to watch a show of his sometime.
I definately believe the world could use a cleaning but this whole carbon tax deal is not about mother earth.Comment
-
I wish I had seen it so I could respond but I will take your word for it. Which part was dishonest? I think lying is as dishonest as you can get.Originally posted by justintempler
I will try to watch it today and so you can point out his lies if you would like.Comment
-
Originally posted by justintempler
Umm. yes it is. Did you not see the video they opened with at Copenhagen of all the cities flooding and kids dying etc. They claim that millions will be killed by global warming because of rising sea levels and food scarcity etc. It's their claim, not mine.
Originally posted by sgreger1a thousand times? you got some data for that?
Earth's climate and the biosphere have been in constant flux, dominated by ice ages and glaciers for the past several million years. We are currently enjoying a temporary reprieve from the deep freeze.
Approximately every 100,000 years Earth's climate warms up temporarily. These warm periods, called interglacial periods, appear to last approximately 15,000 to 20,000 years before regressing back to a cold ice age climate.
Over the past 750,000 years of Earth's history, Ice Ages have occurred at regular intervals, of approximately 100,000 years each
Periods of Earth warming and cooling occur in cycles. This is well understood, as is the fact that small-scale cycles of about 40 years exist within larger-scale cycles of 400 years, which in turn exist inside still larger scale cycles of 20,000 years, and so on.
And, according to Nasa:
Conditions have become increasingly chilly and erratic in the Pleistocene - the last 1.8 million years. In the last 1 million years we see about ten Ice Ages, though it's hard to say what counts as an Ice Age.
(So, lots of warming and cooling, and at least 10 full blown ice ages)
Let me know if you would like more data on how the earth has in fact warmed and cooled many many many times since life has lived on the planet.
Humans still exist? You mean humans have been alive for those thousand cycles of warming and cooling?
No, I am not saying that humans have lived through every warming cooling trend, as modern day humans are obviousely a very young species. However, we have survived through warmer and cooler periods before. Humans are arguably the most diverse of any creatures in existence, we can set up cities in any climate on any continent.
Originally posted by sgreger1
Lol, surely you didn't mean to post that Justin. You are aware that according to Nasa (first source I could find) they make a very rough estimate that since life began there have probably been at least 7.5 billion species if you only count plants and animals. They estimate the real number may be much more but obviousely it is hard to calculate it since we don't have enough data to get a solid figure.
If 1 in a thousand survive, and there have been at least 7.5 billion.... that sounds like millions still surviving to me.
Or, you could open your window, look outside and observe one of the estimated 10 million - 100 million species that are are still alive today.
I provided evidence for everything I claimed. :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:and that's just your first paragraph :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:
But you'll probably counter with another (YET ANOTHER) picture about Glenn Beck who is of no real value to this conversation, at all.
If you have something to bring forward than do it. Quit posting shit about how Fox news and Glenn Beck sucks. This thread is about climate change.
You can spin Climategate anyway you want, whether it was relevant or not is actualy, irrelivant. It did highlight how scientists have been pushing the envelope when it comes to just reporting the facts. And this is certianly not the first or last time we'll hear of this. When this much money is involved, corruption will occur somewhere.Comment
-
Originally posted by RooSgreger1 you bastard. Good god I'm too drunk to slog though this mass of "evidence" but look -- we do not know in sufficiently measurable terms the effects of human kind on the environment. That much has been established. However, and generally speaking, are you not alarmed by the exponential increase in human population over our lifetime and without even mentioning the amount of Co2 data that you so love to blame as the phantom culprit of this debate, do you not recognize the extensive strain that our sheer numbers have put on our sustainability, with particular regard to the amount of harmful chemical byproducts released into our atmosphere as a result of our overpopulation and hyper-industrialization? Long sentences treat me right. I limit myself to the global warming debate here because I know you recognize that biofuels are not a sustainable solution -- we give enough vegetable calories to our cows to inefficiently convert to meat for our grilled-steak pleasure as it is. You know this. But I'm talking about billions of people, and countries spewing coal emissions by the cubic ton-load every minute, you deny this has a negative effect on the overall trend of "global warming" as it pertains to the short time humans have had the fortune to thrive? Before you jump to any conclusions about me subscribing to any "hockey-stick" graphs or "liberal left-wing Muslim-loving commie bullshit" (j/k), I'm not paying attention to the facts or data behind the debate. Yes, that makes me uninformed, and yes, I would not be spending time typing here if I hadn't had a pint of bourbon and a couple beers. So forgive me for my ignorance. But once and for all, what is your argument? The Dems are trying to rape the economy further and profit with measures to combat the negative effects of industrialization on the earth's relatively fragile atmosphere? If so, that's fine. Expected. I have no beef with that. Many others share your view. But do you deny that we as humans in this day and age are exponentially increasing our potential to destroy the environment that was designed, if you will excuse my athiest use of creationist terminology, to support life that doesn't build smokestacks and processing plants that spew black smoke into the clouds, or thousands of towns and villages that pile up 3 tons of used PC's and burn them? Have you seen the pollution in some of the world's largest cities (and I don't mean LA or NYC)? To deny the negative effects of mankind on the Earth's cycles and protective atmosphere, at this juncture, is to tow some party line and try to find another reason to fight Obama. I am not a Democrat, and I know you don't call yourself a Republican, but for Christ's sake quit jerking off the hard right on this issue. It's happening, we need to do something about it, and no, Al Gore doesn't have all (or any) of the answers.Originally posted by sgreger1This AGW conspiracy of claiming the earth will die if it warms or cools is preposterous to say the least. It's been way hotter and way cooler a thousand times, and yet humans still exist and there are still millions of species that have existed through those same times of warming/cooling.
It's called adapt and overcome, it's what the earth has been doing since it was created.
Any rational person should realize that the end of the world conspiracies never end up being true. Some people try to install fear and panic on others so they can sell stuff. Whether it be 2012 conspiracy books or movies, alien invasion stuff at Roswel, or carbon credits in copenhagen, it's a simple formula:
Spread fear, sell a solution = turn a profit. Then move on to the next crisis.
@Roo: I spend so much time on this because it's quite possibly the most important thing going on in the world today, and will vastly affect our future. Sorry it's not as cool as Hitler
Having said all that, your jerking off of the hard right keeps me coming back. It occurred to me this morning that you and Faust probably live within an afternoon's drive of each other. You should invite him over for Stoli and pickles, and record the stand-off in some format that we can easily watch and hear, because I'm not good with computers. Where the fck is VBSnus... BTW how many people get on the internet and read this drivel? I'm always amazed at the discussions we have here and all of the anonymous potential worldwide readership. It's almost embarrassing. There are several sections here devoted entirely to snus discussions, I swear. You will soon find your favorite snus if you ignore everything I write on this forum.
Roo. Bro. I don't expect you to read the lengthy rants on every page so let me give you a backstory on me and perhaps it can help you form a better picture of where i'm coming from, as opposed to me just "jerking off the right". (lol)
I am very pro environemntalism. I have far many years (before it was "cool") worried about our depleting water sources and the increased amount of trash on the planet, the chemicals that bleed into our food and water shelves etc.
I recognize (who couldn't) the negative impact our sheer numbers has on the environment. We ar elike a virus that spreads unchecked by natures usual methods, and our poulation size grows exponentially with each generation.
But, given that, I also realize how politics works and how government works. All of a sudden there is this craze about global warming and the government and politicians have latched onto it. They figure they can get control and make some money if they latch onto what would otherwise be a legit green movement. If the gov came up with a plan to help the world, you would never see me here protesting. What I do see, is a government that instead has come forward with a plan to establish a new cap-and-trade system that will do little to help the environment, (as is proven by existing cap-and-trade systems in europe that have done near nothing as well as states such as CA who also have carbon credits).
All of a sudden the left has latched onto this and they are all jerking each other off about how the world will end if we don't pass this massive ****-stick tax package immediately. They are not looking for solutions, they are looking to profit. (the voters want solutions, but they aren't the ones who make the rules)
I believe we should come up with new alternate energy solutions so we can get away from having to purchase oil from our enemies in foreign countries. I think it would be great for the planet as well as the economy.
What they have brought to the table, is no such thing. It is fake environmentalism that has perverted serious concerns that the voting populace has, and twisted it into yet anothe way to control and profit.
THat is why I protest it.
Now, if you'll excuse me I have to buy some new latex gloves and KY jelly.Comment
-
What I find most troubling about it, is not whether any aspects of it are real or not, but that there is a world cabal that is exploiting this, all for the goal of money, power, control, a world currency, and world bank, and a one world order.Comment
-
Originally posted by tom502
Exactly my stance. I am not a climatologist, and neither is anyone else here. What I do know is that all the worlds governments and Al Gore have their hands in it, therefore corruption will occur.
The left complains that we shouldn't let insurance companies profit from the sick (re:Healthcare), but they have no issue with big companies/govs profiting from the degredation of the planet.
Go figure.
EDIT:
Furthermore, Obama is treding on thin ice with this copenhagen treaty. He can't sign onto it without 2/3 approvla from the senate per the constitution. He does not have 2/3 approval from the senate. He says if the senate doesn't make it happen, than he will have the EPA use "Command and control" to enforce it, since the EPA just declared C02 is (lol) an evil pollutant that kills everything in it's path *vampire laugh* Muhahahaha, muuuuhahahaah!
But seriously **** the UN and all this other bullshit. Lets put politics to the side, and use science to find cool new ways to make clean energy so we can kickstart the economy by maybe exporting somethign for once, and also save the planet.
@ Justin.
I don't care about Time magazine's crap, what concerns me is that Obama is re-nominating Bernanke, even though he obviously has done a shity job. Something about a collapse of the banking system or something. lol. And Glenn Beck was probably bitching at Time magazine because time tried to spin Bernanke as a good guy, which he is not. But it's irrelivant. I don't quote Glenn Beck here, so not sure why you do so often. You are obviousely a bigger fan of his show than anyone else on this forum.Comment
-
Originally posted by tom502
The most damning part of the program is when Ben Santer, a climate researcher and lead IPCC author of Chapter 8 of the 1995 IPCC Working Group I Report, admits that he deleted sections of the IPCC chapter which stated that humans were not responsible for climate change.
Accusing Santer of altering opinions in the IPCC report that disagreed with the man-made thesis behind climate change, Lord Monckton told the program, “In comes Santer and re-writes it for them, after the scientists have sent in their finalized draft, and that finalized draft said at five different places, there is no discernable human effect on global temperature – I’ve seen a copy of this – Santer went through, crossed out all of those and substituted a new conclusion, and this has been the official conclusion ever since.”
“Lord Monckton points to deletions from the chapter, and there were deletions from the chapter, to be consistent with the other chapters we dropped the summary at the end,” Santer admits to the program.
Like I said, at the least this shows that there is some reason to question how much of this info is being skewed. Just throwing that out there.Comment
-
sgreger1,Originally posted by sgreger1
Creative editing?
How about reading a letter directly from Ben Santer himself.
http://www.ucar.edu/communications/q...96/insert.html
Original letter sent to The Wall Street Journal by B. Santer and 40 other scientists. Deletions and additions made by the Journal editor prior to publication on 25 June 1996 are indicated by red and green, respectively.
Frederick Seitz's op-ed of June 12 editorial-page piece, "A Major Deception on 'Global Warming'" wrongly accuses both the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and a member of the climate science community of violation of procedure and deception. Not only does he thereby demonstrate ignorance of both the topic and the IPCC process, but his actions reflect an apparent attempt to divert attention away from the scientific evidence of a human effect on global climate by attacking the scientists concerned with investigating that issue.
Dr. Seitz discusses editorial changes made to Chapter 8 of the 1995 IPCC report on the science of climate change. The chapter in question evaluates the scientific evidence from many studies that have attempted to detect "unusual" change in the Eearth's climate, and determine whether some portion of that change is due to human activities. Dr. Seitz claims that the alterations made to Chapter 8, after a November 1995 IPCC meeting held in Madrid, were in violation of IPCC rules of procedure, and that their effect is to "deceive policy makers and the public into believing that the scientific evidence shows human activities are causing global warming." Similar claims of procedural improprieties have been made by the Global Climate Coalition (GCC), a consortium of industry interests. These claims conjure visions of sinister conspiracies that are entirely unfounded.
All IPCC procedural rules were followed in producing the final, now published, version of the Chapter 8. The changes made after the Madrid IPCC meeting in November 1995 were in response to written review comments received in October and November 1995 from governments, individual scientists, and non-governmental organizations. They were also in response to comments made by governments and non-governmental organizations during plenary sessions of the Madrid meeting. IPCC procedures required changes in response to these comments, in order to produce the best-possible and most clearly explained assessment of the science.
There has been no dishonesty, no corruption of the peer-review process and no bias--political, environmental or otherwise. Mr. Seitz claims that the scientific content of Chapter 8 was altered by the changes made to it after the Madrid IPCC meeting. This is incorrect. The present version of Chapter 8, in its Executive Summary, draws precisely the same "bottom-line" conclusion as the original Oct. 9th version of the chapter--"Taken together, these results point towards a human influence on climate." A statement conveying the same message was endorsed unanimously by the governments of the 96 IPCC countries represented at the Madrid meeting.
The pre- and post-Madrid versions of the chapter are equally cautious in their statements. Uncertainties have not been suppressed. Roughly 20% of Chapter 8 is devoted to the discussion of uncertainties in estimates of natural climate variability and the expected "signal" due to human activities.
The deletions quoted by Seitz relate to the difficulties involved in attributing climate change to the specific cause of human activities, and to uncertainties in estimates of natural climate variability. These issues are dealt with at great length in the published chapter. The basic content of these particular sentences has not been deleted.
Dr. Seitz is not a climate scientist. He was not involved in the process of putting together the 1995 IPCC report on the science of climate change. He did not attend the Madrid IPCC meeting on which he reports. He was not privy to the hundreds of review comments received by Chapter 8 Lead Authors. Most seriously, before writing his editorial, he did not contact any of the Lead Authors of Chapter 8 in order to obtain information as to how or why changes were made to Chapter 8 after Madrid. He also did not contact either Prof. Bert Bolin, the Chairman of the IPCC, or those in charge of the report, the Co-Chairmen of IPCC Working Group I, Sir John Houghton and Dr. L.G. Meira Filho, in order to determine whether IPCC rules of procedure had been violated by the changes made to Chapter 8.
Scientists examine all items of evidence before drawing conclusions. They generally avoid making pronouncements outside their own areas of expertise. Seitz has failed on both counts, and his conclusions are incorrect. We urge readers of The Wall Street Journal to read the IPCC report ("Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change," Cambridge University Press, 1996). They will see for themselves that, as stated in and required by and stated in IPCC procedural rules, the detection chapter is a "comprehensive, objective and balanced" review of the science.
BENJAMIN D. SANTER
Convening Lead Author, Chapter 8
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Comment
-
Lord Monckton...Originally posted by sgreger1
From The Article:...
The author of this "research article" is Christopher Monckton, otherwise known as Viscount Monckton of Brenchley. He has a degree in classics and a diploma in journalism and, as far as I can tell, no further qualifications. But he is confident enough to maintain that - by contrast to all those charlatans and amateurs who wrote the reports produced by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - he is publishing "the truth".
...
This is a dazzling debunking of climate change science. It is also wildly wrong
Deniers are cock-a-hoop at an aristocrat's claims that global warming is a UN hoax. But the physics is bafflingly bad
link:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...cience.comment
I think Lord Monckton is the UK version of Oklahoma Senator James M. Inhofe.
Sorry I'd rather get my science from scientists, not politicians.Comment
Comment