Whistle blowing on Global Warming

[MORAY37]

Actually moray I dont think I even implied it ALL had to go back into the ocean just that the ocean was not higher. Personally I know of a few lakes that could use the water so lets melt it!  

Way to be myopic yourself and then thrust that on me!  

You're right.  The ocean was LOWER in the 1940's....

[Chalenge]

Im sure it will be LOWER again just as soon as we can get some more ice melted...

Im going to go vent my old Dodge of the freon tomorrow maybe that will do it. 

[MORAY37]

Im sure it will be LOWER again just as soon as we can get some more ice melted...

Im going to go vent my old Dodge of the freon tomorrow maybe that will do it. 

lol.  Someday I'll buy you a beer. 

[33Vortex]

It's foolish to think that we are not affecting the environment. However, it's also foolish to think it's about saving the planet. Like Carlin so elegantly put it; "The planet is fine. The people are buttered." And yes people are very self-important and we somehow have been led to believe by television shows and movies that we will some time in the future travel the stars. That's just bull, pure fantasy. We have too many issues with ourselves.

It's also foolish to believe in institutionally controlled research. Institutions who only serve their masters and not public interest. Science can be, and is being, manipulated. It doesn't take a genius to realize that our "laws of physics" as we describe them are not entirely correct.

So I guess what I'm saying is, don't put your faith in authority. No matter what type of authority it may be. It's the authorities that needs to be questioned it's only healthy to do so. Put your faith in the truth, whatever it may be, and keep searching for it.


One of my favorite quotes:

"They will find it difficult. Those who have taken authority as the truth, rather than truth as the authority."
- Gerald Massey, Egyptologist

[BiPoLaR]

we're all gonna die, who cares? Everything living must die. Its our fate 

[RTHolmes]

(Image removed from quote.)

(Image removed from quote.)

I'd say looking at data from 200 years when the mean global temperature cycle has a period of 100-150,000yrs would be a neat illustration and extreme example of myopia.

unfortunately this is all I see when MMGW proponents attempt to argue their case, the instant I see yet another graph with a couple of hundred years on the x axis is the instant that they lose all credibility for me because it betrays a fundamental lack of understanding of the system.

[Stoney]

I've been reading this thread now for a week.  Just a few observations:

1.  The most horrific attrocities of the present era were originally based in a scientific theory that was fad in the early 1900's--Eugenics.  It is, in my opinion, frightening to see the parallels between the progression of eugenics into Nazism, and the evolution of global warning "science".  Fascism is fascism, regardless of its orgin.  Silencing the voices that support or question the global warming theory is wrong, period.   
2.  How much of our statistical data can be honestly considered scientifically credible given that our planet is 4 billion years old, and most of our climate information has only been recorded over the past 50-100 years?
3.  I believe that necessity is the mother of invention, and that, when the Earth truly needs new energy sources, we will develop them.
4.  I believe that it is good and necessary that we explore alternative means to do everything in our lives.  Maximizing the most cost-effective use of our available resources is mandatory at all times, and not simply when crisis is real or perceived.

[Anaxogoras]

I'm really disappointed to see you compare anything in this thread to Nazism.  Isn't there a name for this in debate, where the moment you bring in a Nazi comparison you automatically forfeit?

Ah yes, here it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

"As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."

[Stoney]

I'm really disappointed...

I know its not the first time I've done it and it surely won't be the last...

Wasn't comparing anything or anyone in this thread to nazism--merely comparing the potential fascism that can arise from the global warming debate.  Do some reading on eugenics and tell me I'm wrong, especially when you read the lists of very smart and famous people that supported the theory as hard science back in the day...

[Angus]

We have global climate data spanning much more than 100 years. Much much more. The oldest living organ on the planet is actually about as old as civilizaton itself.
It is frequently said that the earth went through this and that and is just fine. Billions of years etc. But bear in mind that the delicate and favourable conditions that fostered homo sapiens from gritty survival into the space age take place in very short time.
You don't want a Dino-climate, in fact many of the earth's wilder days would wipe out almost all mankind in a whiff.
So, always step carefully in a minefield. It's been said it's probably mines around, but not how many and so on. Our climate is delicate and surprizingly stable. Want to jostle it a bit? Well, I'd rather not go discoing in a minefield.....

[rabbidrabbit]

(Image removed from quote.)

If I'm reading the chart right...  according to your data, sea levels have increased about 90mm or a bit over 3 inches in 50 years.  I have seen a program showing serious flooding claiming they are going to be wiped out in a few years with rising sea levels just as you seem to claim here.  Now, how noticeable is 3 inches in reality? 

[CAP1]

If I'm reading the chart right...  according to your data, sea levels have increased about 90mm or a bit over 3 inches in 50 years.  I have seen a program showing serious flooding claiming they are going to be wiped out in a few years with rising sea levels just as you seem to claim here.  Now, how noticeable is 3 inches in reality? 

dunno, but i don't see any differences in the beaches in nj.......cept that they're more crowded now......

[33Vortex]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOGAkRkCWfA

If you do some searches of new technology, such as 'water fuel', there are a lot of information to be found suggesting that it is indeed possible to run a car on ordinary water. Now, there are plenty of corporations, big corporations, who have a conflict of interest with anyone who would try to market the idea. There was one inventor who got the technology patented (I believe it's the man in the video above) and a contract with the US DoD. The day after the contract was signed he died of food poisoning. The patent... well it's now in all probability owned by one of the oil corporations or perhaps a bank. Doesn't matter who own it, whoever does don't want it to be used.

Here is another example of tech oppression: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_U2Q_ZuLk8

The bottom line is that, just because you don't comprehend the theories and practical workings of a technology doesn't mean it can't be done. Also, just because a scientific institution says it can't be done doesnt mean it can't be done.

[DREDger]

Of the East Anglia Scientists:

"They Controlled the peer-review process, keeping opposing views unpublished, then cited 'peer-review' as evidence of their 'concensus'.  Wall Street Journal

[RTHolmes]

If you do some searches of new technology, such as 'water fuel', there are a lot of information to be found suggesting that it is indeed possible to run a car on ordinary water.

oh cmon ...