The Great Global Warming Swindle

[rickoff]

I wouldn't trust Gore as far as i could throw him, but that goes for Lord "Whats-him-name" and many others involved in this as well.

Although I do find Lord Monckton personable and intelligent, and while he does cite relevant and reliable data to support his arguments, I too tend to distrust anyone who dons the name Lord this, Lady that, Excellency, etc. And you are right - the masters of the game will win no matter how the game is played out, no matter what we side with. They already have advantageous (for them) scenarios to play out based upon every possible outcome. We have no way of knowing which outcome they may actually prefer, but in the end it makes little difference to them. Either way it is about energy, and their domination over it. So you are right - we really need to get busy on independent energy solutions.

Rick

[Shamus]

Playing both sides against the middle

@Aaron: OK, I get it now. And even if I disagree with jibb on this subject I still like the guy and think we probably agree on more things than we disagree.

@jibbguy: I agree that both sides are being played against the middle--why on earth would I trust an English Lord any more than I would a member of the Council on Foreign Relations like Al Gore? As to "effects"... You have to admit that there is no consensus on the issue, that things like glaciers and permafrost are being cherry-picked (as Joit pointed out) on both sides? That it's just plain silly to go around yelling that 'we've got to do something about this' when there is no agreement about exactly what 'this' is?

Again, I stand by my research into the Club of Rome and The First Global Revolution that they wrote. They flatly stated that what the world needed was a new common enemy to unite mankind and that anthropogenic global warming would 'fit the bill'. And what are we seeing today but a ham-fisted version of this being played out in the mainstream media (and I count mainstream science journals among them)? First it was "global warming" before it became "climate change" (and those are undeniably weasel words: give me a break--the climate is always changing!). And before that, in the 1970s mainstream articles were solemnly warning about how we were headed into another ice age.

So where is the evidence that drastic measures are needed to prevent, uh, er, whatever it is we're supposed to prevent? Yes, Big Oil and pollution are bad and doing bad things to the planet. That much is obvious. Personally I think that even Big Oil is being used and that soon you'll start hearing less about "climate change" and more about "peak oil" (more nonsense) which has even more potential than AGW for mischief (no oil means ~80% of the world gets to starve; fun eh?). But that's just my gut, I have no proof and it's just pure speculation.

You are right about whomever is pulling the strings behind the scenes (be it NWO or whatever) being masters of "psych control", as you put it. If there is to be any great awakening and ousting of them from the seats of power people have got to start smashing their televisions.

And since this has started to stray off topic, out of respect for Peter, I'll stop right here.

[ashtweth]

YouTube - Global Warming - the terrifying reality

[rickoff]

Great little video, Ash. I enjoyed that.

[Joit]

The whole Story from T. Balden, online translated -
"Tim comes into the club tommorow..."
probatly with some spelling Errors.

[Peter Lindemann]

Climate Change Authority Admits Mistake

Hi Folks,

Here is a new article from the Technology Review.

Technology Review: Climate Change Authority Admits Mistake

Enjoy,
Peter

[Joit]

There is fearmongering at the whole Argument of,
when Glaciers are gone, there will be thousands of Peoples without Water.

I do life close to Mountains, but there is allways Water,
even when there are not big Glaciers on them, some forgotten one are in some Corners.
But the whole Area has enough Reservoir to store the Rainwater.

And even, when it rains on the Mountain, it takes ten thousand Years and more,
till the Water comes out from a spring, that is the Time,
what it needs to run through all the Earth.
The whole Point from IPCC on that is untenable.

[Aaron]

Glacier water not end all be all of drinking water

Even if there are zero glaciers on the planet, there is still "Primary Water"
that is created inside the earth, fills aquifers, responsible for rising
ocean levels, etc...

Volume of water equal to Atlantic Ocean under China...
Huge 'Ocean' Discovered Inside Earth | LiveScience
Maybe Shambalaya is real

Check out:

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/3364-earth-generated-water.html

Stephen Riess

Anyway, there is no lack of clean water if they just put effort into
looking in the right places.

[ashtweth]

Ron's News and Musings: Global Warming: Leave CO2 Alone!

[ashtweth]

So you are right - we really need to get busy on independent energy solutions.Rick

HERE HERE, there is no other HACK than that my friend, and i am here till then end

Environments and ecology would be renewed,
Economies would be revived,
Poverty and famine could be eliminated,
Power struggles over depleting resources would cease.

Then i may even be able to have time to get to Rick's and jib's and help get that dam mag motor working

[lamare]

Nature on "The real holes in climate science":
The real holes in climate science : Nature News

there are some major gaps in the understanding of climate science. In its most recent report in 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) highlighted 54 'key uncertainties' that complicate climate science.

Yes, that's FIFTY-FOUR!



The essence ( in Dutch):

Such holes do not undermine the fundamental conclusion that humans are warming climate, which is based on 20th century temperature changes and the inability of climate models to simulate such warming without including the role of greenhouse gas pollution.

According to this Dutch article, this is the only reason there is that CO2 is to blame for the rising temperature, and therefore also the only reason to have any confidence in their models.



--

Another interesting document: http://www.cred.columbia.edu/guide/p...e_full-res.pdf

"The Psychology of Climate Change Communication" -- AKA "brainwashing for dummies"

[nilrehob]

Tennessee Burger King Defends Its "Global Warming Is Baloney" Sign



/Hob

[Joit]

News from Today at the Press

Hacker did break again into a Server and stole Emission trade rights from a German Server in Potsdam.
With a Hackerattack into the official Register for Emission trade are obvious Pullution rights stolen in worth from Billions.

They did send first a Email with a Header from Potsdam DEHSt with a Warning,
about a upcoming Hackerattack, and the Clients should register new,
then they transfered the Rights to Accounts in Danmark and UK,
and then, this 'Criminals' did sell the rights further to other companys.

(!Remember, where COP and IPCC is/was? )


The Rights trade from the Broker and the Energy stock is not afffected from this.
But the Offices in Belgium, Danemark, Spain, Hungary, Italy, Greek, Romania and Bulgary stay closed during the Week.
But affected are Merchants, Industrial Companies and Power Companies



So, does anyone think it is over and 'just forget about it'?
Because, what the Stock market once have in his Hands, or would Claws match better,
is like ask a Snake, to open her Mouth, when shes eating
or take the Bone away from a Dog.

Whole Europe is involved into the Pollution trade, and it does not seems like
they leave it just with few kind Words.

[lamare]

NASA satellite could pave way for policing CO2 emissions

NASA satellite could pave way for policing CO2 emissions - space - 02 February 2010 - New Scientist

NASA will launch a replacement for the Orbiting Carbon Observatory, a $278 million satellite that was lost during launch last year, the White House announced on Monday. The replacement, which should be able to measure man-made carbon dioxide emissions from cities and power plants, could pave the way for space probes designed to enforce future climate treaties.

The Orbiting Carbon Observatory was lost in February 2009 when a protective fairing atop the probe's Taurus XL rocket failed to separate during launch, and the satellite fell into the Pacific Ocean.

The loss was seen as a setback by climate scientists, who hoped the probe's unprecedented spatial resolution and sensitivity would help reveal how the Earth absorbs and emits carbon dioxide. Less than half of the carbon released since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution has ended up in the atmosphere, but the carbon "sinks" that have absorbed the remainder are not well understood.

The satellite would have had the added bonus of testing whether space probes could be used to measure carbon dioxide emissions from cities and power plants, the US National Research Council said in a letter report to NASA administrator Charles Bolden last year.

Now, the White House has given the green light for a carbon copy to be flown, providing $170 million towards the effort in its proposed 2011 budget (pdf). "The good news in this budget is the president has decided that this is an important mission for both science and understanding our climate," NASA science chief Edward Weiler said in a briefing with reporters on Tuesday. The replacement, called OCO-2, could fly as early as February 2013.

[Peter Lindemann]

Climate Skepticism on the Rise

Hi Folks,

Here is the latest BBC Poll on Climate Change, as public opinion shifts in the wake of the Climate-Gate disclosures.

BBC News - Climate scepticism 'on the rise', BBC poll shows

Peter