5083454e-3f3e-41f3-bd29-7d7fcb9f89d7.jpg
edmundsnews.JPG
Edmund, your blogging alone is causing too much global warming.
images2.jpg
5083454e-3f3e-41f3-bd29-7d7fcb9f89d7.jpg
edmundsnews.JPG
Edmund, your blogging alone is causing too much global warming.
images2.jpg
Last edited by ribshaw; 06-06-2013 at 11:33 AM. Reason: Removed potty mouth comment from photo.
"It's virtually impossible to violate rules ... but it's impossible for a violation to go undetected, certainly not for a considerable period of time." Bernie Madoff
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Scam-...98399986981403
parliament.uk/business/news/2011/july/letter-to-viscount-monckton;A letter to Viscount Monckton of Brenchley from the Clerk of the Parliaments
18 July 2011
Letter to Viscount Monckton of Brenchley from David Beamish, the Clerk of the Parliaments.
Dear Lord Monckton
My predecessor, Sir Michael Pownall, wrote to you on 21 July 2010, and again on 30 July 2010, asking that you cease claiming to be a Member of the House of Lords, either directly or by implication. It has been drawn to my attention that you continue to make such claims.
In particular, I have listened to your recent interview with Mr Adam Spencer on Australian radio. In response to the direct question, whether or not you were a Member of the House of Lords, you said "Yes, but without the right to sit or vote". You later repeated, "I am a Member of the House".
I must repeat my predecessor's statement that you are not and have never been a Member of the House of Lords. Your assertion that you are a Member, but without the right to sit or vote, is a contradiction in terms. No-one denies that you are, by virtue of your letters Patent, a Peer. That is an entirely separate issue to membership of the House. This is borne out by the recent judgment in Baron Mereworth v Ministry of Justice (Crown Office) where Mr Justice Lewison stated:
"In my judgment, the reference [in the House of Lords Act 1999] to 'a member of the House of Lords' is simply a reference to the right to sit and vote in that House ... In a nutshell, membership of the House of Lords means the right to sit and vote in that House. It does not mean entitlement to the dignity of a peerage."
I must therefore again ask that you desist from claiming to be a Member of the House of Lords, either directly or by implication, and also that you desist from claiming to be a Member "without the right to sit or vote".
I am publishing this letter on the parliamentary website so that anybody who wishes to check whether you are a Member of the House of Lords can view this official confirmation that you are not.
David Beamish
Clerk of the Parliaments
15 July 2011
Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science. -C. Darwin
Monkton runs from a written debate with Portholer54 THAT monkton started himself.
http://youtu.be/yeTGBwr_6rU
Monkton Bumkim part 1 of 6
http://youtu.be/lpMZ4EpCseM
There is only so often someone can lie.
Spoken like the true Marxist liberal retard that you are!!!
Here the world sits with skyrocketing energy and fuel prices driven by the mass fraud of man made global warming, and all you do is Mach people who defend their existence with the facts, while the Man Made Global Warming lying propognadists (Like yourself) invent one lie after another to justify the mass genocide of billions of people and their lives.
The source of my information comes directly from the climatologists that are actually doing the research into climate change. Which make up about 97% of all climatologists. The exact same climatologists that are not only silenced by Man Made Global Warming propagandists, but have also had attempts on their lives made to keep them silent.
Electricity is the instant exchange of a significant number electrons between a significant number of atoms in the same direction at the exact same instant of time. And this can get accomplished many different ways. Through chemistry like in Batteries, or by smacking a conductor with a magnetic field like what is done in electric Generators. However when you smack a conductor with a magnetic field not only will their be a voltage and current generated, but based on the amount of current flowing into the load, a counter magnetic field is created that opposes the original magnetic field that produced the voltage and current in the first place.
So electricity is another way of converting other sources of energy from motion, light, heat, etc, ... into a form of work that can be transported to another location to produce a different kind off work.
...
You are dead wrong again, listen to the these climatologist talk about the Medieval warm period, it was not only confirmed in the Greenland ice sheet, but also in the Antartic Ice sheet as well, clearly proving that the medieval warm period was indeed global, because it also shows up in all the tree ring data. Only the corrupted research of one single Marxist committed lying Michael Mann's hocky stick graph even suggests there was no medieval warm period, but even in his graph the margin for error shows a 500 year long medieval warm period that was 1.5 degrees warmer than today.
The Antarctic Ice core data taken from different locations in Antarctica clearly shows a 7000 year long Holocene maximum and another warm period that was 10's of degrees warmer than the Holocene maximum that lasted for 36,000 years; that ended about 98,000 years ago.
Al%20Gores%20Inconvenient%20Graph%20Challenged.JPG
"It's virtually impossible to violate rules ... but it's impossible for a violation to go undetected, certainly not for a considerable period of time." Bernie Madoff
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Scam-...98399986981403
Here is the proof of the scientists that Man Made Global Warming propagandists say don't exist, who have had attempts on their lives to keep them silent. These are the scientists that refuse to become silent, while many many more are being silent because of the threats on their lives by the Marxist style terrorists that make up the crowd know as Man Made Global Warming Alarmists:
Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections
Scientists in this section have made comments that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century. They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.
Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society [10]
Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences[11]
Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003), and author of books supporting the validity of dowsing[12]
Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow ANU[13]
Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London[14]
Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute [15]
Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes
Graph showing the ability with which a global climate model is able to reconstruct the historical temperature record, and the degree to which those temperature changes can be decomposed into various forcing factors. It shows the effects of five forcing factors: greenhouse gases, man-made sulfate emissions, solar variability, ozone changes, and volcanic emissions.[16]
Scientists in this section have made comments that the observed warming is more likely attributable to natural causes than to human activities. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.
Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences[17]
Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[18][19]
Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[20]
Chris de Freitas, associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland[21]
David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester[22]
Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University[23]
William M. Gray, professor emeritus and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University[24]
William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy, Princeton University[25]
William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology[26]
David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware[27]
Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[28]
Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.[29][30]
Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of Mining Geology, the University of Adelaide.[31]
Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University[32][33]
Tom Segalstad, head of the Geology Museum at the University of Oslo[34]
Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia[35][36][37]
Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[38]
Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville[39]
Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center[40]
Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa[41]
Scientists arguing that the cause of global warming is unknown
Scientists in this section have made comments that no principal cause can be ascribed to the observed rising temperatures, whether man-made or natural. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.
Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and founding director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks[42]
Claude Allègre, politician; geochemist, Institute of Geophysics (Paris)[43]
Robert C. Balling, Jr., a professor of geography at Arizona State University[44]
John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC[45][46]
Petr Chylek, space and remote sensing sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory[47]
Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology[48]
David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma[49]
Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists[50]
Scientists arguing that global warming will have few negative consequences
Scientists in this section have made comments that projected rising temperatures will be of little impact or a net positive for human society and/or the Earth's environment. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.
Craig D. Idso, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University and founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change [51]
Sherwood Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University[52]
Patrick Michaels, senior fellow at the Cato Institute and retired research professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia[53]
...
Repetând aceeași minciună de peste si peste din nou, nu-l face un fapt.
"It's virtually impossible to violate rules ... but it's impossible for a violation to go undetected, certainly not for a considerable period of time." Bernie Madoff
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Scam-...98399986981403
dictionary.com/mach;Did you perhaps mean:mach ;[mahk]
noun
a number indicating the ratio of the speed of an object to the speed of sound in the medium through which the object is moving.
dictionary.com/mock;mock ;[mok]
verb (used with object)
1.
to attack or treat with ridicule, contempt, or derision.
2.
to ridicule by mimicry of action or speech; mimic derisively.
3.
to mimic, imitate, or counterfeit.
4.
to challenge; defy: His actions mock convention.
5.
to deceive, delude, or disappoint.
verb (used without object)
6.
to use ridicule or derision; scoff; jeer (often followed by at ).
Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science. -C. Darwin
Actually ED I don't believe anyone said that these people do not exist.Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections
Scientists in this section have made comments that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century. They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.
Freeman Dyson, [COLOR="#0000FF"]professor emeritus[/COemeritusLOR] of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society [10]
Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences[11]
Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003), and author of books supporting the validity of dowsing[12]
Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow ANU[13]
Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London[14]
Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute [15]
Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes
Graph showing the ability with which a global climate model is able to reconstruct the historical temperature record, and the degree to which those temperature changes can be decomposed into various forcing factors. It shows the effects of five forcing factors: greenhouse gases, man-made sulfate emissions, solar variability, ozone changes, and volcanic emissions.[16]
Scientists in this section have made comments that the observed warming is more likely attributable to natural causes than to human activities. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.
Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences[17]
Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[18][19]
Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[20]
Chris de Freitas, associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland[21]
David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester[22]
Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University[23]
William M. Gray, professor emeritus and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University[24]
William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy, Princeton University[25]
William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology[26]
David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware[27]
Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[28]
Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.[29][30]
Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of Mining Geology, the University of Adelaide.[31]
Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University[32][33]
Tom Segalstad, head of the Geology Museum at the University of Oslo[34]
Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia[35][36][37]
Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[38]
Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville[39]
Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center[40]
Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa[41]
Scientists arguing that the cause of global warming is unknown
Scientists in this section have made comments that no principal cause can be ascribed to the observed rising temperatures, whether man-made or natural. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.
Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and founding director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks[42]
Claude Allègre, politician; geochemist, Institute of Geophysics (Paris)[43]
Robert C. Balling, Jr., a professor of geography at Arizona State University[44]
John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC[45][46]
Petr Chylek, space and remote sensing sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory[47]
Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology[48]
David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma[49]
Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists[50]
Scientists arguing that global warming will have few negative consequences
Scientists in this section have made comments that projected rising temperatures will be of little impact or a net positive for human society and/or the Earth's environment. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.
Craig D. Idso, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University and founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change [51]
Sherwood Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University[52]
Patrick Michaels, senior fellow at the Cato Institute and retired research professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia[53]
...
Interestedly NONE of them said that Co2 wasn't a green house gas.
I also a very large list of RETIRED (emeritus = retired), Politicians, and astrophysicists. and one that studies science of dousing. Pretty short on climatologists. Even retired ones.
Now do you want to see my list.... AGAIN?
Scientific Organizations That Hold the Position That Climate Change Has Been Caused by Human Action)
Academia Chilena de Ciencias, Chile
Academia das Ciencias de Lisboa, Portugal
Academia de Ciencias de la República Dominicana
Academia de Ciencias Físicas, Matemáticas y Naturales de Venezuela
Academia de Ciencias Medicas, Fisicas y Naturales de Guatemala
Academia Mexicana de Ciencias,Mexico
Academia Nacional de Ciencias de Bolivia
Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru
Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
Académie des Sciences, France
Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada
Academy of Athens
Academy of Science of Mozambique
Academy of Science of South Africa
Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS)
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
and 180+ more. and these are country wide organizations of actual practicing scientists.
Hi All. I was invited over to this site from Yahoo where I was in a debate with "Kevin" about AGW. I use AGW because that is the real issue here. Global warming, cooling or climate change is not the issue. The issue is AGW and to waht extent man is contributing to any changes. My primary focus is on the computer models used by the IPCC to arrive at their catastrophic warming over the next 100 years.
This is a very complex argument that has many parts to it. If it was just limited to a scientific curiosity, i.e. if there is a multiverse, then we could stop early on. But the debate goes much further as its supporters (whom I sometimes refer to as priests) what to force fiscal policy to be involved. And that part of the debate covers areas such as global advantages and disadvantages, costs, benefits and alternative uses for scarce resources.
Now I'm pretty sure I'll get hammered from many people. While the argument can get very heated, I I don't shy away from the heat, I do try to stick with real science and facts. But be forwarned that what you may THINK is science is most likely not real science. Dogma is not science. Polling is not science. And just because someone is in academia doesn't make them right. I can and will bring up historical people that upset the apple cart and were later proved to be right.
Mongo, rather than looking for new folks to debate, how about an analysis of the information as it has already been presented. Personally I fall on the side of the less crap we put into the air, water and land the better. I also recognize there is a cost benefit analysis that must be done.
Personally I don't think the socialization of the losses from things like pollution, excess healthcare costs from things like Black Lung and Ashma, oil spills or Superfund sites should be in any way covered by the taxpayer as they are now. Nor do I believe our government should be occupying 100 + countries with our military, in some places for the sole purpose protecting big oil. If they need military protection they should pay for it directly. And finally, flood insurance should not be socialized as it is now. The insurance companies have chosen to abandon the risk, the taxpayer should not be forced to step in.
If the above came to pass, I think you would see a dramatic shift in people's belief structures as the people who consume energy would be paying close to the free market price. At the same time, I am not a scientist so maybe type slowly.
"It's virtually impossible to violate rules ... but it's impossible for a violation to go undetected, certainly not for a considerable period of time." Bernie Madoff
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Scam-...98399986981403
I'm a very strong believer in clean water and air. But CO2 is not a pollutant to me. I think resources spent to fight malaria, obtain clean drinking water, cleaning up real air polution, immunizations would yield much more for the dollars spent. But that doesn't mean tax confiscation either.
I'm still reading up on the other posts and will probably comment on some of them.
As for insurance the idea behind it is spreading the risk and cost. In it's truest form all payers share the same chance at loss but the loss hits randomly. So all the individuals get together and basically pay for a future damage. It is not a free lunch nor was it ever meant to be.
Military throughout history has always been there to make sure their country/regime had the resources to continue or grow. This is human nature. So as long as a countries interest is involved their military will be part of the equation. To think otherwise is naive.
Hi Mongo. I'm known as Spector567 here.
I'll think you find that some of the topics we discussed in our thread can be already found here. A poster named ED already made some of the claims but in a less elegant fashion. Including the cosmic ray theory and a few others. Please forgive my tone with him. As I said he people who respond unkind receive unkind responses.
For now I'll leave you with the article I promised you about economists and global warming.
Economists Concur on Threat of Warming - NYTimes.com
http://policyintegrity.org/files/med..._TWO_PAGER.pdf
Well that is the whole debate so you can do an analysis of the pro and con of what has been posted. As for "tax confiscation" that is just silly AM radio talk. It is taxes, we all pay them and some of us more than others.
The insurance companies have walked away from the risk, but not the profits and the taxpayer is subsidizing the full cost of flood insurance. Again, the free market principle is for the people who chose to live in areas that are at high risk for flooding, to pay the full fare. Not the taxpayer, weren't you just saying something about "tax confiscation"?
Throughout history countries that expanded their military and occupied more and more countries eventually collapsed. To think otherwise is naive. And talk about "tax confiscation" the Pentagon is the biggest tax rat hole we have. Trillions in unaccounted for waste. But again, you sidestepped the issue of allowing free market forces to work. If big oil needs protection, then they need to pay for it directly.
I had so much hope in reading your first post Mongo that you could do a full cost benefit analysis, but it seems that you don't understand the costs and are just going to use buzzwords like "tax confiscation" and "priests" without having anything new to add.
"It's virtually impossible to violate rules ... but it's impossible for a violation to go undetected, certainly not for a considerable period of time." Bernie Madoff
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Scam-...98399986981403
All countries have collapsed or lost their power throughout history. Those that had a strong military survived for a longer timeperiod then those that didn't. Rome eventually collasped but it lasted longer then the dozen or more cultures that it defeated.
Give me time I just got here. I'm still trying to get caught up. But so what if we all pay taxes. That doesn't refute that they aren't confiscation. You call it a buzzword but in reality it defines it more accurately.
Priests was used because if anyone believes in something based on faith then it is clsoer to a religion and their 'leaders' are priests. If offended I could have used monks, imans, rabbi's or any other word. But it does describe exactly theri function.
First off some basic ground rules and observations.
1) Climate has changed, will change and is changing.
2) Man as part of the Earth does have an impact.
3) Nature (defined to mean other sources outside direct control of humans I.E. space, volcanoes, oceans etc) also have an impact on climate.
So the question is HOW MUCH impact does man have. IPCC thinks it is over 90%. People like me think it is much much lower and no more then 1-5% per others. Bit since I was asked to comment on previous posts here goes.
Based on page one I noticed a common trend. Ed lays out some basic issues that those who do not believe haven't actually answered as of yet on page 1. There is misdirection and an entire straw man argument about insurance companies views of it. So Ed makes these basic points.
And here is how it is addressed:
This follows some standard tactics of:
1) Attack the messenger.
2) Clain it isn't real because it was cut and pasted.
3) Without identifying source assume it comes from a discredited one with no proof.
4) Claim whoever did the research had an ulterior motive to do so.
5) Go way off base and cist things like sewage and pee.
6) Try to make assumptions and link itmes that were never linked (CO2 is same as sewage).
7) Claim a poll is sceince or that since more people say A therefore A is correct when in fact A was never even defined.
8) Use the ultimate redirection by claiming your opponent doesn't follow science and then base your response not on science but finance.
Because the next section might already have been addressed I'll only make general comments.
1) It is interesting that you admit very little is actually known yet you want to insist action be taken when there is so much uncertainty.
2) AGW proponents constanly cite temps from 1850. Now isn't it grand that 1850 just happened to be the end of the Little Ice Age. Of course temps will have increased since then. No one would expect anything else. What is more important is the 20-30 year breakdowns during this time period.
3) Once again the end of the post is an attack on anyone that disagrees.
I'm now off to page 2 and 3.
Before you go to far off base with these 2 there is some back ground you are missing. Ed is currently spamming more than just this forum. He has being doing this for the past 4 years.
http://www.scam.com/showthread.php?t=189077
The threads were over 2000 posts long and filled with the same cut and past stuff and claims (the have been reset when the forum changed ownership). Each of these claims were individually debunked. Ed had no response. He would disappear for a week than return with 4 more posts, and and a new list of stuff. The process would repeat. Within a couple of months he was repeating claims twice. and eventually 20+ times. (we counted)
He does not provide any sources for his information. No links to information just screen shots from his favorite movie. the source he does claim do not say what he says they do. I don't mean that they sightly differ. I mean he claimed something was a NASA graph and latter admitted it was a doctored graph that he made up.
This coupled with his weird theories on Asbestos, computer monitors and paranoid rantings over an internet widget in someones signature.
You can check out his other threads to see the quality of the information.
So yes Ed does agree with you. But his reasoning. Attitude, private message threats he's made to me and others over the past 4+ years. Are the reason he is mocked and attacked, and dismissed. Not his willingness to question climate change.
If you can make honest arguments than people will treat you honestly. Ed has not done this over the past 4 years hence peoples mocking tone and comments.
Hiya Mongo and welcome to REALSCAM.com
Maybe it's just me, but in my experience, rational discourse is hardly likely when faced with this sort of Edmund "logic"
As for myself, I can't be bothered to search for evidence of "the mass genocide of billions of people" and tend to therefore leave Edmund to his rantings.Spoken like the true Marxist liberal retard that you are!!!
Here the world sits with skyrocketing energy and fuel prices driven by the mass fraud of man made global warming, and all you do is Mach people who defend their existence with the facts, while the Man Made Global Warming lying propognadists (Like yourself) invent one lie after another to justify the mass genocide of billions of people and their lives.
The source of my information comes directly from the climatologists that are actually doing the research into climate change. Which make up about 97% of all climatologists. The exact same climatologists that are not only silenced by Man Made Global Warming propagandists, but have also had attempts on their lives made to keep them silent.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing
Do you still believe that there is no attempt to use man made global warming as an excuse to justify the eradication of 7 billion people? In Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth propaganda film he blames the over population of humans as one of the contributing causes of climate change. Completely ignoring the fact that for every human there are 22 billion ants and 2.5 times the human biomass in krill living in the worlds oceans. Nature produces 99.75% of all the world's CO2, and humans overpopulation is being blamed for the irrational claims and irrational junk science behind man made global warming.
Here is a Video produced in England by environmentalists to promote the mass genocide of Climate Change Deniers (skeptics).
Articles: Professor Calls for Death Penalty for Climate Change 'Deniers'
December 31, 2012
Professor Calls for Death Penalty for Climate Change 'Deniers'
By Timothy Birdnow
It is as inevitable as the rising of the sun; the Left, when thwarted in their quest for power, suggests the use of lethal force to compel those who disagree.
There is a nauseating litany of murders done by our betters in their pursuit of the Benthamite vision of "the greatest good for the most people" -- which in their minds equates to collectivization and socialism. You have Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Margaret Sanger, Mao Tse Tung, Pol Pot. Now we can add one more name to the list: Professor Richard Parncutt, Musicologist at Graz University in Austria.
Parncutt has issued -- and later retracted after it the public outcry -- a manifesto calling for the execution of prominent "Climate Change Deniers". What is interesting is that Parncutt hates the death penalty and supports Amnesty International's efforts to end it.
This would be a shocking thing for a college professor to do were it an isolated incident, but this call has been made a number of times in the past. For instance, an anonymous poster at the liberal website Talking Points Memo called for similar action, as did Climate Progress editor Joe Romm, who called for "deniers" to be strangled in their beds. Grist magazine writer David Roberts called for Nuremberg trials for "deniers" and NASA's James Hansen has likewise called for similar trials.
The violent rhetoric has been ongoing -- and disturbing. Liberals in the United States have repeatedly tried to blame mass shootings on talk radio for inflaming the public, yet they are strangely silent about actual calls to violence on the part of environmentalists.
Parncutt's argument is predicated on the notion that we know for a fact that human industrial emissions are causing Global Warming, err, Climate Change, err, Climate Disruption, err, whatever they are calling it today, and that this will lead to millions of deaths, so the public good would be served by murdering those who exercise their free speech and oppose the fundamental reorganization of the international order. (He also calls for the murder of the Pope for the Catholic Church's stand on contraception.) He claims that scientists have no interest in promoting AGW (ignoring the Climategate e-mails and the fact that money flows from governments into research in direct proportion to the apocalyptic nature of said research) and that they would get caught if they fudged data (ignoring Michael Mann who was caught on a number of occasions and still indulges in government funded scientific malpractice). He claims that millions will die from climate change, ignoring the possibility that a warmer, wetter world may actually increase agricultural output and make a better world. He ignores the fact that draconian "sustainable" environmental laws will drastically increase the price of everything, which will guarantee the deaths of millions of people in Third World countries.
Perhaps Dr. Parncutt should volunteer for the first of these executions.
What is ignored here is that it is the radical environmentalists who engage in murder and mayhem. It was Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber, who killed innocent people in his war against industrial civilization. We've had Daniel Andreas San Diego. We've had Chaim Nissim, Tre Arrow, Daniel McGowan, James Lee, Jeff Luers, Eric McDavid, Marie Mason and John Wade We've had organizations like the Earth Liberation Front. We have the proponents of Deep Ecology.
In the past we had the Nazis, as Mark Musser has so eloquently illustrated here at American Thinker. Today we have the return of Nazi thinking through Climate Reductionism.
And the first instinct of those on the Progressive Left is to murder their enemies. Parncutt is showing what is in his heart. Granted, he did apologize (no doubt to keep his position) but do we have any reason to fear him or his compatriots less? Especially now; they are in great anger because they know their time is short; Global Warming theory just didn't pan out the way they planned.
Progressives have absolute faith in their intellectual powers, and will not allow facts to stand in their way. Scientism is the modern secular religion, and as Trevor Thomas points out in his article, scientism is not science, but rather a belief system bejeweled with scientific adornments. That there has been no global warming for over fifteen years (contrary to theory) is immaterial. That we see no acceleration of sea level rise, that Antarctica is not melting (see here and here ), that there is no tropical troposphere hot spot, and no major warming in the oceans, the theory is largely falsified. But there is far too much money in it, and too much power and prestige to let it go, so scientists continue to ignore the facts, as do the entire Progressive Left. It has become an article of faith, not a matter for reason. And it is a most useful article of faith, as it justifies world government and Progressive intervention in every aspect of life.
So now the call for executions of "deniers" is becoming more public, and this will only metastasize as the situation grows more desperate for the Gang Green. They are reverting to type.
Read more: Articles: Professor Calls for Death Penalty for Climate Change 'Deniers'
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
More than the past 4 years, Spector. I saw vomit spew from him in 2000, looking back over USENET records.
If you are in Prosper With Integrity, and do not like that your personal information has been published here, please talk to these good people: http://www.attorneygeneral.gov http://www.ic3.gov http://www.fbi.gov
I have successfully rebutted all of your scientifically illiterate claims on every blog that you bring your crayons to.
But you are too much of a scientific illiterate retard to understand anything I have published using the actual observable facts. You can't read graphs, you can't understand the spectral absorption bands of electromagnetic resonance, you don't understand the concept of what a greenhouse gas is, you don't understand agriculture, you don't understand the importance of fossil fuels for modern life.
1) You keep using cooked up computer models. Computer models that can't even simulate water vapor, precipitation, snow, rain, fog, solar cycles, solar storms, etc., ... Your computer models are as worthless as a screen door on a submarine.
2) you keep producing cooked up graphs that show lower solar activity in the 1990's when all solar observations show the exact opposite. The 15 largest sunspots, The 15 hottest temperatures, the 15 largest solar flares all occurred in the 1990's.
3) You keep claiming there are polar bears drowning in the artic circle, but to date no one has ever produced a picture of a drowning polar bear. More proof that man made global warming is built on a foundation of lies.
4) All of the proxy measured data clearly shows temperature levels rising centuries and in some cases thousands of years before CO2 levels rise. Clearly proving that co2 has never effected climate, but instead it is temperature that drives Co2 levels. Every single book on climatology says this glaring fact, there isn't one shred of evidence anywhere that even suggests that co2 effects temperature in any way.
5) You think that greenhouse gases cause greater temperature fluctuations than no greenhouse gases, but yet you can't explain why the moon has a 500 degree swing between day time temperatures and night time temperatures because there are no greenhouse gases on the moon. But on the Earth there are greenhouse gases and there are only a few degrees difference between day time temperatures and night time temperatures because of greenhouse gases.
6) You keep claiming that greenhouse gases will cause more violent hurricanes and tornadoes, however every climatologist and every meteorologist knows that fact that is greater temperature differences that cause these storms to be more violent, all while it is well known amongst all scientists not smoking weed that greenhouse gases resist temperature changes and temperature swings.
...
Last edited by Edmund129; 06-08-2013 at 12:28 AM.
Ok then instead of trying to rehash what Ed posted let me do this in a logical step by step process. But before we get to the big parts we need to see if there is any agreement on the start. I would like for those that support and believe in AGW to answer two questions.
1) Over the next 100 years or by the year 2100 (take your pick) how much ADDITIONAL warming will there be from 2013 till then.
2) Of the amount in #1 what percentage will be due to AGW (man caused and therefore controlable?
These are two very important baseline questions. I think we will all agree that if for example there was only going to be .1 degree C in additional warming then we would all yawn and say so what. And the second question is important because if man didn't contribute it or can't control it then the who debate is also moot. Now I could have easily answered these questions by going to the last IPCC assessment but I want to see if those I disagree with reven agree with themselves. So kindly bear with me and let me know what answers you believe in.
BTW doing this is also necessary for Ribshaw because it starts to define the actual costs and potential controallable damage values in any cost benefit analysis.
Actually I do have to respond to this one. You make a common error that almost all the AGW proponents make. First off the statement that it took 700 years to HAPPEN is misleading. It LASTED (or it's DURATION) for 700 years is the scientifically correct answer. A bull market in the stock market happens at a POINT in time. It lasts for a DURATION. Same thing here. Now what can be argured is the acceleration or slope of a trend line. But your comment is scientifically inaccurate.
All trend lines have a starting point, a duration, a slope and finally an end point.
Bookmarks