View Poll Results: Which statement do you agree with
Global warming is caused by humans
27
19.01%
Global warming is a natural process, contribution of human activity is substantial
44
30.99%
Global warming is a natural process, contribution of human activity is negligible
65
45.77%
Global warming seems unlikely
6
4.23%
Voters: 142. You may not vote on this poll
Global warming
Dec 3rd 2009 | 1:32 pm
#226
Not allowed opinions.
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 4,565
From: Sydney
Re: Global warming
Cape Blue, Can I critique your a-e?
(a).
CO2 is a greenhouse gas, we emit lots of it from fossil fuels, - Not true. “lots†is an unscientific and emotive term. Actually fossil fuels account for less than 4% of CO2.
Global temperatures have gone up (thermometer measured) – Not true. No thermometer measured temperature increase has ever been noted when appropriately adjusted for conditions. Incidentally, ice cores taken from the Antarctic Vostok station in 1987 show we are 3 degrees warmer than 18,000 years ago.
(b).
Trust the process - its the UN/IPCC and its pretty open, - Not true. Sorry, I cannot accept your “open†comment about the UN, which has a record of political agendas and bias. (I can provide examples)
If governments (and their scientists) thought there was a chance of avoiding the unpleasant measures they need to take (taxes etc) then they would jump at it. – Not true. Governments survive by taxation, and leap at any opportunity to impose new ones. (I can provide examples).
(c).
It is doubtful that scientists have, over the 30-odd years they have been studying CC, forgotten to check if the sun got warmer or relied solely on only 12 trees for the entire theory. These are trained scientists, many thousands of them, if some made errors, the peer-review system has plenty of their colleagues and competitors ready to pounce and the errors are corrected. – Not true. Read my post on Satellite drift and Balloon shielding as a classic example. Scientists are humans. They have personal agendas, reputations and careers to protect. I can give you a list of scientific frauds if you want.
(d).
Look at the motives of the actors involved - Communist One World Government, a reason to tax us, back to living in the middle ages - really? Or a fear of the change of status quo destroying their fossil fuel companies and livelihoods? - no comment.
(e).
Are every developed national government, every national science academy, the UN and all the scientists and NGOs (and so on), either a bunch of fools or involved in some nefarious scheme? - Not true. There are thousands of scientists who don’t accept AGW.
(a).
CO2 is a greenhouse gas, we emit lots of it from fossil fuels, - Not true. “lots†is an unscientific and emotive term. Actually fossil fuels account for less than 4% of CO2.
Global temperatures have gone up (thermometer measured) – Not true. No thermometer measured temperature increase has ever been noted when appropriately adjusted for conditions. Incidentally, ice cores taken from the Antarctic Vostok station in 1987 show we are 3 degrees warmer than 18,000 years ago.
(b).
Trust the process - its the UN/IPCC and its pretty open, - Not true. Sorry, I cannot accept your “open†comment about the UN, which has a record of political agendas and bias. (I can provide examples)
If governments (and their scientists) thought there was a chance of avoiding the unpleasant measures they need to take (taxes etc) then they would jump at it. – Not true. Governments survive by taxation, and leap at any opportunity to impose new ones. (I can provide examples).
(c).
It is doubtful that scientists have, over the 30-odd years they have been studying CC, forgotten to check if the sun got warmer or relied solely on only 12 trees for the entire theory. These are trained scientists, many thousands of them, if some made errors, the peer-review system has plenty of their colleagues and competitors ready to pounce and the errors are corrected. – Not true. Read my post on Satellite drift and Balloon shielding as a classic example. Scientists are humans. They have personal agendas, reputations and careers to protect. I can give you a list of scientific frauds if you want.
(d).
Look at the motives of the actors involved - Communist One World Government, a reason to tax us, back to living in the middle ages - really? Or a fear of the change of status quo destroying their fossil fuel companies and livelihoods? - no comment.
(e).
Are every developed national government, every national science academy, the UN and all the scientists and NGOs (and so on), either a bunch of fools or involved in some nefarious scheme? - Not true. There are thousands of scientists who don’t accept AGW.
Dec 3rd 2009 | 1:54 pm
#227
Not allowed opinions.
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 4,565
From: Sydney
Re: Global warming
slightly off topic, but lets not go fooling ourselves about the United Nations, who established the IPCC and are pushing all of these changes to our lifestyles:
The UN:
The UN Global Habitat Conference Report 1976:
Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice.... Public control of land use is therefore indispensable....
UN Agenda 21 Report:
"land must be regarded primarily as a set of essential terrestrial ecosystems and only secondly as a source of resources." We must develop new social systems, it says, because "traditional systems have not been able to cope with the sheer scale of modern activities." These new systems will "have as their goal both the effective management of land resources and their socially-equitable use."
sorry guys, relying upon an UN funded and led body is like appointing Arthur Scargil as inspector of underground workings.
The UN:
- In its first 54 years all eight Secretary Generals of the UN have been either dedicated socialists or communists,
- All 15 of the UN Under-Secretary-Generals for Political and Security Council Affairs (the UN’s military boss) have been communists (all but one from the Soviet Union/Russian Federation),
- Two thirds of the membership in the General Assembly, the Security Council, and in the World Court have always been representatives of socialist and communist nations....
The UN Global Habitat Conference Report 1976:
Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice.... Public control of land use is therefore indispensable....
UN Agenda 21 Report:
"land must be regarded primarily as a set of essential terrestrial ecosystems and only secondly as a source of resources." We must develop new social systems, it says, because "traditional systems have not been able to cope with the sheer scale of modern activities." These new systems will "have as their goal both the effective management of land resources and their socially-equitable use."
sorry guys, relying upon an UN funded and led body is like appointing Arthur Scargil as inspector of underground workings.
Dec 3rd 2009 | 2:02 pm
#228
Banned
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,733
Re: Global warming
slightly off topic, but lets not go fooling ourselves about the United Nations, who established the IPCC and are pushing all of these changes to our lifestyles:
The UN:
The UN Global Habitat Conference Report 1976:
Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice.... Public control of land use is therefore indispensable....
UN Agenda 21 Report:
"land must be regarded primarily as a set of essential terrestrial ecosystems and only secondly as a source of resources." We must develop new social systems, it says, because "traditional systems have not been able to cope with the sheer scale of modern activities." These new systems will "have as their goal both the effective management of land resources and their socially-equitable use."
sorry guys, relying upon an UN funded and led body is like appointing Arthur Scargil as inspector of underground workings.
The UN:
- In its first 54 years all eight Secretary Generals of the UN have been either dedicated socialists or communists,
- All 15 of the UN Under-Secretary-Generals for Political and Security Council Affairs (the UN’s military boss) have been communists (all but one from the Soviet Union/Russian Federation),
- Two thirds of the membership in the General Assembly, the Security Council, and in the World Court have always been representatives of socialist and communist nations....
The UN Global Habitat Conference Report 1976:
Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice.... Public control of land use is therefore indispensable....
UN Agenda 21 Report:
"land must be regarded primarily as a set of essential terrestrial ecosystems and only secondly as a source of resources." We must develop new social systems, it says, because "traditional systems have not been able to cope with the sheer scale of modern activities." These new systems will "have as their goal both the effective management of land resources and their socially-equitable use."
sorry guys, relying upon an UN funded and led body is like appointing Arthur Scargil as inspector of underground workings.
'The UN are a bunch of communists' - Classic.
Dec 3rd 2009 | 2:19 pm
#229
Democracy advocate
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 13,313
Re: Global warming
slightly off topic, but lets not go fooling ourselves about the United Nations, who established the IPCC and are pushing all of these changes to our lifestyles:
The UN:
The UN Global Habitat Conference Report 1976:
Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice.... Public control of land use is therefore indispensable....
UN Agenda 21 Report:
"land must be regarded primarily as a set of essential terrestrial ecosystems and only secondly as a source of resources." We must develop new social systems, it says, because "traditional systems have not been able to cope with the sheer scale of modern activities." These new systems will "have as their goal both the effective management of land resources and their socially-equitable use."
sorry guys, relying upon an UN funded and led body is like appointing Arthur Scargil as inspector of underground workings.
The UN:
- In its first 54 years all eight Secretary Generals of the UN have been either dedicated socialists or communists,
- All 15 of the UN Under-Secretary-Generals for Political and Security Council Affairs (the UN’s military boss) have been communists (all but one from the Soviet Union/Russian Federation),
- Two thirds of the membership in the General Assembly, the Security Council, and in the World Court have always been representatives of socialist and communist nations....
The UN Global Habitat Conference Report 1976:
Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice.... Public control of land use is therefore indispensable....
UN Agenda 21 Report:
"land must be regarded primarily as a set of essential terrestrial ecosystems and only secondly as a source of resources." We must develop new social systems, it says, because "traditional systems have not been able to cope with the sheer scale of modern activities." These new systems will "have as their goal both the effective management of land resources and their socially-equitable use."
sorry guys, relying upon an UN funded and led body is like appointing Arthur Scargil as inspector of underground workings.
This will be the UN that was set up by the USA and has its headquarters in New York?
Two thirds of the security Council are communist - that might be because the security council permanent members set up after WW2 were the USA, UK, France, USSR, China - i.e the winners.
Your extract comes from this guy (Steve Farrell) http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/un/unamerican.htm
He also says:
Its Bill of Rights (10) creates radical new rights to include:
The socialist right to "adequate†housing, a "living†wage, rest and leisure, medical care, social services, employment security, sick pay, disability pay, old age security pay, and widow’s pay
The socialist right to "adequate†housing, a "living†wage, rest and leisure, medical care, social services, employment security, sick pay, disability pay, old age security pay, and widow’s pay
UNESCO and the World Health Organization have wormed their way into member governments promoting sex education, homosexuality as normal and healthy, abortion, the right of a child to "privacy,†population control, and scientific breeding
The UN aids Communists and attacks non-Communists and Capitalists
In the 1980’s the UN organized an international boycott against South Africa which favored the Soviet, PLO, and Cuban backed African National Congress, which in turn toppled the South African government (the key UN anti-colonial victory in Africa), leading to an immediate turn toward socialism (his first act was to socialize medicine),
A dire prophecy, and one which should focus our attention on the real, more subtle communist threat in the world today - the United Nations.
Dec 3rd 2009 | 2:22 pm
#230
Not allowed opinions.
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 4,565
From: Sydney
Re: Global warming
Do you want proof, or just give up now?
Dec 3rd 2009 | 2:33 pm
#231
Not allowed opinions.
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 4,565
From: Sydney
Re: Global warming
Either we debate on facts or it becomes a "mine is bigger than yours" argument in the playground.
Dec 3rd 2009 | 2:47 pm
#232
Banned
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,733
Re: Global warming
Thus having as much basis as your conspiracy theory.
Last edited by Lord_Farquar; Dec 3rd 2009 at 2:51 pm.
Dec 3rd 2009 | 3:02 pm
#233
Not allowed opinions.
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 4,565
From: Sydney
Re: Global warming
Ah, back to me having a “theory†again. Cape Blue as implying that the UN was an “open†institution, thereby implying that is was above having its own agendas. I simply demonstrated that it is swamped with hidden (and not so hidden) agendas. Its not a conspiracy theory.
This really isn’t the thread to rip holes in the UNs ass. But if you want to start a new one, entitled “Great UN Success Stories†I will be happy to contribute.
This really isn’t the thread to rip holes in the UNs ass. But if you want to start a new one, entitled “Great UN Success Stories†I will be happy to contribute.
Dec 3rd 2009 | 3:04 pm
#234
Banned
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,733
Re: Global warming
Ah, back to me having a “theory†again. Cape Blue as implying that the UN was an “open†institution, thereby implying that is was above having its own agendas. I simply demonstrated that it is swamped with hidden (and not so hidden) agendas. Its not a conspiracy theory.
This really isn’t the thread to rip holes in the UNs ass. But if you want to start a new one, entitled “Great UN Success Stories†I will be happy to contribute.
This really isn’t the thread to rip holes in the UNs ass. But if you want to start a new one, entitled “Great UN Success Stories†I will be happy to contribute.
Dec 3rd 2009 | 3:18 pm
#235
Not allowed opinions.
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 4,565
From: Sydney
Re: Global warming
We are well off topic your Lordship, and I may well have inane ramblings. I would point you to the AGW lobby to see the ultimate example of inane rambling though. I bow to the superiority of this august body of scientists, who can’t calculate the position of satellites, or understand common statistical concepts. 
My inane ramblings cost you $0 (unless you take time to read my posts). The inane ramblings of the AGW are going to cost u all dearly.
But instead of silly playground slaps, why dont we look at some serious evidence that passes scrutiny. Do you have any?
My inane ramblings cost you $0 (unless you take time to read my posts). The inane ramblings of the AGW are going to cost u all dearly.
But instead of silly playground slaps, why dont we look at some serious evidence that passes scrutiny. Do you have any?
Dec 3rd 2009 | 3:25 pm
#236
Banned
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,733
Re: Global warming
We are well off topic your Lordship, and I may well have inane ramblings. I would point you to the AGW lobby to see the ultimate example of inane rambling though. I bow to the superiority of this august body of scientists, who can’t calculate the position of satellites, or understand common statistical concepts.
My inane ramblings cost you $0 (unless you take time to read my posts). The inane ramblings of the AGW are going to cost u all dearly.
But instead of silly playground slaps, why dont we look at some serious evidence that passes scrutiny. Do you have any?
My inane ramblings cost you $0 (unless you take time to read my posts). The inane ramblings of the AGW are going to cost u all dearly.
But instead of silly playground slaps, why dont we look at some serious evidence that passes scrutiny. Do you have any?
