It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory

page: 4
5
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 04:55 PM
link   
And none of your data or 'themes' explains how Germans were able to grow olives in GERMANY in the 1300's, long before the Industrial Revolution!

You just can not accept the fact that not everyone is on board with this human GW agenda......

There are good smart people on BOTH sides of this debate....which is something you fail to even acknowledge......

we all have agendas now don't we?




posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
And none of your data or 'themes' explains how Germans were able to grow olives in GERMANY in the 1300's, long before the Industrial Revolution!


Don't get what you mean. We know that climate has changed in the past, so why do you think they could grow olives in germany?

Because it was warm?

This is pretty much irrelevant. It says nothing about current causes of climate change.


You just can not accept the fact that not everyone is on board with this human GW agenda......

There are good smart people on BOTH sides of this debate....which is something you fail to even acknowledge.


I couldn't care less whether everyone is one board, same goes for whether enough people in high places think we should act. That's their issue. Nothing I can do if people are myopic.

Again, it doesn't matter how smart people are, what matters is the evidence.



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 07:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
Again, it doesn't matter how smart people are, what matters is the evidence.



Only if the evidence supports the theory of man caused global warming though right?


What does olives have to do with it? You dismiss it and yet we know that during that time the earth was even warmer than now, by a significant margin. Enough to allow the vikings to colonize parts of North America, but when the cooling came, the colonies died out.

What caused that round of warming? Could it not be the case that the whole warming issue is cyclic?



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 07:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger

What does olives have to do with it? You dismiss it and yet we know that during that time the earth was even warmer than now, by a significant margin. Enough to allow the vikings to colonize parts of North America, but when the cooling came, the colonies died out.


We don't have enough data to conclude that the earth was warmer. We do have data that strongly suggests some parts - notably NW Europe were perhaps warmer than today in the summer.

But then we also have data to show that at times during the last ice age, Siberia was warmer than today in the summer - yet no-one would deny that globally it was colder than today.


btw do you have any references for olive groves in Germany? Never heard of them.



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
Only if the evidence supports the theory of man caused global warming though right?


No, not at all. Evidence is evidence.


What does olives have to do with it? You dismiss it and yet we know that during that time the earth was even warmer than now, by a significant margin. Enough to allow the vikings to colonize parts of North America, but when the cooling came, the colonies died out.


No, it was the 'themes' thing that confused me.

We don't know it was warmer during the MWP than now. Indeed, the large multiproxy northern hemisphere studies suggest otherwise.

This olive thing is just another denier's canard. Just like the growing wine in the UK thing.


What caused that round of warming? Could it not be the case that the whole warming issue is cyclic?


Quite possible that there are cyclic changes we don't know about. We already know there are such things as ice-ages, Dansgaard-Oeschger events etc etc.

But that still doesn't mean that human activity can be ignored. The evidence suggests we are having an impact in numerous ways, however, you'd rather ignore this in the hope that the current changes are due to some unknown event that appears to coincide with evidence showing significant human influence. A high risk and very myopic option, I believe.



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 11:58 AM
link   
Since earlier posts on this thread referred to the U.S. White House policies on global warming, here is a link to today's BBC story on Professor John Marburger, science advisor to President Bush:


news.bbc.co.uk...



Dr. Marburger states that "it is more than 90% certain that greenhouse gas emissions from mankind are to blame" for (global) climate change. He further comments that "the Earth may become 'unliveable' without cuts in CO2 output".

Never in my lifetime did I expect to see such comments from any White House science advisor.



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
But that still doesn't mean that human activity can be ignored. The evidence suggests we are having an impact in numerous ways, however, you'd rather ignore this in the hope that the current changes are due to some unknown event that appears to coincide with evidence showing significant human influence. A high risk and very myopic option, I believe.

The conclusion I draw from all the statistics is that the earth is changing, but that it is neither an alarming change or one caused by humans. I'm glad to see that someone actually uses logic when evaluating all the different theories of climate change - a healthy debate is great. What we don't need is the alarmism and those who want us to do a good deal of damage to our economy (Kyoto Protocol) for something that's far from certain or, in my opinion, even likely.



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uphill

Dr. Marburger states that "it is more than 90% certain that greenhouse gas emissions from mankind are to blame" for (global) climate change. He further comments that "the Earth may become 'unliveable' without cuts in CO2 output".

Never in my lifetime did I expect to see such comments from any White House science advisor.


He's just interpreting the recent IPCC 4AR report and adding speculation in line with the thought of Hansen (and the UK's strangely silent in recent years Chief Scientific Advisor Sir David King (I think he's busy building a new home in Antarctica actually
) )



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Johnmike
The conclusion I draw from all the statistics is that the earth is changing, but that it is neither an alarming change or one caused by humans. I'm glad to see that someone actually uses logic when evaluating all the different theories of climate change - a healthy debate is great. .


I am afraid that is not the politically correct opinion these days, no matter the evidence either way.


Originally posted by Johnmike
What we don't need is the alarmism and those who want us to do a good deal of damage to our economy (Kyoto Protocol) for something that's far from certain or, in my opinion, even likely


Its a shame that more do not feel this way, some scientists do, and I would believe that a lot more do than those 'seeking' publicity by jumping on the bandwagon.



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 12:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall

You are doing it in this manner. I am sharing with you what happened. The White House commissioned an analysis and report on that analysis from a group of scientists on the global warming impact to the environment.


You are sharing the opinion on the matter on the word of Dr. Parmesan, nothing more, nothing less. Dr. Parmesan added her opinion on the matter, which is not based on her expertise.....

Read below for more information on Dr. Parmesan.


Originally posted by Valhall

The White House received that report and then CHANGED THE WORDING in OPPOSITION to the report they commissioned.
........... That is an intentional mixing of two subjects for the sake of muddying what happened. They are not connected, Muaddib. And I believe you know they aren't.


Let's actually see what Dr. Parmesan's expertise is on....


Education
Ph.D., University of Texas, Dept. of Zoology (1995)
Post-doc, National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS), University of California at Santa Barbara (1996-1999)
Assist. Prof, University of Texas, Section of Integrative Biology (2000- Sept. 2006)
Research Interests
Parmesan's early research focused on multiple aspects of population biology, including the ecology, evolution and behaviors of insect/plant interactions. For the past several years, the focus of her work has been on current impacts of climate change in the 20th century on wildlife. Her work on butterfly range shifts has been highlighted in many scientific and popular press reports, such as in Science, Science News, New York Times, London Times, National Public Radio, and the recent BBC film series "State of the Planet" with David Attenborough.
................

www.biosci.utexas.edu...

Her work has focused "on the impacts of Climate Change in the 20th century on wildlife".... her statements whether Climate Change is anthropogenic or not are her opinion, and nothing more....

There are hundreds of scientists who disagree with Dr. Parmesan, and there have been several scientists who were lead authors on the IPCC assesments, and their opinions as to the cause of Climate change differs from what the IPCC reports, and scientists like Dr. Parmesan claim, yet their opinions in many cases were not asked, or were taken out of the IPCC reports..... But i don't see you pointing this out, and instead trying to blame the current POTUS about an issue that is not as clear cut as you and some others are trying to make it.... The "obfuscation" comes from you trying to claim there is no disagreement, and what Dr. Parmesan claims is the truth.


Originally posted by Valhall
As for your attempt at a personal attack on me that is yet further evidence of your unscrupulous means by which you will bolster your own precarious position. While you know full well I could name the same type of private information on you - and it would cause you to be in the EXACT same position - I would NOT EVER go so far as to lie about the nature of your employment or your employer.

That was simply detestable.


My attempt at a personal attack?... It was you who made the accusation, and made the personal attack at me implying i must have some ulterior motive for my responses....

You, and some other members cannot accept the fact that not all scientists agree with you on the claim that AGW is the cause of Climate Change... and what is detestable is you using my question, which i asked because of your attack and accusation of my motives for my response as a reason to get me banned, when you have declared openly in the past your expertise on these same forums without reservations, and you have even stated in the past by name your employer in a forum that many members can access....



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 12:45 AM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 




Science 19 March 2004:
Vol. 303. no. 5665, pp. 1855 - 1859
On the Cause of the 1930s Dust Bowl
Siegfried D. Schubert,1* Max J. Suarez,1 Philip J. Pegion,1,2 Randal D. Koster,1 Julio T. Bacmeister1,3

In this study, we present model results that indicate that the drought was caused by anomalous tropical sea surface temperatures during that decade and that interactions between the atmosphere and the land surface increased its severity. We also contrast the 1930s drought with other North American droughts of the 20th century.


So did they explain what caused the sea surface to temp to be "anomalous"? Or did they just rig some data because it managed to allow them to specify it as that? Did they use any actual measurements, or was this cause their preconcieved theory?

Also, which sea(s)? I'm interested in hearing how they had such an effect on America's heartland. But really, wouldn't a higher sea surface temp cause more evaporation and thus more moisture?

Are you / that study suggesting that the "Dust Bowl" 'drove' 'itself'? Or rather humans land use did? Over a trend even?

That citation is rather vague.

How do we know that the US was the only place to take this heat trend? I imagine you're aware that even the US direct temp record is flawed, which casts even further doubt on other direct temp records from other places?



Here's a better illustration of the link between solar activity and global climate during the last 150yrs or so.




Interesting graph, almost surprised to see you use it. It shows a clear sun driven temp cycle. But the problem is where is it getting its data sets from? It would be nice to be able to analyze its methods.

Facinating how it jumps "off the scale" (.4ish'c) right about the time NASA's weather satellites first went operational. That's important because that's the genesis of humans gaining a realistic ability to accurately judge temp changes in the full scale. Also too bad that was coming right out of a cooling trend, which was 'driven' by the sun according to your graph, but meanwhile CO2 was still marching it's way up just the same yet didn't manage 'force' much of anything, according to your graph.

It's also too bad that even the direct temps stations data is basically all flawed. It all depends on random people to walk outside everyday and write down the highs and lows, over decades exceeding a century, and then send the data in for tallying.
Expanding on that, it's too bad a rampant amount of weather stations have urbanization growing around them. Surely you've been to:
www.surfacestations.org...




gallery.surfacestations.org...




gallery.surfacestations.org...

And my personal favorite:




Here's some more mind-bogglation:
www.appinsys.com...
Siberia stations

Then it gets better as we came out of a roughly 300 year cooling trend that lead into the era of the invention of the thermometer, just as human population began to take off almost Malthusian geometrically:



Imagine all of that land use. We're talking the clearing of even 99% of all the forest lands in many places over the past 100ish years. Virtually the entire expanses of vast regions converted to agriculture. Massive cities and sprawling urbanization rising geometrically at virtually a global level. Then all of the heat we let off thru our industries and power generation, automobiles, air conditioning units. Think of all the BTU's 6+Billion humans must generate. Did you know on top of all of those obvious heat 'forcers', that CO2 levels in urban regions is vastly beyond the levels in the atmosphere?
en.wikipedia.org...

co2 urban



But going by that graph above that I'd guess you'd accept, how on earth were the temps higher before similar to today while the CO2 apparently wasn't up there whatsoever?



I can't wait to see your response, it would be interesting if we humans do know everythng afterall. But human arrogence is always on full display when it comes to true environmentalists: Humans know everything (including about vastly complex systems that we still don't fully understand(we don't even fully understand clouds, cmon!)), the world revolves around humans (not the sun), humans are the supreme destroyers of the universe (well we havent done much in space yet but in the future 'Universalists' will be saying that, and so on. Oh, I forgot that they also want to tell everyone how to live including impoverished people in far away third world countires whose environments are desytroyed primarily due to their lack of modernization and povery. They're actually living out their own real life "feedback loops". I'm sure you know what those are.

Cheers.


[edit on 18-9-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 03:15 AM
link   
Great pictures IgnoranceIsntBlisss. For once we agree on something. Well done in showing these.


It is true that pictures speak more than words heh?



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 04:45 AM
link   
As we all know, the US covers 95% of the Earth's surface, and the only evidence for global warming comes from a handful of US weather stations


If data from such stations are accepted by the NOAA then it does indicate very poor standards indeed compared with the UK (where even a tree 30ft away can mean a station's data is dismissed as unreliable and if you record higher temps than nearby station you get a formal visit by the Met Office to triple check your equipment).



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 06:46 AM
link   
reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
 


I don't think i have ever ( lets say twice ) made a post specifically to thank someone for information presented but i think this is a good occasion to do so.
I have heard of those remote stations that are surrounded by residential areas but i never imagined that it would be so blatantly careless.

Do we know if this specific data is being used ( and sorry for not having read all the links yet) and what percentage of the ground stations are giving this type compromised/deceptive , as they must realise it's inaccurate, data?

I just wanted to thank you but i tend i tend to find questions faster than i can press the reply button...

Stellar



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 06:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
So did they explain what caused the sea surface to temp to be "anomalous"? Or did they just rig some data because it managed to allow them to specify it as that? Did they use any actual measurements, or was this cause their preconcieved theory?

Also, which sea(s)? I'm interested in hearing how they had such an effect on America's heartland. But really, wouldn't a higher sea surface temp cause more evaporation and thus more moisture?

Are you / that study suggesting that the "Dust Bowl" 'drove' 'itself'? Or rather humans land use did? Over a trend even?

That citation is rather vague.


Well, I think they were looking to explain what was causing the dry period during the 1930 in the US, and parts of Canada and Mexico. They found that changes in Pacific and Atlantic SSTs could account for the drought.

What caused these oceanic changes? That wasn't actually a question they aimed to answer, but it would likely be some other variable, possibly solar activity, maybe some circulatory effect (i.e. oceanic changes elsewhere).


How do we know that the US was the only place to take this heat trend? I imagine you're aware that even the US direct temp record is flawed, which casts even further doubt on other direct temp records from other places?


I'm sure all measurements are flawed to a degree. I quite like the current findings of the McIntyre's fraudit crew, they seem to have validated the US temp record.


bigcitylib.blogspot.com...

I see a lot of the frauditor BS in the rest of the post, I know you like a bit of cherrypicking, so I guess applying it to temp stations is OK. I'm sure these dudes enjoyed spending their time validating Hansen's and the GISS dudes work. The worst stations (i.e. the one's they decided would be exacerbating warming; CRN5), actually come out a bit cooler than their good stations.

Good work. We now now that the worst stations are actually weighting the US temps downwards, heh.


Interesting graph, almost surprised to see you use it. It shows a clear sun driven temp cycle. But the problem is where is it getting its data sets from? It would be nice to be able to analyze its methods.

Facinating how it jumps "off the scale" (.4ish'c) right about the time NASA's weather satellites first went operational. That's important because that's the genesis of humans gaining a realistic ability to accurately judge temp changes in the full scale. Also too bad that was coming right out of a cooling trend, which was 'driven' by the sun according to your graph, but meanwhile CO2 was still marching it's way up just the same yet didn't manage 'force' much of anything, according to your graph.


This isn't the only data that shows something similar, solar flux, sunspots etc all show no real increases for decades. Indeed, they appear to show reducing solar activity. The 0.4 thing is just a crazy issue with the graph methinks, it's actually from Solanki's data - he was a big 'solar is ze cause' scientist until a he produced all this data. The actual data from his study is:



I just post the pretty colour one as it's better to look at.

Essentially, the correlation between solar activity and climate broke down in the 70s. There are good explanations as to why CO2 was failing to push temps up in the earlier part of the 20th century, even now, it is likely we have some potential GHG warming held back by cooling aerosols.

There are many variables acting at the same time. A simplistic 'it's the sun', or 'it's CO2' is not really sufficient to account for a complex system. So the part suggesting that CO2 must rise with temperature in the past is a canard. There are other variables that effect climate, such as the sun. But that doesn't negate other variables.

You need to go beyond binary thinking.


But going by that graph above that I'd guess you'd accept, how on earth were the temps higher before similar to today while the CO2 apparently wasn't up there whatsoever?


I'm having trouble parsing that into anything meaningful, sorry. Hopefully the bit about your canard covers it.


I can't wait to see your response, it would be interesting if we humans do know everythng afterall. But human arrogence is always on full display when it comes to true environmentalists: Humans know everything (including about vastly complex systems that we still don't fully understand(we don't even fully understand clouds, cmon!)), the world revolves around humans (not the sun), humans are the supreme destroyers of the universe (well we havent done much in space yet but in the future 'Universalists' will be saying that, and so on.


Errm, yeah, if you think so. Who said we know everything?

We still have a lot to learn, but if you think that we don't know that CO2 is a GHG, and that increasing it, increases temps, then I guess to you we know nada.

We can quibble over the exact extent of such an effect, but the effect itself is not really questionable, just basic physics.


Oh, I forgot that they also want to tell everyone how to live including impoverished people in far away third world countires whose environments are desytroyed primarily due to their lack of modernization and povery. They're actually living out their own real life "feedback loops". I'm sure you know what those are.

Cheers.


And you think that is due to environmentalism? You 'avin a giraffe, no?

I'm quite sure the Indonesian rainforest ain't being raped to 'save' the planet.

Dollars & cents, and the pounds and pence, and the mark and the yen.

[edit on 18-9-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 07:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Yadhel


My attempt at a personal attack?... It was you who made the accusation, and made the personal attack at me implying i must have some ulterior motive for my responses....



You posted personal information on another member MUADDIB either to:

1. Insinuate my employment motivates my stance on this issue, which simply makes no sense now does it? Bein's I'm arguing that there is data us human may be contributing to the environmental situation....YOU, are arguing we ought to just keep on trucking.

2. So this leads me to conclude that your post was simply to try to make trouble for me, to cause drama on this board, and to cause personal problems for me in my private life.

For that reason, you are flaming jackass and unscrupulous f***tard.

Now - if you can't live with me calling you exactly as you are acting, then you lodge a complaint about this post and see if the staff is okay with you slithering your little unethical legless body back onto this board under a new name.



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Essan
As we all know, the US covers 95% of the Earth's surface, and the only evidence for global warming comes from a handful of US weather stations


Well, I did include some choice example of Russian weirdness:
www.appinsys.com...

There's another link up there. That image just above seemed clearly too large to post showing.

My whole point is about certainty. The only certainty we have is when the satellites went up. There isn't even certainty in the CO2 forcing effects. Sure, we know CO2 is involved with the greenhouse effect, but we hardly know what it actually is. We don't even fully understand the clouds and the oceans. Jus tin the past few months they finally discovered the Pacific under ocean currents. We have a long way to go. Proponents of each side seem to speak in sound-byted absolutes about highly complex systems and socioeconomic issues even though we don't fully understand them nor even have the solutions.

Listen to Micheal Crichton speak about, not his book or hardly Global Warming itself, but about complex systems:
video.google.com...



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by StellarX
 


Thanks. They now have 33% sites checked.
www.surfacestations.org...

Melatonin's links discusses, with bias, the current work. Be sure to follow thru to the discussions beyond the first link.



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
Well, I think they were looking to explain what was causing the dry period during the 1930 in the US, and parts of Canada and Mexico. They found that changes in Pacific and Atlantic SSTs could account for the drought.


"Could". So then they / we really don't know?


What caused these oceanic changes? That wasn't actually a question they aimed to answer, but it would likely be some other variable, possibly solar activity, maybe some circulatory effect (i.e. oceanic changes elsewhere).


That's troubling, because I wasn't aware that the sun itself is / can be responisbile for variations in local conditions, as in it heat up only one continent and its surrounding oceans for several years while ignoring the rest?


I'm sure all measurements are flawed to a degree. I quite like the current findings of the McIntyre's fraudit crew, they seem to have validated the US temp record.


bigcitylib.blogspot.com...


"Seem to have". Good language once again. If you dig thru to the discussions beyond your blogger link you'll see that they'r estill not finished, and that, as you always say, there can be explanations -related to geography etc- in their initial incomplete assessment.

I may have missed it, but were those graphs plotted off the 33% checked-stations? It was only about 27% a couple weeks ago.

Anyways, can you explain this one to me, from the same plotter:

Finally, the plot below shows the 20yr trailing trend in degC/decade for CRN12, CRN5, and GISS.

I think these plots speak for themselves, but here are my conclusions:
- There is good agreement between GISS and CRN12 (the good stations)
- There is good agreement between GISS and CRN5 (the bad stations)
- On the 20yr trend, CRN12 shows a larger warming trend CRN5 in recent years


What is a "20 year trailing trend"? I've yet to see that terminology.


I see a lot of the frauditor BS in the rest of the post, I know you like a bit of cherrypicking, so I guess applying it to temp stations is OK.


What?
Where is there really much of any "frauditor BS" in there? The only link was to them showing some major flaws with some of the Russian station data. Would you like to counter that? Cherry picking? I never claimed that all of the tstations are like that, nor did I claim we have them all assessed yet. You wouldn't happen to be one of those who fretted the idea of actually going out to check the sites would you?

BTW: Please do let me know via U2U if you har anything about actual pro-AGW'ers going out to some fo the sites to help out in the collective understanding of our temp stations...


Good work. We now now that the worst stations are actually weighting the US temps downwards, heh.


It's just too bad that the trend you speak of applies mostly to the pre-satellite days, eh?

None of your conjecture really damages the fact of the human population explosion and etc arguments I provided, I am afraid.


Essentially, the correlation between solar activity and climate broke down in the 70s.


That wouldn't happen to be when humans finally got some temp satellites up there would it? Maybe they've been driving the heat? Reality is based on perception, after all.


There are good explanations as to why CO2 was failing to push temps up in the earlier part of the 20th century, even now, it is likely we have some potential GHG warming held back by cooling aerosols.


I'd really like to hear them. It wouldn't seem like aerosols would have gone down too much since the 70's...


There are many variables acting at the same time. A simplistic 'it's the sun', or 'it's CO2' is not really sufficient to account for a complex system. So the part suggesting that CO2 must rise with temperature in the past is a canard. There are other variables that effect climate, such as the sun. But that doesn't negate other variables.


So then, the CO2 THREAT arguments might not be all that absolute, afterall?



You need to go beyond binary thinking.




I'm sorry. I couldn't resist. Now you're using my terminology, as if I'm the one consistently arguing in pro-AGW absolutes, when my only intention is to show how flawed the arguments are, and how little we mighty-arrogent humans really know.




But going by that graph above that I'd guess you'd accept, how on earth were the temps higher before similar to today while the CO2 apparently wasn't up there whatsoever?


I'm having trouble parsing that into anything meaningful, sorry. Hopefully the bit about your canard covers it.


Sorry,
But going by that graph above that I'd guess you'd accept, how on earth were the temps higher before -similar to today- while the CO2 apparently wasn't up there whatsoever?


Errm, yeah, if you think so. Who said we know everything?


That's the attitude. Listen to Al Gore for Christ's sake.


We still have a lot to learn, but if you think that we don't know that CO2 is a GHG, and that increasing it, increases temps, then I guess to you we know nada.

We can quibble over the exact extent of such an effect, but the effect itself is not really questionable, just basic physics.


That's good to hear, because the propaganda machine out there that's pushing the Global Warming Doomsday has GWB & the Neocons war drumbeat parrot army almost envious these days.


And you think that is due to environmentalism? You 'avin a giraffe, no?


"Environmentalism" is being unwittingly used as a pawn of the same imperialist Establishment that initially wrecked those regions and have kept them so in the past 50+ years. The same forces of domination are at play, and are playing all of those who parrot either the Left's "Global Warming" or the Right's "War on Terror". Hence: Global War on Terror, the "terrorists" being those who resist imperial domination. It's about ensuring that the world at large remains destablized to ensure that hardly a place has any chance of exceeding US. Preventing vast regions from true modernization keeps "US" ahead in this "New American Century". I can go on about this subject verbally for hours on end.


[edit on 18-9-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 07:06 PM
link   
Too many people too concerned about "saving the planet" when they should be more concerned about saving the world from factions that want to destroy everything that doesn't fit their view of the world.

If Global Warming is a concern affecting OUR planet, then why are the Polar Caps in Mars also melting
www.marsdaily.com...

www.timesonline.co.uk...

Nothin new, a similar group of folks tried the same back in the 70's only that time they called it Global Cooling

Global Warming is nothing more than a new RELIGION with Al Gore as the high priest



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join