reply to post by NoHierarchy
What evidence? That oil tycoons fund a "denial machine"? That doesn't prove anything, other than that they fund such.
If you read my global warming section again you might note that I specified that my presentation doesn't disprove global warming. BUT, what it proves
is that nobody actually knows a whole lot of anything. To speak with absolute certainty that there is AGW is dishonest. Nobody even knows what the
temperature record is. Even the 30 year satellite records are flawed, on top of being issued by the same government agencies
involved in the AGI Manhattan Project (which is the second major prong of where it derives is funding from).
You commented on some things we agree with, but didn't touch on how AGW is the same thing for the democrats as terrorism is for the republicans. I
didn't even have time to get into how it's also used for imperialism against the third world. A key to dominance in keeping others from ever
catching up with you. That's exactly what's happening to poor countries who follow along wit the 'progressive' zealots who push to keep them from
industrializing. This is driven by total malice: as the fact is that poverty destroys the environment. I'll further add that environmentalist
rhetoric is patently anti-human: which indoctrinates people into the population control mindset that is the conscious and/or subconscious slippery
slope of population extermination. That plays right into the hands of the plutocrat immortalists plundering the world economy so that only a tiny
handful will be able to live indefinite lifespans via radical technology on the near horizon.
Greenpeace & civil liberties. Terrorism via fear & guilt mongering isn't what I call "peace", "freedom" or "liberty". I keep seeing one major
environmentalist after another propose things like global dictatorships to stop people from releasing too much CO2. And things like we're not
supposed to have brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles or cousins anymore (one child policy).
We need a more authoritative world. We've become a sort of cheeky, egalitarian world where everyone can have their say. It's all very well, but
there are certain circumstances – a war is a typical example – where you can't do that. You've got to have a few people with authority who you
trust who are running it. And they should be very accountable too, of course.
But it can't happen in a modern democracy. This is one of the problems. What's the alternative to democracy? There isn't one. But even the best
democracies agree that when a major war approaches, democracy must be put on hold for the time being. I have a feeling that climate change may be an
issue as severe as a war. It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while.
In the age of global warming, also, methane is NOT a godsend, not to mention the incredible amount of toxic dispersant dumped into the Gulf
(which will have its own consequences).
That methane would have been tapped out of there just the same, and it would have been burned off right at the platform, or piped up to a natural gas
power plant / etc, and burned off. That would convert it into CO2, which lingers in the atmosphere longer. With over 5,000 wells in the Gulf alone,
that amount of methane was trivial at best.
The Ixtoc I was also the record holder in dispersant usage. We're all still here, and were it not for the BP mess the vast majority of people would
know nothing about the Ixtoc.
One of the first things I did when I started really noticing the rabid speculation being spouted as authoritative truth was look for historical
examples. Ixtoc couldn't be a better example to plot this one with. If you can't go by history what can you go by?
Then you move onto Global Warming... and I have to say, I've heard these arguments before and they all seem very convincing to the uneducated
eye... however, the majority of your assertions on AGW are bunk and have been debunked.
I fulfilled my share of Burden of Proof in establishing that the historical temperature record is a joke. Now it's up to others to prove that it
isn't. I mainly kept it on that angle, when there's so many others I could have factored in with AGW and terrorism even. It was painful for me to
keep them so narrowed but in reality that's all you really need to look at