Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
reply to post by NoHierarchy
Hey that's where I remember you from. It seems I have the last comment in that thread from a good while ago...
Originally posted by Onboard2
NoHierarchy, I'm very interested in your theories on global warming, because I don't believe it's manmade. However, I do believe that man has contributed to the problem through pollution and the destruction of forests. I also think that Gore is a diversion for the real cause of global warming.
I have no links or proof of anything, but I feel the earth's core temperature has risen. The ice is melting in some areas and it's enough for native people to state they've never seen anything like it. National Geographic dedicated a magazine to smoldering volcanoes(quite a few), which does put Co2 in the atmosphere, as well as, the natives that have always obtained their livelyhood from the Alaskan waters and can't help but notice the decreasing ice caps.l
There are some areas around the US where water is lapping at people's doors and a huge hotel is in danger of being part of the shore!
There is so much contradictory information out there and I think this is the biggest coverup besides Al Gore's mission. I think the Cap and Trade is only another way of gaining more tax money from the people.
I believe I just read that this year is the hottest year on record, but there are numberous links to other articles stating that the last nine years are hottest on record. Of course NASA is going state that 1934 was the hottest year on record. There are so many links that support either side! So which is it? There's no way of knowing,unless we are receiving accurate information. Here's a link stating that the last nine years are hottest on record.www.washingtonpost.com...
Actually, I am basing my opinions on my own observations and premonitions, which count for nothing.
I think this is a very good thread with a lot of research and I think fear was originally to be used as a tool for martial law. Yes, I think it's celestial. If other planets are heating up, why not earth?
decisions without letting the facts get in the way, a new study shows.
And they get quite a rush from ignoring information that's contrary to their point of view.
Researchers asked staunch party members from both sides to evaluate information that threatened their preferred candidate prior to the 2004 Presidential election. The subjects' brains were monitored while they pondered.
If I would be an elite or 'a power that is', why go trough so much hassle?
First you tell me they are on top of the money pile and then they try to scam us via taxes to fund their own projects? I don't get that...
If I was the boss of the money, i would just keep it for myself, don't spend it first to retrieve it later...
Second, if the elite wants all of the things you write about, why don't they just take it.
Get rid of the people who oppose them and do it...
They should easily have the capability to fund some kind of bio agent to kill the people they want and take whatever... And of course get away with it, cause they are the elite... Again why so much hassle?
If they have so much power why wait? Propably there are 'Elite of certain age who going to die soon.
So what's up with all this planning? Just do it I would say...
What about the fact that once 90 percent of the population is gone and the 'elite' survives, money wouldn't be of no value then, cause everybody has more than enough...
US Government admits satellite temperature readings “degraded.” All data taken offline in shock move. Global warming temperatures may be 10 to 15 degrees too high.
The fault was first detected after a tip off from an anonymous member of the public to climate skeptic blog, Climate Change Fraud (view original article) (August 9, 2010).
Caught in the center of the controversy is the beleaguered taxpayer funded National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). NOAA’s Program Coordinator, Chuck Pistis has now confirmed that the fast spreading story on the respected climate skeptic blog is true.
Let's talk about poverty. What is the minimum amount of energy that a person in a developing country should have access to for a reasonable standard of living?
Well, a level that's about half of current European usage, which is a quarter of current U.S. usage. The room for efficiency--I'm saying it's probably a factor of four. And then I'm saying the rest of the world should be allowed to live at that energy level. Now, the aggregate energy therefore for nine billion people, which is about what the peak population is expected to be, is dramatically greater than what we have today, and that's why when you multiply that big E by the CO2 per E, that number better be pretty damn small, because you're not just trying to stay where you are today; you're trying to get 90 percent down from where you are today. So wow, that number has got to be approaching zero.
How much money should we spend to rebuild the social structures damaged by infectious diseases, by HIV and AIDS?
I'm a big believer in investing in getting poor countries to be self-sufficient in terms of health improvement, which leads to reduced population growth. I don't think there's anything that's unique to the AIDS-ravaged countries.