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.

 

WikiLeaks cables reveal how US manipulated climate accord

page: 2
12
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 12:27 AM
link   
reply to post by atlasastro
 


This is why is in RELATED news.

US manipulated climate accord! This is how the global warming HOAX happens.

And

If you think that paying more taxes (carbon taxes) the climate change will "give us a break", go ahead.


And if you see the Source 2, I put a link that shows the climate change belive's point. My point is:

This is not caused by Humans. This is a hoax to tax people even more.





edit on 4-12-2010 by RUSSO because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 12:29 AM
link   
reply to post by HunkaHunka
 


Related News.



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 12:58 AM
link   
reply to post by atlasastro
 


The answer to your question best lies in an understanding of system networks and the underlying mathematical principles. Natural systems (which society is, and all elements of it) are governed by 'nodes.' If you were to plot the population based on how many personal connections they have, you would find a hyperbolic curve with very few people in the population having hundreds, even thousands of personal connections, and most people have very few. Every natural system follows this - be it the roadways, the power 'grid', the internet (where this phenomena was first really explored in the 90s), etc.

It's a relatively new model that has arisen within the study and prediction of the behavior of information systems. Quite a bit of research has also shown that these principles even hold true down to the cellular level and play a large part in regulating cell function.

So, what does this have to do with global warming? The relevant question is what does this have to do with what I am told?

Rather than look at controversial concepts, let's look at more established ones. Where did you first learn about the discovery of water on the moon? You might have gone through one of the major 'geek' sites that cover science-themed news, have picked it up on the news, etc. These are major distribution nodes - search for the headline of almost any news event on the internet, and you'll find the exact same (or similar) articles posted across hundreds of sites. It is readily easy to see that once a headline hits on the internet, it's impossible to stop - this is the strength of node-based systems.

However, the information, the source, was dependent upon -one- organization contracting the development of equipment. The nature of the information revealed by the source is such that it cannot be verified by independent sources. This is partly why NASA is subject to so many conspiracy theories.

Now, do the same, but with "Global Climate Change." Control over the information is not done at the level of the media - that's like trying to kill an ant colony by stepping on all of the ants - they'll just keep coming out of the hole. You control it at the source - the universities and the organizations that are the few with the resources to even attempt to monitor global temperature.

Satellites are about the only practical way to measure temperature on a global scale. How many scientists have actually done the leg-work and gotten temperature records from various stations around the world and used those to try and draw any kind of conclusion?

The answer lies in: "Those who have the money to do so." This is made even more interesting in the light of how common it is for research into global climate change to be funded by activist groups and various political/economic interests that have a lot to gain from a study that concludes global climate change is 'real.'

There's also a 'new' twist to an old trick. Pick up almost any modern research paper involving physical data and metrics dealing with global climate change. Scroll to the conclusion and look for words to the effect of: "The data demonstrate that change in the global climate is a concern for [insert region, population, species, etc]." The data do not support global warming, or an impending global climate crisis. In fact, the conclusion only says that climate change will impact the study group ... which is shocking news, I know. Apparently, changing factors will influence things and be of concern. When I put cinnamon in mashed potatoes instead of pepper, there's a considerably different end result that is of general concern.

This is not necessarily due to some sort of conspiracy - but in the inherent flaw of offering science as a service industry. In the service industry - the customer is right. In science, you can only be correct within the scope of data and control. By turning science into a service industry, it has been softened to try and appeal to the customer (so they will be satisfied and return). That's not how science works. The data either supports the hypothesis, does not support the hypothesis, or is inconclusive. However, throwing phrases that appeal to the customer into the headlines next to "Princeton University" is what it's about. That's why salt and genetically engineered food are bad for you. None of the studies done have been properly controlled and none of the data actually support the conclusion drafted to please the benefactor.

And with that, it becomes widely accepted fact. Scientists do studies within their own little field that all hinge around the concept of global warming - studies on glacial melt turn into support for global warming (even though both ice-caps have been growing as of late), a flooding island turns into support for global warming (though it is actually related to the volcanic island sinking rather than the ocean rising - 'global' warming can be proven by a few islands with rising water when major ports and harbors near the equator, like Panama, notice no change).

Back in the early 90s there was a big scare about the New Madrid fault here in the midwest. Sales of emergency supplies boomed, demand for earthquake-conscious construction boomed, segments of the economy that saw only moderate activity now were in higher demand than fast food. What started it was the human desire for drama - the media picked up on some study that suggested the New Madrid fault spawned very powerful quakes at very regular intervals, and we were a few years past due. After it hit the media and the economic benefits to perpetuating the impending doom became apparent, there were suddenly many interests riding the wave in their own fashion, very few actually returning to investigate the principal claim - most just bouncing their research off of 'already established fact.'

It's what religion refers to as "Dogma." We have placed too much faith in scientists and allowed dogma to prevail due to our faith. It's no different than believing flying on an airplane is a sin because some 'holy man' said so - and he went to school for Theology, where's your degree in Theology?



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 01:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by RUSSO
reply to post by atlasastro
 


This is because is in RELATED news.

No it is not.
You are manufacturing the relationship between the two in order to create an argument.
POINT out IN THE ARTICLE where they USA states that GW is a HOAX. USE the wikileak cables.


US manipulated climate accord! This is how the global warming HOAX happens.

FAil, again.
If you actually really read the article properly you would understand that they are manipulating a political solution to problems that have an overwhelming amount of scientific observations backing them up. Observation presented by people from ALL OVER THE WORLD.

Once again, POINT OUT IN THE ARTICLE, where they state that these scientific observations are a HOAX.


And

If you think that paying more taxes (carbon taxes) the climate change will "give us a break", go ahead.



Strawman argument.

Point out where I say that. Go on.

You know what is funny RUSSO.
You actually state that GW is a HOAX, then use an article based on the USA manipulation of an agreement aimed at reducing emissions.
The manipulation that the USA want is one were they can set their own emissions targets.
That means, if global warming is a Hoax, the USA is trying really hard to manipulate the world into letting them do al little as possible in relation to a Hoax you think they created.

Confused?
You should be.



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 03:05 AM
link   
reply to post by atlasastro
 





No it is not.
You are manufacturing the relationship between the two in order to create an argument.
POINT out IN THE ARTICLE where they USA states that GW is a HOAX. USE the wikileak cables.


This is the whole argument. The leak shows how the US manipulates the scientists and the climategate shows how they FAKED the results to terrorizethe entire world. Wikileaks is one more indication that the Global Warming is a BIG HOAX.



FAil, again.
If you actually really read the article properly you would understand that they are manipulating a political solution to problems that have an overwhelming amount of scientific observations backing them up. Observation presented by people from ALL OVER THE WORLD.

Once again, POINT OUT IN THE ARTICLE, where they state that these scientific observations are a HOAX


No, what is FAILING is the hungry of the PTP to more money and control. Like i said before, i dont need to point anything. E everybody knows that through the climategate. Do you think that educated people will belive in this global warming thing again? Carbon taxes? Stop developing countries to doing what USA did All the time?



Point out where I say that. Go on.


Well, pay more taxes (carbon taxes) is the solution that USA find out. You is a GW believer, so...




You know what is funny RUSSO.
You actually state that GW is a HOAX, then use an article based on the USA manipulation of an agreement aimed at reducing emissions.
The manipulation that the USA want is one were they can set their own emissions targets.
That means, if global warming is a Hoax, the USA is trying really hard to manipulate the world into letting them do al little as possible in relation to a Hoax you think they created.


I know what is funny. If USA was really concerned about the environment, US should lead by example. Not try to manipulate the world to do it for him. Its all about money and all informed people knows that. But the american fundamentalists will never see this. Common sense and good science should rule the day and politicians should not let more than 2,340 global warming lobbyists in Washington.“Global warming” is a scare tactic being used to manipulate the population so certain individuals or parties can attain political power.

So, you should be very confused.



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 03:08 AM
link   
reply to post by atlasastro
 


For more clarification:

Doesn't it alarm you that a strong political leader is so vehemently stating that "the debate is over in the scientific community" when very clearly it is NOT? Never mind actual "global warming" for a minute. Let's focus on that statement.

Have you ever asked yourself how can Gore make such statements when there are over 31,000 scientists and climatologists who publically signed a petition stating they do NOT agree? www.petitionproject.org... 31,000! Very clearly the debate is NOT over! It should alarm you greatly that one man has the power to silence that many people who disagree with him. The UN reports that they have about 2,500 "scientists" who state there is "global warming". There are more than 31,000 scientists who state otherwise. DO THE MATH. That's about 8% vs. 92%! 8% who are deciding what is "real" when 92% disagree. Something is very, very wrong here!




www.globalwarmingisafarce.com...


edit on 4-12-2010 by RUSSO because: add pic



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 03:15 AM
link   
Hi Aim64C,
Thank for the reply.


Originally posted by Aim64C
reply to post by atlasastro
 


The answer to your question best lies in an understanding of system networks and the underlying mathematical principles.

Sorry, but I asked the OP to point out where in the source article linked to the wikileaks cables, does it state that AGW is a hoax.
It was a simple question relating to a specific source that was used to make a specific statement.
That is where my answer best lies.



So, what does this have to do with global warming? The relevant question is what does this have to do with what I am told?

I guess I should apply this to your post and your reference to information systems. I am going to thank you in advance for allowing me to show that the denial of global warming, and the opinion that it is a hoax, can be found within key "nodes" that statistically speaking present an over-representation of doubt and skepticism in relation to the spectrum of the debate

Also, it is worth mentioning that any view of skepticism(like you own), is also effected by the arguments you present. In this manner, you are making your argument and yourself redundant. As any opinion relating to this topic can be reduced by using your post and then applying the exact same specific characteristics you try to use in debating against Science and AGW.


Rather than look at controversial concepts, let's look at more established ones.

As we are looking at the factors governing "what I am Told" in relation to the OP, lets stick to the subject at hand because the controversy over this debate is manufactured from certain nodes. I will answer your next statement by relating it to the topic to illustrate my point.

Where did you first learn about the discovery of water on the moon? You might have gone through one of the major 'geek' sites that cover science-themed news, have picked it up on the news, etc. These are major distribution nodes - search for the headline of almost any news event on the internet, and you'll find the exact same (or similar) articles posted across hundreds of sites. It is readily easy to see that once a headline hits on the internet, it's impossible to stop - this is the strength of node-based systems.

O.K.
Lets apply the AGW debate to your analogy.
Now look for people denying we have gone to the moon, that the moon landing was a hoax etc.
That the science behind the moon landing is fraudulent and funded by people who want us to believe we went to the moon. That all the findings on the moon mission are merely to please those funding the project etc.
Do any of the distribution nodes that give "air time" to the discovery of water on the moon also give a similar proportion of time to those that state we have never been to the moon and that the moon landings etc are a hoax?
Do they?
Lets compare apples to apples hey!

Because as you point out, this is about what we are told and by whom.

tigger.uic.edu...
www.sciencemag.org...
www.logicalscience.com...

When it comes to the denial of AGW, I agree with you and also think you should look at who is telling us what!
www.uctv.tv...


However, the information, the source, was dependent upon -one- organization contracting the development of equipment. The nature of the information revealed by the source is such that it cannot be verified by independent sources. This is partly why NASA is subject to so many conspiracy theories.

I understand that.
AGW is not limited to a single source.
The argument is simple and was summerised by another member MC_Squared, whom I will quote:
It can be broken down to a number of straightforward things:

1. The Greenhouse Effect is real.
2. CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
3. Emissions are increasing.
4. Anthropogenic Global Warming was predicted over 100 years ago based on the 3 above principles.
5. That prediction is coming true.

You cannot reduce the entire debate down to one organization.
Nice try though.




Now, do the same, but with "Global Climate Change." Control over the information is not done at the level of the media - that's like trying to kill an ant colony by stepping on all of the ants - they'll just keep coming out of the hole. You control it at the source - the universities and the organizations that are the few with the resources to even attempt to monitor global temperature.

Answer this for me then if Universities are in on it.
Then simply show a connection between the money and fraudulent work being published.
Should be simple.
As you mention, money is up for grabs. I have come across your argument before.
I've seen advertisements for senior climate scientists at places like Berkley for over $110,000. That is teaching, not purely researching. Research is not done independently either.
Berkeley, as an example, is no ordinary school. I think I read somewhere they pay as much as %15 over the national average. I could be wrong.
So in terms of Money Dude, you also have to factor in that, not only are the scientists committing fraud, but also the institutions.
Do you think Berkeley is able to fund fraudulent science, AND the suppression of those that miss out on funding and then also suppress its entire student body, who also participate in research as well as have access to all published works?
vcresearch.berkeley.edu...


The Berkeley centers and programs highlighted here faciltate a wide range of research projects related to the environment:


Berkeley Institute for the Environment (BIE)
BIE seeks to leverage the collective resources at UC Berkeley to strengthen and expand environmental theory and understanding, and to foster and scale up innovative solutions to some of the planet's most pressing environmental challenges. At Berkeley over 300 faculty and thousands of students have research interests in the environment. The Institute’s goals are to address complex environmental problems through applying the most promising real world environmental solutions through demonstration projects, locally and around the world and training a new generation of environmental researchers, citizens and professionals.


Now expand this example, around the globe.
You would need, Governments, Universities, Scientists, University and College School staff, Faculties and all the student bodies in on the scam, all going along with the fraud.
You do the math on that mate!


Satellites are about the only practical way to measure temperature on a global scale. How many scientists have actually done the leg-work and gotten temperature records from various stations around the world and used those to try and draw any kind of conclusion?

We have been getting records from different countries from a number of methods that support the theory of AGW. Not only satellites.
We also monitor glaciers, the poles, the ocean temperatures, trends in local weather giving us a global perspective, the incidence of disease in relation to warmer climate, cycles in seasons( spring getting earlier and earlier), plant and animal ranges shifting due to climate change, droughts and fires growing and increasing due to temperature.

Add those to your "nodes".



The answer lies in: "Those who have the money to do so." This is made even more interesting in the light of how common it is for research into global climate change to be funded by activist groups and various political/economic interests that have a lot to gain from a study that concludes global climate change is 'real.'

So simply show fraudulent work being funded by these groups.





Pick up almost any modern research paper involving physical data and metrics dealing with global climate change. Scroll to the conclusion and look for words to the effect of: "The data demonstrate that change in the global climate is a concern for [insert region, population, species, etc]."

Yes, I have read many, many scientists say we should be concerned. That is what reasonable and responsible people normally do.


The data do not support global warming, or an impending global climate crisis. In fact, the conclusion only says that climate change will impact the study group ... which is shocking news, I know. Apparently, changing factors will influence things and be of concern. When I put cinnamon in mashed potatoes instead of pepper, there's a considerably different end result that is of general concern.


Incorrect. The IPCC reports are perfect example of the kind of changes that are predictions related to impact.
Not to mention the many individual countries that have their own impact assessments.
www.csiro.au...
www.eea.europa.eu...
www.defra.gov.uk...
www.icimod.org...

That is why we have meeting like Copenhagen and Cancun.



This is not necessarily due to some sort of conspiracy - but in the inherent flaw of offering science as a service industry.
Actually, you imply a conspiracy in relation to funding and the production of material that is then controlled by certain nodes. You also imply a limited scope of investigation by siting satellites and "one organization" when we have numerous indicators, markers and feedbacks in relation to climate change.
Please don't imply a conspiracy and then try to reduce it to a flaw in the system.
You have injected accusations, so simply prove them.


In the service industry - the customer is right.
That is a philosophy expressed by businesses but it is not based in reality.

In science, you can only be correct within the scope of data and control.
Yes.
So far the data is showing that many, many, many, many, many, many scientists are correct.



By turning science into a service industry, it has been softened to try and appeal to the customer (so they will be satisfied and return). That's not how science works.

Lets get this straight. You seem to be implying that Science is apparently softened up by a buyer who then does not head the actual "products warnings" and instead goes about manipulating the world in order to reduce its responsibility in relation to the findings of a product it has softened up in order for the customer to be right and come back to buy again?

O.K.
See, this is where your premise falls down.
World leaders are not actually buying what the scientists are saying. Scientists want us to drastically reduce CO2 emissions.
Otherwise Kyoto, Copenhagen and Cancun would be meetings discussing the progress we have made in relation to the Science of AGW.
Currently there are arguments over actually doing something.



The data either supports the hypothesis, does not support the hypothesis, or is inconclusive.

The datat supports the observation in relation to human emissions of CO2. Physics supports the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse warming gas. Data and observations show that warming is happening as a trend.

However, throwing phrases that appeal to the customer into the headlines next to "Princeton University" is what it's about. That's why salt and genetically engineered food are bad for you. None of the studies done have been properly controlled and none of the data actually support the conclusion drafted to please the benefactor.


So simply show that the data is manipulated and false in order to please the people paying for it.
I have supplied you with Berkley as an example.
Get to work.


And with that, it becomes widely accepted fact. Scientists do studies within their own little field that all hinge around the concept of global warming - studies on glacial melt turn into support for global warming (even though both ice-caps have been growing as of late),

False, the ice caps have not grown. This is a blatant lie.
Also, people are not studying the Glaciers in Isolation, they are monitoring them around the globe. This is why people think the melting glaciers, that is a global trend is related to climate change.
I find you argument absurd. Can you explain why the glaciers are melting, all around the world, that has nothing to do with GW.



a flooding island turns into support for global warming (though it is actually related to the volcanic island sinking rather than the ocean rising - 'global' warming can be proven by a few islands with rising water when major ports and harbors near the equator, like Panama, notice no change).

A global trend in rising oceans, from melting Ice, is what makes people think it is related to global warming.


Back in the early 90s there was a big scare about the New Madrid fault here in the midwest. Sales of emergency supplies boomed, demand for earthquake-conscious construction boomed, segments of the economy that saw only moderate activity now were in higher demand than fast food.
What started it was the human desire for drama - the media picked up on some study that suggested the New Madrid fault spawned very powerful quakes at very regular intervals, and we were a few years past due. After it hit the media and the economic benefits to perpetuating the impending doom became apparent, there were suddenly many interests riding the wave in their own fashion, very few actually returning to investigate the principal claim - most just bouncing their research off of 'already established fact.'


Fair point. Lets apply your fears of the above being true to AGW.
This sums it up.


**Thank you to my learned friend mc_squared.**


It's what religion refers to as "Dogma." We have placed too much faith in scientists and allowed dogma to prevail due to our faith. It's no different than believing flying on an airplane is a sin because some 'holy man' said so - and he went to school for Theology, where's your degree in Theology?

Your whole post was an exercise in the proliferation of dogma.
Your stance against science reminds me of those fundamentalists supporting creationism theory or Islamic fundamentalists that deny the Holocaust ever happened and that is was manufactured by Zionists.

Thank you for the reply.



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 03:19 AM
link   
reply to post by RUSSO
 








posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 03:22 AM
link   
reply to post by atlasastro
 


You are using digression to try to change the focus of this OP. Sorry if it affects the way you think about this farce of global warming. His gang of fraudsters have been caught once. Now one more time. Do not be sad, the next scam will be okay, since it seems they'll end up getting away with Wikileaks. I have to go now to my family. Good weekend for you


edit on 4-12-2010 by RUSSO because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 03:25 AM
link   
reply to post by atlasastro
 


Letter from Frederick Seitz




















Research Review of Global Warming Evidence


Enclosed is a twelve-page review of information on the subject of "global warming," a petition in the form of a reply card, and a return envelope. Please consider these materials carefully.

The United States is very close to adopting an international agreement that would ration the use of energy and of technologies that depend upon coal, oil, and natural gas and some other organic compounds.

This treaty is, in our opinion, based upon flawed ideas. Research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful.



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 03:26 AM
link   
Wow, Assange just opened a hornet's nest with this one. I have been patiently waiting for 10 years or so for someone to finally rip the roof off of the anthropogenic climate change crap. I thought the hacked emails may have been what I was waiting for, but they were quickly and meticulously covered, excused, and ignored. The problem is that we have a sizeable group of people who have made this steaming pile their god. They worship at the altar of Al Gore so frequently that to say "Anthropogenic climate change (Acc) is a hoax and here is concrete proof PLUS confessions from your priests that it is a hoax" would be akin to walking up to a born again Christian and saying "Christ was a myth." Assange has more previously developed props from many of these Acc cultists because they also frequently line up against government agencies & military actions, so it will be extremely interesting to watch them as they wrestle between decrying the man they claimed to love or denouncing the god they have sacrificed everything to.



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 03:26 AM
link   
reply to post by atlasastro
 


The text of the petition (which was on a reply card) reads, in its entirety:[3]

“ We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.


The text of the petition is often misrepresented. For example, until recently the petition's website stated that the petition's signatories "declare that global warming is a lie with no scientific basis whatsoever"[4] and the British newspaper Daily Telegraph reported that the petition "denies that man is responsible for global warming."[5] As seen above, the petition uses the terms catastrophic heating and disruption rather than "global warming".

The original article associated with the petition (see below) defined "global warming" as "severe increases in Earth's atmospheric and surface temperatures, with disastrous environmental consequences".[6] This differs from both scientific usage and dictionary definitions, in which "global warming" is an increase in the global mean atmospheric temperature[7][8] without implying that the increase is "severe" or will have "disastrous environmental consequences."


en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 4-12-2010 by RUSSO because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 03:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by RUSSO
reply to post by atlasastro
 






This is the whole argument. The leak shows how the US manipulates the scientists and the climategate shows how they FAKED the results to terrorizethe entire world. Wikileaks is one more indication that the Global Warming is a BIG HOAX.

Point out where it says that.
Just point it out.
Put up or shut up.
The article states it is manipulating other countries in relation to a POLITICAL accord.
That is it period.

Show where it states they manipulated scientists in the wiki cables.
Otherwise your claim is false, and intentionally false.



No, what is FAILING is the hungry of the PTP to more money and control. Like i said before, i dont need to point anything. E everybody knows that through the climategate. Do you think that educated people will belive in this global warming thing again? Carbon taxes? Stop developing countries to doing what USA did All the time?

Dude, the people with the money are those people getting rich from fossil fuels. They want to keep the status quo as is. That means you and me using oil, gas and coal.




Point out where I say that. Go on.


Well, pay more taxes (carbon taxes) is the solution that USA find out. You is a GW believer, so...

Just point out where I mention taxes mate.
Put up or shut up.
Point out where the article you link states that scientists were manipulated.
Otherwise you are perpetuating a false claim intentionally.




I know what is funny. If USA was really concerned about the environment, US should lead by example. Not try to manipulate the world to do it for him Its all about money and all informed people knows that. But the american fundamentalists will never see this. Common sense and good science should rule the day and politicians should not let more than 2,340 global warming lobbyists in Washington.“Global warming” is a scare tactic being used to manipulate the population so certain individuals or parties can attain political power.

So, you should be very confused.

Common sense and Good Science is being ignored because people like you create and perpetuate false and misleading information that fuels denial of climate change.
The scientific community want us to stop using fossil fuels like we do.
Now.
Can you think of any really big groups that make a real lot of money, I mean a lot of money from fossil fuels that would want people to doubt that climate change is real, so that we can just keep on going the way that we are?
Think about that question.

edit on 4/12/10 by atlasastro because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 03:30 AM
link   
reply to post by atlasastro
 










Now i had to go. good weekend to all.



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 03:32 AM
link   
reply to post by burdman30ott6
 


Hi Burdman, do you see the last videos i post.

cheers



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 03:34 AM
link   
reply to post by RUSSO
 


I know.
Your post actually shows that the list is flawed.
Thanks.

How is your foot, it hurts when you shoot yourself doesn't it?
edit on 4/12/10 by atlasastro because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 03:36 AM
link   
reply to post by RUSSO
 


Just point out where in the cables it states that scientists where manipulated.

It is that simple.



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 03:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by burdman30ott6
Wow, Assange just opened a hornet's nest with this one. I have been patiently waiting for 10 years or so for someone to finally rip the roof off of the anthropogenic climate change crap. I thought the hacked emails may have been what I was waiting for, but they were quickly and meticulously covered, excused, and ignored. The problem is that we have a sizeable group of people who have made this steaming pile their god. They worship at the altar of Al Gore so frequently that to say "Anthropogenic climate change (Acc) is a hoax and here is concrete proof PLUS confessions from your priests that it is a hoax" would be akin to walking up to a born again Christian and saying "Christ was a myth." Assange has more previously developed props from many of these Acc cultists because they also frequently line up against government agencies & military actions, so it will be extremely interesting to watch them as they wrestle between decrying the man they claimed to love or denouncing the god they have sacrificed everything to.


Yeh, people dont get it. Thank you for your post.



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 03:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by atlasastro
reply to post by RUSSO
 


Just point out where in the cables it states that scientists where manipulated.

It is that simple.



WikiLeaks cables reveal how US manipulated climate accord. Embassy dispatches show America used spying, threats and promises of aid to get support for Copenhagen accord



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 03:44 AM
link   
reply to post by atlasastro
 


Correct now. 24 h awake cause mistakes.

GLOBAL WARMING IS A HOAX!!!



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join