Global Warming Groups Claim Big Win In Battle Against " Climate Denialist" Approach In School

Originally posted by phantomjack
reply to post by Kali74

 

Science says that human emissions of GHG's are causing our current global warming and that is happening at a faster rate than any other warming period of our past (that we know of), there is consensus on this.

You see? This is exactly the problem. The globe is not warming faster than any other period. In fact, we are in a cooling cycle right now. Global warming supports tend to spread mis-information in order to get their way with a complete disregard for the facts.

And I guess you missed the entire Climate Gate scandal?

so, are you denying that that the CO2 levels in the atmosphere today, have never reached this extreme level when compared to the levels of the last hundred thousand or so years?....are you denying that the ice core samples analyzed for this CO2 level, are faked, or wrong? are you saying that small molecular changes to the composition of the atmosphere, cannot result in profound adverse affects over time? your dismissive attitude regarding decades of scientific study done by climatologists around the world, calls into question your motives for doing so.

Originally posted by jimmyx

Originally posted by phantomjack
reply to post by Kali74

 

Science says that human emissions of GHG's are causing our current global warming and that is happening at a faster rate than any other warming period of our past (that we know of), there is consensus on this.

You see? This is exactly the problem. The globe is not warming faster than any other period. In fact, we are in a cooling cycle right now. Global warming supports tend to spread mis-information in order to get their way with a complete disregard for the facts.

And I guess you missed the entire Climate Gate scandal?

so, are you denying that that the CO2 levels in the atmosphere today, have never reached this extreme level when compared to the levels of the last hundred thousand or so years?....are you denying that the ice core samples analyzed for this CO2 level, are faked, or wrong? are you saying that small molecular changes to the composition of the atmosphere, cannot result in profound adverse affects over time? your dismissive attitude regarding decades of scientific study done by climatologists around the world, calls into question your motives for doing so.

I do not deny the CO2 levels in the atmosphere today. The levels are certainly caused by man. But at the same time, CO2 is not alone responsible for climate change, as the Man Made Climate Change theorists insist.

Other factors most of which is solar activity, have created all, if any, increases in mean earth temperature for as long as it can and has been measured, just as it has to the other planets in this solar system.

And, I might add that earth is the only planet that has any life on it...in case you forgot.

reply to post by phantomjack

Reminds me of the ads from the 70s with the indian dropping tears because of pollution.

These days they are dropping polar bears from the sky. At least the Indian tears are realistic.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
oh, in case you wanted more, someone has taken the time to go through about 5000 emails, 250 of which are noteworthy. i'll start you off with one:

So while not endorsing this attempt at undermining our basis for current exceptional global warming, I must say I find myself in sympathy with much of what Will Hutton writes. In particular his conclusion that the debate around climate change is fundamentally about power and politics rather than the environment seems undeniable. There are not that many "facts" about (the meaning of) climate change which science can unequivocally reveal. I am copying this to Asher Minns, since Asher has been giving the issue of "sound science" and Tyndall's reaction to it some thought recently. Mike [Hulme]

wattsupwiththat.com...

you are quoting will hutton? he's an economist with a newspaper column, with no scientific backround....why would anyone believe his "conclusions"? his "opinion" is worthless, and without merit in regards to climate change

Originally posted by phantomjack
reply to post by Kali74

 

Here is a simple exercise for you. Lets pick ONE of these organizations you list and find specifically in any of their official literature where they "Endorse Man Mad Global Warming"

American Chemical Society.

Since I am a standing member, Lets start with this one.

My pleasure.

“Careful and comprehensive scientific assessments have clearly demonstrated that the Earth’s
climate system is changing in response to growing atmospheric burdens of greenhouse gases (GHGs)
and absorbing aerosol particles.” (IPCC, 2007) “Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by
human activities, and poses significant risks for—and in many cases is already affecting—a broad
range of human and natural systems.” (NRC, 2010a) “The potential threats are serious and actions
are required to mitigate climate change risks and to adapt to deleterious climate change impacts that
probably cannot be avoided.” (NRC, 2010b, c)
This statement reviews key probable climate change impacts and recommends actions required to
mitigate or adapt to current and anticipated consequences.

It would have been a simple exercise for you to click the link I provided and click the highlighted agency yourself.

reply to post by CB328

The real question is why conservatives have a religious and completely unfounded belief that humans can't ever harm the environment.

Ever heard of the GAIA hypothesis? This theory posits that the earth is one giant unit controlled by an Earth goddess named Gaia. Of course Lovelock makes it sound more scientific, but the global warming crowd worship her. I think it is highly interesting that the so-called knowledgeable climate change people worship a pagan goddess.

Even Lovelock has changed his tune....maybe he had reason to distance himself from Al Gore

James Lovelock, the maverick scientist who became a guru to the environmental movement with his “Gaia” theory of the Earth as a single organism, has admitted to being “alarmist” about climate change and says other environmental commentators, such as Al Gore, were too. . . .
“The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn’t happened,” Lovelock said.

countycitizen.com...

Originally posted by phantomjack

Originally posted by jimmyx

Originally posted by phantomjack
reply to post by Kali74

 

Science says that human emissions of GHG's are causing our current global warming and that is happening at a faster rate than any other warming period of our past (that we know of), there is consensus on this.

You see? This is exactly the problem. The globe is not warming faster than any other period. In fact, we are in a cooling cycle right now. Global warming supports tend to spread mis-information in order to get their way with a complete disregard for the facts.

And I guess you missed the entire Climate Gate scandal?

so, are you denying that that the CO2 levels in the atmosphere today, have never reached this extreme level when compared to the levels of the last hundred thousand or so years?....are you denying that the ice core samples analyzed for this CO2 level, are faked, or wrong? are you saying that small molecular changes to the composition of the atmosphere, cannot result in profound adverse affects over time? your dismissive attitude regarding decades of scientific study done by climatologists around the world, calls into question your motives for doing so.

I do not deny the CO2 levels in the atmosphere today. The levels are certainly caused by man. But at the same time, CO2 is not alone responsible for climate change, as the Man Made Climate Change theorists insist.

Other factors most of which is solar activity, have created all, if any, increases in mean earth temperature for as long as it can and has been measured, just as it has to the other planets in this solar system.

And, I might add that earth is the only planet that has any life on it...in case you forgot.

so, there is no need in your opinion, to cut back on man-made CO2 output, because solar activity is the culprit, and CO2 is not a contributing factor. therefore, we should continue to produce more.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

schools should be teaching about the sun cycles

They do.

not scaremongering the kids

Science isn't scary.

with ideas that man controls the climate by driving around in cars.

This line of reasoning has played itself out entirely. It was stupid 20 years ago, it's just as stupid now. You by your lonesome driving your car are not changing the climate. Please buy another strawman.

It's all part of the Agenda 21 program to depopulate down to 500 million people worldwide and control where people live, what they live in, what they eat.

Utter delusion. Agenda 21 is no such thing. Sustainable development is smart, it doesn't mean we're going to cram 50 grandmas into 2 bedroom holes in 500 story tall buildings. Sustainable development is all about how to grow with the population without destroying ourselves in the process. Furthermore the UN is never going to threaten our sovereignty, you really need to step out of your bubble once in a while and learn some reality.

Come to think of it, why do you and the OWS crowd only hate corporations when they are not propagandizing for a Progressive agenda like Climate Change? I was sure you would be on this like butter on bread....

I'm am not a spokesperson for Occupy and I see right through your attempt to put another 'black mark' on me here. We don't like the encroaching private hands on public education but that doesn't mean we have to hop on any old crazy bandwagon that comes along.

And please, must you really use that bogus hockey stick graph for your argument?

I didn't bring it up so back off. Enjoy your Al Gore spasm, hope you're nice and relaxed after.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


That's a ridiculous question to ask. For one thing, it has nothing to with the topic... for another 2 wrongs don't make a right... for another I never once said it was okay for anyone to harass anyone.

reply to post by Kali74


No, science isn't scary. Climate Change science is bogus though and they are scaremongering, just like the Story of Stuff is scaremongering. And it's nothing but envirowhacko bs. The Green environmentalists are running amok and this is where all this Sustainable Development stuff is coming from, but it is backed by the Elitist Club of Rome with Bill Gates at the helm. Bill Gates has underwritten the Globalist Common Core standards and curriculum, which teaches apparently the Climate Change theory of humans ruining the planet. You still don't get that it is nothing but the Elitist plan to depopulate the earth to the minimum, and move humans off the land and into densely populated areas for easier management and control of said population. It's all there in black and white. Some people do not see the handwriting on the wall even when it's right smack in front of them.

Speaking of knee jerk reactions....you can't resolve the fact that the Globalists are pushing this stuff and that even the big corporations are part of it so you just have to accuse me of being off topic. It is NOT off topic. For one thing both Al Gore and Bill Gates are members of the Elite Club of Rome and the Club of Rome is behind Agenda 21, and Bill Gates along with the Carnegie Foundation(gee who would have guessed that?) are funding the Common Core standards which are teaching Climate Change theories.....

This is far from the only investment in science education that philanthropists are making. The Carnegie Corp. is underwriting a National Research Council panel that is drawing up a new set of science education standards for release next year.

The Carnegie effort follows on the successful launch of a set of “common core” standards in math and language that more than 40 states have pledged to adopt. Standards are the basic set of skills and information that students are expected to master at each grade level. The common core standards were developed by the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers -- with heavy financial support from foundations, notably the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

www.governing.com...

CC is Really International, driven by UNESCO and Agenda 21: This is how sustainable development will be pushed into every school and university

shop.arccopy.com...

Gates "scientific" opinion on Climate Change and Population Control

Bill Gates revealed his own population goals in February, 2010, at the invitation-only Technology, Entertainment and Design Conference in Long Beach, California, when he gave his keynote speech on global warming: “Innovating to Zero!” In a youtube video available here, Gates stated that CO2 emissions must be reduced to zero by 2050 and advised those in attendance that population had much to do with the increase in CO2. Claiming that each individual on the planet puts out an average of about five tons of CO2 per year, Gates stated that “Somehow we have to make changes that will bring that down to zero…

www.crisismagazine.com...

I sincerely hope that you will begin to see the handwriting in front of you.
I'm sure most of us want to be good stewards of the land, but this is really a globalist agenda and I hope you will shortly see it.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


The only scaremongering I see around here is you and your ilk, spreading propaganda about population control and completely demonizing anyone who isn't as far Right as you are. Your last post is nothing but the vomit of all the insanity you are feeding yourself. I am not an evil person, liberals aren't evil, progressives aren't evil, and those of us further left are not evil, environmentalists are not evil... I am beyond sick of your assertions that we are. Someone doesn't have to be evil in order for you to disagree with them. Either grow up, or seek help.

Originally posted by Kali74

Originally posted by phantomjack
reply to post by Kali74

 

Here is a simple exercise for you. Lets pick ONE of these organizations you list and find specifically in any of their official literature where they "Endorse Man Mad Global Warming"

American Chemical Society.

Since I am a standing member, Lets start with this one.

My pleasure.

“Careful and comprehensive scientific assessments have clearly demonstrated that the Earth’s
climate system is changing in response to growing atmospheric burdens of greenhouse gases (GHGs)
and absorbing aerosol particles.” (IPCC, 2007) “Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by
human activities, and poses significant risks for—and in many cases is already affecting—a broad
range of human and natural systems.” (NRC, 2010a) “The potential threats are serious and actions
are required to mitigate climate change risks and to adapt to deleterious climate change impacts that
probably cannot be avoided.” (NRC, 2010b, c)
This statement reviews key probable climate change impacts and recommends actions required to
mitigate or adapt to current and anticipated consequences.

It would have been a simple exercise for you to click the link I provided and click the highlighted agency yourself.

What I find ironic is the paragraph directly above your quote reads:

our ability to quantitatively predict how the future
climate will respond to continued and increasing greenhouse-gas and fine-particle emissions is still
limited

Now, if the understanding and ability to predict the future is limited, how is it that taxing an industry now, is going to solve the problem in the future? How is shutting down coal fired electricity today going to change anything later?

Seems to be contradicting to me.

reply to post by phantomjack


Move goal posts much? You implied that the information I presented was false. You were trying to assert that there's no consensus. You tried to assert your authority on the matter and now that you have been shown that you were wrong, you're going to move along to something else?

Climate science makes no solid claim on how AGW is going to affect us or when. The only thing climate science says is that the planet is warming due to our actions and we think the climate will react this, this and this way.

Originally posted by jimmyx

Originally posted by phantomjack

Originally posted by jimmyx

Originally posted by phantomjack
reply to post by Kali74

 

Science says that human emissions of GHG's are causing our current global warming and that is happening at a faster rate than any other warming period of our past (that we know of), there is consensus on this.

You see? This is exactly the problem. The globe is not warming faster than any other period. In fact, we are in a cooling cycle right now. Global warming supports tend to spread mis-information in order to get their way with a complete disregard for the facts.

And I guess you missed the entire Climate Gate scandal?

so, are you denying that that the CO2 levels in the atmosphere today, have never reached this extreme level when compared to the levels of the last hundred thousand or so years?....are you denying that the ice core samples analyzed for this CO2 level, are faked, or wrong? are you saying that small molecular changes to the composition of the atmosphere, cannot result in profound adverse affects over time? your dismissive attitude regarding decades of scientific study done by climatologists around the world, calls into question your motives for doing so.

I do not deny the CO2 levels in the atmosphere today. The levels are certainly caused by man. But at the same time, CO2 is not alone responsible for climate change, as the Man Made Climate Change theorists insist.

Other factors most of which is solar activity, have created all, if any, increases in mean earth temperature for as long as it can and has been measured, just as it has to the other planets in this solar system.

And, I might add that earth is the only planet that has any life on it...in case you forgot.

so, there is no need in your opinion, to cut back on man-made CO2 output, because solar activity is the culprit, and CO2 is not a contributing factor. therefore, we should continue to produce more.

I am saying the effects are insignificant when compared to Solar activity, which, can not be controlled or predicted.

reply to post by phantomjack

I am saying the effects are insignificant when compared to Solar activity, which, can not be controlled or predicted.

Except they aren't insignificant, your own American Chemical Society agrees. Why not discuss it with them? Ask them why they take the position they do? Ask them why they don't assert that the sun far outweighs any amount of GHG's we put in the atmosphere.

reply to post by Kali74


Spreading propaganda about population control? Are you freaking kidding me? I just posted Bill Gates darn speech at a Ted conference that is totally based on the Globalist agenda of depopulation. How much in your face can it get? I have shown where the Globalists are teaching Climate Change in the new Common Core standards and that the Bill and Melinda Gates and Carnegie Foundations are funding it and Exxon is supporting it publicly. The depopulation agenda is in all the Agenda 21 material and in statements by it's major proponents, including Maurice Strong and former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev.

Take off the freakin leftist horse blinders and look where you are going.

I rarely say things like this but you must really be tied in to the Global conspiracy to be continually supporting all their programs while pretending to be the opposition.

reply to post by Kali74

You were trying to assert that there's no consensus.

Manufacturing consensus is exactly what the Agenda 21 proponents do. I've already posted on this in other threads. They use a technique called The Delphi Technique. It was exposed by liberal Democrat and self proclaimed lesbian Rosa Koire in her book, "Behind The Green Mask".

There is no real scientific consensus based on true scientific principles, and even the IPCC manufactured the so-called consensus in their report and some of the scientists whose materials contributed to the report objected to using their stuff.

The "consensus" is completely contrived by the Left Hegelian Globalists.

reply to post by Kali74

Climate science makes no solid claim on how AGW is going to affect us or when

Speaking of moving goalposts, didn't you just do it now when we told you that James Lovelock even changed his opinion saying that we don't really know what the climate is doing? The AGW crowd have been telling us now for years that the planet is warming and that co2 is going to destroy everything in just a few years.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


No they haven't been saying it's going to destroy everything in a few years.
Show me proof of this.

And who is we? YOU brought up GAIA and Lovelock or whatever his name is, no one else did. You brought up Gates, no one else did. And why should I answer a post of yours that asserts there's something wrong or evil about Paganism. Why should I entertain your fantasies?

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

 

No they haven't been saying it's going to destroy everything in a few years.
Show me proof of this.

And who is we? YOU brought up GAIA and Lovelock or whatever his name is, no one else did. You brought up Gates, no one else did. And why should I answer a post of yours that asserts there's something wrong or evil about Paganism. Why should I entertain your fantasies?

edit on 15-4-2013 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)

Yes, I brought up James Lovelock because he is the scientist who pioneered the GAIA Hypothesis. He wrote a book about it, and the environmentalist crowd latched on to it. I posted his verbatim statement that he and Al Gore as well as others made it sound more alarming than it is, and we know from Climategate emails that proponents used the Global Warming theory to advance global control. The Bilderbergs want a global tax and they were on board with a carbon tax. They didn't get it because the scam was exposed and then they switched to the European Socialist plan to have a global financial transaction fee(ergo a tax).

But now the Obama people are pushing this bogus Climate Change stuff in Common Core.
I don't know what else I can say but that some day when we are all trapped by the Globalists completely you will say gee Third Eye was right and I will say I told you so but you refused to listen because of your ideological focus and worldview.

The Gaia thing was in response to another poster's insistence that religious people were goofballs. I thought it was interesting that the Climate Change people have their own religion based on a pagan goddess. What else can be said but that it's all so thick with hypocrisy it's laughable.



Yes, I DID bring up Gates because he is a billionaire who is funding Climate Change bs in the schools along with Carnegie, Ford, and Exxon and others. What is difficult to understand about that? I have explained the link between Gates, Club of Rome, Agenda 21, Obama admin, Common Core standards and the environmentalist lobby in general.

You just don't want to see it.