 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1]
|
|
2
|
Political Discussions / The Environment / Re: 100 Climate Scientists Write UN to say Global Warming is Bunk
|
on: March 07, 2008, 05:07:11 PM
|
Even if the whole man induced climate change is a scientific hoax it will possibly go down in history as one of the most beneficial hoaxes of all times. It does not require a graduate degree in environmental sciences to see that our way of life is harmful to our environment in the long run. The concept of sustainability requires that our impact on the general environment is neutral, the whole discussion about climate change and how to alliviate it centers on reducing or eliminating our impact on the environment. And by the way that is a GOOD thing. Especailly if it will mean that our offsprings, and their offsprings will be able to breathe as clean an air as we do.
Can't argue with that. If the GW hoax helps push clean energy then good. Plenty of REAL pollutants that should be reduced. |
|
|
|
|
3
|
Political Discussions / The Environment / Re: 100 Climate Scientists Write UN to say Global Warming is Bunk
|
on: March 04, 2008, 06:23:48 AM
|
Again with the 'Church of Gore' BS. I am guessing that the forums you post on elsewhere must be pretty different than IAP...
I use the term to describe the almost religion-like adherence to the doctrine that man has caused climate change and man can stop it. Only in a religion would masses of people ignore facts and blindly follow an unsupported idea. However, so as not to offend any such followers, I shall edit it out........  Oh, and Yes, other place I post are often quite different. |
|
|
|
|
4
|
Political Discussions / The Environment / 100 Climate Scientists Write UN to say Global Warming is Bunk
|
on: March 03, 2008, 07:52:39 PM
|
Since it is not popular to report on things that go against the widespread belief that man causes climate change, this open letter to the UN Secretary General from 100 climate scientists went largely unreported. It boldly states that man made global warming is at best bunk, and at worst, a deliberate deception by the UN . http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164002Open Letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations
Dec. 13, 2007
His Excellency Ban Ki-Moon
Secretary-General, United Nations
New York, N.Y.
Dear Mr. Secretary-General,
Re: UN climate conference taking the World in entirely the wrong direction
It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages. Geological, archaeological, oral and written histories all attest to the dramatic challenges posed to past societies from unanticipated changes in temperature, precipitation, winds and other climatic variables. We therefore need to equip nations to become resilient to the full range of these natural phenomena by promoting economic growth and wealth generation.
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPC C) has issued increasingly alarming conclusions about the climatic influences of human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2), a non-polluting gas that is essential to plant photosynthesis. While we understand the evidence that has led them to view CO2 emissions as harmful, the IPC , C's conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity. In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions. On top of which, because attempts to cut emissions will slow development, the current UN approach of CO2 reduction is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather than to decrease it.
The IPC C Summaries for Policy Makers are the most widely read IPC C reports amongst politicians and non-scientists and are the basis for most climate change policy formulation. Yet these Summaries are prepared by a relatively small core writing team with the final drafts approved line-by-line by government representatives. The great majority of IPC C contributors and reviewers, and the tens of thousands of other scientists who are qualified to comment on these matters, are not involved in the preparation of these documents. The summaries therefore cannot properly be represented as a consensus view among experts.
Contrary to the impression left by the IPC C Summary reports:
z Recent observations of phenomena such as glacial retreats, sea-level rise and the migration of temperature-sensitive species are not evidence for abnormal climate change, for none of these changes has been shown to lie outside the bounds of known natural variability.
z The average rate of warming of 0.1 to 0. 2 degrees Celsius per decade recorded by satellites during the late 20th century falls within known natural rates of warming and cooling over the last 10,000 years.
z Leading scientists, including some senior IPC C representatives, acknowledge that today's computer models cannot predict climate. Consistent with this, and despite computer projections of temperature rises, there has been no net global warming since 1998. That the current temperature plateau follows a late 20th-century period of warming is consistent with the continuation today of natural multi-decadal or millennial climate cycling.
In stark contrast to the often repeated assertion that the science of climate change is "settled," significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming. But because IPC C working groups were generally instructed (see http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/wg1_timetable_2006-08-14.pdf) to consider work published only through May, 2005, these important findings are not included in their reports; i.e., the IPC C assessment reports are already materially outdated.
The UN climate conference in Bali has been planned to take the world along a path of severe CO2 restrictions, ignoring the lessons apparent from the failure of the Kyoto Protocol, the chaotic nature of the European CO2 trading market, and the ineffectiveness of other costly initiatives to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Balanced cost/benefit analyses provide no support for the introduction of global measures to cap and reduce energy consumption for the purpose of restricting CO2 emissions. Furthermore, it is irrational to apply the "precautionary principle" because many scientists recognize that both climatic coolings and warmings are realistic possibilities over the medium-term future.
The current UN focus on "fighting climate change," as illustrated in the Nov. 27 UN Development Programme's Human Development Report, is distracting governments from adapting to the threat of inevitable natural climate changes, whatever forms they may take. National and international planning for such changes is needed, with a focus on helping our most vulnerable citizens adapt to conditions that lie ahead. Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity's real and pressing problems.
Yours faithfully,By following the link you will see another link to the signatories, quite an impressive bunch. Notice the underlined part....this is a DELIBERATE deception by the UN.  "Broad Consensus" my butt....... |
|
|
|
|
5
|
Political Discussions / United States / Re: Huckabee Wins Kansas
|
on: February 14, 2008, 06:02:31 PM
|
|
Patton, I agree with almost everything Huck supposedly stands for, probably same as you. BUT the man mentions GOD and goverment in the same sentence too much. The campaigns in Churches too much too. That just is not what America is about, and was never ment to be. I could never vote for him, he scares me that way.......
|
|
|
|
|
7
|
Political Discussions / The Environment / Re: The Latest Global Warming Flip Flop
|
on: February 14, 2008, 05:47:27 PM
|
Personally, I think it is fair to say that we just don't know as much about Mother Nature as we sometimes think. We certainly don't know enough to say that we are causing a rise in temperatures.
That being said, I also don't see any harm in being good stewards of the land...that would actually be a good thing. As would weening off of oil, especially foreign.
Agree wholeheartedly. I doubt man is 100% or even 10% responsiblefor any climate fluctuations. However there are plenty of REAL pollutants in fossil fuels. We have cut them way back as opposed to say the 1960's, still we can do without them altogether. Probelm is, the environuts are opposed to ALL forms of energy...hell they even object to windfarms now (kills the very stupidest birds you know) |
|
|
|
|
8
|
Political Discussions / United States / Re: US to Sell Precision-Guided Bombs to Saudi Arabia
|
on: January 17, 2008, 09:39:58 AM
|
Lets see.... Weapons of mass destruction to a mideast dictatorship...certainly if we had done that before and it went wrong we wouldn't do THAT again would we??
Lets see: 1) we are not selling any weapons, we are selling the kits to change iron bombs they already have to guided bombs..... 2) a B-52 dropping 20,000 pounds of iron to get a single facility is a weapon of mass destruction. On the other hand, a F-15E dropping a single 1000 pound bomb aimed with this kit, is not. You see it is in the definition of "mass". With the B-52 you might kill 1000 civilians, the F-15 and the smart bomb, might kill zero......... |
|
|
|
|
9
|
Political Discussions / United States / Re: When is rape okay?
|
on: January 17, 2008, 09:29:14 AM
|
I would not have "raped him" BUT The teenager was arrested on January 2 after the stepfather caught him sodomizing the 8-year old girl. Further examinations confirmed traces of evidence that proved that the girl was sodomized. He caught the MAN (this is not a teenager) sodomizing his daughter and should have shot him right there... He would not have been convicted and the world would have one less child rapist around. There ya go........  |
|
|
|
|
