Beside what others have already replied to this, are you really asserting that all the fuzz that's been made about global warming by governments of so many countries happened because of scientific opinions that were not held by the majority of scientists? I don't know how it is in America but in Europe governments don't implement rules which hurt the economy and which were fought by big industry just because a few scientists make some claims.
I'm sorry, but your posts don't look like newspaper articles. But even if Walter Williams wrote such a column in the Washington Times, what I'm interested in is some source for the "facts" you mentioned. From your reply I take it that you are unable to provide it.
I absolutely agree that those are not scientific terms. If you bother to read my post you'll notice that I never implied that the majority of scientists must be correct, I only said that it'll be tough to simply disregard them. And I did not even use the word "consensus". So what exactly did you observe about my "doublespeak"?? ;-)
On that very same site I found this:
"
[FONT=times new roman,times]In August 2007, a comprehensive survey of peer-reviewed scientific literature from 2004-2007 revealed "Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory." [/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]"Of 539 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers 'implicit' endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no 'consensus,'" according to an August 29, 2007 article in Daily Tech. "[/FONT]
45% endorse the global warming hypothesis, 6% reject it. With 48% being neutral I absolutely agree that this is no consensus, but in the face of these figures it's hard to dispute that there are more believers than sceptics, isn't it, MJ?
The bottom line for many of us skeptics is the constant use of polls to try to sway the public on this subject.
Again...polls are NOT a part of the scientific process. Polls are a dead giveaway for a political process.
The idea that I have more scientists than you have is ridiculous...yet this seems to be the main point the global warmers try to use.
Again...where is this poll? What are the parameters for the poll? Who decided the parameters?
Can I see proof of this? Please?
MJ, you are boring me. As everyone except you has understood by now, I'm not a "global warmer", my whole point is that people like you who choose to entirely ignore a possible danger just because it's not proven are acting irresponsibly.
This is not about polls, this is not about which side one wants to believe, this is the question whether there is a danger or not. With lots of scientists saying there is a danger it's obviously prudent to at least increase research in this area instead of just dismissing the global warming theory unless it can be conclusively proven wrong. Nothing you have written in any of the threads about this topic comes anywhere close to delivering such a proof.
Oh and btw, if you quote something from a certain website but then dispute something I quoted from the very same site it really shows class.
MJ, you are boring me. As everyone except you has understood by now, I'm not a "global warmer", my whole point is that people like you who choose to entirely ignore a possible danger just because it's not proven are acting irresponsibly.
This is not about polls, this is not about which side one wants to believe, this is the question whether there is a danger or not. With lots of scientists saying there is a danger it's obviously prudent to at least increase research in this area instead of just dismissing the global warming theory unless it can be conclusively proven wrong. Nothing you have written in any of the threads about this topic comes anywhere close to delivering such a proof.
Oh and btw, if you quote something from a certain website but then dispute something I quoted from the very same site it really shows class.
Blah blah blah...now where is this poll that proves a scientific consensus again? You keep talking about it...and I have asked you to show it to us.
I'll have to assume you once again have no clue what you are talking about and just keep pulling stuff out of your ass.
1) Prove there is a current warming trend.
2) Prove current warming trend is anthropogenic (man-made).
Doubtful, the big upward trend line started 16,000 years ago (and since the first peak 10,000 years ago is actually trending down). The small upward trend line started 200 years ago (end of the Little Ice Age), and we are just approaching conditions equal to the Medieval Warm Period (800-1300 AD).
3) Prove that warm is a bad thing. Doubtful again.
If it is possible for man to warm the planet (doubtful), that is a very fucking good thing, given the last 10,000 years (the whole of human civilization) has been a warm anomaly.
I do know one thing that isn't difficult to prove at all. Cold is *bad*.
Global temperatures over the past quarter of a million years (the horizontal scale is in thousands of years, the vertical in degrees Celsius).
Interesting graph Adam. I assume it is created from ice core sampling. Can you provide a link? Thanks
What gripes my ass about some of the rat wang refusing to accept any kind of conservation issues is they are the same ones that defend deficit spending and passing along the debt to future generations.
Its as though they are all for us using up everything that we have inherited from past generations and our creator and leaving nothing but bills to our heirs.
And they call themselves conservative? I call them self centered greedy bastards.
Its as though they are all for us using up everything that we have inherited from past generations and our creator and leaving nothing but bills to our heirs.
And they call themselves conservative? I call them self centered greedy bastards.
You want to tax the hell out of the younger generation over a problem that doesn't even exist...for your own political motives...and you call the people that oppose it greedy.
:lolBIG: Buy a clue punter. It's just plain stupid to waste resources on a problem that doesn't exist.
Only the left wing loons would try to classify an essential gas for life on earth as a pollutant. :nohead:
You do know that plants love C02..right? And more is better. :lol:
You think that a trillion dollar deficit (soon to be 2 trillion) is a problem that does not exist?
Burning up all the oil with no plan to convert to other energy sources, it a problem that does not exist?
You think there is a shortage of CO2 or did you just run outta stupid things to say?
Burning up all the oil with no plan to convert to other energy sources, it a problem that does not exist?
You think there is a shortage of CO2 or did you just run outta stupid things to say?
MJ, we already know that you have severe problems with reading comprehension, you don't have to prove that over and over again.
You challenge me to prove that there is a scientific consensus? Please show me where I claimed such a consensus exists. You know very well that I never did, not even once. So how can I "keep talking about it", and in what way could it show that I'm clueless and invent stuff?
MJ, I understand that you have to make diversions in an attempt to mask your inability to make sensible replies regarding my substantial points, but you may want to try to do it in a way that's a little less embarrassing for you...
MJ....Very well said! This whole Global Warming b.s. is a hoax!! The government is using propaganda via the news media, t.v. programs (they do not call it programming for nothing) to lay out the red carpet for carbon taxes....trying to get some people to understand this is almost impossible....but they will eventually see...
OK, it's more then just a quick answer...it is an entire agenda that has been in the works for some time now by the global elite! It has to do with Global Warming, Eugenics (population reduction via promotion of abortion, homosexuality...ie...aids, tainting our drinking water with fluoride, putting mercury in our vaccines...aka themersol, it's supposedly a preservative to prolong the shelf life....which the last two are direct links to Autism, Alzheimers, possibly cancer and other tumors etc...see Georgia Guidestones) anyways, the idea is to bring down populations and the most industrialized civilizations...like the USA.
Maurice Strong, aka as the "godfather of the international environmental movement" and the "architect of the Kyoto Protocol" also prior director of the "United Nations Environmental Program" is a member of the World Economic Forum ( members include CEO's, prime ministers, finance ministers and leading academics) that meets each February to discuss and set economic agendas for the year ahead. In 1990 in an interview with "West" magazine, Strong says..."The groups vision is that in order to save the planet the industrialized nations must collapse...is it not our duty to bring this about?"
See, look around you...dont things just seem messed up? Bailing out Wall Street, the automakers...soon the airlines will want theirs too and so on. What is happening is clearly "destruction by design". They want to bring us to our knees (a great depression) and one way to do it is to financially bankrupt us which they have done a good job of. So, they must BILK us of all money possible...i.e...bailouts, taxes (carbon taxes) expensive wars, NAFTA....etc
One way to definately gain control of a population is to have them literally "hungry"...well, collapse an economy and you will have people rioting in the streets, people hungry and all sorts of chaos (which brings in Martial Law and that's another story) After enough of this, society will beg for an answer...this answer will come in the form of "The North American Union" or "NAU" and the "Amero" dollar will be introduced...and the Americans will LOVE this, because at that point, people will accept anything to get life back to normal. (google...NAU, Amero, Nafta super highway)
See, it's "problem, reaction, solution" ....just like 9-11...create or manufacture a problem...wait for the public's reaction...then conveniently come up with a solution...then society will let their government do whatever they "need" to do to correct the manufactured problem.
I am sure there is a "problem" coming very soon so that Obama can come up with a "solution" to the "problem" that will enable him to continue on with everything that Bush/Clinton/Bush have started....that way he will not seem like a failure when he can not deliver on all of his promises he used to get elected. (it would have been the same reult with McCain)
There is NO difference in Bush/Obama...Republican/Democrat...right/left...well, on the surface there is, but that is just to keep us all divided and in-fighting... this allows them to continue their agenda more easily & rapidly. Imagine someone with two puppets...one on their left hand and one on their right hand...pretend those puppets are arguing and such...are they really...NO! The man in the middle is controlling it all! This is our government...the man in the middle!
Now, here are a few more quotes that you can find by using google...they all come from people that TOTALLY support the global warming hoax.....
Prince Phillip said on the floor of the United nations that his one dream is "he wants to die and reincarnate and come back as a deadly virus and kill off 80% of the human population"
At present the population of the world is increasing at about 58,000 per diem. War, so far, has had no very great effect on this increase as we had hoped, which continued throughout each of the world wars. War has hitherto been disappointing in this respect but perhaps bacteriological war may prove more effective. If a Black Death could spread throughout the world once in every generation, survivors could procreate freely without making the world too full. The state of affairs might be somewhat unpleasant, but what of it. Really high-minded people are indifferent to happiness, especially other peoples.
Lord Bertrand Russell, The Impact of Science on Society, 1953
I got the impression that instead of going out to shoot birds, I should go out and shoot the kids who shoot birds.
Paul Watson, founder of Greenpeace, as quoted by Dixy Lee Ray in her book Trashing the Planet (1990).
Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license. All potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals, with the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.
David Brower, first executive director of the Sierra Club; founder of Friends of the Earth; and founder of the Earth Island Institute.
(after reading that one, sounds a little like Hitler's want of a "perfect" race and is there any wonder why we have so much sicknesses and death?)
I suspect that eradicating small pox was wrong. It played an important part in balancing ecosystems.
John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal
A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.
Ted Turner, media mogul, as quoted in Audubon, November-December 1991
Cannibalism is a radical but realistic solution to the problem of overpopulation.
Dr Lyall Watson, anthropologist, Commissioner for the International Whaling Commission, as quoted in the Financial Times, 15 July 1995
To feed a starving child is to exacerbate the world population problem.
Dr. Lamont Cole, Professor of Ecology, Cornell University, as quoted by Elizabeth Whelan in her book Toxic Terror
***notice the common denominator in several of the above.....Green Peace, Earth Institute, Earth First....etc.....hence....the global warming propaganda agenda***
For more information, google Naomi Wolf (watch youtube videos, read her books) Alex Jones (check out website) Dr. Paul Craig Roberts (assistant secretary of the treasury...1980-84...view website) and there is many more!
Sometimes, the truth is starnger then fiction.......
Custom, nice rant but not really an answer to my question. Who exactly is "they"? How come "they" have so much power that they influence politics all over the world? What exaqctly is this "carbon tax", have steps been taken already to implement it and how exactly would such a carbon tax lead to the downfall of the western civilisation?
And as to your quotes - I hate being told to "google it". Can you provide links or did you just copy those from some newsletter e-mail you received? do you know anything about the context these supposed quotes were made in.
I'm sorry, but it takes a little more to convince me, so far it sounds just like another kooky conspiration theory.
And as to your quotes - I hate being told to "google it". Can you provide links or did you just copy those from some newsletter e-mail you received? do you know anything about the context these supposed quotes were made in.
I'm sorry, but it takes a little more to convince me, so far it sounds just like another kooky conspiration theory.
