Climate Change The New Catalyst For Globalists/Communist Utopia

by Perry 372 Replies latest members politics

  • B-Rock
    B-Rock

    Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa: "That portion of the scientific community that attributes climate warming to CO 2 relies on the hypothesis that increasing CO 2 , which is in fact a minor greenhouse gas, triggers a much larger water vapour response to warm the atmosphere. This mechanism has never been tested scientifically beyond the mathematical models that predict extensive warming, and are confounded by the complexity of cloud formation – which has a cooling effect. ... We know that [the sun] was responsible for climate change in the past, and so is clearly going to play the lead role in present and future climate change. And interestingly... solar activity has recently begun a downward cycle." [ 21 ]

  • B-Rock
  • B-Rock
  • B-Rock
    B-Rock

    Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University: "global warming since 1900 could well have happened without any effect of CO2. If the cycles continue as in the past, the current warm cycle should end soon and global temperatures should cool slightly until about 2035" [ 23 ]

  • B-Rock
  • B-Rock
  • B-Rock
    B-Rock

    Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London: "...the myth is starting to implode. ... Serious new research at The Max Planck Society has indicated that the sun is a far more significant factor..." [ 44 ]

    Craig D. Idso, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University and founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change: "the rising CO 2 content of the air should boost global plant productivity dramatically, enabling humanity to increase food, fiber and timber production and thereby continue to feed, clothe, and provide shelter for their still-increasing numbers ... this atmospheric CO

  • villabolo
    villabolo

    B-Rock:

    Villabolo isfunny. He can't be serious with his argument regarding the charts. They are throughly accurate, and they make the point that Greenland has been far warmer than now, even only a few hundred years ago.

    You have just avoided for the umpteenth time to answer a question directly. The temperatures and time scales are still fudged in spite of your meaningless quip about my humour. The question as to the validity of the charts still stand.

    As far as Greenland being warmer for a while that is irrelevant to the basic issue at hand. Your illogical premises, whenever you invoke that fact, is that the medieval warm period somehow proves that man cannot have the same and more drastic effects than nature can. By the way the medieval warm period is called that because it affected Europe (and Greenland and the eastern seacoast of the American continent). It did not necessarily affect the whole world. The bottom line is that man can do whatever nature can.

    villabolo

  • besty
    besty
    Have you noticed when the skeptics do cite a source its usually to a denier blog or the media,
    You mean like your posts above copied verbatim from climateskeptic? Your dishonesty is boundless, isn't it, besty?

    struggling to even land a decent blow :-)

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm

    is the actual link. but well done for trying.

    not clear on your point b-rock. I posted (pasted) a set of scientific papers - in their entirety - as a sample of the 97.5% of climate scientists who accept that humans are contributing to rising temperatures.

    you have pasted a selection of mined quotes from the 2.5% that may not agree. with a bunch of broken links. You could have just pasted the wikipedia link and we would have been able to read at source without all the broken links. Of course that may have led the reader to the following disclaimer:

    For the purpose of this list, a scientist is a person who has published at least one peer-reviewed article during their lifetime in the broadly-construed area of natural sciences, though not necessarily in recent years nor in a field relevant to climate.

    ok - we can agree to disagree on where the weight of opinion is.

    I note that you have now added boundless dishonesty to industrial strength Grade A certifiability - you are so thoughtful and considerate, such effortless charisma....

    Meantime my forgetful friend:

    B-Rock - if you have no intention of answering any of my 4 questions resulting from your posts then just let me know and I'll drop it.
    B-Rock My first question to you remains unanswered: Are you implying that the CIA stating there is scientific consensus is the same thing as there actually being scientific consensus? When you answer that I will respond suitably. Second question: Why have you chosen not to respond to my deconstruction of the Forbes/Washington Post half-truth misquotes? Third question: Why the instant ad hominem? You are industrial strength grade A certifiable, buddy. Fourth question: Why do you keep pasting more 'stuff' without answering my questions?
  • freydo
    freydo

    The Ascendancy of the Scientific Dictatorship Part One: Illuminating the Occult Origin of Darwinism

    - by Phillip D. Collins ©, Feb. 24th, 2005

    "A s antiquity gave way to modern history, the religious power structure shifted to an autocracy of the knowable, or a 'scientific dictatorship.' Subtly and swiftly, the ruling class seized control of science and used it as an 'epistemological weapon' against the masses. This article will show that the history and background of this 'scientific dictatorship' is a conspiracy, created and micro-managed by the historical tide of Darwinism, which has its foundations in Freemasonry............" http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/NWO/Ascendancy.htm

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit