Thread: Top Judge Declares Global Warming a Myth (from CL)

Originally Posted by Clockwork Orange

If people can't see that this is all a scam, they are in the grip of advanced mental illness, too.

Here's some news from these "totally sociopathic loons" in the "grip of advanced mental illness":

Scientists agree global warming is killing the world

5:00AM Monday November 19, 2007
By Derek Cheng



The latest international update on climate change says global warming is turning oceans acidic and threatening marine life but offers new hope - the cost of tackling carbon emissions is modest and the means to do it are already available.

The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change yesterday delivered its strongest warning yet, calling the rise in global temperatures "unequivocal" and its effects potentially irreversible and laying blame - with at least 90 per cent probability - on humans.

But the report, which summarises the findings from three volumes of scientific research issued this year, said reducing greenhouse gas emissions was not overly costly and could be accomplished through "technologies that are either currently available or expected to be commercialised in coming decades".

Stabilising carbon dioxide levels by 2050 could be achieved at the cost of decreasing global GDP by up to 5.5 per cent - an annual slowing of 0.12 per cent - or it could even increase by 1 per cent.

The report, the result of five days of sometimes-tense negotiations among 140 national delegations, will be the basis of an attempt in Bali next month to force a new international agreement to follow the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012.

Victoria University public policy professor Jonathan Boston said the report poured cold water on the idea - championed by parts of the business community - that tackling climate change would destroy the economy. "It's very unfortunate that there aren't more leading New Zealand businessmen and women who recognise the long-term and the wider economic opportunities, rather than just narrow short-term self-interest," said Professor Boston, who is also deputy director of the Institute of Policy Studies.

"It's a bit of a luddite mentality, to be blunt. In the long run there's no question [reducing emissions] will make us better off, but potentially there could be long-term economic benefits as well."
The report is being trumpeted as an urgent call to action by green groups and organisations including Greenpeace, the United Nations and the European Union.

The report said climate change effects were already under way, worsening, and could be "abrupt" or "irreversible".
The effects of climate change were unavoidable, but adaptation and mitigation "can significantly reduce the risks".

Action - or inaction - in the next two to three decades would have a "large impact" on the chances of reducing emissions and stabilising the level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Delaying action would see the window of opportunity narrow significantly while increasing "the risk of more severe climate change impacts".

Among the report's findings was that the acidity of the ocean's surface water - which absorbs carbon dioxide from the atmosphere - has risen 30 per cent and this could treble by the end of the century.
Other impacts include shrinking glaciers - six cubic kilometres of ice melted away from New Zealand glaciers in the past 30 years - thinning Arctic summer sea ice and thawing permafrost.

By 2100, global average surface temperatures could rise by between 1.1C and 6.4C compared to 1980-99 levels, pushing up sea levels by 18cm to 59cm. Heatwaves, rainstorms and tropical cyclones are expected to become more frequent, more widespread or more intense.
In New Zealand, more frequent and intense storms and coastal flooding are expected by 2050, and an increase in coastal developments would make the problem worse.

In eastern regions, water security problems and agriculture and forestry production are projected to decline because of increased drought and fire by 2030 - but this would be offset by initial gains in agriculture from a slightly warmer climate and consistent rainfall.

Every country would feel the effects, but those at the forefront would be developing countries and small island states where hundreds of millions of people live in low-lying areas or rely on a stable climate.

Climate Change Minister David Parker said the report showed it would be more costly to ignore climate change than to deal with it. "Even at the household level, simple steps can cut vehicle fuel and energy bills significantly and improve people's health while cutting emissions."
He said Government announcements to tackle climate change - including an emissions trading scheme - looked at making use of IPCC-approved measures, including putting a price on carbon and developing renewable energy.

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon appealed to political leaders for a breakthrough at a climate change conference in Bali next month.
"We cannot afford to leave Bali" without one."

THE IPCC REPORT:
* Climate change is unequivocal, and its effects are well under way and becoming worse.

* The most severe effects would leave the world's poorest nations the most vulnerable and threaten plant and animal species with extinction. In New Zealand, drought would hit the agriculture and forestry industries, while storms and rising seas would batter coastal developments.

* The cost of cutting emissions to a stable level by 2050 is small. It could decrease annual global GDP growth by 0.12 per cent, or could even increase global GDP growth.

Yes, completely loony.

I really don't know how much humans count in this global warming.
Seems it has been up and down before and in the last 100 years it has only went up 1 deg.C..

Glacial-Interglacial Cycles

Climate-related sea-level changes of the last century are very minor compared with the large changes in sea level that occur as climate oscillates between the cold and warm intervals that are part of the Earth's natural cycle of long-term climate change.

During cold-climate intervals, known as glacial epochs or ice ages, sea level falls because of a shift in the global hydrologic cycle: water is evaporated from the oceans and stored on the continents as large ice sheets and expanded ice caps, ice fields, and mountain glaciers. Global sea level was about 125 meters below today's sea level at the last glacial maximum about 20,000 years ago (Fairbanks, 1989). As the climate warmed, sea level rose because the melting North American, Eurasian, South American, Greenland, and Antarctic ice sheets returned their stored water to the world's oceans. During the warmest intervals, called interglacial epochs, sea level is at its highest. Today we are living in the most recent interglacial, an interval that started about 10,000 years ago and is called the Holocene Epoch by geologists. Sea levels during several previous interglacials were about 3 to as much as 20 meters higher than current sea level. The evidence comes from two different but complementary types of studies. One line of evidence is provided by old shoreline features (fig. 2). Wave-cut terraces and beach deposits from regions as separate as the Caribbean and the North Slope of Alaska suggest higher sea levels during past interglacial times. A second line of evidence comes from sediments cored from below the existing Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets. The fossils and chemical signals in the sediment cores indicate that both major ice sheets were greatly reduced from their current size or even completely melted one or more times in the recent geologic past. The precise timing and details of past sea-level history are still being debated, but there is clear evidence for past sea levels significantly higher than current sea level.

USGS FS 002-00: Sea Level and Climate

Now that was done with no humans helping and just by Mother Nature working all by herself, and if she wants to do it again, what the fuk can you do about it??
But then human nature always has been a sucker for Con Men, just look, Gore damn near conned the people of the USA into giving him a term as top dog in the white house. Silly assholes.

UN Secretary, General Ban Ki-moon, called on governments to do more to fight global warming.

The call is in response to a new UN scientific report and damage to nature that is already as frightening as science fiction.

"This report will be formally presented to the (UN Climate Change) Conference in Bali," Ban told delegates from more than 130 nations in Valencia and praised them for agreeing an authoritative guide to the risks of climate change.

"Already, it has set the stage for a real breakthrough -- an agreement to launch negotiations for a comprehensive climate change deal that all nations can embrace," he said.

Ban singled out the United States and China, the world's top two emitters of greenhouse gases, which have no binding goals for curbs, as key countries in the process. He welcomed initiatives by both and urged them to do more.

"I look forward to seeing the US and China playing a more constructive role starting from the Bali conference," Ban told a news conference. "Both countries can lead in their own way."

Ban said he had just been to see ice shelves breaking up in Antarctica and the melting Torres Del Paine glaciers in Chile. He also visited the Amazon rainforest, which he said was being "suffocated" by global warming.



"I come to you humbled after seeing some of the most precious treasures of our planet -- treasures that are being threatened by humanity's own hand," he said.

'I look forward to seeing the US and China playing a more constructive role'

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon

"These scenes are as frightening as a science fiction movie," Ban said. "But they are even more terrifying, because they are real."

Delegates at UN climate change talks reached agreement on the 26-page document about the risks of warming, blamed mainly on human burning of fossil fuels, after several days of talks.

The document, which summarizes the latest scientific knowledge on the causes and effects of climate change, will be put before environment ministers in Bali, Indonesia, next month -- a meeting likely to agree a two-year strategy to negotiate a successor to the Kyoto Protocol whose first period ends in 2012.

The summary says human activity is causing rising temperatures and that deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, mainly from burning fossil fuels, are needed quickly to avert more heat waves, melting glaciers and rising sea levels.

Channel 4 - News - UN calls for climate change action


Government reacts to apocalyptic climate change warning.



It's an apocalyptic vision - economic growth slashed, millions of people displaced, the poor made even poorer.

This is the fate of the planet if nothing is done to counter climate change, according to the World Bank's former chief economist.

In the British government's first economic assessment of the damage caused by greenhouse emissions, Sir Nicholas Stern says doing nothing is not an option. But his ideas for avoiding disaster are just as challenging.

Without taking action - Sir Nicholas warns global warming could shrink the world economy by 20 per cent - with poorest countries hit the hardest.

Two hundred million people could be displaced by floods and drought.

The review calls for a global system to trade in carbon emissions. But that is something the world has never managed to agree on before. Closer to home, the Chancellor has promised a climate change bill in the next Queens Speech, with a commitment to cut the UK's emissions by 60 per cent by 2050.

That's a massive reduction - and achieving that kind of target would mean real sacrifice, right now. Something that industry - and consumers - might not be prepared to take on.

Channel 4 - News - Government pledges action

Global Warming from Channel4.com

Here's an interesting argument regarding what do about the possibility and ramifications of global warming:

How it all ends • VideoSift: Online Video *Quality Control

^ Excellent thanks.

I really enjoy the shots of cooling towers and stacks that show steam from the cooling water being released into the air that is always pictured when they show global warming pictures.
How much do you thing that water vapors contribute to the atmos. contamination with green house gas's.?

Originally Posted by Robski

fight global warming

Fight it with what, nunchucks?

It's an apocalyptic vision

economic growth slashed, millions of people displaced, the poor made even poorer

This has been happening since before they 'invented' man-made global warming & they didn't do anything to stop it then. What's their sudden, great concern now all about?

Clue - £

Another clue - $

World Bank's former chief economist

The money men are self-proclaimed scientifc experts now, are they? It's easy to be a global warming 'expert' when you're in agreement with the eco-loons. If you have a different opinion, you're shouted down.

Without taking action - Sir Nicholas warns global warming could shrink the world economy by 20 per cent - with poorest countries hit the hardest.

Two hundred million people could be displaced by floods and drought

What a crock of shit. If you're not going to die in a modern day Noah episode, you're going to lose some money - that statement convieniently covers all the bases when it comes to laying on the fear factor.

the Chancellor has promised a climate change bill in the next Queens Speech, with a commitment to cut the UK's emissions by 60 per cent by 2050

Totally unachievable. A vote winner - that's all.

Class war.

Originally Posted by Clockwork Orange

The money men are self-proclaimed scientifc experts now, are they? It's easy to be a global warming 'expert' when you're in agreement with the eco-loons. If you have a different opinion, you're shouted down.

And yet you take the opinions of Judges and even airline executives as gospel. Go figure.

Eco loons....!!!? The UN...?

It's very sad, that even when faced with overwhelming evidence and agreement of a potential global catastrophe, some people are unable to accept that they may be incorrect on the position they are defending.

You see how I tried to word that nicely?

Intelligence can be measured as the ability to accept and adopt new ideas that are evidently more compatible to the reality of the situation than our current perception.

I wonder if Blankgang or Cockwork Orange watched the video in post #129?
What did you think of the argument put forward by the presenter?
That to do something to change the situation and be wrong about the future negative impact is clearly better than to do nothing and be right about the future negative impact.
Would you say that guy is talking sense or that he is part of some conspiricy?
I doubt wether you would be willing to answer that question, because I think you would find it hard to disagree with the logic of his argument.

Just to save you some time looking it up;

Logic
–noun
1.the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference.
2.a particular method of reasoning or argumentation: We were unable to follow his logic.
3.the system or principles of reasoning applicable to any branch of knowledge or study.
4.reason or sound judgment, as in utterances or actions: There wasn't much logic in her move.
5.convincing forcefulness; inexorable truth or persuasiveness: the irresistible logic of the facts.

Originally Posted by Robski

You see how I tried to word that nicely?

I did.

I wonder if Blankgang or Cockwork Orange watched the video

I don't do blogs, visual or otherwise - BG is another matter.

What did you think of the argument put forward by the presenter?

Despite not having watched it - he will say the same old cobblers as the rest of them, no doubt - there's a a probability he's wrong, isn't there?

Would you say that guy is talking sense or that he is part of some conspiricy?

I reckon he's on the bandwagon, just like the rest. That's all.

you would find it hard to disagree with the logic of his argument

No I wouldn't.

I have had many discussions about this climate change racket with people I see at work & stuff. What I notice, is the older ones believe it is a scam & the younger ones think it is true. I deduct, from this, that the younger generation have been brainwashed at school. It has probably been happening for years, but as I don't attend school, I haven't noticed. Now, with all the mainstream coverage it is getting, it is the turn of the older generation to have their heads filled with sentimental mush, in an attempt to brainwash them, too.

I'm having none of it & neither are a lot of other people.

^You've managed to insert just about every logical fallacy known to man into that one post.

Global warming is an issue on which I have yet to form an opinion.

I think the globe is warming slightly, but the issue is whether man is causing it or it's a natural planetary cycle. I just don't know and haven't heard anything convincing me in one direction or another. I think it better to be uncommitted than committed and wrong.

by Robski::Blankgang, Boon Mee? Would you care to comment on the argument put forward by the video in post #129?

That to do something to change the situation and be wrong about the future negative impact is clearly better than to do nothing and be right about the future negative impact.

Just as I thought, only an idiot lets others do his thinking and then argues he is right.

He is something I got, but don't have a link for this but it is all in Goggle under his name, so read it and agree or disagee with him but does give some points to ponder.

UN: We're all gonna die.. again
NOVEMBER 19, 2007 GLENN BECK PROGRAM
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT GLENN: Did you see the paper today, you know, the Earth, one third of all animal and plant species is going to be dead. The planet is dying and we're running out of time and Al Gore and the IPCC has come out with a new report. This is the same science that they used last time. This is just an update of the report that they've already issued over and over that, this is it; final warning; running out of time.

London Times, or is it the Telegraph, today says that the only solution is taxes. That's it. Taxes. Wow. Is that a frightening thing, global taxes. Let me tell you what global warming is. The Earth is getting warmer. The Earth has always gotten warmer and then it has gotten warmer and then it has gotten colder. For instance, "Time" magazine wrote in 1924 about global warming -- I'm sorry, global cooling. And then in '39 it was global warming. And then in '74 it was global cooling and then it's warming again. The "New York Times" did the same thing, 1924, stories all about global cooling. 35, global warming. '75, global cooling. Today it's warming again. It happens over and over and over again, but they have so captured the imagination and the fear of people that we're all going to be wiped off the face of the planet and it is a lie! It is a lie! But don't take my word for it. I'm going to give you just the phrases from the environmentalists that should open your mind and open up your eyes and be able to arm you with being able to save the open-minded people that are left, the ones that have been duped, the ones who don't know. They are all good intentioned but they are being useful idiots. Let me give you some of them.

This comes from Canada's former environmental minister, Christine Stewart. Quote: Climate change provides the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.

Excuse me? Climate change is the greatest chance to bring justice and equality in the world? How is that, Christine Stewart? Quote, same person. This is the former environmentalist of Canada. Quote: No matter if the science is all phony, there is still collateral environmental benefits to global warming policies.

Quote, Stephen Schneider: To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective and being honest.

Who is Stephen Schneider? He was the lead UN IPCC report author and climate alarmist. In 2007 he is still a major role. In fact, Stu, correct me. I don't want to get this one wrong. Still the lead guy in this latest?

STU: He was a lead author, yeah. This is also one of the guys who authored one of the original reports that started the global cooling scare of the Seventies, still one of the lead guys.

GLENN: Dave Foreman, founder of Earth First: Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on Earth, social and environmental. Jacques Chirac: Kyoto is the first component of an authentic global governance. Prince Philip, World Wildlife Federation, which, World Wildlife, WWF, that's why it's WWE, these guys. Prince Philip: If I were reincarnated, I would come back, return to the Earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels. This comes from George Monbiot, environmental author last year: Every time someone dies as a result of floods in Bangladesh airline executives should be dragged out of office and concerned. Helen Cox, Union of Concerned Scientists, free enterprise really means rich people get richer. They have freedom to exploit and psychologically rape their fellow human beings in the process. Capitalism is destroying the Earth. Every time you turn on an electric outlet, you are making another brainless baby. Michael Oppenheimer, Environmental Defense Fund: The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We cannot let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization we have in the U.S. we must stop third world countries right where they are.

This is the goal of the environmental movement, to stop America, to stop development, to stop the Third World, to redistribute the wealth, to take your money and give it to an organization that can better decide how it should be distributed. It is the global movement for justice and equality. Now, that's not what your neighbor thinks that has the, you know, Go Green and, you know, the Prius or whatever. That's not what they think, but that's the truth and at some point Americans have got to unite and stand with the truth. There is no dismissing these comments.

By the way, you want these comments? These are just a few of them in the first chapter, the only chapter about global warming, but the first chapter of "An Inconvenient Book." You've got to spread this news because gang, no pun intended, they are turning up the heat. They know that the time to strike is now, the time to get these treaties through are now. I don't care if it's a Republican or Democrat. The Republicans are starting to go down this road because so many Americans have been co-opted into this lie that the Republicans are going to have absolutely no spine and they're going to go right along with it. This is a plot from the far, far left, and you have no idea. Do we have the audio of John Edwards from this weekend where he said this is going to cause great pain, higher energy prices, higher gas prices, higher food prices, we're going to pay higher taxes but we've got to do it and there may be more on the horizon that we don't even know but we've got to do it. You have no concept of what is right around the corner, and what is right around the corner is the loss of sovereignty. It is about the destruction of the United States of America.

And then one piece that doesn't fit. I'm going to do a commercial here and then we're going to come back and I'm going to tell you about Hugo Chavez and what he's up to. Something isn't right. He's selling all of his oil for refineries and all of his oil interests, pipelines and everything else in the United States. He's selling them to us. Why? He's also taking all of the surpluses and he's selling them to China. What does Chavez know that we don't know? You might see this story buried in the middle of the paper and you'll see it as good news for U.S. gas companies: Marathon buying new refineries from Chavez. Why, at this time, when this is the time to buy, not to sell, is he selling all of his interests here in the United States. END TRANSCRIPT

In that one post of yours you have just completely lost this argument

I have seen the video already. Having looked at your quote, I recognise it.

I see his point, but it's just another angle to beat people over the head with. His way still costs us money that could be better spent on Africa, or something. I should put up a video saying he could be all wrong - in the interest of balance & all that - but I can't be bothered. I know I'm right & so does everyone else. We're immune to the same old, disproved cases being put forward as your 'evidence' over & over again. Everybody has become bored to distraction & stopped giving a toss about watching the next new, exiting, propaganda movie.

The only people interested in global warming, who have any power, are in it because they have an agenda - usually to sell you something or take something off you.

You've lost the argument before you begin because you can't prove - beyond doubt - a blind thing of what you say & I can.

Originally Posted by blackgang

by Robski::Blankgang, Boon Mee? Would you care to comment on the argument put forward by the video in post #129?

That to do something to change the situation and be wrong about the future negative impact is clearly better than to do nothing and be right about the future negative impact.

Just as I thought, only an idiot lets others do his thinking and then argues he is right.

Then you just lost the argument too, in the first sentence.

Boon Mee?

^
Glenn Beck being, of course, a syndicated radio show host.

Clearly a highly qualified and placed individual in the whole Global Warming Debate. It's not like he has any vested interest in being controversial after all.

Originally Posted by Clockwork Orange

I know I'm right & so does everyone else.

Actually I beg to differ. I don't think you could be anymore wrong. So that's actually one less than your claimed "everyone else".

Originally Posted by Clockwork Orange

You've lost the argument before you begin because you can't prove - beyond doubt - a blind thing of what you say & I can.

You've said that more than once. Oddly though you've yet to provide any actual objective proof that you are, indeed, correct.

Why is that?

Because I am not using your formula for reaching the truth, which is make it up as you go along.

Unlike you, I'm not 100% sure what is what, so won't quote anything as gospel, just yet. I don't spout rumours as facts until I see some proper evidence. Cartoons of polar bears drowining does not constitute evidence, in my book. Neither does Al Gore.

Boon Mee's graphs have a lot more credibility.

I don't spout rumours as facts until I see some proper evidence.

Oh, but you do all the time.
You were offered the chance to engage in an intelligent discussion and you refused, you've lost the argument.
End of story.

Originally Posted by Clockwork Orange

Because I am not using your formula for reaching the truth, which is make it up as you go along.

One of us has cited verifiable scientific studies. The other has repeatedly bagged a movie that by his own admission he hasn't even seen. Guess which is which...

Originally Posted by Clockwork Orange

Unlike you, I'm not 100% sure what is what

Really? You sounded rather unequivocal a few minutes ago:

I know I'm right & so does everyone else

you can't prove - beyond doubt - a blind thing of what you say & I can

Originally Posted by Clockwork Orange

Boon Mee's graphs have a lot more credibility

Because you agree with them. Which just about sums up your entire approach to all this. You'll scream and shout to the roof tops against anything that doesn't accord with your point of view rather than actually debate the merits of it (or lack thereof), yet the moment something comes along that is even tenuously in support you'll grab onto it much like a drowning man driftwood and accord it venerated fact status.

Only one page back you berate Robski for relying on the 'gospel of money men' without even a hint of irony that you yourself have variously trumpeted a Judge and an ariline executive as being emminently qualified to comment.

It's seriously hard not to laugh at some of the guff you routinely trot out at times. And that's the thing, for all your ranting and raving you rarely if ever address actual points in issue - you're feeding off of your own self-perpetuated chain of distortion, misinformation and half-truths. Deluding yourself.

Well, getting back the spot-on graphs I posted the other day, it was warmer in 1300 AD when the Vikings were in Greenland and North America. Why do you think it’s called Greenland?

Originally Posted by Robski

for high school retards and internet morons

This applies equally well to any post made by Boon Mee.