Posted by pythrr on 2010-12-07 06:38:06

nice one ostrich

Posted by f_alk on 2010-12-07 09:46:46

You forgot to mention that the earth is flat and Rome is the center of the universe.

Posted by Arktoris on 2010-12-08 03:58:22

got that right.

it's all about coming up with new taxes for the idiot masses.

Posted by Mr_Foulscumm on 2010-12-08 12:16:30

Of course, the whole premise of the accord is that humans can do something about global warming in the first place...

Posted by JoeKano on 2010-12-09 15:05:48

Global Warming, preventing an Ice Age since 1967!! Booyah! Honestly folks, where were all these blleding heart environmentalists global warming Nazis when climate change killed the dinosaurs huh? They did nothing about it then and all they are doing about it is nothing now...why? Cause Climate change, like faeces, happens. Honestly what hubris do they have to think the entire planet even gives a cracker about the carbon we put out.

Posted by Reisender on 2010-12-09 18:29:47

i am sorry sir but you are seriously wrong about that.

i am doing research on the topic at the moment (ofcourse that does not make anything i will write right by definition, i know that....) and the thing is that

1) 99% of scientists working on that are sure that the climate change during the last aprox. 50 years came from human activity (does that make the 1% wrong by definition - no. but it makes me assume that maybe the 99% could be right...) the point is that our climate changes over the time, but the change atm is too quick to be caused by "natural" factors

2) climate change already affects the life of many people around the globe -> e.g. in mexiko, guatemala, honduras (rain/flooding), sudan (heat/food shortage/war made by humans influenced by this), pakistan (rain/flood) etc. IS this ALL 100% caused by global heating? No - but the heat contributes to that problem and very likely causes that more people die - although nobody can give a REAL number as this things are influenced by different causes

3) therefore, one can not talk about a "Once again it is for all to see that this is not about global warming at all...it is about redistribution of wealth from the EU and the USA to third world countries." It is merely time to pay at least for a part of the crap the rich nations caused - as they all acknowledged the problem officially in 1990 and promised they would "take the lead" to do sth against it

At the moment it is like some president of a small island country said: It is like somebody drives his car in your fence and says: Maybe i will offer you a credit to pay for it."

4) Climate change has been researched since 18sth. It is not a funny idea Al Gore came up with casue somebody voter*ped his presidency.

5) It would be interesting to see a world where the rich countries are located on small islands and the poor countries produce the CO2 that damages / threatens the rich.

6) It is a shame in what way the whole topic is presented in the media. Things that are (at least in a scientific sense) common knowledge are presented as one of two points of view - the other being: that is all a great conspirOcy - and wihtout any scientific arguments!

I do not claim that SCIENCE is always always rigth and there are no mistake - but people who claim that a scientific statement is wrong should bring arguments (i am not aiming at you here, as a citizen, but more at media and so-called "scientists" paid by some funny "research institutes")

7) Conclusion: Believing that climate change does not exist our does not hurt people, and believing that we do allright if we dont give a damn about people hurt by climate change is like believing that the RNG is broken. And we are talking bout fumbbl here, nor Cyanide

PS: I agree with you that nothing productive is going to happen in Cancun though. Unfortunately.

PPS: i wrote this quickly and i am ready to supply more arguments in case i forgot sth. anyway, if anybody is interested in more information or says that what i wrote is all bullshit. otherwise, have a pie...

Posted by Catalyst32 on 2010-12-10 01:52:41

In response to Reisender
Love you buddy but your argument is full of holes so large I could drive a a Hybrid Bus through them.

1) a) 99% is a made up number of scientists.
b) The last Ice Age occurred rapidly... so rapidly that some plants and animals were frozen whole leaving a fossil record (though not all fossils occurred this way). So the change is not too quick not to be natural.
c) The last Ice Age was long before the Automobile of Factory emitted CO2 into the atmosphere.
d) The temperature on the Moon and Mars and Venus and other Planets has increased by the same percentage that the climate has increased on Earth. Perhaps you can explain were the Highways and Industrialized areas are on Mercury, Jupiter and Pluto... but I have never heard of such infrastructure.

2) a) The problems with flooding in Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras and Pakistan has much more to do with a LACK of Dams to regulate the flow of water than it does how many times their citizens exhale the oxygen they breathed in and thereby released CO2 into the atmosphere.
b) The extreme heat and shortages of food in places like the Sudan have more to due with living in a country torn apart by war than they do with the CO2 released by their Tanks and Trucks used to transport insurgents.
c) The main things these countries are lacking is FREEDOM and OPPORTUNITY. Releasing the citizens of the 3rd World from the whims of their Tin Horn Dictatorships and providing them with the FREEDOM to provide for themselves would do more for these people than any handout for a natural phenomenon that the wealthy countries did not cause. Especially considering that said handout will go into the pockets of said Tin Horn Dictators (and not the people) who will use the money to maintain their corrupt power over their impoverished citizenry.

3) a) Again... who can man have caused the climate to change on Earth AND every other planet in our Solar System. Isn't the one thing the Earth, the Moons and the Planets have in common the SUN. Isn't the SUN getting hotter as it ages (like all stars)?
b) In 1990 the nations you refer too were convinced to make a meaningless pledge because... well it was meaningless. AND more importantly they were given data from East Anglia University that has since been proven to be ENTIRELY FAKE. In short, in 1990 these nations did not know they were dealing with a HOAX.

4) Look at the facts... Al Gore LOST the election in every single way the vote was tallied in Florida (our worst state btw).

5) How can the chemical substance upon which ALL plants feed be damaging the world?

6) If the proof that Global Warming exists was based on ACTUAL SCIENCE rather than SCIENTIFIC THEORY (funded by political agendas) I would agree with you. But said proof has been proven to be false... I dare say MADE UP evidence.
b) It is critical to realize in Science that only projects with POLITICAL BACKING (funding) can afford the research. Without funding science doesn't get researched.
c) It is also critical to realize that only projects that can "prove" that they may be onto something can CONTINUE to receive funding. Without funding scientists don't get paid without that pay they don't eat of have places to live.
d) It is also critical to realize that only a HOAX that siphons money away from people who suspect that money is used for the greater good can easily be fleeced by the Con Men who are organizing and operating the Con.

7) a) Your conclusion is based on falsehoods that you still choose to believe.
b) Believing in Man-made Global Warming is like believing in Santa Claus. Once you stop believing in the "magic" and start looking at the facts you soon realize that not only do they not exist but they were made up by someone that wanted to control your behavior for their benefit.

Posted by Reisender on 2010-12-10 10:52:28

@painstate: this is now our discussion blog. get a new one for yourself :D

@catalyst: you probably would not buy a hybrid bus to drive through my arguments but anyway i ll answer to yours too :D

1)a) yes 99% is a made up number. it could be 99.9 or 98.2 %. The point is we are talking about the great majority. Ofcourse i can not "proof" this number but only ask you to read scietific articles that deal with it.

btw i will give you Al Gore for free :D not gonna discuss about elections in another country here

The logical mistake in many of your arguments is (in my humble opinion and with all respect towards you mate) the following:

You describe the fact that there is a NATURAL green house effect and a NATURAL climate change (warmer or colder) that a) occurs on other planes and b) occured on earth even before humans were there. Ofcourse, this is right. But how do you come to the conclusion that, because of this, there can not be another effect caused by humans. And even more so since the effect is measured and much quicker than ANY natural effect except possibly some REALLY big volcano eruptions or meteorite impacts.

Damn it this effect had been studied since 1859. In 1990, George Bush´s administration acknowledged it officially and signed a damn paper saying "we will do something against it". George Bush - Oil buddy George Bush, not communist left wing anarchist Bill Clinton :D.

Anyway regarding the 3rd world countries:

1) In Sudan, especially in Darfur, there was 1st the shortage of food and water and then the civil war. Of course you are right that having a president as they have in Sudan does not help. As i wrote earlier, much of that suffering is related to a combination of causes, therefore i cant say "climate change killed 150 people today".

2) Since when are Mexiko and Guatemala dictatorships? I think Guatemala restored its democracy lately after its first attempt of democracy was crushed in 1954 by a CIA operation which exchanged the democratic president for a dictator.

Obviously dams are lacking. People would die/lose theri home even without stronger rains. Because of lack of money, corruption or poor government. Fact is now, with more rain, more people die. And our countries should not take all responsibility for this, but at least their fair share. And pay for it. More rain needs higher dams.

"6) If the proof that Global Warming exists was based on ACTUAL SCIENCE rather than SCIENTIFIC THEORY (funded by political agendas) I would agree with you. But said proof has been proven to be false... I dare say MADE UP evidence.
b) It is critical to realize in Science that only projects with POLITICAL BACKING (funding) can afford the research. Without funding science doesn't get researched.
c) It is also critical to realize that only projects that can "prove" that they may be onto something can CONTINUE to receive funding. Without funding scientists don't get paid without that pay they don't eat of have places to live.
d) It is also critical to realize that only a HOAX that siphons money away from people who suspect that money is used for the greater good can easily be fleeced by the Con Men who are organizing and operating the Con."

Come on. Sorry to say, but that is nonsense and contains no argument. If scientific proof are not how i like them, everybody is involved in a HOAX. Well... "Once you stop believing in the "magic" and start looking at the facts you soon realize that not only do they not exist but they were made up by someone that wanted to control your behaviour for their benefit. " You sound like a mix of Fox Moulder and spiro here mate. :D

Posted by f_alk on 2010-12-11 14:13:51

Catalyst - I call for evidence on your points 1)d) (and thus 3)a) ) and the proof you claim in 3)b) that it has been ENTIRE HOAX.

About your point 1)b) - you will know that with every start of a winter plants will and during the winter also animals can be covered under a snow sheet and thus frozen whole. Even animals of the Ice Age have been frozen whole during that time.
I won't go into your other points (knowing there is a less than 2% chance to convince you, after having discussed with more than 50 climate change deniers), apart from one: To see how something nutritious can be lethal, drink either 30 liters of sea water (water and salt! both needed for us to live) or 30 liters of distilled water in two hours. Actually, drinking 30 liters of any water in two hours may already be enough. Oh... and be quick enough to report your findings before you pass on.

And when you nitpick about the number 99% being made up, then I nitpick why you call Pluto a planet.

Posted by Frankenstein on 2011-01-18 22:42:13

You can hardly be considered to be unbiased if your job depends on climate warming and are basically paid by Bilderberger-politicians whose main intention is to increase world-wide influence via made-up agendas (bird-flu, terrorism, global warming etc). Global warming is just another hoax, a powerful weapon in their war against freedom.

Germans, who embrace socialism, government and state by tradition (the German Bundestag consists of 6 socialist parties, though the people are totally unaware of that fact, incidentally, even the German Pirate Party has turned socialist), obviously WANT to believe this kind of stuff. Germans also think the bureaucracy in Brussels serves democracy, peace and prosperity, while its unelected leaders are trying to turn the entire continent into some kind of fascist Soviet Union.

Posted by Arktoris on 2011-01-18 22:47:42

Catalyst presence the best argument here.

false: 99% of scientists believe in global warming. I bet the number is more like 50%. I know I and quite a few others don't believe in it.

Actual science vs theory: True. Reinsender, as a professional analytical chemist, I have access to 5000 scienitific journals ranging from what was published 5 minutes ago all the way back to Isacc Newton. Ref me an article where trace CO2 experiment was conducted and showed a significant increase in temperature.

this is easy to prove or disprove:

Take a sphere and add dirt and water to it. give the sphere a 300ppm CO2 (preindustrial earth). Place it in a black room that is a vacuum (space). Add a constant energy source with similar spectrum/intensity to the sun.

record the equilibrated temp.

now keep everything constant. Only one change. A small pffft of CO2 that'll raise the concentration from 330 to 338ppm (industrial earth).

record temp.

Is it 1/2 deg C higher. If not, global warming is not man made greenhouse effect.

That is the experiment needed. So how come no one's done it?

Because once it's been done, it can't be undone. and all those cashing in on this hoax will lose their rice bowl.

As Catalyst said, the only research getting published is that which is funded by government. And government wants a new tax for the idiot masses. Scientists aren't going to publish research that breaks their bank. At least I've not seen that happen in 15 years where I work.