Guest Guest Posted March 28, 2008 Report Share Posted March 28, 2008 Doubting Global Warming Is Manmade Like Believing Earth Is Flat. I am absolutely astounded that someone who refuses to publicly debate anyone on this matter and has no training in the field narrated a movie where frames of nuclear explosions were interspersed in a subliminal way in scenes of droughts and flood, among other major gaffes, can say these things and then have them accepted... by anyone. The list of degreed meteorologists, climatologists, scientists, that signed the Manhatten declaration stating their disagreement with Mssr. Gore's premises grows by the day. What gets me most is he goes on unchallenged one-on-one on this. Never in all my years of competition have I seen someone elevated to a level that he is, in any thing, without any face-to-face competition to establish credibility. When someone gets a PhD, his or her thesis is normally attacked, for lack of a better word, in something known as the "orals," at least it was for those venturing into those waters at PSU. In other words, a group of people still in a higher academic standing than you, one you want to ascend to, will try to get you to defend what you do in a way where you show what you know, not by some programmed unchallenged remark, but by competition with the people that are criticizing. Why? Because you can defend what you know, if you have worked hard enough. It is typical of the mentality of this person, that he thinks that he should be able to get something for nothing, just go on unchecked, hurling insults at people who have forgotten more than he will ever know. You be the judge of this statement, and consider the source: Gore to 60 MINUTES: Doubting Global Warming Is Manmade Like Believing Earth Is Flat. In fact, here is an excerpt : "...I think that those people are in such a tiny, tiny minority now with their point of view, they're almost like the ones who still believe that the moon landing was staged in a movie lot in Arizona and those who believe the world is flat," says Gore. "That demeans them a little bit, but it's not that far off," he tells Stahl. I want to say that I have tried my best to be opened minded about this issue. But the more research I do, the more some of the claims of Bill Gray and John Coleman ring true. However, I am all for non-carbon based energy as a way of increasing the quality of life, and that has nothing to do with what I consider grossly overstated scare tactics. Let me direct you to a site to keep an eye on: http://www.francis.edu/ActionCenter.htm I have been told they are developing some kind of home-based energy generator powered by wind. The idea is you store the energy created by wind. Given I live in the Boulder, Colorado of the East, count me in. As it is, we are getting a house with a geothermal unit in it that cuts electric bills by up to 50%. So I don't need to hear I am some kind of nut that thinks the Earth is flat, especially from a man who refuses to stand up one-on-one with anyone that can confront him fact for fact. Last night I read an interesting story. GLobal warming is responsible for 770,000,000 people on Earth starving. Is that so? Never mind it could be a myriad of things, let's say that is right. The article also says that my 2085, that number may be 880,000,000. These people have to assume that we are plain stupid. Seriously. The Earth's population has increased four-fold in the last 100 years. Suppose we assume in the next 80 years we only double the population. Right now the percentage of people starving because of global warming (and I am being nice in giving them their figure, even though any objective person would question that) is about 13 percent of the world's population. In 2085, assuming 12,000,000,000 people, (it's liable to be more) if only 880,000,000 million are starving because of the climate, that means the percentage has dropped to less than 8 percent. So if we use that reasoning, global warming would have increased the chance of feeding a greater percentage of people. But you see what is done here. It's the same thing that is done across the board. Games played, and unless you look, you'll get taken. It is funny. Lenin said, in his statement that was meant to say the ends justify the means as far as building his utopian society, that one has to break a few eggs to make an omelet. We can argue if that is valid, for one would have to assume almost a messianic quality to the person to know they are right about the future. Is Mssr. Gore assuming that about this issue? But if one destroys the entire egg itself, one cannot make an omelet (I hard boil my eggs and only eat the whites, so maybe that is why all this is hard for me to understand). It's astounding, I am constantly reading and re-reading counter arguments to this idea. Let's remember, some of the major proponents with high powered doctorates that are on the other side, brilliant minds no doubt like Dr. Hansen and Dr. Mann, did not get their doctorate DEFENDING their global warming stance. It is not like there was a PhD dissertation with six PhDs, three pro and three con, challenging the assertions here. These come out of the natural curiousity and good will of these men, and I do not think they are anything less. However, you see the same thing with me in a way, when convinced of an idea on the future, because of hard work and research it's very tough to back away. There is a difference, though, of blowing the 3-inch line on a snowstorm, or that Omaha's winter was colder than I thought. We are talking issues that ORIGINATE WITH THE WEATHER, but have far reaching tentacles. Now, anyone that believes he knows absolutely what is going to happen with the climate in the future, well you be the judge as to who is the card carrying member of the flat Earth society, that person, or the skeptic. Joe Bastardi He graduated with a bachelor's degree in meteorology from Penn State Expert Senior Forecaster at AccuWeather Al Gore Expert Know nothing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jimmy j Posted March 28, 2008 Report Share Posted March 28, 2008 Doubting Global Warming Is Manmade Like Believing Earth Is Flat. I am absolutely astounded that someone who refuses to publicly debate anyone on this matter and has no training in the field narrated a movie where frames of nuclear explosions were interspersed in a subliminal way in scenes of droughts and flood, among other major gaffes, can say these things and then have them accepted... by anyone. The list of degreed meteorologists, climatologists, scientists, that signed the Manhatten declaration stating their disagreement with Mssr. Gore's premises grows by the day. What gets me most is he goes on unchallenged one-on-one on this. Never in all my years of competition have I seen someone elevated to a level that he is, in any thing, without any face-to-face competition to establish credibility. When someone gets a PhD, his or her thesis is normally attacked, for lack of a better word, in something known as the "orals," at least it was for those venturing into those waters at PSU. In other words, a group of people still in a higher academic standing than you, one you want to ascend to, will try to get you to defend what you do in a way where you show what you know, not by some programmed unchallenged remark, but by competition with the people that are criticizing. Why? Because you can defend what you know, if you have worked hard enough. It is typical of the mentality of this person, that he thinks that he should be able to get something for nothing, just go on unchecked, hurling insults at people who have forgotten more than he will ever know. You be the judge of this statement, and consider the source: Gore to 60 MINUTES: Doubting Global Warming Is Manmade Like Believing Earth Is Flat. In fact, here is an excerpt : "...I think that those people are in such a tiny, tiny minority now with their point of view, they're almost like the ones who still believe that the moon landing was staged in a movie lot in Arizona and those who believe the world is flat," says Gore. "That demeans them a little bit, but it's not that far off," he tells Stahl. I want to say that I have tried my best to be opened minded about this issue. But the more research I do, the more some of the claims of Bill Gray and John Coleman ring true. However, I am all for non-carbon based energy as a way of increasing the quality of life, and that has nothing to do with what I consider grossly overstated scare tactics. Let me direct you to a site to keep an eye on: http://www.francis.edu/ActionCenter.htm I have been told they are developing some kind of home-based energy generator powered by wind. The idea is you store the energy created by wind. Given I live in the Boulder, Colorado of the East, count me in. As it is, we are getting a house with a geothermal unit in it that cuts electric bills by up to 50%. So I don't need to hear I am some kind of nut that thinks the Earth is flat, especially from a man who refuses to stand up one-on-one with anyone that can confront him fact for fact. Last night I read an interesting story. GLobal warming is responsible for 770,000,000 people on Earth starving. Is that so? Never mind it could be a myriad of things, let's say that is right. The article also says that my 2085, that number may be 880,000,000. These people have to assume that we are plain stupid. Seriously. The Earth's population has increased four-fold in the last 100 years. Suppose we assume in the next 80 years we only double the population. Right now the percentage of people starving because of global warming (and I am being nice in giving them their figure, even though any objective person would question that) is about 13 percent of the world's population. In 2085, assuming 12,000,000,000 people, (it's liable to be more) if only 880,000,000 million are starving because of the climate, that means the percentage has dropped to less than 8 percent. So if we use that reasoning, global warming would have increased the chance of feeding a greater percentage of people. But you see what is done here. It's the same thing that is done across the board. Games played, and unless you look, you'll get taken. It is funny. Lenin said, in his statement that was meant to say the ends justify the means as far as building his utopian society, that one has to break a few eggs to make an omelet. We can argue if that is valid, for one would have to assume almost a messianic quality to the person to know they are right about the future. Is Mssr. Gore assuming that about this issue? But if one destroys the entire egg itself, one cannot make an omelet (I hard boil my eggs and only eat the whites, so maybe that is why all this is hard for me to understand). It's astounding, I am constantly reading and re-reading counter arguments to this idea. Let's remember, some of the major proponents with high powered doctorates that are on the other side, brilliant minds no doubt like Dr. Hansen and Dr. Mann, did not get their doctorate DEFENDING their global warming stance. It is not like there was a PhD dissertation with six PhDs, three pro and three con, challenging the assertions here. These come out of the natural curiousity and good will of these men, and I do not think they are anything less. However, you see the same thing with me in a way, when convinced of an idea on the future, because of hard work and research it's very tough to back away. There is a difference, though, of blowing the 3-inch line on a snowstorm, or that Omaha's winter was colder than I thought. We are talking issues that ORIGINATE WITH THE WEATHER, but have far reaching tentacles. Now, anyone that believes he knows absolutely what is going to happen with the climate in the future, well you be the judge as to who is the card carrying member of the flat Earth society, that person, or the skeptic. Joe Bastardi He graduated with a bachelor's degree in meteorology from Penn State Expert Senior Forecaster at AccuWeather Al Gore Expert Know nothing Your point bein? That's what I thought. You didn't have one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted March 28, 2008 Report Share Posted March 28, 2008 Your point bein? That's what I thought. You didn't have one Your spelling bein as it is, I would recommend you get back to your GED class instead of criticizing others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted March 28, 2008 Report Share Posted March 28, 2008 Gore has become Barney Fife in real life Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted March 28, 2008 Report Share Posted March 28, 2008 Your point bein? That's what I thought. You didn't have one Yea I do have one you no spelling follow the leader guinea pig. It would be that a group of no knowledge idiots feed people like you talking points that will make you feel important if you get behind them to feel like your making some kind of difference in the world. And their agenda is power and Riches, The following is another in a long line of hit pieces that the media put out there for you guinea pigs to eat up until you explode. You do know that guineas will eat till they kill themselves because they know no better don't you? Scientist Demands Apology From ABC for Global Warming Hit Piece ABC's "World News" aired a disturbing global warming hit piece on Sunday that disrespectfully attacked an esteemed scientist and emeritus professor, referring to his work as "fraudulent nonsense" that is "going to cost lives, and cause us lost species, and cost major economic damage around the world." The subject of the report, Dr. S. Fred Singer, has been receiving well wishes of support from across the globe since this segment aired, including at ABC News's website where virtually all of the currently 128 comments submitted have been highly critical of this story and the way Singer was treated. With this in mind, Singer has formally asked ABC for an apology and a retraction (presented with permission): LETTER TO ABC NEWS TO: Felicia Biberica Fiona Conway Producer Executive director ABC News ABC News W. 66th St. New York City 10023 Dear Ms Biberica and Ms Conway March 25, 2008 I share the anger expressed in nearly 100 postings (so far) at the shoddy handling of my interview aired on March 23: It was an appalling display of bias, unfairness, journalistic misbehavior, and a breakdown of ethical standards. It used prejudicial language, distorted facts, libelous insinuations, and anonymous smears. I urge you to read the postings; only one person offered any support to ABC, as far as I can see. I put the following account on my website www.sepp.org: 1. Interviewer Dan Harris used a man from Greenpeace who spouted conspiracy theories about me, showing someone's diagram that 'connects' me to groups alleged to be financed by oil companies. The only purpose I can think of is to suggest to viewers that I am in the pay of oil companies and that therefore my science is somehow tainted and not credible. First, the suggestion is completely false. I am not financed or supported by oil companies or by any industry. Then, Harris tried to suggest that I misrepresented by denying oil company support but admitting receiving an unsolicited donation. I draw a distinction --as would any reasonable person -- between being 'supported' and between a single charitable donation (constituting a tiny fraction of 1%) of all donations received. Finally, the word 'connected' is imprecise, and can mean anything from being on a mailing list to holding a position and receiving a salary. In my case it is definitely the former. 2. Dan Harris also referred to unnamed scientists from NASA, Princeton and Stanford, who pronounced what I do as 'fraudulent nonsense.' [The ABC website changed it to 'fabricated' nonsense - perhaps on advice of ABC's lawyers.] They are easily identified as the well-known Global Warming zealots Jim Hansen, Michael Oppenheimer, and Steve Schneider. They should be asked by ABC to put their money where their mouth is and have a scientific debate with me. [i suspect they'll chicken out. They surely know that the facts support my position -- so they resort to anonymous slurs.] Hansen is no longer the careful scientist he was but has turned into an ideologue willing to publish junk 'research'. Oppenheimer, who may still be on the payroll of Environmental Defense, an activist lobbying group, has negligible credentials. Schneider has not published significant research in years. Both Hansen and Oppenheimer could be labeled as ‘Contrarians’ since they disagree with important conclusions of the UN-IPCC. 3. Dan Harris did mention my doubts about the lung-cancer effects of Second-Hand Smoke, about the danger of toxic waste (spent nuclear fuel), and about 'Nuclear Winter.' All true -- Dan did his research but withheld the full story. On SHS, I simply quoted from the experts (see attached review article from a noted medical doctor, specializing in lung disease). Nuclear fuel presents no technical problems, only political ones. France and Britain handle its disposal; why don't we? 'Nuclear Winter' (which burst onto the scene in 1983 -- and disappeared quickly) was basically a fraud, invented to shore up an ideological position. We disposed of it in a debate moderated by Ted Koppel on ABC-Nightline. But Harris left the audience with the impression that I am a ‘career skeptic’, and therefore my skepticism about manmade GW should be ignored. 4. Yours is supposed to be a news program not an opinion journal. Dan Harris completely ignored the new scientific evidence against anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming (AGW) and the fact that 100 other scientists presented papers that support this view. The Heartland Conference in NY had an attendance of more than 500, practically all of them AGW skeptics. That’s news, but ABC ignored it. Conclusion: ABC owes it to its audience and to me to make appropriate corrections -- an apology and retraction by Dan Harris on the World News program. Sincerely, S. Fred Singer, PhD (Physics, Princeton) Professor Emeritus, University of Virginia Fellow, American Geophysical Union Fellow, American Physical Society Will ABC respond accordingly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted March 28, 2008 Report Share Posted March 28, 2008 Despite mounting evidence contrary to his hysterical proclamations, former Vice President Al Gore, he of the massive carbon footprint and $30,000 utility bills, is still clinging to his discredited theory of global warming. In an interview with Lesley Stahl to air on "60 Minutes" this Sunday, Gore piously declares those who don't buy his climate change theories are akin to crackpots who believe the earth is flat and don't believe man landed on the moon in 1969. Apparently rather than debating the merits of his argument in a rational and reasoned manner, Gore is left only with ad hominem attacks and smug condescension toward his critics. Self-avowed "P.R. agent for the planet" Al Gore says those who still doubt that global warming is caused by man - among them, Vice President Dick Cheney - are acting like the fringe groups who think the 1969 moon landing never really happened, or who once believed the world is flat. The former vice president and former presidential candidate talks to 60 Minutes correspondent Lesley Stahl in an interview to be broadcast this Sunday, March 30, at 7 p.m. ET/PT. Confronted by Stahl with the fact some prominent people, including the nation's vice president, are not convinced that global warming is manmade, Gore responds: "You're talking about Dick Cheney. I think that those people are in such a tiny, tiny minority now with their point of view, they're almost like the ones who still believe that the moon landing was staged in a movie lot in Arizona and those who believe the world is flat," says Gore. "That demeans them a little bit, but it's not that far off," he tells Stahl. He basically calls critics insane, but that only demeans them a little bit. The reason many people don't believe Gore and the global warming theorists is they have no proven scientific evidence to back up their often far-fetched claims. Gore seems to reside in a fantasy world of his own where evidence refuting his postulations is stubbornly ignored. Perhaps it's no minor coincidence Gore waited until spring to return to the public eye considering this past winter was the coldest on record in the United States since 2001, Europe suffered from its greatest cold snap in decades and China was inundated by blizzards and had her coldest winter in a century. From the snippet in the preview provided by CBS, we're given the impression that Stahl is actually going to ask Gore some tough questions. Think she'll ask him: 1Why he refuses to debate folks on the other side of this issue? 2How much money he's already made selling this issue? 3How much money he stands to make if G-8 nations including the U.S. adopt carbon cap-and-trade policies? 4How tied he is directly to the primary carbon trading exchanges around the world? 5How much his presentation in "An Inconvenient Truth" is nullified by the fact that Mann's Hockey Stick, a central component to manmade global warming theory, has been proven totally erroneous? 6That a British judge found nine factual errors in Gore's movie? Think any of these questions is on Stahl's list? No, I don't either. @ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted March 28, 2008 Report Share Posted March 28, 2008 There are people in the Democratic party that want him to run for president to break the stalemate. We can only wish!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted March 29, 2008 Report Share Posted March 29, 2008 Don't hide him on the back pages @ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted March 29, 2008 Report Share Posted March 29, 2008 I wonder what the world would look like if Gore was elected in 2000, instead of the Bozo the Monkey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mulligan Posted March 29, 2008 Report Share Posted March 29, 2008 I wonder what the world would look like if Gore was elected in 2000, instead of the Bozo the Monkey we would be at peace instead of war. The economy would be surging instead of the troops in iraq. Global warming would have come to an end. @ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted March 30, 2008 Report Share Posted March 30, 2008 we would be at peace instead of war. The economy would be surging instead of the troops in iraq. Global warming would have come to an end. @ HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA No you sick DELETED we tried his way for 8 years under clintstone rule ignoring your enemy and allowing them to fortify themselves doesnt seem to work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted March 30, 2008 Report Share Posted March 30, 2008 Doubting Global Warming Is Manmade Like Believing Earth Is Flat. I am absolutely astounded that someone who refuses to publicly debate anyone on this matter and has no training in the field narrated a movie where frames of nuclear explosions were interspersed in a subliminal way in scenes of droughts and flood, among other major gaffes, can say these things and then have them accepted... by anyone. The list of degreed meteorologists, climatologists, scientists, that signed the Manhatten declaration stating their disagreement with Mssr. Gore's premises grows by the day. What gets me most is he goes on unchallenged one-on-one on this. Never in all my years of competition have I seen someone elevated to a level that he is, in any thing, without any face-to-face competition to establish credibility. When someone gets a PhD, his or her thesis is normally attacked, for lack of a better word, in something known as the "orals," at least it was for those venturing into those waters at PSU. In other words, a group of people still in a higher academic standing than you, one you want to ascend to, will try to get you to defend what you do in a way where you show what you know, not by some programmed unchallenged remark, but by competition with the people that are criticizing. Why? Because you can defend what you know, if you have worked hard enough. It is typical of the mentality of this person, that he thinks that he should be able to get something for nothing, just go on unchecked, hurling insults at people who have forgotten more than he will ever know. You be the judge of this statement, and consider the source: Gore to 60 MINUTES: Doubting Global Warming Is Manmade Like Believing Earth Is Flat. In fact, here is an excerpt : "...I think that those people are in such a tiny, tiny minority now with their point of view, they're almost like the ones who still believe that the moon landing was staged in a movie lot in Arizona and those who believe the world is flat," says Gore. "That demeans them a little bit, but it's not that far off," he tells Stahl. I want to say that I have tried my best to be opened minded about this issue. But the more research I do, the more some of the claims of Bill Gray and John Coleman ring true. However, I am all for non-carbon based energy as a way of increasing the quality of life, and that has nothing to do with what I consider grossly overstated scare tactics. Let me direct you to a site to keep an eye on: http://www.francis.edu/ActionCenter.htm I have been told they are developing some kind of home-based energy generator powered by wind. The idea is you store the energy created by wind. Given I live in the Boulder, Colorado of the East, count me in. As it is, we are getting a house with a geothermal unit in it that cuts electric bills by up to 50%. So I don't need to hear I am some kind of nut that thinks the Earth is flat, especially from a man who refuses to stand up one-on-one with anyone that can confront him fact for fact. Last night I read an interesting story. GLobal warming is responsible for 770,000,000 people on Earth starving. Is that so? Never mind it could be a myriad of things, let's say that is right. The article also says that my 2085, that number may be 880,000,000. These people have to assume that we are plain stupid. Seriously. The Earth's population has increased four-fold in the last 100 years. Suppose we assume in the next 80 years we only double the population. Right now the percentage of people starving because of global warming (and I am being nice in giving them their figure, even though any objective person would question that) is about 13 percent of the world's population. In 2085, assuming 12,000,000,000 people, (it's liable to be more) if only 880,000,000 million are starving because of the climate, that means the percentage has dropped to less than 8 percent. So if we use that reasoning, global warming would have increased the chance of feeding a greater percentage of people. But you see what is done here. It's the same thing that is done across the board. Games played, and unless you look, you'll get taken. It is funny. Lenin said, in his statement that was meant to say the ends justify the means as far as building his utopian society, that one has to break a few eggs to make an omelet. We can argue if that is valid, for one would have to assume almost a messianic quality to the person to know they are right about the future. Is Mssr. Gore assuming that about this issue? But if one destroys the entire egg itself, one cannot make an omelet (I hard boil my eggs and only eat the whites, so maybe that is why all this is hard for me to understand). It's astounding, I am constantly reading and re-reading counter arguments to this idea. Let's remember, some of the major proponents with high powered doctorates that are on the other side, brilliant minds no doubt like Dr. Hansen and Dr. Mann, did not get their doctorate DEFENDING their global warming stance. It is not like there was a PhD dissertation with six PhDs, three pro and three con, challenging the assertions here. These come out of the natural curiousity and good will of these men, and I do not think they are anything less. However, you see the same thing with me in a way, when convinced of an idea on the future, because of hard work and research it's very tough to back away. There is a difference, though, of blowing the 3-inch line on a snowstorm, or that Omaha's winter was colder than I thought. We are talking issues that ORIGINATE WITH THE WEATHER, but have far reaching tentacles. Now, anyone that believes he knows absolutely what is going to happen with the climate in the future, well you be the judge as to who is the card carrying member of the flat Earth society, that person, or the skeptic. Joe Bastardi He graduated with a bachelor's degree in meteorology from Penn State Expert Senior Forecaster at AccuWeather Al Gore Expert Know nothing For all of you global warming sheep I suggest you read De revolutionibus or bium coelestium by Nicolaus Copernicus. He was almost burned at the stake because he did not believe the teachings of the day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted March 30, 2008 Report Share Posted March 30, 2008 Doubting Global Warming Is Manmade Like Believing Earth Is Flat. I am absolutely astounded that someone who refuses to publicly debate anyone on this matter and has no training in the field narrated a movie where frames of nuclear explosions were interspersed in a subliminal way in scenes of droughts and flood, among other major gaffes, can say these things and then have them accepted... by anyone. The list of degreed meteorologists, climatologists, scientists, that signed the Manhatten declaration stating their disagreement with Mssr. Gore's premises grows by the day. What gets me most is he goes on unchallenged one-on-one on this. Never in all my years of competition have I seen someone elevated to a level that he is, in any thing, without any face-to-face competition to establish credibility. When someone gets a PhD, his or her thesis is normally attacked, for lack of a better word, in something known as the "orals," at least it was for those venturing into those waters at PSU. In other words, a group of people still in a higher academic standing than you, one you want to ascend to, will try to get you to defend what you do in a way where you show what you know, not by some programmed unchallenged remark, but by competition with the people that are criticizing. Why? Because you can defend what you know, if you have worked hard enough. It is typical of the mentality of this person, that he thinks that he should be able to get something for nothing, just go on unchecked, hurling insults at people who have forgotten more than he will ever know. You be the judge of this statement, and consider the source: Gore to 60 MINUTES: Doubting Global Warming Is Manmade Like Believing Earth Is Flat. In fact, here is an excerpt : "...I think that those people are in such a tiny, tiny minority now with their point of view, they're almost like the ones who still believe that the moon landing was staged in a movie lot in Arizona and those who believe the world is flat," says Gore. "That demeans them a little bit, but it's not that far off," he tells Stahl. I want to say that I have tried my best to be opened minded about this issue. But the more research I do, the more some of the claims of Bill Gray and John Coleman ring true. However, I am all for non-carbon based energy as a way of increasing the quality of life, and that has nothing to do with what I consider grossly overstated scare tactics. Let me direct you to a site to keep an eye on: http://www.francis.edu/ActionCenter.htm I have been told they are developing some kind of home-based energy generator powered by wind. The idea is you store the energy created by wind. Given I live in the Boulder, Colorado of the East, count me in. As it is, we are getting a house with a geothermal unit in it that cuts electric bills by up to 50%. So I don't need to hear I am some kind of nut that thinks the Earth is flat, especially from a man who refuses to stand up one-on-one with anyone that can confront him fact for fact. Last night I read an interesting story. GLobal warming is responsible for 770,000,000 people on Earth starving. Is that so? Never mind it could be a myriad of things, let's say that is right. The article also says that my 2085, that number may be 880,000,000. These people have to assume that we are plain stupid. Seriously. The Earth's population has increased four-fold in the last 100 years. Suppose we assume in the next 80 years we only double the population. Right now the percentage of people starving because of global warming (and I am being nice in giving them their figure, even though any objective person would question that) is about 13 percent of the world's population. In 2085, assuming 12,000,000,000 people, (it's liable to be more) if only 880,000,000 million are starving because of the climate, that means the percentage has dropped to less than 8 percent. So if we use that reasoning, global warming would have increased the chance of feeding a greater percentage of people. But you see what is done here. It's the same thing that is done across the board. Games played, and unless you look, you'll get taken. It is funny. Lenin said, in his statement that was meant to say the ends justify the means as far as building his utopian society, that one has to break a few eggs to make an omelet. We can argue if that is valid, for one would have to assume almost a messianic quality to the person to know they are right about the future. Is Mssr. Gore assuming that about this issue? But if one destroys the entire egg itself, one cannot make an omelet (I hard boil my eggs and only eat the whites, so maybe that is why all this is hard for me to understand). It's astounding, I am constantly reading and re-reading counter arguments to this idea. Let's remember, some of the major proponents with high powered doctorates that are on the other side, brilliant minds no doubt like Dr. Hansen and Dr. Mann, did not get their doctorate DEFENDING their global warming stance. It is not like there was a PhD dissertation with six PhDs, three pro and three con, challenging the assertions here. These come out of the natural curiousity and good will of these men, and I do not think they are anything less. However, you see the same thing with me in a way, when convinced of an idea on the future, because of hard work and research it's very tough to back away. There is a difference, though, of blowing the 3-inch line on a snowstorm, or that Omaha's winter was colder than I thought. We are talking issues that ORIGINATE WITH THE WEATHER, but have far reaching tentacles. Now, anyone that believes he knows absolutely what is going to happen with the climate in the future, well you be the judge as to who is the card carrying member of the flat Earth society, that person, or the skeptic. Joe Bastardi He graduated with a bachelor's degree in meteorology from Penn State Expert Senior Forecaster at AccuWeather Al Gore Expert Know nothing But it is like saying the world is flat - not a single scientist on the planet says gobal warming is not happening - not a single one. 95% say man is adding to it. heck even rush gave up the fight and now acknowleges it is happening and man is contributing - so is hannity - so is bush! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted March 30, 2008 Report Share Posted March 30, 2008 HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA No you sick DELETED we tried his way for 8 years under clintstone rule ignoring your enemy and allowing them to fortify themselves doesnt seem to work. ummmmm - they attacked us under bushes term @ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted March 30, 2008 Report Share Posted March 30, 2008 ummmmm - they attacked us under bushes term You just keep believing that this was because of GWB you idiot you just live in your sycophant society of liberal deniers. Not one normal think human doesn't know who dropped the ball for many years to allow our enemy to gain the strength and ability to attack us on our soil you sick whack job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted March 30, 2008 Report Share Posted March 30, 2008 But it is like saying the world is flat - not a single scientist on the planet says gobal warming is not happening - not a single one. 95% say man is adding to it. heck even rush gave up the fight and now acknowleges it is happening and man is contributing - so is hannity - so is bush! STFU You make up numbers and quote them like they mean something. All you quoted was a mouth full of LIES im not afraid to call you a LIER becouse im not politcly correct like you libs. @ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.