)?OF COURSE climate is changing! is ALWAYS changes, it has NEVER been stable! the important thing is that the idea that it's CO2 levels is just plain stupid. STUPID!
The Birds Are Not Being Wiped Out
80% of the NASA budget is secret and offline. HAARP is the same. oh, i can't study it without my favorite EXPERT? gwaan! you need to read what it's creators say it's capable of, you need to read what the treaties that were signed say it can do. i guess they just make treaties about how such dangerous technology can be used for fun and games, right(well actually.... )?
OF COURSE climate is changing! is ALWAYS changes, it has NEVER been stable! the important thing is that the idea that it's CO2 levels is just plain stupid. STUPID!
)?OF COURSE climate is changing! is ALWAYS changes, it has NEVER been stable! the important thing is that the idea that it's CO2 levels is just plain stupid. STUPID!
Last edited by garyb on Fri Apr 18, 2008 11:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
BingoTheClowno
- Posts: 1722
- Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2003 4:00 pm
- Location: Chicago
- Contact:
no you don't!
CO2 IS LIFE ON EARTH!
THE MORE CO2, THE MORE LIFE!
CO2 LEVELS ARE AT THE EARTH'S HISTORIC LOW!
HUMAN CO2 ACCOUNTS FOR LESS THAN 1% OF ALL GREENHOUSE GASSES!
IN THE PAST CO2 LEVELS HAVE BEEN 14-15X THE PRESENT LEVELS WITH THE SAME AVERAGE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE!
etc, etc, etc.
blaming CO2 levels for climate change is moronic, as i said, STUPID.
CO2 IS LIFE ON EARTH!
THE MORE CO2, THE MORE LIFE!
CO2 LEVELS ARE AT THE EARTH'S HISTORIC LOW!
HUMAN CO2 ACCOUNTS FOR LESS THAN 1% OF ALL GREENHOUSE GASSES!
IN THE PAST CO2 LEVELS HAVE BEEN 14-15X THE PRESENT LEVELS WITH THE SAME AVERAGE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE!
etc, etc, etc.
blaming CO2 levels for climate change is moronic, as i said, STUPID.
-
BingoTheClowno
- Posts: 1722
- Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2003 4:00 pm
- Location: Chicago
- Contact:
If you don't show me the source of your claims I am forced to assume you are making this up. Let's see the data first then we'll see who's stupid and moronic.garyb wrote:no you don't!
CO2 IS LIFE ON EARTH!
THE MORE CO2, THE MORE LIFE!
CO2 LEVELS ARE AT THE EARTH'S HISTORIC LOW!
HUMAN CO2 ACCOUNTS FOR LESS THAN 1% OF ALL GREENHOUSE GASSES!
IN THE PAST CO2 LEVELS HAVE BEEN 14-15X THE PRESENT LEVELS WITH THE SAME AVERAGE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE!
etc, etc, etc.
blaming CO2 levels for climate change is moronic, as i said, STUPID.
And no more thought-terminating clichés, you big revolutionary you...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought-terminating_cliché
Don't mistake my rants for being a reflection on my actual views please. I'm not always right, and sometimes outlandish views do tend to wind up being 'more correct' than the 'common sense' they overturn. Does that mean we should consider every crackpot theory equally? No, but to dismiss everything would be equally stupid, sometimes it's a matter of keeping more than one conflicting idea floating around in your skull to get a better handle on "reality".BingoTheClowno wrote:To deny that the climate is changing is irresponsible.
Even the US government is doing something to cut the CO2 levels.
And again, HAARP is open to the public. You don't trust it? Get your favorite scientist and go study the equipment.
Secondly, climate data is available for more than 400000 years of Earth's history. To claim that only 30 years of climate data is available, again, it is ignorant.
Please, stop anti climate change propaganda!
I didn't claim 30 years of climate data either btw, that particular figure was introduced by braincell and so I was responding to his surety with a large dollop of sarcasm.
In fact both of my responses mix a fair amount of the serious, the lighthearted, and the extremely absurb. Give them a re-read...and notice the lack of "I think" or "it seems to me" in my ranting areas. The areas where I state "I remember" might also be indicitive of me actually espousing something from my own experience, everything else is simply heresay, conjecture or me paraphrasing heresay.
-
BingoTheClowno
- Posts: 1722
- Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2003 4:00 pm
- Location: Chicago
- Contact:
valis wrote: I didn't claim 30 years of climate data either btw, that particular figure was introduced by braincell and so I was responding to his surety with a large dollop of sarcasm.
This is what Braincell said:
This is what you said in response:Braincell wrote:They have been taking measurements for 30 years and the evidence is overwhelming clear that global warming is real and it is man made.
You assumed wrongly that the measurments were done only for the past 30 years wich is not correct and denotes a lack of knowledge of the subject.valis wrote:If you take measurements for 30 years that only proves a 30 year trend for the subclimates you measured.
Last edited by BingoTheClowno on Fri Apr 18, 2008 12:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
BingoTheClowno
- Posts: 1722
- Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2003 4:00 pm
- Location: Chicago
- Contact:
Whatever you want to believe you can believe. Since data on this subject is abundant I see no reason why you should not be able to show the data that supports your claims. Maybe I am wrong and I don't know it.<Shroomz> wrote:bingo, I also seriously doubt that Valis has any less knowledge of this subject than yourself or braincell, so maybe implying otherwise isn't quite right. Not that I think Valis or anyone else is right or wrong. I'm just pointing out that thinking you're right & Valis is wrong is quite rediculous.
Stardust seems to have caught on better. All "sides" have access to abundant "data". Filtering & presentation of the data tends to support any argument. There's also a difference between "humans seem to be contributing X to Climate Change which seems to lead to Y" and "OMG EVILL EMPRER BUSH IS TEH EVIL AMERIKKANS ARE TEH LUSE GLOBAL WARMERING!"
To put it quite bluntly
To put it quite bluntly
Also I might note a counterpoint to the 'global warming' theorum. In our local microclimate (city & surrounding area, and even region) temperatures peaked in 1997 and we've had the coldest & longest winter this year since 1967. Again, not that I disagree with global warming per se, it's just a counterpoint to the overall discussion.
Nigel Lawson, a very famous ex politition from the U.K. has just released a book about the global warming scam.
It seems to me that even the establishment are begining to see the flaws in the whole idea.
C'mon people realise that those in power aint there for your benefeit. And the corperate media tells lies, all the time
It seems to me that even the establishment are begining to see the flaws in the whole idea.
C'mon people realise that those in power aint there for your benefeit. And the corperate media tells lies, all the time
-
Audiographe
- Posts: 83
- Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 4:00 pm
- Contact:
The birds navigate to electromagnetic waves/fields (Bees, Insect also)
They make the difference at 1Hz (electromagnetic waves/fields).
Welcome to a world of wireless industry, It is now destroy the earth.
The earth is full of electromagnetic waves/fields because of cell phones, WIFI, DECT, TETRA, WLAN, etc., etc., etc..
Good luck
They make the difference at 1Hz (electromagnetic waves/fields).
Welcome to a world of wireless industry, It is now destroy the earth.
The earth is full of electromagnetic waves/fields because of cell phones, WIFI, DECT, TETRA, WLAN, etc., etc., etc..
Good luck
We could very well be contributing catastrophically to Climate Change. Or we might not be. We're certainly impacting the environment quite seriously with our wanton lifestyles and destructive/consumptive behaviour. But then again once we remove ourselves from a certain area it might not matter as much as the tree-hugger might think.
Most of the conversation about this topic though, both here on the forums and around the globe, is heavily impregnated with preconceptions and the filter of the belief systems of the people espousing their views. This is normal human behaviour and predictable. Polarizing the discussion though does us all a disservice, as it brings progress to a standstill.
For instance, the after-effects of a nuclear exchange are well known to anyone old enough to have grown up even at the end of the "Cold War Era", and to anyone younger who has bothered to pay attention to the mentions of it (which are fewer & further between these days). Nuclear winter, a barren landscape infected with horrible life-killing radiation. However readers of the Off Topic section that have been around long enough might remember the pictures posted up by a certain woman who rode a Motor Cycle through a now 'Desolate' but thriving & beautiful Chernobyl. And just the other day there was a story circulating about the Coral Atolls that were the testing grounds for the H-bomb not only returning but thriving as never before.
Of course in both cases a bit of extrapolation shows that our all powerful science weapons weren't as all powerful as we thought, and our impact was far shorter lived than we thought too. In both cases however the regions are thriving as we havaven't seen before because we're no longer present. The radiation is a secondary issue, and doesn't seem to be hindering life as much as we expected (though I'd not want to raise my children there).
A larger parallel might be drawn between that case and global warming, and you could say that perhaps our effects on Climate Change are immediate and actual after all, but that might also be just a leap of logic that doesn't fully capture the nature of what's "truly" going on.
In any case, when discussing anything its definately good to keep in mind that if you buy too much into your own bullshit, it won't matter how much the other fellow is full of it because you've already discredited yourself. The fact that he's wack as well doesn't save you (or me) no matter how loudly you shout
"GLOBAL WARMERING!"
Most of the conversation about this topic though, both here on the forums and around the globe, is heavily impregnated with preconceptions and the filter of the belief systems of the people espousing their views. This is normal human behaviour and predictable. Polarizing the discussion though does us all a disservice, as it brings progress to a standstill.
For instance, the after-effects of a nuclear exchange are well known to anyone old enough to have grown up even at the end of the "Cold War Era", and to anyone younger who has bothered to pay attention to the mentions of it (which are fewer & further between these days). Nuclear winter, a barren landscape infected with horrible life-killing radiation. However readers of the Off Topic section that have been around long enough might remember the pictures posted up by a certain woman who rode a Motor Cycle through a now 'Desolate' but thriving & beautiful Chernobyl. And just the other day there was a story circulating about the Coral Atolls that were the testing grounds for the H-bomb not only returning but thriving as never before.
Of course in both cases a bit of extrapolation shows that our all powerful science weapons weren't as all powerful as we thought, and our impact was far shorter lived than we thought too. In both cases however the regions are thriving as we havaven't seen before because we're no longer present. The radiation is a secondary issue, and doesn't seem to be hindering life as much as we expected (though I'd not want to raise my children there).
A larger parallel might be drawn between that case and global warming, and you could say that perhaps our effects on Climate Change are immediate and actual after all, but that might also be just a leap of logic that doesn't fully capture the nature of what's "truly" going on.
In any case, when discussing anything its definately good to keep in mind that if you buy too much into your own bullshit, it won't matter how much the other fellow is full of it because you've already discredited yourself. The fact that he's wack as well doesn't save you (or me) no matter how loudly you shout
"GLOBAL WARMERING!"
-
Audiographe
- Posts: 83
- Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 4:00 pm
- Contact:
Read :
- BioInitiative Report
http://www.planetz.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=25005
- Reflex Report
http://www.next-up.org/pdf/reflex_eu_%2 ... org_fr.pdf
From: Prof. Dr. Adlkofer To: XXXXXXX@XXXXXXX.net Cc: XXX @XX.de Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 Subject: REFLEX Dear Mrs Atzmon, thank you very much for informing me on the opinion ICNIRP has adopted in its dealing with the REFLEX project. It is true, that only part of the REFLEX findings have been published in peer-reviewed journals so far. As the coordinator of the REFLEX project, I cannot but say that I regret this irresponsible delay of distributing their findings by some of my colleagues. But it is also true that enough results have already been presented in highly reputed scientific journals which allow the conclusion that low and high frequency electromagnetic fields are able to alter the function of genes and beyond that to damage genes in some, but obviously not all isolated human cell systems. For low frequency electromagnetic fields this has just been confirmed, totally independent of the REFLEX project, by a research group from the Basle University, Switzerland. Furthermore, the REFLEX Final Report which has been sent to ICNIRP immediately after its release contains all the information necessary to form one's opinion on the validity of the project findings. Especially for a group of expert scientists like ICNIRP this should not cause a problem at all. Since I myself and most of my colleagues are convinced that the REFLEX data will finally withstand all the upcoming criticism, we felt and still feel obliged to present our findings not only to the scientific community, what we have done during the course of the project on several occasions, but also to the interested public taxpayers whithout whom the project, would not have been possible. A further reason for our decision may be seen in the attitude of organizations such as ICNIRP to react either not at all or only very slowly to new scientific findings that are not in line with their prevailing opinion, if public pressure does not exist. Of course, it is hard for people to become convinced of something they do not want to be convinced of. In consent with the ICINRP opinion it must be said, that we do indeed not understand the significance of the REFLEX data with regard to human health. The most what can be assumed at present is, that they make a possible risk to human health a bit more probable than hitherto thought. Altogether, we believe that the overall scientific knowledge base to which REFLEX contributes quite considerably provides enough information to take the precautionary principle more seriously than done at present by the responsible persons in politics and industry. You are free to make use of this response should you wish to. With my best regards, Pr Franz Adlkofer
ICNIRP = Industrial = 10 000 000 µW/m² (Industrial Standard exposition)
Health recommended Exposition = 1µW/m² (Report Reflex/BioInitiative/Salzburg)
- BioInitiative Report
http://www.planetz.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=25005
- Reflex Report
http://www.next-up.org/pdf/reflex_eu_%2 ... org_fr.pdf
From: Prof. Dr. Adlkofer To: XXXXXXX@XXXXXXX.net Cc: XXX @XX.de Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 Subject: REFLEX Dear Mrs Atzmon, thank you very much for informing me on the opinion ICNIRP has adopted in its dealing with the REFLEX project. It is true, that only part of the REFLEX findings have been published in peer-reviewed journals so far. As the coordinator of the REFLEX project, I cannot but say that I regret this irresponsible delay of distributing their findings by some of my colleagues. But it is also true that enough results have already been presented in highly reputed scientific journals which allow the conclusion that low and high frequency electromagnetic fields are able to alter the function of genes and beyond that to damage genes in some, but obviously not all isolated human cell systems. For low frequency electromagnetic fields this has just been confirmed, totally independent of the REFLEX project, by a research group from the Basle University, Switzerland. Furthermore, the REFLEX Final Report which has been sent to ICNIRP immediately after its release contains all the information necessary to form one's opinion on the validity of the project findings. Especially for a group of expert scientists like ICNIRP this should not cause a problem at all. Since I myself and most of my colleagues are convinced that the REFLEX data will finally withstand all the upcoming criticism, we felt and still feel obliged to present our findings not only to the scientific community, what we have done during the course of the project on several occasions, but also to the interested public taxpayers whithout whom the project, would not have been possible. A further reason for our decision may be seen in the attitude of organizations such as ICNIRP to react either not at all or only very slowly to new scientific findings that are not in line with their prevailing opinion, if public pressure does not exist. Of course, it is hard for people to become convinced of something they do not want to be convinced of. In consent with the ICINRP opinion it must be said, that we do indeed not understand the significance of the REFLEX data with regard to human health. The most what can be assumed at present is, that they make a possible risk to human health a bit more probable than hitherto thought. Altogether, we believe that the overall scientific knowledge base to which REFLEX contributes quite considerably provides enough information to take the precautionary principle more seriously than done at present by the responsible persons in politics and industry. You are free to make use of this response should you wish to. With my best regards, Pr Franz Adlkofer
ICNIRP = Industrial = 10 000 000 µW/m² (Industrial Standard exposition)
Health recommended Exposition = 1µW/m² (Report Reflex/BioInitiative/Salzburg)
-
Audiographe
- Posts: 83
- Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 4:00 pm
- Contact:
And Russia's Scalar Electrodynamics?
It seems to me that calling the issue Climate Change leaves the door open for discussion of much more than just the anti-warming brigade's polemic. Scientific conclusions are never to be immutable and immovable, even if a current theorem works well for certain uses and seems to describe the data well.
It seems to me that calling the issue Climate Change leaves the door open for discussion of much more than just the anti-warming brigade's polemic. Scientific conclusions are never to be immutable and immovable, even if a current theorem works well for certain uses and seems to describe the data well.
neither can the cooling trend which plunged Europe into a "mini iceage" between the 1400s and 1800s. i doubt that a global tax on carbon would have helped then either. one thing's for sure, banning the gas that's the SOURCE of all life(CO2, which the plants use with water and light to make food which feeds the plants and all animal life and releases oxygen as a waste product which all animals need to breathe) won't make the earth a nicer place.stardust wrote:The warming phenomenon itself can hardly be denied.
Last edited by garyb on Sat Apr 19, 2008 1:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.