Global Warming Yet Again

'I keep asking why the debate goes on.'

?? Hmmm

Could that possibly be 'cos people keep posting threads?

And the topic is debatable since there is not a consensus?

Put it on the next ballot and let the people decide... gaghha.

Hey let's talk abut free energy too while we're here. We can save server space.

CR3

These guys are like flat earthers, they know we have global warming, but they like the attention they get

I saw today on the History channel some men discussing how the warming trend was bringing about another mini ice age.

The heck if I stand a chance at figuring it all out.

cr3

"I keep asking why the debate goes on."

Like any hot topic in politics, the information provided is so full of truths and lies that it becomes impossible to untangle what is pretense and what is real.

This is all done by design to be subliminal and to pass unnoticed before our eyes. People quickly segregate into two opposing camps with each core consisting of true believers mostly unaware that they are simply pawns manipulated in a larger game.

What is even more insidious is that many times the debated subject is simply a tool to attain an unrelated goal. While the subject may be virtuous and worthy of real and honest debate, the intent by the "masters of the game" is to shift political power to a position that politics would never go if the people were really in control. So, in order to subvert the will of the people, politicians find public hot buttons like global warming and the war in Iraq to manipulate power.

You keep asking why the debate never ends, but I think a better question to ask is why people refuse to see it for what it really is? Shouldn't we be asking why we keep voting for more and more of it, too?

This is all done by design to be subliminal and to pass unnoticed before our eyes.

This goes on more than people realise!

Years ago my Brother was involved in a TV documentary, at one point he was tearing up newspapersd to make papier maché. The (left wing) TV crew wanted him to tear up specific headlines and pictures of Margaret Thatcher !... He was not amused, they also wanted him to play specific music during his 'drive to work' sequence... (he likes to drive in silence).

So the conspiracy theories are sometimes true..!

Del (MI5 CIA MIB )

Why does the debate continue? Easy to answer that one!

Because someone somewhere is making money!

I work in an environmental-based industry (I am cleaning up the Florida Everglades). I see many groups that require their ideas in the newspaper headlines to keep the donations flowing in. It is a pitiful thing!

I like your reasoning - yours is as good as any I have heard before. Unfortunately the "winners" of this current "debate"may find themselves with a Pyrric victory ...

The only way the manuipulation can be successful on the current scale is if an institution becomes part of the manipulated mass - in this case some climatologists and meteorologists have let their environmental aspirations and beliefs cloud their scientific judgement and a willing press (looking for the next crisis to hype and sell their wares) along with a political arm have taken half-formed theories and predictions of unproven models and created a firestorm of controversy - to the detriment of true science and its practitioners and increasing the distrust of those who manipulate for the purpose of increasing their own power -aka- politicians.

As far as the ManMade Global warming is concerned, more and more evidence of its non-existence surfaces in the non-mainstream media almost daily - more and more of those presumed to have signed on to the impending man-made siaster have denied the assertions that they were part of the "consensus" even the originator of the CO2 based Global Warming idea has retracted his hypothesis concerning mankind's contributions to the effects of CO2, sustainable theories citing natural causes continue to abound and thrive despite the attacks from the almost religious believers (without facts there can only be faith) - "Paid for by Big Oil, Big whatever" - no mention here about Big Sun or Big Earth.

Alas the greatest damage done by Global Warming may not be to the environment but to any respectability that may have existed for the politicians , the UN and its "scientists" and the media (watchdogs for truth HAHAHAHA) in general. Long will this "controversy " continue (long after Manhattan is supposed to disappear under a tidalwave of glacier water) as there are many who have placed their political and financial futures on the line ( in favor of the Mand Made part) and the willing envirnmentalists who may have their hearts in the right place but are unwilling to realize they have become pawns in a game that will no doubt harm the environment far more than the supposed disaster they are trying to prevent. (RE: Ethanol)

Worse yet - the worldwide economic disaster of imposing dracconian policies on prosperous nations (RE: KYOTO) may be how it all ends - Once the superpowers and their economies are weakened by their own politicians foisting misguided policies creating severe limitations on a growing energy demand, those who do not subscribe to the latest fad crisis will take the opportunity to rise and assert their control. The resulting conflict - a once powerful nation fighting a now empowered force - perhaps once and for all achieving that once feared nuclear theory - mutually assured destrution.

And the irony -

The self-loathing of the radical environmentalist will have prevailed after all.

Wow, well said. That just about covers all my thoughts on the subject. I was applauding the administration's resolve not to cave into the Kyoto (Can you say International Welfare on a huge scale?) Accord. That whole thing was simply about robbing prosperous countries. Sounds so much like the socialist crap that penalizes people for doing well. (Unless of course you're already a limousine liberal. They already have their assets well protected and they won't feel the pain of their misguided antics. Hyannis anyone?)

While I agree with a good deal of what you say...your position is fine if you are white middle class and have not been displaced by Katrina or the other flooding you've had this summer.

Global warming may well be 'not man made'.

Reducing CO2 emissions may well 'not make much difference'

But it would, in reality, cost much less to at least try...and sign up to Kyoto, than it did to embark on an illegal and oil fuelled war in the middle east.

It is a bit rich for the 'wealthiest' nation which purports to be a world leader to be so inconsistent in it's 'leadership'.....It is thinly disguised self interest...which is fine ..but please don't wrap it up in piety claiming to be the world's policeman!

Where in your assertions was there a mention of science or even fact? - you are a prime example of my point -

Katrina was not a product of Global warming any more than was the one that devastated Biloxi in the 60's - the damage done by Katrina was caused by failing levees that were built and administered by a corrupt local government - whose denomination you are well aware of.

Suggest you check meaning of word 'may' in dictionary urgently, also word 'assertion'.

I made no assertion...

It is you who assume that I am implying Katrina and the floods are caused by global warming.

I merely maintain that they 'MAY' be.

I suggest you re-read my post s l o w l y.

I will willing help you with any difficult words.

Living in the UK ...

I am not well aware of the local government of assorted US states.

'whose denomination you are well aware of.'

I don't expect you to know who my MP or what party he represents ?

But it would, in reality, cost much less to at least try...and sign up to Kyoto, than it did to embark on an illegal and oil fuelled war in the middle east.

So, in reality, would it cost less? Do have any clue what you are saying??? Coming from a brit, that hurts. That war was perfectly legal in that the UN passed something like 17 resolutions demanding that Saddam stop his weapon program. Not only did he refuse to stop it, but he claimed that he had the weapons already! We would have been foolish to ignore this threat, especially when all the countries that oppose the war now agreed at the time that he had the weapons. WHY ARE PEOPLE SO DAMN STUPID. Can't you see the facts in front of your faces!!! The question should not be "why was the intelligence wrong?" The question should be "Where the hell did the weapons go???" - Syria - Iran.

Oh yea, if the war was for oil, then WHY HAVEN'T WE GOT A DROP OF IT??? Why do the prices go up if we got all the oil. Huh? You are just spewing the typical line of dissent with no factual basis.

I am not well aware of the local government of assorted US states.

NO YOU ARE NOT!! In fact, you have no idea what you are talking about and I resent the notion that you think you have all the answers.

Oh crap.

I abstain I abstain Iabstain I abstain.

please don't poke it with a stick please!

LOL...... naive on a stick.

Who has all the reconstruction contracts? GWBs mates.

There were no WMDs...

If there were Sadam would have used them when all the troops were there like sitting ducks waiting to move.

Maybe it could have worked out ok if there were some sort of post invasion plan.

But self evidently it is a HUGE screw up....even you must see that?

I agree that the execution was fouled up, but GWB is an idiot. A person with more intelligence would be able to talk it up better and be more convincing. The main reason it appears to be f'd up is mostly because every time he opens his mouth, he puts his foot in it.

Too bad that our only real options for the last election were a couple of dopes. J. Kerry is smarter, but his values are just wacky.

I don't know if I'd rather have a stupid man there with the right intentions, or a smart man there that would be a socialist/communist, and raise my taxes to pay for someone else's living who won't get off their a$$ and work for it. but i'll take the idiot over the commie any day thank you very much.

Cheers, nice post.

but i'll take the idiot over the commie any day thank you very much.

Not a great advert for 'Democracy'... A bit like comunism...good idea but it doesn't work very well.

Maybe we (US and UK) need to tinker with the system to get away from a 2 party system..? Problem then is we all end up with coalitions that don't do anything !?

Dunno what the answer is....

Del

Maybe we (US and UK) need to tinker with the system to get away from a 2 party system..? Problem then is we all end up with coalitions that don't do anything !?

I agree that we need to get away from a 2 party system, because at least in the US, I dont see any difference in the politicians. They are all working for thir own "good" ($$$). Perhaps coalitions that dont do anything wouldnt be all bad; it might slow down the rate of corruption.

if you get away from 2 party, at least have a runoff with the winner needing 50% +1 to win. I hate to see 15 guys running and the winner get in with 17% and there is a long line of declining % after that.

Another thing needed is secret ballot in the Senate and House in the USA.

That way corruption would be cut down as the currency of a sold or traded ballot would vanish

Queston to the wise old owl: How many replies to a tired subject before we discuss religion or politics?

Answer: 19

I refuse to get into another GW discussion.

Oops.

Dang!

Fred Singer is alleged to have dubious motives by many web sites. That aside, the work referenced has 500 Scientists backing it ( out of an unknown number asked). Here are some more Scientists.

Very cool.