The Global Warming Scam has failed. Time for Global Cooling . .

1. 59

   sannyasinmanposted 14 years ago

   Global Cooling and the New World Order ...
   
   http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/james … rld-order/

   replyreport
   1. 59

      qwarkposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      study...."precession" on google:
      http://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=na … 0bee2047fa

      replyreport
   2. 59

      qwarkposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Global warming, global cooling, extremes of all varieties have effected planet earth. They have all been due to natural phenomena.
      The ice ages and associated interglacials are well known to be paced by the eccentricity, obliquity and precession cycles in earth’s rickety orbit. These we can do nothing about. So be ever thoughtful of both facts and predictions before leaping to a conclusion about the RUMOR of "Global Warming."
      Humans are, no doubt, adding to the problems.

      replyreport
   3. 58

      BartCougyposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      There are definitely some fishy things going about! I am not too sure how I feel about this topic so I am trying to learn and be moderate in my opinion. I would really like to see further proof from both ends. Either way, it would definitely make our world a better place if we find new, convenient ways of living so that we can keep earth sustainable and beautiful. It all comes to down to the root of problems like overpopulation. Hope we never see it though, haha!

      replyreport
      1. 59

         qwarkposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Bart:
         If that is a pic of you, you WILL see human overpopulation.The earth will always adapt. Humanity may not.
         I've tried to get hubbers to study the subject "precession" on google but they pay no attention.
         The earth travels around that sun on a tilted axis...about 23+ degrees. That is responsible for our seasons.
         The earth "wobbles" on that axis like  a slowing down spinning top. For a complete wobble it takes about 26k yrs. Study the effects on earths climate because of this wobble.
         There is no doubt that we humans are adding to those "effects."
         If the earth is "warming" it is but a natural cycle that we cannot control.
         Human population explosion is a reality that will result in terrible consequences over the next 50 years.
         Qwark

         replyreport
         1. 43

            Mikeydoesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            I am def not doubtin anything Qwark says. Humans do have an affect on the evironment, whether CO2 has anything to do with it remains to be seen.
            
            There are other things that are a factor and obviously the less pollutants we put into the air and into the ground(Ewaste) the better. We aren't ruining the Earth, the Earth will be fine, we may or may not be ruining our stay here severely.

            replyreport
            1. 59

               qwarkposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               Mikey:
               I agree.
               There is not a doubt in my mind that mankind is headed for a catastrophe of it's own making.

               replyreport
2. 82

   kerrygposted 14 years ago

   LOL, obviously this person missed the part where July 2010 was the hottest month of the hottest year of the hottest decade on record and the much vaunted Snowpocalypse in the Eastern US and bitterly cold winter in Russia were anomalies in the hottest January on satellite record and, moreover, were followed by record breaking heat waves in both places this summer, causing thousands of deaths and setting Russia on fire.
   
   Just sayin'.

   replyreport
   1. 43

      Mikeydoesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Actually the last 20 years have been cooling. I'm not sure where you got your info from. Please don't laugh at people when neither of you are necessarily correct. I'm not sure how you can take 1 month and use it as all your scientific data, thats laughable actually.....
      
      This summer I can agree was the hottest in a long time. I loved every second of it. Last year was the coldeest summer and it sucked!
      
      Maybe some day it will be as hot as the medieval warm period, too bad we haven't got there yet.
      
      The globe has been warming the last 100 years sure, but we just had a little Ice Age.
      
      So pretty much global warming is happening if you are talking about 100 years ago. And its global cooling if you talk about 20 years ago.

      replyreport
      1. 82

         kerrygposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         NASA says the last decade has been the hottest on record, so I don't know where you're getting your info.
         
         You can't use one month as proof of anything, you're right. However, the overall global trend is upward and has been for some time. You may have had an unusually cool summer last year, but 2009 as a whole was the second hottest year on record. (NASA again: http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/featur … -2009.html)
         
         The medieval warm period, by the way, was a local anomaly that affected primarily the North Atlantic region of Europe and North America. Globally, temperatures during that period were significantly lower than current temperatures.
         
         Increased solar activity and decreased volcanic activity brought us out of the Little Ice Age and caused warming in the first part of the 20th century, but since the 70's the temperature has continued to climb while solar activity has remained largely consistent, and even declined slightly.

         replyreport
         1. 43

            Mikeydoesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            I'm getting my info where you got your info and I agree its been the hottest on record..... but what does that have to do with anything. Temperatures have been steadily rising since the little ice age, why would we expect something different? If what you are saying is correct the temperatures would be rising not plaining out.. zoom in on the last 10 years. We have more people on earth than ever and temperatures have been plaining out. explain that.
            
            the graph you showed was the correct one, I'm shocked. At least it wasn't the hockey stick, which was also on NASA's website until they updated it and found there was a huge mistake.
            
            If you look at what I said you will realize I was right. the last 20 years have been stagnant(for sure) or even decreasing(in some scientists eyes).
            
            It has been going up since after the LITTLE ICE AGE. Look at a graph of thousands of years ago until now. Anyone who has ever read a graph will realize there is nothing different.
            
            I'm not saying man doesn't affect our atmosphere, I'm saying there is nothing abnormal to this point. I thought the reason was CO2? Now its solar activity, maybe you have a little something there, but it remains to be seen.

            replyreport
            1. 80

               thisisoliposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               Yep, we are emerging from a mini ice age, this occured long before we were creating vast amounts of CO2, and it will happen again whether we want it to or not.  We have next to no control over the earths temperature, and while some people do like to go out there and try to fix it, they are diverting resources which would be best spent on something plausable.
               
               The solar cycles have long been held as the biggest climate adjuster on earth, and clear patterns can eb seen between historical graphs and the earths proximity to the sun.

               replyreport
               1. 68

                  Ralph Deedsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  "it will happen again whether we want it to or not."
                  
                  It's not apparent to me how you could know that? Or when or to what extent it will happen???
                  
                  But we know with some certainty what the effect on the climate from what we are pumping into the atmosphere from coal fired power plants, motor vehicles and other sources of greenhouse gases.
                  
                  Moreover, oil is being depleted and is non-renewable. Some say we've already reached peak oil production. There's plenty of coal, but we haven't figured out an economical way to burn it cleanly. Also, mining is hard on the environment.

                  replyreport
                  1. 80

                     thisisoliposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                     There has not been a single correct prediction in future global temperatures caused by global warming.  However teh temperatur ranges we are seeing now were predicted over 800 years ago to a matter of degrees by charting the earths course in relation to the sun.
                     
                     When it comes to peak oil, yes that is a limit which will one day be reached, however America has huge underground reserves, and even more has been found under the north pole.  While peak oil is a concern, it is a future concern. This is not to say it is negligible, or should be ignored, but it is not an imminent threat. You seem like you pay a lot of attention to what is happening, so I would not be surprised if you have also been aware of teh past claims that we have reached peak oil.
                     
                     I think that chasing carbon free technology (Carbon being a relatively clean pollutant) and pushing out half finished clean power technology is an eonomically poor mistake, especially since most of these technologies are being paid for at huge costs to small industries, who are trying to survive in a poor economy.
                     
                     Instead government subsidies in clean technology, or even energy efficient technology, could be an investment which would not only support smaller industries, but help provide more goods for exporting.

                     replyreport
            2. 82

               kerrygposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               They're different because the usual natural forces that affect climate are not active at levels that can account for the warming we're seeing.
               
               It's also sort of amazing how two different people can look at the same info and see two different things. You look at the graph and see "leveling off." I look at the graph and see a dip following the exceptionally strong El Nino of 1998 (although the "dip" is still hotter than any other year from the 90's), followed by a rise, followed by another slight dip from La Nina and unusually low solar activity in 2007-2008, followed by a precipitous rise. Moreover, every decade has been hotter than the previous one since the 70's. If that looks like "leveling off" to you, I hate to think what a rise would look like!
               
               Also bear in mind that land temperatures do not tell the whole story. The oceans can absorb far more heat with far less effect on their actual temperature than air can, and this is what they're doing:
               
               
               
               Also, I covered the Little Ice Age in my earlier reply. Since you apparently missed that, here it is again:
               
               Increased solar activity and decreased volcanic activity brought us out of the Little Ice Age and caused warming in the first part of the 20th century, but since the 70's the temperature has continued to climb while solar activity has remained largely consistent, and even declined slightly.

               replyreport
               1. 80

                  thisisoliposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  We have experienced some of the most worrying solar flares in the last two years than in the last century, thanks in part to two solar flare cycles co-inciding.
                  
                  It is also important to note that the Earths location and the variations in the earths path around the sun play a big part, a difference of a few hundred/thousand miles is relatively small, but it can cause huge differences in temperature.

                  replyreport
                  1. 82

                     kerrygposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                     We're also coming out of one of the longest and deepest solar minimums in a century, yet temperatures experienced only moderate dips and were still higher than they were during the solar maximum at the beginning of the decade. The sun has a huge effect on the climate, but not as huge as you think.
                     
                     As for the Earth's path around the sun, global temperatures tend to be four degrees higher at its farthest point from the sun (in July) than its closest (January), so again there are many other factors in play and believe it or not, scientists do account for them in their calculations! It is certainly possible that there is an unknown factor causing the current rise in temperature - that is why AGW is called a theory, it's the hypothesis that best matches the observable evidence based on our current understanding - but the natural factors we know about are not active at levels consistent with the level of warming we're experiencing.

                     replyreport
                     1. 43

                        Mikeydoesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                        So all we have is 100 years of data on solar flares and that is enough to say its the cause of global warming? Help me understand.

                        replyreport
                        1. 82

                           kerrygposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                           Actually, we have data on sunspots going back centuries, but that's beside the point.
                           
                           An increase in solar activity is believed to have caused the warming the Earth experienced in the first part of the 20th century that brought us out of the Little Ice Age, but since the 70's, solar activity has remained relatively constant and even declined somewhat, so it cannot account for the warming we are currently experiencing.
                           
                           Other known natural factors affecting climate are also relatively quiet at the moment, so that is why scientists are turning to unnatural ones. Carbon dioxide and methane are known greenhouse gases. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased from 280ppm to nearly 400ppm over the last ~150 years thanks to a combination of factors including burning fossil fuels, widespread deforestation, and unsound agricultural practices. Greenhouses gases are not the only factors affecting climate, but scientists believe that rising levels of them are responsible for the majority of the warming we've seen over the last ~40 years.

                           replyreport
                           1. 43

                              Mikeydoesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                              So  what is your argument? CO2, may or may not affect Global temperatures, it remains to be seen.
                              
                              If you look at the graph CO2 rises AFTER temperature. So I am not sold on that either.

                              replyreport
                              1. 82

                                 kerrygposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                                 See also my forthcoming paper: "Chickens do not lay eggs, because they have been observed to hatch from them".
                                 
                                 Are you familiar with the concept of feedback? CO2 does lag temperature, you're correct, but that's not the whole story. Moderate rises in CO2 can contribute to increasing the temperature in association with other factors, such as the Milankovich cycles (what's depicted in the graph I suspect you're referring to), which in turn causes dramatic rises of CO2 because the deep oceans start outgassing massive amounts of CO2 as they warm. The CO2 then warms up the planet, ending the ice age.
                                 
                                 As you can see, though, we're not in an ice age, so if the current warming causes the oceans to start outgassing again, that's pretty much the worst case scenario for humanity, because it could lead to runaway climate change that could take thousands of years to settle back down. This is a major reason why scientists say we urgently need to get atmospheric CO2 levels back down to 350ppm or less. Currently oceans are still absorbing atmospheric CO2 (causing ocean acidification, in fact, which is a whole nother problem), but if vertical ocean mixing starts bringing warmer water down into the depths, we as a species could be in for a seriously bumpy ride.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 43

                                    Mikeydoesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                                    I think you are looking way to far into the data and not looking at things as they are. There is nothing abnormal about that graph at all.
                                    
                                    If what you were saying is true the graph would have a huge spike, like the hockey stick graph did. The exact opposite has happened since that graph came out.
                                    
                                    I don't have time to read the link. Evolution made the chicken into what it is today, just like evolution has made the earth what it is today. We can not explain for sure how it happened, but there obviously is a logical explanation.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 82

                                       kerrygposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                                       ? Who said anything about any graph being abnormal?
                                       
                                       Recent temperature graphs do not have a huge spike because - newsflash! - CO2 is not the only factor affecting our climate. We've got stuff like the lowest solar minimum in decades and the La Nina event causes dips in temperatures, and stuff like strong (1998) and average (2009-2010) El Ninos causing increases in temperatures. However, the only factor we are currently aware of that could account for the overall warming trend we are seeing is the increased levels of CO2, methane, and other greenhouse gases. I realize you refuse to admit that there is an overall warming trend, but the data disagres.
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                       The link is two sentences long and is almost entirely quoted within my post. It's a joke for people sick of explaining constantly that the fact that CO2 lags temperature in times of climate change caused by solar activity:
                                       
                                       a) has minimal bearing on what is happening right now, and
                                       b) in fact supports the AGW argument that our actions today will potentially have an effect on the Earth's climate for thousands of years to come

                                       report
                                       1. 43

                                          Mikeydoesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                                          I refuse to admit there is a warming trend???? What are you talking about, never did I say the temperatures aren' rising. I can't tell you if they are going to rise or fall.
                                          
                                          I just merely stated.. and prove me wrong here. That you laughed at a guy that is ALSO backed by REAL scientists. I also said that if you were right the temperatures would not be planing out like that are. It just doesn't make sense.
                                          
                                          Being skeptical is apart of science and the best part of science is it can always be improved, so technically even if you are partly right you might be wrong in other aspects. You are going of hyptohesis it is yet to be fact. If there were't skeptics the Hockey Stick graph would still be data you are using(the same data released and covered up by NASA). So I take anything scientists say without a grain of salt, but do find what they say interesting.
                                          
                                          Blame Al Gore for jumping the gun and saying the the science is in and the debate is over.. It clearly isn't.
                                          
                                          Pretty much all I am saying is, and I am right in what im talking about.
                                          
                                          the last ten years on the graph you are showing the temperatures have dropped. Maximize it and look. So therefore you CAN say the globe has been cooling. not including this year it really shows it if you take the average.
                                          
                                          BUT you can also say and be correct in saying the globe is warming. Which I agree with over the last hundred years.
                                          
                                          I don't see what your argument is with me.

                                          report
                     2. 80

                        thisisoliposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                        i wish they would also account for the carbon increases occuring after the temperature rises, as is meant to happen with a standard eco system.
                        
                        A century is a very short time to look at a solar occurence, especially since teh last mini ice age (from which we are coming out of) began in the 1500's and caused a drop in temperature of only a degree.
                        
                        However this drop was part of a bigger cycle, because we are still emeriging from the last glaciation from 10,000 years ago.
                        
                        Take a look at every long term temperature graph, and you can see how the earth is still emerging from one of the harshest ice ages in a long time.
                        
                        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_t … ure_record
                        
                        It's easy to make claims by picking and choosing your data ranges, but when you look at the big pictre, and the vast temperature changes which have occured in the last 100 thousand years alone, never mind the last 5 million years, you can begin to see that we are in the grasp of a huge natural cycle.  The only way to prevent a natural cycle is to take our habitation to a solar level in artificial environments.

                        replyreport
                        1. 82

                           kerrygposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                           Data ranges like this one, showing current temps to be the warmest in roughly 100,000 years?
                           
                           
                           
                           Humanity has been incredibly lucky to live in such a prolonged period of relative climate stability. If it's genuinely natural causes that are putting an end to the Holocene, then we're obviously out of luck, but the current understanding of climate science suggests that's not the case.

                           replyreport
   2. 61

      Jim Hunterposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Its hot in July?
      
      Say, that is news
      
      As for global cooling?
      
      You're about 30 years too late for that that myth.

      replyreport
3. 85

   rebekahELLEposted 14 years ago

   climate change is real. call it what you want. it has to do with cyclical changes.  extremes in warming and cooling.

   replyreport
4. 80

   thisisoliposted 14 years ago

   Climate change is definitely happening, it has bene happening for billions of years.  As much as some people enjoy having a belief to champion, the truth of the matter is that there is not much we can do down here that affects the earths temperature as much as the 1,392,000 km diameter nuclear furnace we have cosmically next door to us. The Earths orbit and the earths rotation both vary quite a lot, and past records have helped us to create predictions of the Earths temperature in the future. Needless to say these have all been far more accurate than any of the models by those who have claimed carbon (Debunked) and methane (debunked) to be teh cause of global warming.
   
   I'm all for providing clean technologies to industrialized nations, I am all for fighting pollution, and I am all for saving the environment. I think it is highly important that we preserve the rain forest and the coral reef, two of our biggest oxygen producers.
   
   I don't agree with this farce of a publicity stunt which is directing resources to insignificant areas.

   replyreport
5. 68

   Ralph Deedsposted 14 years ago

   Climate change is the product of two forces--natural sun cycles, volcanic eruptions and other natureal events which are beyond our control and from man-made actions that are within our control. The effect of greenhouse gases has been scientifically measured. Efforts to control what is within our ability to control are prudent if we care about the future of the world. Of course there can be no guarantee that sun cycles or other forces may overwhelm the effects of greenhouse gases whether they are reduced or allowed to continue to increase.

   replyreport
   1. 82

      kerrygposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Yup, this. If solar activity decreased (or increased) significantly, then there's nothing we can do about climate change. The Earth will be an icebox or an inferno regardless.
      
      However, as long as solar activity is holding relatively steady, it makes sense to ask ourselves why we're knowingly destabilizing the climate through our own actions, especially since there are so many other reasons to reduce our consumption of fossil fuels, from the possibility of peak oil to the environmental devastation of oil spills and mountaintop removal mining to the effect the pursuit of cheap oil has on our foreign policy.
      
      Likewise, we should not be cutting down or burning up our rainforests in a desperate effort to extend our addiction to cheap oil with biofuels, or cramming tens of thousands of cows knee deep in their own s*** in pursuit of cheap hamburgers. Even if scientists are completely wrong about the role these activities play in anthropogenic global warming, they are blatantly unsustainable and self-destructive.

      replyreport
      1. 68

         Ralph Deedsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         We're on the same page, as usual, Kerry.

         replyreport
6. 76

   Aficionadaposted 14 years ago

   Some of you should at least look at the linked article to see where the OP's forum headline originated.
   
   The article reports and comments on the June 2010 meeting of the Bilderberg Group, in which the published agenda included the topic of "Global Cooling."  Whatever you think/feel/believe about the significance of the Bilderberg Group and about scientific and political arguments for and against the notion of anthropogenic global warming, it is still interesting to see that BG is apparently now discussing a topic quite opposite to the theory that has been touted as incontrovertible fact by politicians and media.  It's worth following as a news story, no matter what you believe about the AGW theory yourself.
   
   Check out the comments to the article also.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Home Girlposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Here in Canada we have global warming in summer and global cooling in winter. Works perfectly every year.

      replyreport
   2. 82

      kerrygposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      It definitely is a curious choice. I wonder if there's reason to think solar activity is going into significant decline, or if they were just talking about something stupid like geoengineering.
      
      Either way, the other reasons for reducing fossil fuel consumption, deforestation, industrial agriculture, and other driving forces behind AGW are powerful enough to continue working toward those goals.

      replyreport
   3. 68

      Ralph Deedsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      I read the article. Typical conspiracy mongering. You should look at the source. Check up on the author. The Bilderberg group is no more than a bunch of influential government and business people who get together once a year to discuss various issues and possible solutions faced by countries around the world. There is nothing whatsoever sinister about this.

      replyreport
      1. 59

         sannyasinmanposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Quote
         "We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost 40 years........It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supernational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries."
         
         - David Rockefeller in Baden-Baden, Germany 1991, thanking major media for keeping secret for decades the movement of the prophetic one world government.
         
         Good and innocent deeds have no need of secrecy. Wake up!!

         replyreport
      2. 76

         Aficionadaposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         You have jumped to conclusions.  Again.  Ho hum.
         
         The OP linked a news blog that mentioned an agenda item by a famous discussion group which is made up of high-profile world citizens.  The blogger began with these words: "Bilderberg. Whether you believe it’s part of a sinister conspiracy which will lead inexorably to one world government or whether you think it’s just an innocent high-level talking shop, there’s one thing that can’t be denied: it knows which way the wind is blowing. (Hat tips: Will/NoIdea/Ozboy)."
         
         The blogger acknowledged that there are people in the world who think BG is sinister and that there are others who think of it as a talking shop; the blogger did not take sides, and neither did I.  I wrote that it is an interesting news story for the BG to talk about a POV that is different from the one that prevails in the media.  Isn't it one responsibility of intelligent people to listen to theories that are different from their own or the most popular ones?
         
         You are correct that the balance of the blog post could qualify as a form of mongering, but even more as a call to alertness.  That is, the blogger says we need to pay attention in the future to the way politicians will try to spin their current stances, if in fact the AGW theory turns out to have been a myth.  Notice the blogger's uses of "if" in the article.
         
         My irritation with this forum thread, and others like it, is that the discussion immediately jumped off into a Yes-it-is/No-it-isn't style argument.  To me, the interesting part of this forum topic is the fact that the BG is discussing the subject from the opposite point of view.  That's it.  That's all.

         replyreport
         1. 68

            Ralph Deedsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            "Either it was a printing error.
            
            "Or the global elite is perfectly well aware that global cooling represents a far more serious and imminent threat to the world than global warming, but is so far unwilling to admit it except behind closed doors."
            
            The blog implies that the world's leaders' worries about global warming have been replaced with concern over global cooling. I don't believe this. And I question the competence and veracity of the blogger, Mr. Delingpole. In case you haven't noticed, Mr. Sannyassinman is our resident conspiracy theorist.

            replyreport
            1. 59

               sannyasinmanposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               From David Rockefeller, founding member of the Bilderberg group
               
               Quote
               "We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost 40 years........It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supernational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries."
               
               - David Rockefeller in Baden-Baden, Germany 1991, thanking major media for keeping secret for decades the Bilderberg meetings and the movement towards a One World Government.
               
               Did you read this quote? And you still think that these are benign old men sitting around the fireside discussing charitable works and their golf handicaps? Tell me which part of "our plan for the world" you don't understand.
               
               Mr Deeds, you wouldn't recognise the truth if it jumped up and bit you in the backside - but at least that might wake you up!

               replyreport
               1. 68

                  Ralph Deedsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  Please identify the source of the David Rockefeller quote. It sounds improbable to me.

                  replyreport
                  1. 61

                     Doug Hughesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                     <crickets chirping>

                     replyreport
7. 43

   Mikeydoesposted 14 years ago

   Kerry, I don't even know or care what you are trying to get across. Where are you getting this information from. If it is related to the IPCC at all, I don't want to listen. And I'm sure it is.
   
   I was more upset you laughed at the dude, and neither of you of you are right. Because I am sure there are flaws in the data now and the concensus. Just as I thought Inconvienent truth was lies or whatever they were doing.
   
   Which is why I support Ewaste.

   replyreport
8. 61

   Doug Hughesposted 14 years ago

   I am amazed at the flat-earthers who deny global warming, but fail to admit the ice caps are melting. This is not hype or propaganda or fraud. We have photos from space - the contour of Greenland is changing. And fools still claim it's a 'scam' that failed.
   
   There is room for disagreement about what the cause or the solution is - but we are WAY past there being ANY legitimate doubt - global warming is real.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      andycoolposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      There are always some people who'll try to prove THE FACTS wrong by displaying data and intentionally inferring false conclusions or half truths from that data. If concious people try to increase the awareness of the general mass, I think only then the true picture will start to unfold before the general people and they will become more active to save THE EARTH. How many people out there understand what NASA does and what NASA says?

      replyreport
9. 59

   qwarkposted 14 years ago

   ...evidently no one wants to take the time to study the 26 - 30 k year "wobble" of the earth on its axis.
   Oh well..argue on.   ho hum....zzzzzzz

   replyreport