Guest viewing limit reached
  • You have reached the maximum number of guest views allowed
  • Please register below to remove this limitation

Global Warming!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I could say theres been a warming trend because the last five hours since I got out of bed have been progressively hotter. The fact of the matter is that 12 of the last fifteen years have been the hottest since records began and 2009 was the fifth hottest year on record. Just because these years havent been as hot as 1998 or 2005 does not mean there is a "cooling trend "

Tell that to Trenberth, he's the one who was saying the model's inability to predict the current cooling was a travesty. And yes, congratulations, you've learned that trends have to have starting points, otherwise they wouldn't be... trends. Now you just have to explain the striking tendency of people on the alarmist side to start all their trends either right after the medieval warm period or right after the little ice age.


screaming at anyone who dares to disagree with you and pretending to know what you are talking about to save face.

You just described the last 15-20 years of climate 'science' with this phrase.

Scientists are however saying they are 90 percent sure and they are the best weve got.

Which scientists? Oh, yeah, the ones who through their emails inadvertently confessed to rigging the peer review process, withholding data, deleting data, etc. Pardon my French, but I couldn't give a **** less about that those lying ****s are sure of. After ten years of dealing with their stonewalling and dennigration of anyone who dared question their precious work, they can go **** themselves at this point.
 
Just like everything else politics have invaded science. Just another scare tactic. We should look at the science and scare tactics 15-20 yrs ago. Shouldnt we be frying by now?
 
Man made Global Warming does 2 things VERY well:

1) Creates a new derivatives market (as outlined in my previous post)

2) Replaces the Judeo-Christian standards of morality that the US was founded on, with a 'new relative morality' for which they (politicians, al gore and his disciples) are the lone prophets.

Which means IF you will just believe them, they can do whatever they want in the name of 'new morality' Invalid Link Removed Saddle US car makers with expensive, unnecessary processes thatInvalid Link Removed Via the radical environmental agenda we now have the 'moral obligation' not only to allow such things but also to champion them...
 
Just like everything else politics have invaded science. Just another scare tactic. We should look at the science and scare tactics 15-20 yrs ago. Shouldnt we be frying by now?

Yup. I believe "Global Warming" is a conspiracy authored by our freinds of the Left. I dont think that Al Gore and company believe any of this stuff. So whats their agenda? Imagine 10, 20, 30 years from now when there is NO CHANGE IN THE EARTHS AVERAGE TEMPERATURES, THE DEMS WILL TAKE CREDIT FOR IT!!!!!!!!!! This is what its all about, winning elections and writing new policies to control more of our money.

BTW, who remembers the Ozone layer scare?

And............

Another thing that puzzles me; every time someone points out that there is more ice here or record cold there, someone shoots right back with the old "well, the warming in another part of the world is causing that".

So;

Why were no scientists predicting that ten years ago but knew that Manhattan would be under water due to melting ice in twenty years?
 
It's not a conspiracy anymore than any other dip**** leftist cause has been. Through history there has always been a group of Malthusians, even before Malthus, who claimed the world was going to end and the only way to stop it was to give them money and power. More recently this has taken the form of claiming we have to go to Socialism now. It's called "Therefore, Socialism." Exploding population, therefore, Socialism. Falling population, therefore, Socialism. Nulcear weapons, therefore, Socialism. Energy crisis, therefore, Socialism. We're living in a post scarcity world, therefore, Socialism. Environment under siege, therefore, Socialism...

Environmentalism and the green movement are just, for various reasons, the biggest such movement to date. It's a threat to be certain, but no more coordinated than any other such movement. The CRU letters only prove that sticking a bunch of politically like minded people together, giving them a cause, money and power, will lead to ****ty results. It's not like they were coordinating with some central mastermind. Al Gore is not Cobra Commander. There are just carrots in this world that people agree on and often chase in unison, nothing more, nothing less.
 
As an engineer, I have followed the global warming issue with great interest. From everything I have read I believe that it is a complete hoax. Step back for a minute and think about the situation. As a scientist, I am being subsidized by the government to study the environment and see if there are any catastrophic global issues of significance. If I find nothing, I am out of a job. So I will work until I find something of plausible consequence (i.e. global warming, asteroid issues, sun spots, universal entropy, etc.), this is my job. The weather follows many predictable cycles, some are well documented some are not but we know of their existence. Moreover, deforestation causes the jet streams, which affect the weather throughout the world, to change slightly. This will create havoc with the weather systems and cause climatic shifts (i.e. the ice cap may be melting on one area but increasing in another due to climatic weather shifts in the atmosphere). This can and does cause increased hurricanes, tornadoes, tsunamis, etc. But the bottom line is that the Bible (the actual word of GOD) predicts these things and assures us that the world will always be in existence and will always have the ability to support life. One day Jesus himself will return to earth and restore order, this is a guarantee from GOD himself. So I wouldn’t be too concerned with Algor and his global warming campaign. Trust the Bible so far it has been 100% accurate in its predictions.
 
Trust the Bible so far it has been 100% accurate in its predictions.

Invalid Link Removed

You were doing fine until you lost credibility.
 
And the horse must be brought out for another round of beatings!
Dead horses emit less methane and CO2 than live ones. I'm helping the environment.
 
As an engineer, I have followed the global warming issue with great interest. From everything I have read I believe that it is a complete hoax.

It isn't a complete hoax. Humans are very, very efficient at doing what all other animals do, which is altering our environment to our benefit. It's quite possible burning fossil fuels or other things such as land usage patterns may affect local and global climate. The problem is the 'science' got a political infection real early in the game on this one, probably in large part due to the overall leftist leanings of most universities, and so it can't be trusted to tell us just what effect we may have or be having already, much less what possible solutions there are.

The Bible has no place in discussions of science. The very problem here is faith; too many researchers had faith that they were right about anthropogenic global warming, and so were judging science by results, not by the integrity of the process and data.
 
I have been a Christian for over 35 years and I am more convinced of the existence of GOD than I have ever been in my life. Yes I have read most of Bible skeptics. These articles are written by people who have not done their research and don’t really understand scripture. Some of the staunchest biblical defenders are those who have tried to prove the Bible to be wrong. I don't have time to address all issues but the first is that Adam didn't die. The Bible here is not just referring to physical death but spiritual death which both Adam and Eve both suffered instantaneously upon sinning. They also suffered physical death but this was the beginning of a degenerative process that happen over time. Let me as you this question, is your body degenerating as you age? In any case the Bible doesn’t need defending, it has survived countless attacks and has survived for thousands of years and is still the bestselling book in the world. In some countries people are willing to risk their lives to obtain a copy. I invite to earnestly study the scriptures yourself and not rely on the information provided by Biblical skeptics.
 
These articles are written by people who have not done their research and don’t really understand scripture.

That argument can be used for both sides.

1. Can you ever find a printing of the Bible with errors in it?(reproduced)
2. Are there translation issues in every other document and if so why not the Bible?
3. Were the books in the Bible hand selected by a councel that leaft some out?
3. Is there anything in the world that Man has been involved with that hasn't been corrupted?


We place so much faith into a book while saying it's the word of God and there's no way that it could be incorrect because it was guided by God. yet time and time again we see examples thoughout history on how those with ulterior motives can change what God does and stands for.


At one point in time god was fierce and unforgiving and swift in His punishment. (fire and Brimstone preaching)
Not too long after the same Bible is being used to preach about God's kindness and forgiveness. How is it that the words didn't change but somehow what God said and meant did? Did everyone living under the Christian title go to Hell because they preached and lived under a different God?
 
Here again too many issues to be address all at once. Yes the Bible in its original Greek and Hebrew was meticulously maintained throughout the history. This was verified by the finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Of course translating between the original Greek and Hebrew poses some difficulties due to the differences in languages, but in general the King James and the NIV versions are very close to the original and contain many references to the original texts. Moreover, most Biblical scholars study the Bible from one of these translations in conjunction with the original Greek and Hebrew texts.

In reference to you question about God dealing with people differently, God deals with people differently in different dispensations. In the Old Testament God dealt harshly with the Jews in order to keep them pure. It was not his desire but he called them a wicked and adulterous generation. They continually sought after false gods. The only why he could keep them pure was through discipline. Just like a wayward child. Purity was essential for the birth of Jesus Christ through the blood line of David so that he will eventually be the rightful ruler of Israel. Today we are in the church age. Since the advent of Jesus Christ, God has turned his attention to the born again Christians and the development of his church. He is not done with Israel; he will deal with them again during the tribulation period. Once again in a very harsh manner, read the book of Revelation. Apparently this is necessary to bring back to God; again they have sought after false gods.
 
Here again too many issues to be address all at once. Yes the Bible in its original Greek and Hebrew was meticulously maintained throughout the history. This was verified by the finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Of course translating between the original Greek and Hebrew poses some difficulties due to the differences in languages, but in general the King James and the NIV versions are very close to the original and contain many references to the original texts. Moreover, most Biblical scholars study the Bible from one of these translations in conjunction with the original Greek and Hebrew texts.

In reference to you question about God dealing with people differently, God deals with people differently in different dispensations. In the Old Testament God dealt harshly with the Jews in order to keep them pure. It was not his desire but he called them a wicked and adulterous generation. They continually sought after false gods. The only why he could keep them pure was through discipline. Just like a wayward child. Purity was essential for the birth of Jesus Christ through the blood line of David so that he will eventually be the rightful ruler of Israel. Today we are in the church age. Since the advent of Jesus Christ, God has turned his attention to the born again Christians and the development of his church. He is not done with Israel; he will deal with them again during the tribulation period. Once again in a very harsh manner, read the book of Revelation. Apparently this is necessary to bring back to God; again they have sought after false gods.

I find this incredibly insulting, and you quite arrogant for posting it.
 
"Today we are in the church age. Since the advent of Jesus Christ, God has turned his attention to the born again Christians and the development of his church. He is not done with Israel; he will deal with them again during the tribulation period. Once again in a very harsh manner, read the book of Revelation. Apparently this is necessary to bring back to God; again they have sought after false gods."

This is incredibly insulting to NONChristians (and the subcategory of jews), and is indicative of why exclusionary religions are also mostly intolerant of others. Not that I believe in your god, but the arrogance of thinking that you are the center of his attention is neurotic and almost laughable.

However, as Jayhawkk warned, the only religion in this thread is the AGW cult.
 
You’re creed says “stretch your body, stretch your mind… It sounds like your mind is closed. Therfore I will bow out of this conversation.
 
You’re creed says “stretch your body, stretch your mind… It sounds like your mind is closed. Therfore I will bow out of this conversation.

Standard Recommended thinly disguised Ad Hominem logical fallacy (otherwise known as trying to discredit via personal insult...you know, treating others as you want to be blah blah).

Perhaps it is for the best.

Now...How about that HUGELY successful Copenhagen sham?
 
You’re creed says “stretch your body, stretch your mind… It sounds like your mind is closed. Therfore I will bow out of this conversation.

Or you could use the inverse and apply it... Whose mind is more closed; the accused or the accuser?
 
Or compared with events that's taken place during many time throughout history. Do you know how many times world events have been used as proof of the world ending?


Let's just go back to WW2.
 
Or compared with events that's taken place during many time throughout history. Do you know how many times world events have been used as proof of the world ending?


Let's just go back to WW2.

Not to mention that 666 is the numerical value of Nero, Emperor of Rome that was extraordinarily depraved and persecuting Christians rampantly around when...oh, the book of Revelations was written.

Hmm.
 
Or you could use the inverse and apply it... Whose mind is more closed; the accused or the accuser?

I'm sorry I can't bow out I'm too passionate about scripture. I hope I am not closed minded, but I may well be. As I said I have been studying scripture for over 39 years, reading many articles, both pro and con, and I have yet to find anything to discredit the Bible when studied in depth.

I apologize if I have offended anyone that is not my intent.
 
Not to mention that 666 is the numerical value of Nero, Emperor of Rome that was extraordinarily depraved and persecuting Christians rampantly around when...oh, the book of Revelations was written.

Hmm.

666 is the numerical value of many things including all the names of the Pope. I beleive it is a symbolic number and not to be taken literally. Three is the number of God and six the number of man in the Bible. 666 is representitive of a man posing as God, i.e. the antichrist. The number required in Revelation can be nearly anything from your social security number to your credit card number. It is interesting that in some parts of the world they are experimenting with implants in the back of the hand as a defense against ID theft. This is predicted in Revelation.
 
Your belief isn't offensive it's how some people will try and discredit other's beliefs and imply that they're ignorant for not adjusting their views in front of 'truth'.

MY personal issue with the Bible is that it is man made and by my own logic, automatically tainted. I believe in God but not so much as to take the Bible at face value knowing how many variables are needed to be weighed. Just small things like the fact that a word for word translation from English to another language is improssible in today's culture. How that in modern times so much can be changed, removed and covered up at the whim of those in power to ensure a belief remains in tact and how successful it is given the level of technology we have today. In all of history there remains one constant... People in power will do what needs to be done to stay in power and even the greatest of intentions can be warped. Considering what we have witness as a people today in the religious sector I can not accept that during a time of ignorance and superstition that even more sadisitic and twisted motives made their ways through a religious medium.

Anyways, that's my personal opinion on the matter and please do not imply that I think those who do believe in the Bible are fools or ignorant. I only believe that of those who state an opinion of faith as fact or repeat something they heard as fact without at least checking themselves for the truth before repeating it.
 
Or you could go with the idea that since Man often dreams backwards or upside down and the Bible states God will come to the prophets in their dreams that the number wasn't 666 but 999.


That's another issue i have with the bible as a whole. Too many ways to interprete the writings to fit the ideas of the reader.
 
666 is the numerical value of many things including all the names of the Pope. I beleive it is a symbolic number and not to be taken literally. Three is the number of God and six the number of man in the Bible. 666 is representitive of a man posing as God, i.e. the antichrist. The number required in Revelation can be nearly anything from your social security number to your credit card number. It is interesting that in some parts of the world they are experimenting with implants in the back of the hand as a defense against ID theft. This is predicted in Revelation.

Bible names often have special significance, particularly when given by God. For example, because Abram would become the father of nations, God changed the patriarch’s name to Abraham, meaning “Father of a Multitude.” (Genesis 17:5, footnote) God told Joseph and Mary to call Mary’s future child Jesus, which means “Jehovah Is Salvation.” (Matthew 1:21, footnote; Luke 1:31) In harmony with that meaningful name, through Jesus’ ministry and sacrificial death, Jehovah made possible our salvation.—John 3:16.

Accordingly, the God-given number-name 666 must symbolize what God sees as defining attributes of the beast. Naturally, to understand those traits, we need to identify the beast itself and learn about its activities.

The Beast Exposed

The Bible book of Daniel sheds much light on the meaning of symbolic beasts. Chapter*7 contains a vivid tableau of “four huge beasts”—a lion, a bear, a leopard, and a fearsome beast with big teeth of iron. (Daniel 7:2-7) Daniel tells us that these beasts represent “kings,” or political kingdoms, that rule in succession over vast empires.—Daniel 7:17,*23.

Regarding the beast of Revelation 13:1, 2, The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible points out that it “combines in itself the joint characteristics of the four beasts of Daniel’s vision .*.*. Accordingly, this first beast [of Revelation] represents the combined forces of all political rule opposed to God in the world.” This observation is affirmed by Revelation 13:7, which says of the beast: “Authority was given it over every tribe and people and tongue and nation.”

Why does the Bible use beasts as symbols of human rulership? For at least two reasons. First, because of the beastly record of bloodshed that governments have accrued over the centuries. “War is one of the constants of history,” wrote historians Will and Ariel Durant, “and has not diminished with civilization or democracy.” How true that “man has dominated man to his injury”! (Ecclesiastes 8:9) The second reason is that “the dragon [Satan] gave to the beast its power and its throne and great authority.” (Revelation 12:9; 13:2) Accordingly, human rulership is a product of the Devil, thus reflecting his beastly, dragonlike disposition.—John 8:44; Ephesians 6:12.

This does not mean, however, that every human ruler is a direct tool of Satan. Indeed, in one sense, human governments serve as “God’s minister,” giving structure to human society, without which chaos would rule. And some leaders have protected fundamental human rights, including the right to engage in true worship—something that Satan does not want. (Romans 13:3,*4; Ezra 7:11-27; Acts 13:7) Still, because of the Devil’s influence, no human or human institution has ever been able to bring lasting peace and security to the people.—John 12:31.

“A Human Number”

A third clue to the meaning of 666 lies in its being “a man’s number,” or as The Amplified Bible puts it, “a human number.” This expression could not refer to an individual human, for Satan—not any man—has authority over the beast. (Luke 4:5,*6; 1*John 5:19; Revelation 13:2,*18) Rather, the beast’s having “a human number,” or mark, suggests that it is a human entity, not spirit or demon, and that it therefore manifests certain human traits. What might they be? The Bible answers, saying: “All [humans] have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” (Romans 3:23) The beast’s having “a human number,” therefore, indicates that governments reflect the fallen human condition, the mark of sin and imperfection.

History bears this out. “Every civilization that has ever existed has ultimately collapsed,” said former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. “History is a tale of efforts that failed, of aspirations that weren’t realized .*.*. So, as a historian, one has to live with a sense of the inevitability of tragedy.” Kissinger’s honest appraisal testifies to this fundamental Bible truth: “To earthling man his way does not belong. It does not belong to man who is walking even to direct his step.”—Jeremiah 10:23.

Now that we have identified the beast and discerned how God views it, we are in a position to examine the final part of our puzzle—the number six and why it is written in triple digits—that is, 666, or 600 plus 60 plus*6.

Six Repeated Three Times—Why?

In the Scriptures, certain numbers have symbolic significance. The number seven, for example, is often used to symbolize that which is complete, or perfect, in God’s eyes. For instance, God’s creative week comprises seven ‘days,’ or extended time periods, during which God completely accomplishes his creative purpose regarding the earth. (Genesis 1:3–2:3) God’s “sayings” are like silver that has been “clarified seven times,” thus perfectly refined. (Psalm 12:6; Proverbs 30:5,*6) The leper Naaman was told to bathe seven times in the Jordan River, after which he was completely healed.—2*Kings 5:10,*14.

Six is one short of seven. Would it not be a fitting symbol of something imperfect, or defective, in God’s eyes? Yes, indeed! (1*Chronicles 20:6,*7) Moreover, six repeated three times, as 666, powerfully stresses that imperfection. That this is the correct view is supported by the fact that 666 is “a human number,” as we have considered. Thus, the beast’s record, its “human number,” and the number 666 itself all point to one unmistakable conclusion—gross shortcoming and failure in the eyes of Jehovah.

The portrayal of the beast’s deficiencies calls to mind what was said about King Belshazzar of ancient Babylon. Through Daniel, Jehovah said to that ruler: “You have been weighed in the balances and have been found deficient.” That very night Belshazzar was killed, and the mighty Babylonian Empire fell. (Daniel 5:27,*30) Likewise, God’s judgment of the political beast and of those with its mark spells the end of that entity and its supporters. In this instance, however, God will eradicate not just one political system but every vestige of human rule. (Daniel 2:44; Revelation 19:19,*20) How important, therefore, that we avoid having the deadly mark of the beast!
 
666 is the numerical value of many things including all the names of the Pope. I beleive it is a symbolic number and not to be taken literally. Three is the number of God and six the number of man in the Bible. 666 is representitive of a man posing as God, i.e. the antichrist. The number required in Revelation can be nearly anything from your social security number to your credit card number. It is interesting that in some parts of the world they are experimenting with implants in the back of the hand as a defense against ID theft. This is predicted in Revelation.

Then one would think, since the soul is at stake,that an omniscient omnipotent god would be less ambiguous.
 
666 is mans exaltation I'm at work on my blackberry atm. So I can't go to deep into the how's and why's, but satan was cast from heaven for the pride of his worship of himself. Self worship is a violation of the comandment of Love. We are all tempted to worship ourself and pay lip service to God.
 
Tell that to Trenberth, he's the one who was saying the model's inability to predict the current cooling was a travesty.

You have yet to explain how the folowing facts :

1. [12 of the hottest years since records began have been in the last fifteen years

2. 2009 was the fifth hottest year on record
Invalid Link Removed

3. 2009 caps the hottest decade on record.
Invalid Link Removed




congratulations, you've learned that trends have to have starting points, otherwise they wouldn't be... trends. Now you just have to explain the striking tendency of people on the alarmist side to start all their trends either right after the medieval warm period or right after the little ice age.

There is not a cooling trend. That is a lie based on disingenuous data analyses far more manipulative than anything even hinted at in the leaked emails. To demonstrated cooling since 1998 you have to use statistical approaches that are not used to test climatic trends.



Now you just have to explain the striking tendency of people on the alarmist side to start all their trends either right after the medieval warm period or right after the little ice age.

I already have - about twenty times - the medieval warming period Invalid Link Removed is considered a localised event to the North Atlantic. Local temperature changes are not indicative of global temperature changes. For example : China had its hottest year on record last year buit sea ice is growuing in Western Antarctica.

Even if the MWP period was global and was due to natural variation - that would not preclude mankinds capacity to change the climagte by puimping greenhouse gases into it. Besides NOBODY is arguing that the Earth cannot warm up due to natural cycles - they are arguing that the present warming and its rate cannot be explained by natural cycles alone.







Which scientists? Oh, yeah, the ones who through their emails inadvertently confessed to rigging the peer review process, withholding data, deleting data, etc. Pardon my French, but I couldn't give a **** less about that those lying ****s are sure of. After ten years of dealing with their stonewalling and dennigration of anyone who dared question their precious work, they can go **** themselves at this point.

This just demonstrates the perils of not understanding what you're reading in those emails. The accusations of rigging the peer review process go to a specific incident that is well known and has been publicly discussed. In that instance a paper of very very bad quality got published in a good journal (largely due to the efforts of a single editor and cherrypicking reviewers). The paper was widely discredited within a few months and it heavily damaged the reputation of that journal.

I assume you also discount genetics and quantum mechanics because two key figures (Mendel and Millikan) fudged their figures?

If one bad apple ruins the whole bunch, we're going to have to revamp almost all of science, because there has been manipulated data in every branch of it.

Also, as I previously posted, the IPCC ireceives contributions form thousands of scientists and its reports are endorsed by every single major climate science and meteorological body on the planet. To suggest they all part of a big conspiricy to mislead the public is absurd.

In order to prove that the Earth was cooling you would have to not only disprove the research of the scientists who leaked the emails and GISS but also the research of every single major climate research organisation on Earth . The fact you will not investigate the validity of every single major climate organisation on Earth s but just assume that they are all liars and frauds - with no evidence to back you up - indicates an incredible amount of personal bias .

Besides an investigation by the associated press into the leaked emails has revealed :

Science not faked, but not pretty Invalid Link Removed

The only world leader/representitive who believes the leaked emails cast any major doubts on climate science , funnily enough, is Saudi Arabia's lead climate negotiator Mohammad Al-Sabban
Invalid Link Removed.

Saudi Arabia - the biggest producer of oil on the planet - what a coincidence. Another weird coincidence the emails last tracable position was also Saudi Arabia Invalid Link Removed .

It was a good effort - but it will not undermine Copenhagen, it will not change years of climate science overnight and I believe in the end it will also fail in its main objective - misleading the public.

Reading your posts I can see that you are angry and passionate about this subject.

I have recently read that some of the scientists in the email affair have received death threats that the police are now investigating - I wonder who is capable of stirring up such hatred .

I would like to know what your main source of information is.
 
Then one would think, since the soul is at stake,that an omniscient omnipotent god would be less ambiguous.

As far as the soul is concerned God left absolutely no ambiguity (John 3:36) “He that believeth on the Son (Jesus) hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him”.
 
Your belief isn't offensive it's how some people will try and discredit other's beliefs and imply that they're ignorant for not adjusting their views in front of 'truth'.

MY personal issue with the Bible is that it is man made and by my own logic, automatically tainted. I believe in God but not so much as to take the Bible at face value knowing how many variables are needed to be weighed. Just small things like the fact that a word for word translation from English to another language is improssible in today's culture. How that in modern times so much can be changed, removed and covered up at the whim of those in power to ensure a belief remains in tact and how successful it is given the level of technology we have today. In all of history there remains one constant... People in power will do what needs to be done to stay in power and even the greatest of intentions can be warped. Considering what we have witness as a people today in the religious sector I can not accept that during a time of ignorance and superstition that even more sadisitic and twisted motives made their ways through a religious medium.

Anyways, that's my personal opinion on the matter and please do not imply that I think those who do believe in the Bible are fools or ignorant. I only believe that of those who state an opinion of faith as fact or repeat something they heard as fact without at least checking themselves for the truth before repeating it.

This site is all about opinions. Yours is welcomed and duly noted. No one should be insulted just because opinions differ. Many good men have died so we can all express our opinions. Such is the price of freedom.
 
As far as the soul is concerned God left absolutely no ambiguity (John 3:36) “He that believeth on the Son (Jesus) hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him”.

I'm not buying that you are an engineer, sorry...unless you are being intentionally misleading (you know to which book of the bible I was referring) then your critical analysis skills are severely lacking.

Do you know why nobody knows what the hell Revelations is talking about? It's because of ambiguity. Now...refer back to my comment.

Suggested Form: IN the year 2009, the antiChrist will become President of the United States. His name is Barack Hussein Obama. Do not listen to him or his agenda, it is all lies.

There...nice and clear with no ambiguity. An Omniscient being would know the details, and an omnipotent one would be able to insure that HIS book contained nothing that was unclear.

Now...there are two options - First option - he was being particularly ****ish in his ambiguity, in order to play games, or simply didn't care to intervene when man warped his "word" for political gain.

Second option - there is no god, and this is simply the insane verbal floundering of an semi-illiterate primitive society.
 
So glad a thread that had interesting data about Global Warming turned into a pissing match. Go start another thread if you are all going to whip your junk out for a **** measuring contest.
 
I'm not buying that you are an engineer, sorry...unless you are being intentionally misleading (you know to which book of the bible I was referring) then your critical analysis skills are severely lacking.

Do you know why nobody knows what the hell Revelations is talking about? It's because of ambiguity. Now...refer back to my comment.

Suggested Form: IN the year 2009, the antiChrist will become President of the United States. His name is Barack Hussein Obama. Do not listen to him or his agenda, it is all lies.

There...nice and clear with no ambiguity. An Omniscient being would know the details, and an omnipotent one would be able to insure that HIS book contained nothing that was unclear.

Now...there are two options - First option - he was being particularly ****ish in his ambiguity, in order to play games, or simply didn't care to intervene when man warped his "word" for political gain.

Second option - there is no god, and this is simply the insane verbal floundering of an semi-illiterate primitive society.

You say there is no GOD. Let's assume for a minute that you are right and I spend my entire life trying to live by Biblical precepts (i.e. love thy neighbor as thy self, do unto others, love thy enemy, etc.) at the end of my life what have I lost? Absolutely nothing. On the other hand let's assume that God does exist and you choose to ignore Him and his word. At the end of life what have you lost? Eternity in Heaven.
 
So glad a thread that had interesting data about Global Warming turned into a pissing match. Go start another thread if you are all going to whip your junk out for a **** measuring contest.

You're right this is a subject for another thread. I apologize, as I said I am passionate about my belief in God and the Bible.
 
You say there is no GOD. Let's assume for a minute that you are right and I spend my entire life trying to live by Biblical precepts (i.e. love thy neighbor as thy self, do unto others, love thy enemy, etc.) at the end of my life what have I lost? Absolutely nothing. On the other hand let's assume that God does exist and you choose to ignore Him and his word. At the end of life what have you lost? Eternity in Heaven.

You must have read a vastly different book than I...and these precepts were in place long before the bible.

But...as I said above, back to the Global Warming.
 
I can understand debate getting heated. What I can not understand is the absolute hatred and bile that seems to be coming out of some people on both sides of the debate.
The fact that some of the scientists involved have actually received death threats is extremely disturbing.

I can only assume someone is trying to stir up this sort of hatred deliberately to cloud the issue and further their own agenda. To be honest I wouldnt put it past the oil industry theyve done worse things than deliberately mislead the public ........
 
. To be honest I wouldnt put it past the oil industry theyve done worse things than deliberately mislead the public ........

As has the government.
 
I can understand debate getting heated. What I can not understand is the absolute hatred and bile that seems to be coming out of some people on both sides of the debate.
The fact that some of the scientists involved have actually received death threats is extremely disturbing.

Perhaps they shouldn't have been so naive as to think that 'research' which was going to impact billions of people and upon which trillions of dollars rested wasn't political in nature, and that they could tell interested parties to go to hell when they put their work up as unquestionable TRUTH as if from God.

I can only assume someone is trying to stir up this sort of hatred deliberately to cloud the issue and further their own agenda. To be honest I wouldnt put it past the oil industry theyve done worse things than deliberately mislead the public ........

The oil industry? Are you ****ing kidding me? Collectively the entire oil industry put millions into the debate, The Energy Foundation, Pew, governments, and other pro warming institutions put BILLIONS into it. If money corrupts then the potential for corruption on the pro warming side is about thirty orders of magnitude greater than on the skeptic's side simply based on the sheer amount of money spent on that side as opposed to the skeptics. A fact conveniently ignored by proponents such as yourself who apparently think all warming alarmists are angels and anyone who's a skeptic has a direct deposit lined up with ExxonMobile.
 
Protestors were out in record numbers
 

Attachments

  • global waming.jpg
    global waming.jpg
    87.1 KB · Views: 155
I'm in NY and on Sunday had to shovel I don't know how many metric tons of snow out of not only my mother's driveway, but her neighbor's too because there's too many crotchety old bastards on that road to do their own winter clean up.

Of course, when weather doesn't agree with warming, then weather is not climate. But likewise and contrarily, any time a severe storm or other anomally hits that can plausibly be blamed on 'global warming', whether it truly breaks out of the normal distribution of events or not, it's blamed on global warming.
 
Aw gee, who would have thunk it...

Invalid Link Removed

The head of the UN's climate change panel - Dr Rajendra Pachauri - is accused of making a fortune from his links with 'carbon trading' companies, Christopher Booker and Richard North write.

No one in the world exercised more influence on the events leading up to the Copenhagen conference on global warming than Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and mastermind of its latest report in 2007.

Although Dr Pachauri is often presented as a scientist (he was even once described by the BBC as “the world’s top climate scientist”), as a former railway engineer with a PhD in economics he has no qualifications in climate science at all.

What has also almost entirely escaped attention, however, is how Dr Pachauri has established an astonishing worldwide portfolio of business interests with bodies which have been investing billions of dollars in organisations dependent on the IPCC’s policy recommendations.

These outfits include banks, oil and energy companies and investment funds heavily involved in ‘carbon trading’ and ‘sustainable technologies’, which together make up the fastest-growing commodity market in the world, estimated soon to be worth trillions of dollars a year.

Today, in addition to his role as chairman of the IPCC, Dr Pachauri occupies more than a score of such posts, acting as director or adviser to many of the bodies which play a leading role in what has become known as the international ‘climate industry’.

It is remarkable how only very recently has the staggering scale of Dr Pachauri’s links to so many of these concerns come to light, inevitably raising questions as to how the world’s leading ‘climate official’ can also be personally involved in so many organisations which stand to benefit from the IPCC’s recommendations.

The issue of Dr Pachauri’s potential conflict of interest was first publicly raised last Tuesday when, after giving a lecture at Copenhagen University, he was handed a letter by two eminent ‘climate sceptics’. One was the Stephen Fielding, the Australian Senator who sparked the revolt which recently led to the defeat of his government’s ‘cap and trade scheme’. The other, from Britain, was Lord Monckton, a longtime critic of the IPCC’s science, who has recently played a key part in stiffening opposition to a cap and trade bill in the US Senate.

Their open letter first challenged the scientific honesty of a graph prominently used in the IPCC’s 2007 report, and shown again by Pachauri in his lecture, demanding that he should withdraw it. But they went on to question why the report had not declared Pachauri’s personal interest in so many organisations which seemingly stood to profit from its findings.

The letter, which included information first disclosed in last week’s Sunday Telegraph, was circulated to all the 192 national conference delegations, calling on them to dismiss Dr Pachauri as IPCC chairman because of recent revelations of his conflicting interests.

The original power base from which Dr Pachauri has built up his worldwide network of influence over the past decade is the Delhi-based Tata Energy Research Institute, of which he became director in 1981 and director-general in 2001. Now renamed The Energy Research Institute, TERI was set up in 1974 by India’s largest privately-owned business empire, the Tata Group, with interests ranging from steel, cars and energy to chemicals, telecommunications and insurance (and now best-known in the UK as the owner of Jaguar, Land Rover, Tetley Tea and Corus, Britain’s largest steel company).

Although TERI has extended its sponsorship since the name change, the two concerns are still closely linked.

In India, Tata exercises enormous political power, shown not least in the way it has managed to displace hundreds of thousands of poor tribal villagers in the eastern states of Orissa and Jarkhand to make way for large-scale iron mining and steelmaking projects.

Initially, when Dr Pachauri took over the running of TERI in the 1980s, his interests centred on the oil and coal industries, which may now seem odd for a man who has since become best known for his opposition to fossil fuels. He was, for instance, a director until 2003 of India Oil, the country’s largest commercial enterprise, and until this year remained as a director of the National Thermal Power Generating Corporation, its largest electricity producer.

In 2005, he set up GloriOil, a Texas firm specialising in technology which allows the last remaining reserves to be extracted from oilfields otherwise at the end of their useful life.

However, since Pachauri became a vice-chairman of the IPCC in 1997, TERI has vastly expanded its interest in every kind of renewable or sustainable technology, in many of which the various divisions of the Tata Group have also become heavily involved, such as its project to invest $1.5 billion (£930 million) in vast wind farms.

Dr Pachauri’s TERI empire has also extended worldwide, with branches in the US, the EU and several countries in Asia. TERI Europe, based in London, of which he is a trustee (along with Sir John Houghton, one of the key players in the early days of the IPCC and formerly head of the UK Met Office) is currently running a project on bio-energy, financed by the EU.

Another project, co-financed by our own Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the German insurance firm Munich Re, is studying how India’s insurance industry, including Tata, can benefit from exploiting the supposed risks of exposure to climate change. Quite why Defra and UK taxpayers should fund a project to increase the profits of Indian insurance firms is not explained.

Even odder is the role of TERI’s Washington-based North American offshoot, a non-profit organisation, of which Dr Pachauri is president. Conveniently sited on Pennsylvania Avenue, midway between the White House and the Capitol, this body unashamedly sets out its stall as a lobbying organisation, to “sensitise decision-makers in North America to developing countries’ concerns about energy and the environment”.

TERI-NA is funded by a galaxy of official and corporate sponsors, including four branches of the UN bureaucracy; four US government agencies; oil giants such as Amoco; two of the leading US defence contractors; Monsanto, the world’s largest GM producer; the WWF (the environmentalist campaigning group which derives much of its own funding from the EU) and two world leaders in the international ‘carbon market’, between them managing more than $1 trillion (£620 billion) worth of assets.

All of this is doubtless useful to the interests of Tata back in India, which is heavily involved not just in bio-energy, renewables and insurance but also in ‘carbon trading’, the worldwide market in buying and selling the right to emit CO2. Much of this is administered at a profit by the UN under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) set up under the Kyoto Protocol, which the Copenhagen treaty was designed to replace with an even more lucrative successor.

Under the CDM, firms and consumers in the developed world pay for the right to exceed their ‘carbon limits’ by buying certificates from those firms in countries such as India and China which rack up ‘carbon credits’ for every renewable energy source they develop – or by showing that they have in some way reduced their own ‘carbon emissions’.

It is one of these deals, reported in last week’s Sunday Telegraph, which is enabling Tata to transfer three million tonnes of steel production from its Corus plant in Redcar to a new plant in Orissa, thus gaining a potential £1.2 billion in ‘carbon credits’ (and putting 1,700 people on Teesside out of work).

More than three-quarters of the world ‘carbon’ market benefits India and China in this way. India alone has 1,455 CDM projects in operation, worth $33 billion (£20 billion), many of them facilitated by Tata – and it is perhaps unsurprising that Dr Pachauri also serves on the advisory board of the Chicago Climate Exchange, the largest and most lucrative carbon-trading exchange in the world, which was also assisted by TERI in setting up India’s own carbon exchange.

But this is peanuts compared to the numerous other posts to which Dr Pachauri has been appointed in the years since the UN chose him to become the world’s top ‘climate-change official’.

In 2007, for instance, he was appointed to the advisory board of Siderian, a San Francisco-based venture capital firm specialising in ‘sustainable technologies’, where he was expected to provide the Fund with ‘access, standing and industrial exposure at the highest level’,

In 2008 he was made an adviser on renewable and sustainable energy to the Credit Suisse bank and the Rockefeller Foundation. He joined the board of the Nordic Glitnir Bank, as it launched its Sustainable Future Fund, looking to raise funding of £4 billion. He became chairman of the Indochina Sustainable Infrastructure Fund, whose CEO was confident it could soon raise £100 billion.

In the same year he became a director of the International Risk Governance Council in Geneva, set up by EDF and E.On, two of Europe’s largest electricity firms, to promote ‘bio-energy’. This year Dr Pachauri joined the New York investment fund Pegasus as a ‘strategic adviser’, and was made chairman of the advisory board to the Asian Development Bank, strongly supportive of CDM trading, whose CEO warned that failure to agree a treaty at Copenhagen would lead to a collapse of the carbon market.

The list of posts now held by Dr Pachauri as a result of his new-found world status goes on and on. He has become head of Yale University’s Climate and Energy Institute, which enjoys millions of dollars of US state and corporate funding. He is on the climate change advisory board of Deutsche Bank. He is Director of the Japanese Institute for Global Environmental Strategies and was until recently an adviser to Toyota Motors. Recalling his origins as a railway engineer, he is even a policy adviser to SNCF, France’s state-owned railway company.

Meanwhile, back home in India, he serves on an array of influential government bodies, including the Economic Advisory Committee to the prime minister, holds various academic posts and has somehow found time in his busy life to publish 22 books.

Dr Pachauri never shrinks from giving the world frank advice on all matters relating to the menace of global warming. The latest edition of TERI News quotes him as telling the US Environmental Protection Agency that it must go ahead with regulating US carbon emissions without waiting for Congress to pass its cap and trade bill.

It reports how, in the days before Copenhagen, he called on the developing nations which had been historically responsible for the global warming crisis to make ‘concrete commitments’ to aiding developing countries such as India with funding and technology – while insisting that India could not agree to binding emissions targets. India, he said, must bargain for large-scale subsidies from the West for developing solar power, and Western funds must be made available for geo-engineering projects to suck CO2 out of the atmosphere.

As a vegetarian Hindu, Dr Pachauri repeated his call for the world to eat less meat to cut down on methane emissions (as usual he made no mention of what was to be done about India’s 400 million sacred cows). He further called for a ban on serving ice in restaurants and for meters to be fitted to all hotel rooms, so that guests could be charged a carbon tax on their use of heating and air-conditioning.

One subject the talkative Dr Pachauri remains silent on, however, is how much money he is paid for all these important posts, which must run into millions of dollars. Not one of the bodies for which he works publishes his salary or fees, and this notably includes the UN, which refuses to reveal how much we all pay him as one of its most senior officials.

As for TERI itself, Dr Pachauri’s main job for nearly 30 years, it is so coy about money that it does not even publish its accounts – the financial statement amounts to two income and expenditure pie charts which contain no detailed figures.

Dr Pachauri is equally coy about TERI’s links with Tata, the company which set it up in the 1970s and whose name it continued to bear until 2002, when it was changed to just The Energy Research Institute. A spokesman at the time said ‘we have not severed our past relationship with the Tatas, the change is only for convenience’.

But the real question mark over TERI’s director-general remains over the relationship between his highly lucrative commercial jobs and his role as chairman of the IPCC.

TERI have, for example, become a preferred bidder for Kuwaiti contracts to clean up the mess left by Saddam Hussein in their oilfields in 1991. The $3 billion (£1.9 billion) cost of the contracts has been provided by the UN. If successful, this would be tenth time TERI have benefited from a contract financed by the UN.

Certainly no one values the services of TERI more than the EU, which has included Dr Pachauri’s institute as a partner in no fewer than 12 projects designed to assist in devising the EU’s policies on mitigating the effects of the global warming predicted by the IPCC.

But whether those 1,700 Corus workers on Teesside will next month be so happy to lose their jobs to India, thanks to the workings of that international ‘carbon market’ about which Dr Pachauri is so enthusiastic, is quite another matter.
 
Astounding...how much MSM airplay do you think this will get?
 
Back
Top