• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Global Warming Conspiracy LOL

pomeroo said:
A debate between Al Gore and Bjorn Lonborg would be highly entertaining. Gore, incidentally, has rejected Lonborg's challenge, which is an odd way to behave when you represent absolute truth and have all the science on your side.
Click to expand...
Ron -

I know it's hard for you to rally for a non-right winger, but consider Gore the Gravy of Global Warming. Consider Lomborg as Bermas. Imagine your Hardfire debate. Get the picture?

One part of Scandinavia nominates Gore for a Nobel Peace Prize, another part wants to minimize his work.

But all Danes are not Lomborg. See this thread:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=73107&highlight=bjorn
 
[=PerryLogan;2412252]You've got him there, Pomeroo.

Gore's refusal to debate some nut really tears the lid off this global warming hoax, huh? That's a good example of "woo-woo logic."

Actually, Perry, Gore refuses to debate Lonborg for the same reason you wouldn't debate me: It would become apparent very quickly who was the woo-woo. Lonborg's book created a huge controversy, one that you weren't aware of. It turns out that very few of the 2000 names on the U.N.'s list are real scientists. You, of course, don't care about such trifles.
 
pomeroo said:
Actually, Perry, Gore refuses to debate Lonborg for the same reason you wouldn't debate me: It would become apparent very quickly who was the woo-woo. Lonborg's book created a huge controversy, one that you weren't aware of. It turns out that very few of the 2000 names on the U.N.'s list are real scientists. You, of course, don't care about such trifles.
Click to expand...

LOL:

Google Video This video is not hosted by the ISF, the ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
 
pomeroo said:
You, of course, don't care about such trifles.
Click to expand...
All I know is, you pretty much destroy any fun I can have in this forum. Everything gets turned into a partisan smear--always with the same tone of insufferable superiority.

Is there any way you could like...housetrain yourself, Pomeroo?

If you can't deal with your defeat, could you just stay the hell out of here? Just a suggestion.
 
Last edited:
Pardalis said:
Today as I got off the subway I saw a couple of people handing out pamphlets with Bush and Cheney's faces (printed in red ink, no less), so I thought: " hum, looks familiar..." so I decided to talk to them.

And surprise, conspiracy theorists! They were supporters of everything Lyndon Larouche, including these ridiculous global warming CTs. I talked to a woman and at one point she told me that the present warming was due to the fact that we were getting closer to the sun :boggled: and in fact that there would be an ice age instead of global warming... :boggled:, which will be easier to confront, in her opinion :confused:. All this I asked was to create a false sense of insecurity, which will lead to the murder of 5 million people... I stopped there.

Anyways... We talked politely for a couple of minutes but I wasn't going to debunk what she was saying, she threw so many things around that I didn't really see the point of even trying to adress them (in 5 minutes she managed to talk about Lady Diana, 9/11, the Rothschild, Plato, Skull and Bones, Hitler and grand pa Bush and global warming... :hypnotize). So, instead I just felt like doing some "active listening" and repeating what she said in the hope that maybe she'll see her contradictions... which of course she didn't.

Strange breed of people.

(sorry for the overuse of smilies)
Click to expand...

So shallow. You meet one person and all of a sudden they are representative of everyone in the 9/11 Truth movement. That says a lot about your ability to think objectively Perdalis.

MM
 
Miragememories said:
So shallow. You meet one person and all of a sudden they are representative of everyone in the 9/11 Truth movement. That says a lot about your ability to think objectively Perdalis.

MM
Click to expand...
We have you and now the woman. Both seem to parrot nut case 9/11 truther ideas. How many do we need to prove the 9/11 truth movement is all made up of nut cases; as in they have no facts and they make up lies.

Beam weapons, nukes, remote control airplanes, no terrorist, no planes, and how would you name these dolts in the truth movement?
 
PerryLogan said:
All I know is, you pretty much destroy any fun I can have in this forum. Everything gets turned into a partisan smear--always with the same tone of insufferable superiority.

Is there any way you could like...housetrain yourself, Pomeroo?

If you can't deal with your defeat, could you just stay the hell out of here? Just a suggestion.
Click to expand...


Headline News
Toys being thrown out of pram shocker!
"No fun" says man with webcam.
Asks for others to "deal with their defeat".
 
Last edited:
pomeroo said:
A debate between Al Gore and Bjorn Lonborg would be highly entertaining. Gore, incidentally, has rejected Lonborg's challenge, which is an odd way to behave when you represent absolute truth and have all the science on your side.
Click to expand...

The IPCC represents the 'truth', (which is not really how science works, anyway). Lomborg's work is full of holes. He has no idea, since he is a statistician, what is actually going on. His water analysis, for example, was hilarious. He had Australia high on the list of countries with good water supplies. Statistically, he was correct, in practice, his shallow analysis was way out. Brisbane has just gone to stage 5 water restrictions. Melbourne is just about to hit stage 4.
 
Oliver said:
That's new to me that it is not unprecedented. Do you have
sources for this statement?
Click to expand...


The earth's temperature isn't constant. It goes in cycles of hot and cold. Some who disagree with the human climate change theory argue that the earth isn't heating up at all, while others argue that the earth is heating up, it's natural, and human impact is minimal.

These scientists would propose we are entering a "hot spot", the opposite of an ice age. The temperature will naturally peak, and then the earth will cool again, gradually bringing us back to yet another ice age in another ten thousand years or so.

Part of the problem is scientist can't actually agree on what causes these temperature changes. Some argue the earth's temperature is naturally constant, and things like ice ages are caused by catastrophic events like asteroid strikes or volcanic eruptions. Others maintain these changes in climate are a natural part of the earth's cycle.

The politics of "pro-oil" scientists is quite interesting, but I wonder why no one ever questions the politics of the other side of the argument, especially when their leading public figure is...well... a politician.

The reality is scientists will promote whatever scientific theory is most popular because that way they know they'll gete funding to do their research. Look at the Bird Flu scare for a perfect example. Even the scientists working for the New Zealand government were predicting doom and gloom and making statements about how real the threat was. The figures for the number dead if a human strain appeared in New Zealand were ridiculous. Even a most BASIC knowledge of the 1918-1920 H1N1 Influenza Epidemic shows how full of garbage this is. Even further, American scientists who reproduced the 1918 H1N1 strain determined that it was something of a "super virus" nothing at all like regular influenza.

But the reason scientists here continued with what was a blatant lie was because it ensured they got lots of money for research.

-Gumboot
 
PerryLogan said:
Since you're so sharp, you'll also notice who always picks the fight.
Click to expand...


As an outside observer... you're pretty bad at turning things into typical American quasi-political woo-woo...

Just thought you should be aware of that.

Just speaking generally, don't you think it's an interesting observation if someone who maintains one belief refuses to engage with someone who holds a different belief? I think it says more about the beliefs of the person refusing to engage that the beliefs of the person they're refusing to engage with.

But that's just my opinion. :)

-Gumboot
 
TOHMS said:
If you browse the LC boards, you see that the new thing they are talking about is Global Warming, and how it is a government plot to controll us further.


so when it fits what they believe, the experts are right, if not, they are paid off (as in how he aknowledges how many experts agree with global warming, and how a few dont)

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=5214

I dont understand their non sense. I find it funny that they feel we have false flag operations in order to invade oil rich countries, yet at the same time the truthers think that global warming is made up to controll us. Which is it? Do they want us to consume oil? Or do they want us to buy into "the new global religion" of global warming?
Click to expand...

Not all your enemies think alike. There are differing opinions on the twoof side, you know.
 
gumboot said:
The earth's temperature isn't constant. It goes in cycles of hot and cold. Some who disagree with the human climate change theory argue that the earth isn't heating up at all, while others argue that the earth is heating up, it's natural, and human impact is minimal.

These scientists would propose we are entering a "hot spot", the opposite of an ice age. The temperature will naturally peak, and then the earth will cool again, gradually bringing us back to yet another ice age in another ten thousand years or so.

Part of the problem is scientist can't actually agree on what causes these temperature changes. Some argue the earth's temperature is naturally constant, and things like ice ages are caused by catastrophic events like asteroid strikes or volcanic eruptions. Others maintain these changes in climate are a natural part of the earth's cycle.

The politics of "pro-oil" scientists is quite interesting, but I wonder why no one ever questions the politics of the other side of the argument, especially when their leading public figure is...well... a politician.

The reality is scientists will promote whatever scientific theory is most popular because that way they know they'll gete funding to do their research. Look at the Bird Flu scare for a perfect example. Even the scientists working for the New Zealand government were predicting doom and gloom and making statements about how real the threat was. The figures for the number dead if a human strain appeared in New Zealand were ridiculous. Even a most BASIC knowledge of the 1918-1920 H1N1 Influenza Epidemic shows how full of garbage this is. Even further, American scientists who reproduced the 1918 H1N1 strain determined that it was something of a "super virus" nothing at all like regular influenza.

But the reason scientists here continued with what was a blatant lie was because it ensured they got lots of money for research.

-Gumboot
Click to expand...
Flawed analysis. You're presenting this global warming issue as if it's just a 50/50 disagreement between funding-hoggish scientists. And they'll say whatever they are paid to say. Too simplistic. We're not talking about bird flu, gumboot. Comparatively speaking, that's superfluous. We're talking about a measurable, quantifiable effect that has been occurring since approximately the onset of the Industrial Revolution.

Ice core analysis from Antarctica going back 650,000 years indicates that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere never exceeded 300 parts per million. We are now at 380 ppm, it is increasing, and the rate of increase is accelerating. This began over the last 150 years.

Also, carbon 12 and carbon 13 isotope measurements nail the lion's share of the increase to the combustion of fossil fuels: Coal, oil, natural gas. This is hardcore work in the field, from various quarters. It is not a pundit-hosted political debate on Fox "News" between egotistical scientists.

Carbonic acid is increasing in the oceans, as they absorb excess CO2 from the atmosphere. That is also measurable, and tied to the 150-year spike.

Making the issue of global warming political is just EXACTLY what the right wing wanted, and they got it.

Nobody wants to believe this. Nobody wants this to be true. Al Gore doesn't. And remember - GORE IS NO SCIENTIST! He is reporting upon his focus in the area of global warming, going back more than 30 years. He is NOT using this as a wedge against the Bush Administration, like the turd-spewing right winger pundits are spraying out of their lying face holes. Gore's been on this SINCE THE 1970s.

See the movie, An Inconvenient Truith, would you please? And forget about your politics for a few hours?
 
gumboot said:
The earth's temperature isn't constant. It goes in cycles of hot and cold. Some who disagree with the human climate change theory argue that the earth isn't heating up at all, while others argue that the earth is heating up, it's natural, and human impact is minimal.
*snip*
Click to expand...


That's nothing new to me, i was rather thinking about the drastic
increase of carbon dioxide since the use of oil and cole. As far i know
this rapid increase is unprecedented in mankinds history according to
several records.

1110745f226aa05338.gif
 
Last edited:
I've seen a couple threads at LC about global warming. They don't seem to want to talk about it much.

I think most of them believe in it, (human-induced warming I guess) but they don't want someone to ask the terrible question: "Why do you believe in global warming?"

They would be forced to say they believe it because the majority of relevant professionals in the field say so.

And of course, they can't go there!
 
ConspiRaider said:
See the movie, An Inconvenient Truith, would you please? And forget about your politics for a few hours?
Click to expand...



Please don't insult me. I'm not an American and I couldn't care less about American politics. I'm merely commenting that I find it interesting that "political bias" is something applied to one side of the debate when it's pretty clear both sides would be susceptible to political bias.

-Gumboot
 
Oliver said:
That's nothing new to me, i was rather thinking about the drastic
increase of carbon dioxide since the use of oil and cole. As far i know
this rapid increase is unprecedented in mankinds history according to
several records.
Click to expand...


"mankind" hasn't been around very long. In the past 600 million years carbon dioxide levels have varied greatly, from over 5000 ppm to as little as 200 ppm.

I've rather undecided and especially disinterested in the entire topic. What I do find fascinating is the unbelievable human arrogance that it reveals. (By that I mean the inherent arrogance of the species, not the arrogance of individuals).

-Gumboot
 
Geedubya said:
I've seen a couple threads at LC about global warming. They don't seem to want to talk about it much.

I think most of them believe in it, (human-induced warming I guess) but they don't want someone to ask the terrible question: "Why do you believe in global warming?"

They would be forced to say they believe it because the majority of relevant professionals in the field say so.

And of course, they can't go there!
Click to expand...

Rubbish.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom