We must pay a global carbon tax to Al Gore

[preacherman76]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/aug/18/aliens-destroy-humanity-protect-civilisations

It may not rank as the most compelling reason to curb greenhouse gases, but reducing our emissions might just save humanity from a pre-emptive alien attack, scientists claim.

Watching from afar, extraterrestrial beings might view changes in Earth's atmosphere as symptomatic of a civilisation growing out of control – and take drastic action to keep us from becoming a more serious threat, the researchers explain.

[preacherman76]

"Is it really any wonder why polls show belief in global warming is collapsing? A recent Rasmussen survey found that 69 per cent of Americans believed scientists had likely falsified climate change data to push their agenda.

They’ve fed us with drowning polar bears, overpopulation paranoia, global superstorms and all manner of manufactured lies in an effort to terrify people into accepting the hoax and blithely handing over their carbon taxes to Al Gore and the Rothschilds, but none of it has worked. Gore’s Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) has all but collapsed. The fact that they have now resorted to playing the “alien invasion” card illustrates how desperate and discredited the climate change cult has become."

[Guest]

"Is it really any wonder why polls show belief in global warming is collapsing? A recent Rasmussen survey found that 69 per cent of Americans believed scientists had likely falsified climate change data to push their agenda.

They’ve fed us with drowning polar bears, overpopulation paranoia, global superstorms and all manner of manufactured lies in an effort to terrify people into accepting the hoax and blithely handing over their carbon taxes to Al Gore and the Rothschilds, but none of it has worked. Gore’s Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) has all but collapsed. The fact that they have now resorted to playing the “alien invasion” card illustrates how desperate and discredited the climate change cult has become."

Who is this malevolent they you speak of. I thought it was a simple speculative report of almost no value to anyone but the skeptics.

Funny you should have bought it so conclusively

Br Cornelius

[lightly]

"Is it really any wonder why polls show belief in global warming is collapsing? A recent Rasmussen survey found that 69 per cent of Americans believed scientists had likely falsified climate change data to push their agenda.

They’ve fed us with drowning polar bears, overpopulation paranoia, global superstorms and all manner of manufactured lies in an effort to terrify people into accepting the hoax and blithely handing over their carbon taxes to Al Gore and the Rothschilds, but none of it has worked. Gore’s Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) has all but collapsed. The fact that they have now resorted to playing the “alien invasion” card illustrates how desperate and discredited the climate change cult has become."

no, not when you consider how much effort and expense goes into trying to convince people that global warming is not happening , which it obviously is, as evidenced by melting glaciers worldwide, OR is a naturally occurring event , which has never happened exactly this way before, that is... with carbon dioxide levels being about 1/3 above what have been normal levels for over 200,000 years, as evidenced by sampling ancient atmospheres in ice cores.

From where and who, exactly, were the survey results gathered? .. What would be the agenda that scientists would be pushing?

I wouldn't be at all surprised if carbon tax system is corrupted.. ( in fact, I know it is , when major polluters can purchase credits from smaller polluters)... but that doesn't mean that global warming is not happening.

*k

Edited August 20, 2011 by lightly

[preacherman76]

no, not when you consider how much effort and expense goes into trying to convince people that global warming is not happening , which it obviously is, as evidenced by melting glaciers worldwide, OR is a naturally occurring event , which has never happened exactly this way before, that is... with carbon dioxide levels being about 1/3 above what have been normal levels for over 200,000 years, as evidenced by sampling ancient atmospheres in ice cores.

From where and who, exactly, were the survey results gathered? .. What would be the agenda that scientists would be pushing?

I wouldn't be at all surprised if carbon tax system is corrupted.. ( in fact, I know it is , when major polluters can purchase credits from smaller polluters)... but that doesn't mean that global warming is not happening.

*k

They have already been caught making up lies about global warming.

3 words. "Hide the decline"

The clowns that tell us global warming is real, wont even allow thier findings to be peer reviewed.

[Guest]

They have already been caught making up lies about global warming.

3 words. "Hide the decline"

The clowns that tell us global warming is real, wont even allow thier findings to be peer reviewed.

Repeating the same lie over and over doesn't make it true. They have not been caught making up lies, and show us where peer review of Global warming papers were not carried out. It is the skeptics who are unable to pass peer review and have stopped submitting long ago.

Br Cornelius

[ninjadude]

"Is it really any wonder why polls show belief in global warming is collapsing? A recent Rasmussen survey found that 69 per cent

Mark Rasmussen in not a valid poller. He is consistently wrong.

[Damrod]

Well, it's like this...call it what you want...call it Climate change...call it "the natural cycle"...attribute it to increased solar activity...(astronomers are saying other planets are heating up too)...

So ya know what?...maybe it isn't 100% man made...but mankind has definitely helped it along...and to say there is not something "different" in the climate is either pushing an agenda, too scared to admit a poo might hit the fan or too arrogant and confrontational to admit there may be something changing in our environment.

I would rather err on the side of caution and consider alternate ideas rather than ignore the symptoms and do nothing. And yes, there are symptoms...I have basically lived at the same longitude-latitude for over 45 years...and the weather patterns are just different...ask any life long farmer here and they will tell you the same things:

Winters are colder and harsher...

Spring comes earlier and has a lot more rain...

Summers are hotter and much more dry (droughts in many places)...

Autumn seems to last a few weeks, not a couple of months. The usual comment is "we don't have much of a Fall anymore, it's like we go straight from summer into winter..."

Edited August 20, 2011 by Damrod

[Paracelse]

no, not when you consider how much effort and expense goes into trying to convince people that global warming is not happening , which it obviously is, as evidenced by melting glaciers worldwide, OR is a naturally occurring event , which has never happened exactly this way before, that is... with carbon dioxide levels being about 1/3 above what have been normal levels for over 200,000 years, as evidenced by sampling ancient atmospheres in ice cores.

*k

Does that mean 200 000 years ago the carbon dioxide levels were higher than now??? How many Humwees per garages those people had?

[el midgetron]

I can't get over how it isn't even global warming any more, its "climate change". I don't know what they teach in school these days but they taught us that climates change as a part of the natural cycles of the earth. Will they want to tax us for continental drift next?

We are indeed causing the planet great harm. However, they don't seem to care about GMO forever altering the DNA of the ecosystem or radioactive material being sprinkled around the globe or any of the other serious threats to the environment. They want us to give them money to counter the "effects" of the gas we exhale and be able to site the weather as evidence that we need to give them more money.

[darkmoonlady]

The problem is the politicizing of global climate CHANGE, not warming. The climate is changing, as it has always done long before humans stopped scratching their butt long enough to see if was raining outside the cave. The issue with global climate change is following the opportunity for making money, controlling resources and utilizing the power behind those endeavors. It has little to do with the actual needs of the worlds population in light of what effect global climate change may do. Should we be in a warming trend, changes to coastlines, weather patterns etc will require adapting same as if it is a cooling trend. Both the pro global warming and anti global warming camps are doing nothing but jockeying for the best position to make the most money off of whatever scenario they can. The funny part is neither camp seem to have the global population on their mind so much as a profitable bottom line. That should tell you something.

[Guest]

The problem is the politicizing of global climate CHANGE, not warming. The climate is changing, as it has always done long before humans stopped scratching their butt long enough to see if was raining outside the cave. The issue with global climate change is following the opportunity for making money, controlling resources and utilizing the power behind those endeavors. It has little to do with the actual needs of the worlds population in light of what effect global climate change may do. Should we be in a warming trend, changes to coastlines, weather patterns etc will require adapting same as if it is a cooling trend. Both the pro global warming and anti global warming camps are doing nothing but jockeying for the best position to make the most money off of whatever scenario they can. The funny part is neither camp seem to have the global population on their mind so much as a profitable bottom line. That should tell you something.

You maybe thinking in those terms but I am certainly not. I am thinking about personal preparedness for a future which will be a lot less predictable than the present. I think that is the message coming out of the scientific community and they are demanding that we actually do something concrete to reduce our carbon footprint.

What you are describing is the response of politicians who think that Free market Economics are the one size fits all solution to all problems - hence carbon trading.

You are confusing politics with science and the science says we have a problem which we need to solve, and it will not be solved by extracting your "Climate Change" margin - that is the deluded economic/political solution.

Br Cornelius

[ships-cat]

"Is it really any wonder why polls show belief in global warming is collapsing? A recent Rasmussen survey found that 69 per cent of Americans believed scientists had likely falsified climate change data to push their agenda.

...

Truly ?

Well, I've been on the Rasmussen website, and tried searching for this poll, and I can't find it.

The above citation appears in dozens of blogs... and in each and every case.. there is no link .

Cat suggests that there is NO SUCH SURVEY .

meow purr

[lightly]

lightly, on 20 August 2011 - 12:36 PM, said:

no, not when you consider how much effort and expense goes into trying to convince people that global warming is not happening , which it obviously is, as evidenced by melting glaciers worldwide, OR is a naturally occurring event , which has never happened exactly this way before, that is... with carbon dioxide levels being about 1/3 above what have been normal levels for over 200,000 years, as evidenced by sampling ancient atmospheres in ice cores.

Does that mean 200 000 years ago the carbon dioxide levels were higher than now??? How many Humwees per garages those people had?

Hi Paracelse, maybe my wording confused you? I'm saying that Co2 levels are currently about 1/3 above what they were for 200,000 years. That's a BIG difference.

[Damrod]

You maybe thinking in those terms but I am certainly not. I am thinking about personal preparedness for a future which will be a lot less predictable than the present. I think that is the message coming out of the scientific community and they are demanding that we actually do something concrete to reduce our carbon footprint.

What you are describing is the response of politicians who think that Free market Economics are the one size fits all solution to all problems - hence carbon trading.

You are confusing politics with science and the science says we have a problem which we need to solve, and it will not be solved by extracting your "Climate Change" margin - that is the deluded economic/political solution.

Br Cornelius

The Problem I think Cornelius is a combination of..or...all of the above... For every scientist that says there is a problem, there are "independent statistics" that draw the original findings into scrutiny. Then you have the so-called "e-mail scandal" that...whether true or not...has biased the general population that draws their knowledge from the left or right winged main stream media. Some people are still quite satisfied with the slanted and agenda driven positions of the modern News machine and do not do their own independent study or observation. "if it's on the news, it must be right!"

Personally I don't think it takes a Phd to look around and see the climate is changing or shifting...especially when you get old like me. But I have to agree with Darkmoonlady to a point, that there is some intentional muddying of the waters for the benefit of monetary interests.

I will not pretend to say it is "man-made" or "natural cycles" because that obscures the real issues involved. Those being..."something is different" and "there might be a problem"...which are lost in the chaos of the disagreement. There is never going to be resolution on the subject. The camps for and against will never come to an agreement of it's validity or possible solutions. No amount of data is going to come through as indisputable and as long as there is a dollar to be made one way or another...it will remain that way.

Personally, I say "let 'er rip!" What we might be experiencing is the natural order and processes of the planet doing what it does to re-balance things that have gone astray. Just like a herd of deer or other animals that grow too dense for a particular area, nature has a way of "thinning the herd" and that may be where we are...so let it do what it needs to do...maybe we'll get lucky in nature's selection of who and what it kills off to balance things out.

[Rafterman]

The Problem I think Cornelius is a combination of..or...all of the above... For every scientist that says there is a problem, there are "independent statistics" that draw the original findings into scrutiny. Then you have the so-called "e-mail scandal" that...whether true or not...has biased the general population that draws their knowledge from the left or right winged main stream media. Some people are still quite satisfied with the slanted and agenda driven positions of the modern News machine and do not do their own independent study or observation. "if it's on the news, it must be right!"

Personally I don't think it takes a Phd to look around and see the climate is changing or shifting...especially when you get old like me. But I have to agree with Darkmoonlady to a point, that there is some intentional muddying of the waters for the benefit of monetary interests.

I will not pretend to say it is "man-made" or "natural cycles" because that obscures the real issues involved. Those being..."something is different" and "there might be a problem"...which are lost in the chaos of the disagreement. There is never going to be resolution on the subject. The camps for and against will never come to an agreement of it's validity or possible solutions. No amount of data is going to come through as indisputable and as long as there is a dollar to be made one way or another...it will remain that way.

Personally, I say "let 'er rip!" What we might be experiencing is the natural order and processes of the planet doing what it does to re-balance things that have gone astray. Just like a herd of deer or other animals that grow too dense for a particular area, nature has a way of "thinning the herd" and that may be where we are...so let it do what it needs to do...maybe we'll get lucky in nature's selection of who and what it kills off to balance things out.

I completley agree with what you're saying.

From the outset I noticed that the "solution" to global warming/climate change was always that the US needed to handicap its economic system and funnel massive amounts of US tax dollars to the developing world. How that was supposed to solve the problem, I could never figure out especially given that others nations (primarily China and India) were currently or quickly on their way to surpassing US carbon output.

The whole thing was a fairly transparent attempt at income distribution plain and simple.

[Paracelse]

Hi Paracelse, maybe my wording confused you? I'm saying that Co2 levels are currently about 1/3 above what they were for 200,000 years. That's a BIG difference.

I'm easily dazed and confused I understood very well what you wrote and don't get me wrong I believe in climate CHANGING, not climate warming. Since I moved to France about 3 years ago, I noticed (and it was mentioned earlier by another member ) the seasons have changed winters are colder in France even summers are colder too [had to wear sweaters in day time noonish in July] spring was quick to come with out-worldly hot temperatures and drought with very wet summer and cold. But are those changes man made? I don't know if we should be that self-centered to believe we could do all this.

[Wickian]

This is a debate that only time will resolve. Humanity just doesn't have the knowledge to reliably predict future weather(as a result nearly all of the long-term climate forecasts have been wrong) since new variables are being discovered all of the time and existing ones are probably overlooked due to human error.

The best we can do long term is make educated guesses.

[Vet74]

The problem is the politicizing of global climate CHANGE, not warming. The climate is changing, as it has always done long before humans stopped scratching their butt long enough to see if was raining outside the cave. The issue with global climate change is following the opportunity for making money, controlling resources and utilizing the power behind those endeavors. It has little to do with the actual needs of the worlds population in light of what effect global climate change may do. Should we be in a warming trend, changes to coastlines, weather patterns etc will require adapting same as if it is a cooling trend. Both the pro global warming and anti global warming camps are doing nothing but jockeying for the best position to make the most money off of whatever scenario they can. The funny part is neither camp seem to have the global population on their mind so much as a profitable bottom line. That should tell you something.

You are 100% correct!

[lightly]

I don't pretend to understand climate change, or colder winters/hotter summers or whatever is going on... but there are observable facts . 1- glaciers are melting worldwide. 2 - Co2 levels are much higher now than in pre industrial times . 3- Co2 concentrations are highest at lower altitudes. ( i couldn't find altitude specifics)

Interesting Nasa article on the subject: http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/co2-temperature.html

last paragraph of article: "The bottom line is that atmospheric carbon dioxide acts as a thermostat in regulating the temperature of Earth," Lacis said. "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has fully documented the fact that industrial activity is responsible for the rapidly increasing levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. It is not surprising then that global warming can be linked directly to the observed increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide and to human industrial activity in general."

[Vet74]

How about people doing a voluntary population control to reduce the number of vehicles needed which would reduce the oil consumed and manfacturing reduced over the next couple of generations to reverse this trend. Could only occur if it is worldwide of course. Just saying...It's a starting point. Raising standards to cut pollution will not work. The finincial burden on industrialized nations would cause even more global inflation to pay for the necessary changes needed. The corporations will just charge the general public so thy can make their projected profits.

[Paracelse]

How about people doing a voluntary population control to reduce the number of vehicles needed which would reduce the oil consumed and manfacturing reduced over the next couple of generations to reverse this trend. Could only occur if it is worldwide of course. Just saying...It's a starting point. Raising standards to cut pollution will not work. The finincial burden on industrialized nations would cause even more global inflation to pay for the necessary changes needed. The corporations will just charge the general public so thy can make their projected profits.

How the rich would get richer if there were less people to buy their crap product?

[preacherman76]

Repeating the same lie over and over doesn't make it true. They have not been caught making up lies, and show us where peer review of Global warming papers were not carried out. It is the skeptics who are unable to pass peer review and have stopped submitting long ago.

Br Cornelius

Of course they have been caught making up lies. Wikileaks ring a bell? Next you will be telling me you agree with them that we might soon get attacked by aliens over it?

[Guest]

Of course they have been caught making up lies. Wikileaks ring a bell? Next you will be telling me you agree with them that we might soon get attacked by aliens over it?

Funny man - you obviously only skimmed the headlines concerning the particular lie you are referring to because the "lie" is a well known protocol for dealing with the divergence issue in dendrochronology. Simply because you do not understand what went on doesn't mean the scientists don't

Br Cornelius

[preacherman76]

Funny man - you obviously only skimmed the headlines concerning the particular lie you are referring to because the "lie" is a well known protocol for dealing with the divergence issue in dendrochronology. Simply because you do not understand what went on doesn't mean the scientists don't

Br Cornelius

Right.

This is what they meant by hide the decline. And hide the decline they did.