"The Great Global Warming Swindle"

[poncho]

Alex Jones interviews The Great Global Warming Swindle's producer Martin Durkin.

Click Here to listen.

 

[StraightAndNarrow]

Global Warming may be happening, but its cause is where the great deception is occuring.

Statistics show that the earth has warmed something like .06c over the past 100 years. But I know statistics can be used to prove anything.

Something beyond doubt is on this page: http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V9/N45/C2.jsp

After the facts it gives this conclusion:

"What it means Contrary to all the horror stories one hears about global warming-induced mass wastage of the Antarctic ice sheet leading to rising sea levels that gobble up coastal lowlands worldwide, the most recent decade of pertinent real-world data suggest that forces leading to just the opposite effect are apparently prevailing, even in the face of what climate alarmists typically describe as the greatest warming of the world in the past two millennia or more."

This page has some good mythbusting info as well:
http://seoblackhat.com/2007/01/18/globalwarming-awareness2007/

There is a lot of deception in the global warming hype and there are more and more speaking out against it... finally.

Beyond a doubt? Who are the authors and what are their credentials. Global warming is a scientific theory. It has yet to be proved conclusively but what would be the dire effects of the U.S. reducing the pollution it dumps into the atmosphere every day? Aren't we responsible for maintaining the purity of the earth which was given us by God? Or should we do whatever we want to trash His creation?

 

[EdSutton]

True science is NOT political. Did Newton have political motives in mind when he stated his laws of motion? Was Einstein's E=MC2 a political statement? Only science which is funded by a political organization is political. That's not science at all but propaganda.

We agree on this, but I'd say that the work of Oppenheimer and Teller made a pretty good "political statement", at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and one that Kim Jong-il and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would be well advised to read.

Ed

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

Beyond a doubt? Who are the authors and what are their credentials. Global warming is a scientific theory. It has yet to be proved conclusively but what would be the dire effects of the U.S. reducing the pollution it dumps into the atmosphere every day? Aren't we responsible for maintaining the purity of the earth which was given us by God? Or should we do whatever we want to trash His creation?

I see this responsce alot from the left. GW is not proven but....... Running around crying out the sky is falling doesnt help your point. It just makes those who support ot look foolish.

 

[mnw]

Beyond a doubt?

I'll let you look it up for yourself but there are plenty of scientists out there given facts to support the case AGAINST man-made climate change. However, with some calling those who deny man-made climate change similar to holocaust deniers you can undertand why they may be reluctant to go too public.

[/quote]Who are the authors and what are their credentials. [/quote]

They are scientists with degrees.

Global warming is a scientific theory. It has yet to be proved conclusively but what would be the dire effects of the U.S. reducing the pollution it dumps into the atmosphere every day?

Mass economic depression, world-wide crash of the stock markets, millions out of work, social collapse on a scale perhaps never seen before. (Maybe this is a little be over the top, but economically it would be pretty bad.)

Aren't we responsible for maintaining the purity of the earth which was given us by God? Or should we do whatever we want to trash His creation?

True, this statement is very true. God has put us here, in part, to be good stewerds.

However, the climate change crowd have a definite political agenda and before we rush off and buy into their lines we need to weigh up the consequences and see what really is necessary and what is simple false hoods.

 

[poncho]

'The Great Global Warming Swindle', broadcast by Channel 4, put the case for scepticism about man-made climate change. The programme sparked a heated debate and charges of scientific inaccuracy. Here, its director, Martin Durkin, responds to the critics.

Click Here To Continue.

 

[mnw]

I almost felt like saying, "Amen" to that article. Thanks Poncho.

 

[poncho]

There's more!


GORE FACES HILL GRILLING ON 'WARMING'; QUESTIONS AWAIT FORMER VP

<snip>

Proposed questions for Gore, which are circulating behind-the-scenes, have been obtained by the DRUDGE REPORT -- question that could lead Gore scrambling for answers!

Mr. Gore: You have said several times that we have 10 years to act to stave off global warming. Was that 10 years from the first time you said that or 10 years from now? We just wanted to get a firm date from you that we can hold you to.

Mr. Gore: How can you continue to claim that global warming on Earth is primarily caused by mankind when other planets (Mars, Jupiter and Pluto) with no confirmed life forms and certainly no man-made industrial greenhouse gas emissions also show signs of global warming? Wouldn’t it make more sense that the sun is responsible for warming since it is the common denominator?

Mr. Gore: Joseph Romm, the executive director for the Center for Energy and Climate Solutions, has said we must build 700 large nuclear plants to stave off climate change. Where do you stand on the need for nuclear energy?

Mr. Gore: Do you think the earth is significantly overpopulated and that is a major contributor to your view of climate change. (If yes, what do you think is a sustainable population for the planet?)

Click Here.

I'm really interested in how he'll answer that last question.

 

[mnw]

Question Number 2 is very good concerning the Science behind it all.

Question Number 4 is very good as it relates to the Agenda behind it all.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Don't misrepresent him. He's never claimed to be an expert, but cites scientists & weatherpersons that have actual credentials, like in the article I'll link to. He does claim, rightly so, to be an expert in media spin.


http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/eibessential/estack/enviro_wacko_update.guest.html

No Bro. Curtis - I have heard him claim to be an expert on global warming. He made the statement and also made a similar claim to be an expert on spin.

Regards,
BiR

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Well, I, who admittedly not only listens to him, but enjoys him, have never heard him claim to be an expert. To the contrary, he gives credit to the numerous scientists whom he quotes, as evidenced on his website. Unless you can back up your claim, the info on his site trumps your hateful spin.

Your Rush obsession is clouding your judgement.

 

[poncho]

Channel 4 to host 'Global Warming Swindle' debate


Click Here For Details.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Well, I, who admittedly not only listens to him, but enjoys him, have never heard him claim to be an expert. To the contrary, he gives credit to the numerous scientists whom he quotes, as evidenced on his website. Unless you can back up your claim, the info on his site trumps your hateful spin.

Your Rush obsession is clouding your judgement.

Again, I have heard him make the claim. BTW, it is worth noting that I have never used the word "hate" to describe my feelings towards him. My obsession with Rush stems from the fact that so much of what he says ends up in this very forum, despite the strong assertions from practically everyone that they don't listen to him. Thus far, only Terry, you and I are the ones who readily admit to listening to the EIB Network on a regular basis.

Have you ever wondered why Rush is so consumed with the desire to attack global warming on all fronts? It seems a bit odd that he would devote so much time to the subject, especially given the fact that he doesn't think it exists..........

Regards,
BiR

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

Again, I have heard him make the claim. BTW, it is worth noting that I have never used the word "hate" to describe my feelings towards him. My obsession with Rush stems from the fact that so much of what he says ends up in this very forum, despite the strong assertions from practically everyone that they don't listen to him. Thus far, only Terry, you and I are the ones who readily admit to listening to the EIB Network on a regular basis.

Have you ever wondered why Rush is so consumed with the desire to attack global warming on all fronts? It seems a bit odd that he would devote so much time to the subject, especially given the fact that he doesn't think it exists..........

Regards,
BiR

Which seems to be a diversion from the issue time and time again. Maybe it is a way of having something to say without having something to say. And I have news for you. Rush isn't the only one saying the things he says. But again your obsession with Rush is lockstep with AAR and the likes of Carrvel. I haven't been around as long as some of you but I haven't seen any one say they don't listen to Rush. You are the only Rush obsessed person on the board. However Carrvel is as obsessed with Rush as you are and spouts the same claims you do every time he is on TV. As well as he sticks to non issue claims such as everyone gets it from Rush as you do. Maybe both of you need to get over Rush as he makes little difference in the issues.

 

[EdSutton]

I have just noticed something very odd. There are two individuals whose names keep popping up on this thread about 'Global Warming" more than any others. They happen to be Al Gore and Rush Limbaugh, in alphabetical order. So I decided to do a bit of checking on the scientific credentials of both. And I found out something that I think is very interesting. Neither of the two individuals have any training or history of employment as scientists in any way whatsoever, that I was able to find. One dropped out of college after two years as a speech major; the other started out as an English major, and changed to government, where he graduated and then went to seminary for a brief time. Strangely, both wound up for some time in the field of journalism, hardly a scientific 'venue'. I suggest that the scientific credentials of both individuals are highly suspect, to say the least.

Can anyone besides my own alter-ego, Langauge Cop, spell "A-G-E-N-D-A"? And that in the plural??

Ed

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Again, I have heard him make the claim.

Then it's your word against mine, isn't it ? I say you've never heard him say that he's an expert, only because I never have, and I listen to him for his daily three hour tour into broadcast excellence.

Have you ever wondered why Rush is so consumed with the desire to attack global warming on all fronts? It seems a bit odd that he would devote so much time to the subject, especially given the fact that he doesn't think it exists..........

If you were honest, youd post up other things he fights just as hard against, open borders, a return to fiscal responsibility, our cornering of the world's corn market (which would starve lots & lots of third worlders, you know, the ones you guys say you care so much about), he fights the left, and global warming has become the sacrament of the left, second only to abortion.

Regards,
BiR

Regards to you as well, I certainly hope you don't take these cyber-whuppin's personally.

 

[mnw]

Can anyone besides my own alter-ego, Langauge Cop, spell "A-G-E-N-D-A"? And that in the plural??

Ed

All I could come up with is A-J-E-N-D-I - Phonetics Cop

Am I close? I would ask the Language Cop but he is not around at the moment...

 

[EdSutton]

All I could come up with is A-J-E-N-D-I

Am I close? I would ask the Language Cop but he is not around at the moment...

:laugh: :laugh:

"Actually, it is spelled A-G-E-N-D-A-E. However, the word, 'agenda', is itself a plural noun, the plural of 'agendum'." - Signed, Language Cop

Ed

 

[mnw]

Can you put that into context for me.

So, Rush has an agenda, but Rush and the other fellow have agendum?

 

[EdSutton]

Can you put that into context for me.

In the words of the late commedian Jerry "Curly" Howard of The Three Stooges, "Soitenly!"

I will use a "to-do" list, as the example. The list will have a number of items on it. Each item to be accomplished is an 'agendum' (singular). The list of items (plural), is an 'agenda'. But others have different lists of items. Each one of those lists is also an 'agenda'. When I take more than one list together, I have 'agendae'.

Rush Limbaugh has several things he would like to see happen, and that he works to see accomplished. That collective is his agenda.
Al Gore has several things he would like to see happen, and that he works to see accomplished. That collective is his agenda.
The President of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Klaus, has his own agenda, as well.

Vaclav Klaus and Al Gore have, along with others, presented the agendae to Congress in these hearings that are going on.

Hope that helps.

Ed