Guest views are now limited to 12 pages. If you get an "Error" message, just sign in! If you need to create an account, click here.

Jump to content
  • CRYPTO REWARDS!

    Full endorsement on this opportunity - but it's limited, so get in while you can!

Climate Movement Drops Mask, Admits Communist Agenda


Recommended Posts

Aren't you a sweetie.  Hey we do agree on something, how about that!!!!

 

"Grant-whores."  What comes around goes around.  Better start building a boat then waiting for that big climate change earth altering flood, oh and don't forget the tinfoil hats!

 

You're already out on a limb not a chance - denying the VAST majority of climatologists not real science when they are bought out by the highest bidder to say what ever they are told to, it's been debunked you are the one living in denial who say, the OPPOSITE OF WHAT YOU SAY, and you who are NOT a scientist  Really?  How do you know this?  I'd say anyone who has done an experiment on anything ever would be classified as a scientist some just do more then others  :eyebrows:  - yet you decide you must degrade them by names like "*****."  SAD

 

There were the flat earthers. Now we have the climate deniers. Those moon shot pictures were set up you know. We never really went to the moon... :rolleyes: Dude really?  Puff Puff Pass, try cleaning out the bong water once in a while.

 

Hey kiddo, your not even from the US judging by your posts on muslims/911 etc.

 

 

Yourempire quote:

 

"Many of the Founding Fathers were not Christian. WRONG proved above Pagans and deists. They were escaping Christians who were persecuting them for their religious beliefs in Europe. Just as some Christians are persecuting Muslims now. Really?  I don't see any Christians out slaughtering any muslims, I do see muslims wiping out thousands of Christians though, please feel free to enlighten us.

 

Who tells you all Muslims want to wipe you off the face of the earth? Hmmm How about the operating manual of muslims, the Koran! (Internet blogs?) There are millions of Muslims who are very upset their religion has been hijacked by radical Fundies like ISIS. Yes, I agree there are, there are of course good people in every group, but if their are millions of them then they obviously have the numbers and the ability to wipe out the extremists (who are making their religion out to be very bad and all of them along with it) but they choose to sit on the fence, and in most cases cover for the bad ones, then cheer their @$$es off when ever something bad happens to the US, Britain, Israel, etc or Christians for that matter, so what is the deal?  Closet ISIS followers? :shrug: 

 

Ever wonder why they are so angry? Because most in those areas are uneducated and have been taught since birth by propaganda to hate us, it's been that way long before we ever used oil, maybe you should pay more attention in school there kiddo, mom and dad aren't sending you there just to look at girls.  Again their Koran says to wipe us out, enslave us, or convert us. (enter:  history here, invasions by the west, and occupations for oil, etc) All that history is conveniently ignored by conservatives, then on 911 the bully on the playground (This is your give away little man, when you refer to my country as "the bully on the playground" not cool at all from a little US hater.  Tell me of ANY other country that has done more for this planet or it's people EVER then the United States?  There are none, I'd say with out a doubt we have helped and given aid to whatever dive little nation you call home to as well.  So tell us big man where are you from?  You can bash the US, but let's here what makes your place so superior to us big bullies?) finally gets his nose broken and squeals "They want to kill us!""

Read more: http://dinarvets.com/forums/index.php?/topic/187406-can-muslims-be-good-americans/page-3#ixzz3EcaeL8IA

 

I answered your questions with small words and sentences above, hopefully they were small enough for you to comprehend if not let me know and I can try and include some pictures for you too.  Anyway back to the subject at hand.  So I don't know what kind of "grant-whores" oops now I'm doing it too, climatologists (BS science fiction not science fact) that you have in what ever country you are from but just keep living the dream fella hating on the greatest country on the planet!!!  :rolleyes:  :rolleyes:  :lol:  :lol:

Edited by DiveDeepSix
  • Upvote 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

font_dec.gif

America’s Radical, Underground Climate Change Countermovement
 
Tue Sep 30, 2014 1:42AM GMT 
 
Robert Hunziker, CounterPunch
 
  • The year is 2050; rising seas have inundated Miami, America’s most recent ghost city, since Detroit. A deadly heat wave scorches Chicago, killing thousands of elderly, and a mega-drought has farmers in the Southwest on their knees, praying for relief, as a dreadful dustbowl blankets the fields. America goes hungry.

 

A flickering television screen in an abandoned home in Miami, its mangled window shutters flapping in the breeze, shows a real live news story of desperadoes breaking down the gates to the DuPont estate and the Mellon estate, both overlooking Nantucket Sound. The properties are owned by the children/grandchildren of Mr. William Koch, whose brothers, David and Charles, infamously led the “Countermovement” against climate science many years ago.

 

As far back as 2014, Mr. William Koch personally spent millions to block Cape Wind, a vast wind farm once proposed for Nantucket Sound. He opposed the “visual pollution,” as a “spoiler” of his family compound, which includes ownership of the DuPont and Mellon estates.

 

In the real world today, based upon an actual climate model for the year 2050 by The Weather Channel and by the UN’s World Meteorological Association, the scenario described above is not out of question, except, of course, for desperadoes “crashing the gates.” That’s totally fiction. Besides, The Weather Channel does not speculate about how desperate people will react to climatic cataclysms.

 

But still, one has to wonder how the future will play out, assuming America’s radical, underground climate change countermovement prevails, especially considering how they bully Congress, blocking any semblance of a national renewable energy policy. After all, in their eyes: The “visual pollution” of wind turbines and solar panels lowers property values!

 

It’s not new news that a well-funded effort to destroy the sanctity of scientific evidence of climate change has persisted in America for many, many years. It is out in the open and written about in countless articles, the Koch brothers and too many others to name, highjack the news and plant stories wherever and whenever possible, all funded by deep pocket billionaires. It’s a blatant right-wing sell-out of everything democracy ever stood for. And, it’s remarkable that everybody knows all about it! It’s absolutely remarkable, but caution is in order because it’s the unknowns behind their intentions that’s most threatening.

 

The Koch brothers likely have the most recognized name in America, similar to Hollywood movie stars, but in contrast, the Kochs bought their name recognition, albeit not intentionally. Hollywood movie stars “earn it,” intentionally. And, while one is infamous, the other is famous.

 

But, this story is much deeper than the selfish interests and infamy of the Kochs and much deeper than what appears on surface. For example, the climate deniers are so paranoid that they go so far as to intimidate scientific journals that publish relatively innocuous articles vis a vis their countermovement, and on occasion, successfully, by way of threatening legal action, they cause retractions of peer-review scientific papers that they find offensive. This is symptomatic of a paranoia-plus personality type, very similar to the mentality of terrorists cell members found throughout Al-Qaeda’s network.

 

As for one example among many of what appears as a relatively harmless peer-reviewed article in Frontiers in Psychology, “Recursive Fury: Conspiracist Ideation in the Blogosphere in Response to Research on Conspiracist Ideation,” by Stephan Lewandowsky, et al, the study linked climate denial with conspiracist thinking. Almost immediately, threats of litigation commenced from the very conspiracists ideologues the article referenced.

At the end of the day, and even though the science was rechecked and found to be thoroughly accurate, and scientifically credible, the threats of libel lawsuits had a chilling impact on the scientific research. The paper was retracted by Frontiers in Psychology.

 

But, more significantly than torpedoing articles, America’s radical, underground climate change countermovement has gone deep underground ever since they discovered Donors Trust a few years ago.

 

Nowadays, the Kochs, with their billionaire accomplices, secretly donate funds to their countermovement lackeys whilst operating in the shadows, like Al-Qaeda, operating out of caves, and, similar to how the Weathermen operated, aka: the Weather Underground Organization, circa 1970s, whose goal was overthrow of the US government.

 

Ever since the Kochs, in concert with their billionaire comrades, went underground, hiding from public view their most sensitive operations, they carry out elaborate schemes of radical plans to destroy climate change science by obfuscation, and their covert machinations scorn the theory of a government “by and for the people.” As to their liking, democracy is dead!

 

At first blush, their surreptitious behavior, which is remarkably identical to how worldwide terrorists’ networks conduct operations, “may be construed as a threat to national security.” More on that later.

 

In that regard, Robert J. Brulle, PhD, professor of sociology and environmental science at Drexel University, submitted the first-ever peer-reviewed comprehensive analysis of funding for America’s climate change countermovement, Robert J. Brulle, Institutionalizing Delay: Foundation Funding and the Creation of US Climate Change Counter-Movement Organizations, Climate Change, DOI 10.1007/s10584-013-1018-7, Nov. 19, 2013.

 

Dr. Brulle’s scholarly study conducted an “analysis of the financial resource mobilization of the organizations that make up the climate change counter-movement (CCCM) in the United States,”

 

He discovered ninety-one (91) CCCMs with average resources of just over $900 million. As such, almost $1 billion is available to these CCCMs to radicalize and obfuscate the climate change issue, as well as other issues, thereby, similar to Weathermen Underground operations, artificially creating confusion and consternation from coast to coast.

 

Over the past decade, a lot of adverse publicity about billionaires funding: (a) imitation institutions, (B) making up phony orgs, and © covertly paying ghostwriters, forced them underground. Yes, like the Weathermen and very, very similar to Al-Qaeda, the CCCM is underground with their henchmen in darkened caves; they’re radical; they’ll do whatever’s necessary to protect their propertied interests.

 

In point of fact, they may eventually be classified as white-collar terrorists, but they have every appearance of honest, upstanding citizenship. On any given Sunday, you’d probably exchange a smile with them at church without suspecting in the least that you are acknowledging a terrorist.

 

In that regard, by definition, and according to NSA standards, any group that clandestinely goes underground to sub-rosa disrupt America’s pivotal national interests is labeled a terrorist group.

 

Is America’s radical, underground climate change countermovement threatening the nation’s pivotal national interests? Is this debatable? Or, is their behavior prima facie evidence of a radical terrorist threat?

 

According to Brulle, “A number of analyses… clearly shows that a number of conservative think tanks, trade associations, and advocacy organizations are the key organizational components of a well-organized climate change counter-movement (CCCM) that has not only played a major role in confounding public understanding of climate science, but also successfully delayed meaningful governmental policy actions to address the issue,” .

 

As it goes, they have furtively succeeded in compromising America’s point of view about the threat of climate change, e.g., a Pew Research Center Poll in October 2012 asked: “Do scientists believe that earth is getting warmer because of human activity?” Fifty-five percent (55%) replied “no” or they “didn’t know.” The ‘no” vote registered 45%. As Brulle states, “This reflects a broad misunderstanding of climate science by the general public.” How did this happen?

 

Here’s how it happened: CCCM operates similar to how Hollywood produces a film or a play on Broadway: “The countermovement has stars in the spotlight [similar to ISIS’s British-accented, knife-wielding man dressed in black] – often prominent contrarian scientists or conservative politicians – but behind the stars is an organizational structure [like Al-Qaeda cells] of directors, script writers and producers, in the form of conservative foundations [same as Al-Qaeda “mainstream fronts” in the UK and France]. If you want to understand what’s driving this movement, you have to look at what’s going on behind the scenes,”

 

Nowadays, the executive producers (equivalent in rank to Al-Qaeda’s Ayman al-Zawahiri) for the countermovement are concealing their most discrete activities. Since 2008, the countermovement’s heavyweight executive producers no longer make publicly traceable contributions thru their labyrinth of networks whenever extreme levels of deviousness commands a safer course of action.

 

Over the years, the countermovement’s principal financial operatives shifted much of their funding to Donors Trust, which is a donor-directed foundation whose funders cannot be traced, cannot be traced, cannot be traced, cannot be traced… similar to the secretive cells for movement of funds of radical terrorists groups throughout Europe and the Middle East, which also cannot be traced.

 

As a result, “…only a fraction of the hundreds of millions in contributions to climate change countermovement organizations can be specifically accounted for from public records. Approximately 75% of the income of these organizations comes from unidentifiable sources,” Ibid. Again, similar to Al-Qaeda, the funding sources for the countermovement come out of darkened shadows within a maze of serpentine alleyways.

 

That is exactly how groups like Al-Qaeda and ISIS operate to covertly move money. Otherwise, the world would catch on to their antics very quickly. The old rule of “follow the money” would lead right to them.

 

Why else would any group, including CCCM, follow such courses of action?

 

As such, America’s radical climate change countermovement terrorist organization is free to spend as much as they want without any public disclosure, no possibility of tracing back to individual donors. Thus, as it happens, the functionality of the world of climate change denial, “the countermovement,” must operate deep underground and in the shadows.

 

A few years ago and with no fanfare, a sea change in CCCM’s methodologies for undermining the science of climate change/global warming took place, and now nobody knows when, where, why, or how they’ll strike, same as Al-Qaeda.

But, dissimilar to the pursuit of Al-Qaeda, drones won’t help smoke’em out.

 

Postscript: “Terrorism is a psychological warfare. Terrorists try to manipulate us and change our behavior by creating fear, uncertainty, and division in society,” Patrick J. Kennedy (D-RI), American politician, former US Representative, 1995-2011

 

 

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

America’s radical climate change countermovement terrorist organization... let that soak in. 

 

 

Wow!  I was unaware that I was just a pawn in this evil plot to destroy the world!  :eyebrows:  I DENOUNCE MYSELF!  I will immediately report to the commissar in tractor barn 4, gratefully accept my scorn and government issued shovel and head out into the beet field!

 

2014-07-18-7032500a_large.jpg

  • Upvote 6
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

America’s radical climate change countermovement terrorist organization... let that soak in. 

 

 

Wow!  I was unaware that I was just a pawn in this evil plot to destroy the world!  :eyebrows:  I DENOUNCE MYSELF!  I will immediately report to the commissar in tractor barn 4, gratefully accept my scorn and government issued shovel and head out into the beet field!

 

 

Typical isn't it my friend, anyone who doesn't buy into the BS gets labeled as public enemy number UNO!!!!!  Terrorist organization because we don't believe in Al Gore's church of climatology!!!

 

However according to Para Puss here the sky really is falling!!!

8183607962_8211c5218d_o.gif

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

America’s radical climate change countermovement terrorist organization... let that soak in. 

 

 

Wow!  I was unaware that I was just a pawn in this evil plot to destroy the world!  :eyebrows:  I DENOUNCE MYSELF!  I will immediately report to the commissar in tractor barn 4, gratefully accept my scorn and government issued shovel and head out into the beet field!

 

 

Lol... no need to go to the barn yet... just shows how both sides use silly little propaganda words...

 

Like... "Socialist".... "Communist".... "Terrorist"     :D

 

Heck can't we just try to educate ourselves... look at the information and use our own discernment?

 

Why is that so scary? What is it you all are afraid of loosing?

 

There are things we all can do without costing anyone a dime. JMHO

 

 

Rayzur Quote:

Here is the link to the WORLD BANK research: http://www.worldbank.org/en/research

 

Thank You Rayzur... Look forward to reading the link... along with the UN links you provided.

 

Never hurts to look... might just learn something in the process. :)

Edited by Maggie123
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maggie, if you've bothered to look at anything we have presented here, you'll see it's 100% FACT that there are REAL socialists and REAL communists trying to advance REAL social change through their environmental agenda (now known as climate change)... NOT propaganda.  You present a ridiculous piece of fiction that labels us "deniers" as TERRORISTS... Total BS and PURE propaganda. See the difference?   

I can't help but notice that not one "believer" has brought even one credible, indisputable "fact".  I have never seen a thread so one-sided in the fact department (hell, the Lopsters put up a better argument!).  Perhaps y'all just aren't used to real debate and discourse on the issue.  Isn't there one of you that can bring some substance to the discussion?  Doesn't that bother you?  It bothers me... that you can't defend your position yet you cling to it for dear life. 

I WISH you believers would educate yourselves and by all means... use discernment to think outside the liberal box.  It shouldn't be necessary to repeat myself.  I've expressed my well founded distrust of the "evidence", my concerns about the direction the radical environmentalists would like to take this "movement" and the economically devastating endgame where free-market capitalism is abolished and replaced with something that doesn't even resemble freedom.  <-- REAL forward thinking btw, and something I wish you'd invest some time doing. 

Look at who you've put your faith in.  I wouldn't let Al Gore and this bunch of radical leftists mow my lawn let alone shape my beliefs.  Look at all the money (hundreds of billions?  More?) already wasted on this.  I would think you, of all people, would settle for nothing less than the truth... even if it hurts.  "Follow the money", right?  Isn't that your shtick?  No one likes to be lied to and no one wants to think they've been duped.  But what if you have?  What if they're wrong?  Do you have so much invested in your position that you can't see it for the fraud it is?  THIS IS THE TRUTH... 

http://cfact.org/pdf/2010_Senate_Minority_Report.pdf

" Never hurts to look... might just learn something in the process." ;)

Enjoy the World Bank and UN links... I did!  Biggest bunch of collectivists on the planet! (no offense, Rayzur but those sources have a heavily ve$ted intere$t in the outcome of this debate.)

What am I so afraid of?  Simply put,  I'm afraid of you and people like you, who swallow and regurgitate these lies and ignore the truth... and you vote!  (Much like obama, I'm less afraid of him than a constituency capable of electing him, not once but TWICE!)  I know I've given you a hard time and truly, I don't think you're stupid (just annoying)... but you represent an otherwise thoughtful perspective that at times, cannot or will not use the common sense God gave you, to think for yourselves.  Your ideology is severely flawed and doesn't permit dissent.  But hey, it's easier to follow the group-thought than think for yourselves anyway, right?  And the left has painted the "deniers" as a bunch of greedy, heartless undesirables (so that's not an option... better to stick with the devil you know, I guess).  

It's the loss of freedom that worries me most... the money is a distant second.   If there are "things we can all do without costing anyone a dime"... Spill it!  I sure would like to know what they are. By any chance,  do they preserve what freedoms we have?

Just for fun, let's say you're right... that climate change is caused by man and not just a natural Earth cycle that we couldn't control or change if we wanted to.  WHAT NOW?  

So there are my 2 questions for you believers...

What if you're wrong?  Are you open minded enough to question it?

What if you're right?  What must we do to correct it?

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Somebody could benefit from a nap.......Good gravy, you need a hug?   :( 

 

GO RV, and NO BV

Lol!  I always benefit from a good nap!  And I'd never turn down a hug from you, Shabs  :hug:  Sorry if my passion for freedom and the truth rubs you the wrong way... I just can't afford to "agree to disagree" on this issue.  Care to take a dip at my questions or are you just wading ankle-deep?

  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol!  I always benefit from a good nap!  And I'd never turn down a hug from you, Shabs   :hug:  Sorry if my passion for freedom and the truth rubs you the wrong way... I just can't afford to "agree to disagree" on this issue.  Care to take a dip at my questions or are you just wading ankle-deep?

 

Nah....I'm far too lazy to do research.  I don't need "experts" to tell me humans are affecting the planet.  A little common sense goes a long way.  I'll continue to recycle when it's convenient.....cut down all deciduous trees on my property and replace them with evergreens, simply because I abhor raking......put lead additive in my classic car's gas tank to extend it's life.....only burn tires on dense fog days, so as not to be nabbed by Johnny Law......do my own oil changes and dump the old oil in the nearest ground hog hole......etc. etc.   :D 

 

GO RV, and NO BV

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

WHN did you really expect an answer to such logical questions?  I've tried and tried that approach it doesn't work. I will bet you a 100 dinars though, you get the "I'm not playing that game response!" and yes I will be happy to pay up!!  :eyebrows: 

 

crickets_188x166.jpg

CHIRP.......................CHIRP...........CHIRP.......................Hmmmm!!  <_<

 

 

Nah....I'm far too lazy to do research.  I don't need "experts" to tell me humans are affecting the planet.  A little common sense goes a long way.  I'll continue to recycle when it's convenient.....cut down all deciduous trees on my property and replace them with evergreens, simply because I abhor raking......put lead additive in my classic car's gas tank to extend it's life.....only burn tires on dense fog days, so as not to be nabbed by Johnny Law......do my own oil changes and dump the old oil in the nearest ground hog hole......etc. etc.   :D 

 

GO RV, and NO BV

 

Hmmmm, we have more in common then I first realized bro.  I keep telling myself eventually my great grand kids will be able to pump that old oil back out, well after the ground (and my neighbor's well) filters it clean again, I think of it more as a nest egg for the future, my own oil well!!  :eyebrows:  :lmao:  :lmao:

Edited by DiveDeepSix
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmmm, we have more in common then I first realized bro.  I keep telling myself eventually my great grand kids will be able to pump that old oil back out, well after the ground (and my neighbor's well) filters it clean again, I think of it more as a nest egg for the future, my own oil well!!  :eyebrows:  :lmao:  :lmao:

 

Works well for flushing ground hogs out from under the shed......they hate oil on their paws.....and seek residence elsewhere.   :D 

 

GO RV, and NO BV

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

font_dec.gif

America’s Radical, Underground Climate Change Countermovement
 

I find it hard to believe that you “look at both sides” as you have claimed in the past.  If you actually did, you probably would not have posted an article that references The Brulle $900 million “study” since it had been shown to be completely erroneous.  When the details of the “study” are scrutinized it becomes evident that the methodology Brulle used contain some of the same glaring errors that the AGW true believers have used in their “settled science”.  Brulle included organizations that have pushed for a carbon tax (AEI & Hoover Institute) in the against column.  Worst yet, Bruelle’s $900 million figure came from looking at all money raised by the conservative think tanks he identified as “dark” and assigned every penny to the fight against the “settled science”.  Patently untrue and horrible methodology that renders his conclusion worthless.  Except it obviously was not worthless since it gave the true believers and the uninformed ammunition to continue the AWG gravy train.

 

http://absoluterights.com/spending-more-to-promote-global-warming-hoax/

 

 

The rest of your copy and paste was also laughable.  In the make believe story the evil Koch brothers foiled the Cape Wind project starting in 2014.  Perhaps you should have searched Kennedy and Cape Wind.  If you did you would have discovered that America’s Royals, the Kennedy’s, have been fighting the same Cape Wind project since the early 2000’s (so has John Kerry).  A decade before the evil Koch brothers are accused of being involved in the issue.

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/ted-kennedy-defeats-cape-cod-wind-mill-farm#.VCxg6hZrGlt

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/12/robert-f-kennedy-jr-expla_n_573958.html

 

Your paste job also seems to try to make the claim that those questioning what author Hunziker calls “the sanctity of scientific evidence about climate change” could be construed as treason?!?!?  Besides that pesky Constitution and the first Amendment, the term “sanctity” reveals that indeed “true believer” fits his ilk as the AGW supporters are much closer to a religious cult than science supporters. 

 

Hunziker had best hope that spreading mis-information does not become crime or he and most of the true believer High Priests would be in jail.  I can think of no better example than the farce of a documentary Algore foisted on the planet.  His jokeumentry was required viewing in schools around the world (care to try to put a monetary value on that kind of propaganda?).  It has been preached as if it was the Gospel according to Gore in order to indoctrinate young minds to the AGW way of thinking (although I believe following would be more appropriate than thinking).  There are many inconvenient lies and half-truths that can be found here.

http://phillytalk.com/global-warming/235-debunking-an-inconvenient-truth

 

Also, you appear to believe that the amount of money spent to discredit the settled science is a problem.  Even if the $900 million figure was correct it would be a pittance compared to the amount of money that has been spent trying to convince the world that manmade global warming is real.  And this money is other people’s money, also known as taxes.  From 1993-2013 the U.S. alone has spent over $165 Billion (not including $$ value of Algores propaganda).

http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/07/15/on-global-warming-follow-the-money/

Finally, remember the global warming movement began in the 1970’s with a theory that doubling the CO2 would cause the global temperature to rise.  This was sold as fact, the science is settled.  That 97%, no 90%, sorry now it is “the vast majority” scientists agree that CO2 causes global warming.  The true believer’s biggest problem is not the naysayers, it’s that the earth didn’t get the memo and stopped warming at least 15 years ago.

No-Global-Warming-17-years-5-months.png

 

Rather than changing their settled science, the true believers changed their fear mongering from global warming to climate change.  The true believers discussed how to handle this bad news when presenting the latest UN report.  They decided to ignore the data and not mention it in the report, although it appears they did slip a CYA statement into the latest IPCC report.

"There may also be ... an overestimate of the response to increasing greenhouse gas and other anthropogenic forcing,"

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/09/27/un-climate-change-report-dismisses-slowdown-in-global-warming/

Your OP was pure fantasy, reminds me of the saying if you can’t baffle them with brilliance, befuddle them with bullsh!t.  In all your research can you find a single credible model that shows man made CO2 in the atmosphere causes the earth’s temperature to rise, and explains why CO2 levels have continued to go up but the temperature has not?

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My.... My... My... RV ME... Lol... you went to all that trouble. If you would have read my post afterwards you would have seen why I posted the cockamamie article... or perhaps once again you have no reading comprehension skills. You folks take yourselves way too seriously.

 

 

 

Lol... no need to go to the barn yet... just shows how both sides use silly little propaganda words... (The article RV ME)

 

Like... "Socialist".... "Communist".... "Terrorist"     :D

 

Heck can't we just try to educate ourselves... look at the information and use our own discernment?

 

Why is that so scary? What is it you all are afraid of loosing?

 

There are things we all can do without costing anyone a dime. JMHO

 

 

Never hurts to look... might just learn something in the process. :)

 

 

 

All I can say to you... ya little snotrocket... er... um... whatshername.... is that you have been cranky ever since that Mormon guy that wears "mommy jeans" lost the last election.... Your problem NOT mine. I liked Ron Paul... do you see me taking that out on you???

 

Pardon me for showing the stupidity of these lefty/righty, commie/socialist, believer/non-believer threads.

 

You all carry on until the cows come home... I have better things to do... like wash my hair. :D

 

 

Here is an article that Pucksterguy posted a few months ago... Now This Article ... I Found FACINATING!!!

 

ENJOY :)

 

 

Posted 25 May 2014 - 08:50 AM By Pucksterguy

 

I dug out this article to explain my point of view. This was inspired by the Lakota article listed here. The earth has gone thru many crises in her multi billion year history. She has responded several times with a major extinction event, not unlike the one that killed off the dinosaurs. I'm not convinced it was caused by a meteor impact (it may well have been so). I'm sure when GOD mentioned the "Garden of Eden" he was refering to the planet as a whole. So without further ado here is the article.

 

 By By Liz Bentley, published on May 13, 2014

 

http://i-uv.com/its-...iving-organism/

 

It’s Time To Stop Living On The Earth and Start Cohabitating With Her –

The Earth is a Sentient Living Organism

 

By Liz Bentley, published on May 13, 2014

 

Contrary to the common belief that the Earth is simply a dense planet whose only function is a resource for its inhabitants, our planet is in fact a breathing, living organism. When we think of the Earth holistically, as one living entity of its own, instead of the sum of its parts, it takes on a new meaning. Our planet functions as a single organism that maintains conditions necessary for its survival.

 

world_hands-1.jpg.jpeg

 

James Lovelock published in a book in 1979 providing many useful lessons about the interaction of physical, chemical, geological, and biological processes on Earth.

 

Throughout history, the concept of Mother Earth has been a part of human culture in one form or another. Everybody has heard of Mother Earth, but have you ever stopped to think who (or what) Mother Earth is?

 

What is Gaia?

 

Lovelock defined Gaia as “…a complex entity involving the Earth’s biosphere, atmosphere, oceans, and soil; the totality constituting a feedback or cybernetic system which seeks an optimal physical and chemical environment for life on this planet.”

 

Through Gaia, the Earth sustains a kind of homeostasis, the maintenance of relatively constant conditions.

 

The truly startling component of the Gaia hypothesis is the idea that the Earth is a single living entity. This idea is certainly not new. James Hutton (1726-1797), the father of geology, once described the Earth as a kind of superorganism. And right before Lovelock, Lewis Thomas, a medical doctor and skilled writer, penned these words in his famous collection of essays, The Lives of a Cell:

 

“Viewed from the distance of the moon, the astonishing thing about the earth, catching the breath, is that it is alive. The photographs show the dry, pounded surface of the moon in the foreground, dry as an old bone. Aloft, floating free beneath the moist, gleaming, membrane of bright blue sky, is the rising earth, the only exuberant thing in this part of the cosmos. If you could look long enough, you would see the swirling of the great drifts of white cloud, covering and uncovering the half-hidden masses of land. If you had been looking for a very long, geologic time, you could have seen the continents themselves in motion, drifting apart on their crustal plates, held afloat by the fire beneath. It has the organized, self-contained look of a live creature, full of information, marvelously skilled in handling the sun.”

 

John Nelson illustrated the “Breathing Earth,” (below) which are two animated GIFs he designed to visualize what a year’s worth of Earth’s seasonal transformations look like from outer space. Nelson–a data visualizer, stitched together from NASA’s website 12 cloud-free satellite photographs taken each month over the course of a year. Once the images were put together in a sequence, the mesmerizing animations showed what Nelson describes as “the annual pulse of vegetation and land ice.”

 

BreathingEarth1-3b.gif

 

As the climate changes, the planet comes alive. Earth appears to breathe when ice cover grows and melts–in and out, in and out.

 

White frost radiates out from the top of the globe and creeps south in all directions. It travels through Siberia, Canada, and northern Europe, heading towards the equator located around the circle’s edge, but ends before the top of Africa. The Mediterranean Sea is the visible body of water on the top left hand side, and the Great Lakes make up a small network of dark blue shapes on the land mass to the right.

 

The Earth acts as a single system – it is a coherent, self-regulated, assemblage of physical, chemical, geological, and biological forces that interact to maintain a unified whole balanced between the input of energy from the sun and the thermal sink of energy into space.

 

In its most basic configuration, the Earth acts to regulate flows of energy and recycling of materials. The input of energy from the sun occurs at a constant rate and for all practical purposes is unlimited. This energy is captured by the Earth as heat or photosynthetic processes, and returned to space as long-wave radiation. On the other hand, the mass of the Earth, its material possessions, are limited (except for the occasional input of mass provided as meteors strike the planet). Thus, while energy flows through the Earth (sun to Earth to space), matter cycles within the Earth.

 

The idea of the Earth acting as a single system as put forth in the Gaia hypothesis has stimulated a new awareness of the connectedness of all things on our planet and the impact that man has on global processes. No longer can we think of separate components or parts of the Earth as distinct. No longer can we think of man’s actions in one part of the planet as independent. Everything that happens on the planet – the deforestation/reforestation of trees, the increase/decrease of emissions of carbon dioxide, the removal or planting of croplands – all have an affect on our planet. The most difficult part of this idea is how to qualify these effects, i.e. to determine whether these effects are positive or negative. If the Earth is indeed self-regulating, then it will adjust to the impacts of man. However, as we will see, these adjustments may act to exclude man, much as the introduction of oxygen into the atmosphere by photosynthetic bacteria acted to exclude anaerobic bacteria. This is the crux of the Gaia hypothesis.

 

One of the early predictions of this hypothesis was that there should be a sulfur compound made by organisms in the oceans that was stable enough against oxidation in water to allow its transfer to the air. Either the sulfur compound itself, or its atmospheric oxidation product, would have to return sulfur from the sea to the land surfaces. The most likely candidate for this role was deemed to be dimethyl sulfide.

 

Published work done at the University of Maryland by first author Harry Oduro, together with UMD geochemist James Farquhar and marine biologist Kathryn Van Alstyne of Western Washington University, provides a tool for tracing and measuring the movement of sulfur through ocean organisms, the atmosphere and the land in ways that may help prove or disprove the controversial Gaia theory. Their study appears in this week’s Online Early Edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).

 

The Story of Water by Alick Bartholomew, is another unique publication in that it reflects the author’s deep knowledge of the principles of whole geophysical systems, which helps us understand the Earth as an integrated Gaia system that sustains us. The book begins by describing our usual view of water based on Western science and then deftly moves on to the frontier sciences that embrace water as the source of life in terms of biological systems, quantum energy fields, etheric fields, spirals, vortices, and as a medium for communications and memory. An understanding of these principles can lead to strategies for treating our water in ways that guarantee a sustainable future for humankind.

 

How Does Gaia Work?

 

The homeostasis regulated by the Earth is much like the internal maintenance of our own bodies; processes within our body insure a constant temperature, blood pH, electrochemical balance, etc. The inner workings of Gaia, therefore, can be viewed as a study of the physiology of the Earth, where the oceans and rivers are the Earth’s blood, the atmosphere is the Earth’s lungs, the land is the Earth’s bones, and the living organisms are the Earth’s senses. Lovelock calls this the science of geophysiology – the physiology of the Earth (or any other planet).

 

To understand how the Earth is living, let’s take a look at what defines life. Physicists define life as a system of locally reduced entropy (life is the battle against entropy). Molecular biologists view life as replicating strands of DNA that compete for survival and evolve to optimize their survival in changing surroundings. Physiologists might view life as a biochemical system that us able to use energy from external sources to grow and reproduce.

 

According to Lovelock, the geophysiologist sees life as a system open to the flux of matter and energy but that maintains an internal steady-state.

Beyond the scientific importance of what we have discussed here, we might do well to consider some of the more poetical thoughts of the originator of the theory:

 

“If Gaia exists, the relationship between her and man, a dominant animal species in the complex living system, and the possibly shifting balance of power between them, are questions of obvious importance… The Gaia hypothesis is for those who like to walk or simply stand and stare, to wonder about the Earth and the life it bears, and to speculate about the consequences of our own presence here. It is an alternative to that pessimistic view which sees nature as a primitive force to be subdued and conquered. It is also an alternative to that equally depressing picture of our planet as a demented spaceship, forever traveling, driverless and purposeless, around an inner circle of the sun.”

 

The strong Gaia hypothesis states that life creates conditions on Earth to suit itself. Life created the planet Earth, not the other way around. As we explore the solar system and galaxies beyond, it may one day be possible to design an experiment to test whether life indeed manipulates planetary processes for its own purposes or whether life is just an evolutionary processes that occurs in response to changes in the non-living world.

 

Sources:
nationalgeographic.com
bibliotecapleyades.net
phys.org

 

Liz Bentley is a graduate in geology, professional photographer and freelance journalist with an acute insight into fossil records and climatology.

 

Edited by Maggie123
  • Downvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, I can't believe this thread is still alive.... though I guess it's fun to pretend there is something magical thinking anyone here on DV has the expert credibility to actually and definitively answer the question, when the world is coming at it from so many different angles....

 

The Senate GOP majority leader report was indeed interesting, in citing the vast number of scientists disagreeing with findings that human impact contributes to the natural earth cycles of climate change. Hard to ignore to be sure. And even if it were available, I don't know that I would take the time now to wade through the credentials, and then the actual research models and methodology each used to do a side by side  comparison.... I do know that one of the poster boys brought out to disagree with the climate change impact was indeed a physicist, however his research is in microbiological models centered around oncology. And he was among only a handful of those objecting about the assertion of his professional association that humans do impact natural cycles. But of course it  would be simplistically naive to think that only journalistic commentary on one side of this debate is manipulative...  That said, I certainly would not dismiss him necessarily, or an entire group (once reported as 400, now seems to be a 1000) of scientists who dispute the notion of human impact on natural cycles.

 

In reciting what is believed to be scientific findings, lets be crystal clear about one thing. Any entry level graduate student, if not undergrad knows that scientific investigation does not ever ever set out to prove something as FACT. There is no such thing and you will not ever find it. Within this debate there is not indisputable fact on either side. That does not exist in scientific inquiry.... Indeed one would methologically reject the null hypothesis ... at best... in a pure research model... and thereafter infer what is true ... again on either side of this discussion... And in that inquiry the best you will ever get is probability.... We are dealing with probability on both sides of this.... probability models.... That is how science works... and apart from any belief that either side is bought and paid for, we either accept the rubics of scientific inquiry... or we don't... It can't be both ways... And if you are going to quote science, then understand you are quoting probability and probability models... 

 

Speaking of which, midst my quest for information, I called a buddy at MIT to chat about it all... He of course reminded me that the models are all built on some assumptions that have been filled in (on both sides people), in an effort to capture the data needed to run the models fully... Again, understand, neither side of this debate pulls that data out of thin air... they run probability models that generate statistical probabilities that are then plugged in.... In any event, as he reminds me, yeah, there are those who say in running the model we don't think its as bad as we thought it would be.... however, to be scientifically honest, they would likewise have to say, and it may be worse than we thought it would be... (and of course, its conversely true of statements on the other side of this).

 

Scientific research is generally funded by grants or private donations/foundations. I personally can't reference any case of a scientist being wealthy enough to fund his/her long-term research without either funding source.  I'm not sure why anyone believes that privately funded research is somehow more credible than that funded by grants. And I really don't understand why anyone would think that any or all of the research with an opposing view is not likewise funded by grants?!? Why would anyone think that? And in either case, frankly I would be highly suspect of any side funded exclusively through private donation (which by the way is not the case in this discussion).

 

Membership in the professional societies/ organizations I'm in requires nomination for membership, advanced degrees, certified expertise and professional experience. Just the other day I got notice that two Fellows nominated me for membership in an yet another International Organization (hard science focus), based on brainiac criterion... not politics of any kind... ... I don't know what kind of professional organizations ya'll are involved in, but in my world, these are not social networks, hobby groups, or chit chat clubs. No one has a clue about the politics of another.  Honest to G-d in heaven, politics is the LAST thing anyone even considers, let alone gives a royal rats tail about...Frankly most can't believe that anyone really believes that politics is meaningful or even matters on a practical level. In fact I was trying to describe to my friend some of the political debates that go on here in DV, and as I was talking, it dawned on me I was having difficulty even trying to find the words to describe it in a way that would make sense in his world. Politics is so far removed from the daily life of most hard core folks.... and some political agenda driving the results of hard science research is so far off their radar, one sounds like a total baboon trying to introduce it as a possibility.... It would be like introducing which brand of dryer sheet does one choose as somehow being relevant to research methodology.

 

Yes people, .....generally speaking of science as a whole, professional science based organizations as a whole... and the community as a whole...does not include politics as the cornerstone of their work... And yes, there will always be those whose opinion is for sale, generally in how the question is posed more than how its answered...

 

However, I can definitively say that I do not believe that the entire scientific community on either one of the two sides has been as a whole community, compromised to the point of abandoning the principles of science in order to manipulate findings one way or the other.... Given the nature of humans, I don't even think that is possible, let alone probable... 

 

So we're left with how to decide what to believe. I frankly and honestly don't give a rats about the politics. Everyone has an agenda, and I don't want to wade through some journalistic interpretation or sound bites telling me  what is true. ... Personally, I want an organization of peer-reviewed expertise, structured with standardized criterion that is identifiable, attainable apart from perspective and open to all models of statistically significant probability. I want to see published parameters of participation ... how do you get in the club, do you have to do something to stay in the club and what is done with dissent of opinion.... For me, that place would be here as a starting point in meeting that criterion :  http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/index.shtml

 

And because it does not escape my attention that the GOP majority leader published a report of hundreds if not a thousand dissenting scientists, I want to know why they disagree. I hope to have the time to cross reference their work with the work of the professional organization of which many of the dissenters are members (I should say some of the more vocal dissenters).

 

You ask for the science, I give you the science. No one on this thread has the expertise or credentials to simply dismiss over 700 authors from over 160 countries with a single sentence of dismissal. Everyone has skin in this game, on both sides of this. I don't think anyone is naive enough to believe only one side has a financial interest and the other is some shining light of altruism...Both have an economic interest... that's the problem... having to wade past that in hopes of getting down to the real questions and real answers addressing  the most significant probability...

 

At this point I have no idea who is right or who is wrong, ......or if its not in actuality somewhere in the middle... We do get into problems most times we frame a question as having only one answer in the form of right or wrong. Not to mention science does not formulate its questions in that kind of framework.... Frankly, I'm not even sure everyone is asking the same question (e.g., the query:  is climate change a natural cycle or is it the product of human impact, is a very very different question from: given that climate change is a natural cycle, does human impact effect it, and if so how ... and all the variations therein). Seriously, I've noticed numerous times that someone will use an answer to one question  to address an entirely different question as if they were the same. Further, I see debate about  what is driving the question, as being somehow considered credible in refuting the scientifically derived  answers. That is not a plausible nexus... one would have to look at the question being asked in order to infer there is influence, which in turn would drive the answer. One can not simply jump to the answer as being invalid. ... 

 

As far as liberty interests go, I can't get past NDAA and the PA and its direct impact here and now, enough to even begin to consider some indirect impact of a climate change.. There is a really ugly dragon staring us direct in the face right now... and the major parties of this country beat the commies to that end game before the commies  could  finger paint enough posters to even suggest it...

 

With regard to  this specific discussion, I don't have any answers, I'm still looking at the questions... who knows, I don't. Meantime, I'm going to go hang with Shabs and DD6 and dump a few things in the sand in the dead of night so I can wrap up this project and move to the next before I have to leave again...Hopefully it will be dark enough that no one sees the respirator... (I swapped out full face for half face for this portion of the mission in reducing that probability). And I remain no angel looking for answers...    

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

My.... My... My... RV ME... Lol... you went to all that trouble. If you would have read my post afterwards you would have seen why I posted the cockamamie article... or perhaps once again you have no reading comprehension skills. You folks take yourselves way too seriously. Typical response kitten, dodge, deflect, ramble, ramble, ramble, apparently you can't remember what it was YOU said all over DV in the past on how you believe in global warming and pretty much anyone who doesn't is a whacko! Just because someone brings in evidence debunking the climate change BS you quit playing?

 

All I can say to you... ya little snotrocket... er... um... whatshername.... is that you have been cranky ever since that Mormon guy that wears "mommy jeans" lost the last election.... Your problem NOT mine. I liked Ron Paul... do you see me taking that out on you??? I thought you loved everyone?  Oh wait a conservative, successful businessman who is white and pays his taxes and would have certainly put America back on the right track doesn't count, I'm sure if poor Mitt was a muslim like our current occupant  you'd be giving him  :hug: I think your still cranky cuz your alter ego empire got him/herself kicked to the curb!!  :shrug: 

 

Pardon me for showing the stupidity of these lefty/righty, commie/socialist, believer/non-believer threads.  All your pointing out dear, is what we already knew all along, you can't put rational thoughts into words, it's ok though nobody is perfect.

 

You all carry on until the cows come home... I have better things to do... like wash my hair. :D AND BINGO, HERE'S THE MONEY PHRASE!!!!  WHN NOW OWES ME 100 DINARS!!!!!!  :eyebrows: 

 

 

As far as the earth being one huge living being, wasn't that a movie?  :shrug:  :D  :lol:  :lmao:

 

avatar-cat-25006-1266787273-356.jpg

Edited by DiveDeepSix
  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

My.... My... My... RV ME... Lol... you went to all that trouble. If you would have read my post afterwards you would have seen why I posted the cockamamie article... or perhaps once again you have no reading comprehension skills. You folks take yourselves way too seriously.

 

 

Thanks for living down to all of my expectations of you.  I am beginning to comprehend that the reason everything you post is a copy and paste is because you are incapable of an intelligent original thought.

You all carry on until the cows come home... I have better things to do... like wash my hair. :D AND BINGO, HERE'S THE MONEY PHRASE!!!!  WHN NOW OWES ME 100 DINARS!!!!!!  :eyebrows: 

 

Congrats on the win.  Better things to do....reminds me of the old Terri Clark song

 

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

DD6 Quote:

Typical response kitten, dodge, deflect, ramble, ramble, ramble, apparently you can't remember what it was YOU said all over DV in the past on how you believe in global warming and pretty much anyone who doesn't is a whacko! Just because someone brings in evidence debunking the climate change BS you quit playing?

Read more: http://dinarvets.com/forums/index.php?/topic/187481-climate-movement-drops-mask-admits-communist-agenda/page-4#ixzz3EzjOhMlB
 
Not only do you lie DD6... Show me one post where I said I have come to ANY conclusion on global warming... One Post....
 
You are also a "cheap date"... "100 dinar bets" ????    Lol .... you.... you.... highroller you. :D   :D   :D
 
 
I am capable of making myself very clear RV ME... Can't help folks who read with blinders on.  Again your problem... not mine. :)
  • Downvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Mags... I sincerely was feeling a tinge of guilt for being so verbally brutal to you in the past (you do bring out the worst in people)... thanks for justifying my otherwise rude behavior and proving my observation that you are annoying!  Now, I would never welch on a bet, but I was rooting for you.  I even composted my grass clippings while chanting a prayer to Mother Earth... "please Gaia, give Maggie the insight to take my lukewarm peace offering and form an original thought"!  Oh well, Mythical, Greek, Pagan Gods are for hippies!  

@Rayzur... thank you as always, for your time, effort and intellectual honesty.  What you describe as scientific query and methodology is spot on and as it SHOULD be.  True science has no agenda other than to find the truth.  This is why it is so disturbing to learn that the study of "climatology" has been bastardized for the sake of politics.  Once the credibility of this scientific community came into question (some would say proven to be complete bunk)... it should have been thrown out, all public funding halted and their findings and "conclusions" never again sited as fact.  This has not been the case and the misinformation marches on (in goose-step)... perpetuating the agenda-driven lie that Capitalism is destroying the planet.  

@DD6... Double or nothin'?  :lol:  I mean technically, Rayzur brought substance and much needed balance!  I remain hopeful that there is someone out there who can answer my questions. 

@RV ME... I appreciate your thoughtful responses in this thread.  The many links and information you've brought in are not just relevant but also very informative... generously giving us "deniers" more tools to combat this unicorn!  Thank you... I consider myself in good company!  :)

  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Not only do you lie DD6... Show me one post where I said I have come to ANY conclusion on global warming... One Post.... Hmmmm let's see here, one can logically only assume since you are arguing with everyone here who says climate change caused by man is BS, so where does that leave you Maggie?  Yep standing right in the middle of it!!
 
You are also a "cheap date"... "100 dinar bets" ????    Lol .... you.... you.... highroller you. :D   :D   :D Hey now I'm thinking positive here 100 dinars could be $3,000 US dollars, according to Okie it's gonna happen here soon!!! 
 
 
I am capable of making myself very clear RV ME... Please do that then because we are still waiting to see you get to your point.  Can't help folks who read with blinders on.  Again your problem... not mine. :)

 

 

Didn't you have to go wash your hair?

human-stahp.jpg

Ok, WHN double or nothing it is!!!

 

RV ME  :D  :lol:  :lol: Thanks and it reminded me of the same thing!!  :twothumbs: 

tumblr_m8cbuvcDGv1rtsuw6o2_500.jpg

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.