Freedom Pyramid Forums - Global Warming

The Earth will heal...

matt_sykes — Thu, 09 Sep 2010 17:36:37 GMT

On 9 Sep, 16:03, VFW wrote:
> after the humans go extinct.
> and like 99% of the species that ever lived on the earth are extinct.
> you do the math.
> --
> Money! What a concept.

"Money! What a concept."

Name a better one.

Oh, and BTW, Humans will be the last species to go extinct. We are too
adaptable.

�Human-Made Climate Change Is A Serious Long Term Threat�

Michael Gordge — Thu, 09 Sep 2010 09:43:24 GMT

On Sep 9, 9:03*am, Bret Cahill wrote:

> Trying to win the "Lame Denier Response of the Week"

Yours wins hands down, denying AGW is a hoax.

MG

The Oft Touted 97% "Consensus" Is Only 75 Self-Selected Climatologists

Bret Cahill — Thu, 09 Sep 2010 05:35:04 GMT

lies, polls, statistics.

Russians Debunk Peak Oil Theory - as Bogus as Greenhouse Gas Scam

Double-Aces — Thu, 09 Sep 2010 02:19:50 GMT

You smoke way too much crack, oil is a fossil based fuel. The simple
proof of that is in that oil, ethanol, methanol, and methane based
compounds can all be produced from plant and animal sources. However
if you want to read 2000 peer reviews to prove me wrong, be my guest.

On the plus side, you are rather funny.

Chow

SEVEN YEARS AGO AL GORE SAID THAT THE NORTH POLE WOULD BE MELTEDIN FIVE YEARS

Double-Aces — Thu, 09 Sep 2010 00:09:38 GMT

5. A fat, ignorant, foolish, money grubbing
polititian.................

Melting Rate of Icecaps in Greenland and Western Antarctica LowerThan Expected

Baldy — Wed, 08 Sep 2010 22:46:59 GMT

With the activity of Polar shipping and the fact that Ice breakers can
cut through very thick ice, it should not be a wonder that the Ice cap
is becoming unstable. My work mate was talking to me about Eskimos and
how alcoholism is a significant problem of the Canadian Eskimo
culture, add the expected mineral wealth of Polar areas plus Ice pack
destabilisation and this got me thinking.
Suppose that..... the Inuits become ravaged by Alcohol and no longer
have a true Eskimo way of life. Polar shipping breaks up the Ice pack
so much that no extensive ice sheets are present on the North Pole
albeit pack ice is still present, so that Eskimos cannot navigate or
live on the ice for a great length of time. Oil and mineral companies
set up extraction and mining facilities due to the reduced ice sheet.
With no Eskimos living as Eskimos and thus the Polar Cap is
uninhabited - the mineral wealth exploration venture - - - doesn't
have to pay any fee or compensation to native inhabitants for land
rights! So the woes of the North Pole can also be seen as a Corporate
Land Grab and no doubt when the Oil rigs and mines are established
then by some miracle the ways will be found to allow Ice sheeting to
re-establish by stopping those nasty Ice Breakers from cutting through
the Polar Ice for a start but the Eskimos will meet up with a lot of
'No Entry' signs. Tell me I'm not being cynical here, please!

I figured out why greenies/leftists hate DDT

Greg Carr — Wed, 08 Sep 2010 20:51:21 GMT

On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 20:49:41 -0700 (PDT), "$27 TRILLION to pay for
Kyoto" wrote:

>Because although it is harmless to humans, it does kill insects and
>leftists. However, it is only mildly toxic to centrist liberals.

Probably because it kills eagles.

Schmidt et al. 2010, in press

leonard78sp — Wed, 08 Sep 2010 14:39:27 GMT

On Sep 8, 2:53*am, "Rob Dekker" wrote:

> Bill, it's really annoying if you accuse me of failing to understand what's going on,
> while I just showed you that YOU are the one who did not understand what Dessler has done.

� Dekker you are continually annoyed because
you "fail to understand what's going on". You
are continually sucked in by the AGW set
without analysing the science.

� �
| In real science the burden of proof is always
| on the proposer, never on the skeptics. So far
| neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one
| iota of valid data for global warming nor have
| they provided data that climate change is being
| effected by commerce and industry, and not by
| natural causes.

coal BEATEN by wind !!

Republiphilia — Wed, 08 Sep 2010 13:19:22 GMT

On Sep 8, 9:19*am, Republiphilia wrote:
> Spain added another 11% to its wind-power capacity last year. That
> increase contributed to a year in which wind power accounted for 43%
> of new generation capacity � more new electricity capacity in Europe
> than any other source.
[snip Guardian copyright violation]

Heh heh. So, instead of quoting the Left-tardian, why don't you
do some due dillegence and find out the straight poop.

Of *course* they are adding new wind at a fierce clip. It gets
subsidized at a gargantuan rate, close to tripple the rate that
gets paid to other generators. And the wind-ees get a
massively sweetheart rate that is guarenteed for decades.
And that the utilities have to buy as much wind power as the
wind-ees can generate, whether the utilities want it or not.
And that most wind turbines just about break even at that.

Then tell us about the fact that wind gets a capacity factor of
from 10 percent to 30 percent depending. And that it produces
two to three times as much CO2 per kwHr as does a nuke.

Then tell us about the wind turbines that were caught using
diesel generators to bridge those low wind days. Hey, at
0.17 Euros per kwHr, even a diesel begins to look good.
That's how Spanish wind-ees are getting good stats.
Socks

Deep water oil = far greater reserves

... .- - .- -. — Wed, 08 Sep 2010 02:29:11 GMT

Likely more drilling. Reserve estimates put it at 8-10x more than
land-based oil. Since land-based reserves (including tar sands and oil
shale) represent about 500 years of supply in current and projected use,
then undersea supply could mean 5000 years worth. Suck on that, enviros.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---

The problem with this board

James — Wed, 08 Sep 2010 01:14:56 GMT

On Sep 9, 8:35*am, "James" wrote:""The bot wants
to talk rational discussion when he/she has no rationale and doesn't
know what it is? lol

laughing, why should your whining be taken seriously, because you feel
emotionaly frustrated that you cannot make a valid point? Or is it
because you only have op ed pieces to put forth, and nothing else?
Come on james you and your kind are a joke, and whining just makes the
punch line even better.

MERCHANTS OF DOUBT: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth onIssues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming.

erschroedinger — Tue, 07 Sep 2010 21:16:45 GMT

From MERCHANTS OF DOUBT: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the
Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming; reviewed in
American Scientist.

Why were Seitz and company so adamant in their opposition to the
reality of global climate change? Oreskes and Conway show that climate
change was really a surrogate for larger fears of a regulatory state�a
state seen as increasingly willing to curtail free-market liberties in
the name of environmental protection. To counter an imagined Soviet
missile threat, Seitz and his clique had defended President Reagan�s
Strategic Defense Initiative, a multibillion- dollar effort to
weaponize space. In fact, the original purpose of the Marshall
Institute was to defend Reagan�s hawkish�and much criticized�plan to
erect a high-tech missile shield in orbit. When the Soviet empire
collapsed in 1989, these Cold Warrior physicists moved on to attack a
new enemy, environmentalism, which they saw as furthering the same
anti-American agenda. Environmentalism (and in particular climate
science) was conjured up as the latest in a long line of threats to
liberty��a green tree with red roots,� as conservative journalist
George Will once put it.

All of which helps explain why these free-market fundamentalists,
steeped in Cold War oppositions (market economies versus command
economies, the individual versus the state, the free world versus Big
Brother), attacked any and all efforts to trace environmental maladies
back to corporate chemicals. Chlorinated fluorocarbons were not really
eating away at the ozone layer, and the sulfates being belched from
coal-fired plants were not causing forest-harming acid rain; even
secondhand cigarette smoke was not causing any provable harm. This
tobacco connection is significant. Oreskes and Conway show that
Singer, Seitz and a number of other climate-change denialists served
as advisors to the Advancement of Sound Science Coalition, a Philip
Morris front run by APCO Associates to challenge the evidence linking
secondhand smoke to disease.

Of course, efforts of this sort don�t come cheap. Oreskes and Conway
describe an elaborate network of extremist scientists, all with links
to well-endowed �think tanks� such as the Heritage Foundation, the
American Enterprise Institute and the Competitive Enterprise
Institute. Trade associations such as the Electric Power Research
Institute, the Global Climate Coalition and the Tobacco Institute have
provided funding as well. Denialists also have at their disposal
polluter-friendly media outlets such as the Washington Times, Fox News
and the National Review. Additional assistance comes from libertarian
talk radio and Web sites fronting for one or another well-oiled
interest.

Another Global Warming Prophet. Charles Manson

columbiaaccidentinvestigation — Tue, 07 Sep 2010 14:55:13 GMT

On Sep 7, 7:35*am, "James" wrote:" Paul Joseph
Watson Prison Planet.com- A study of Manson's belief system is an
alarming exercise"

kind of like the glenn beck show.

Wouldn't It Be Embarrassing To Find Out Your Carbon FootprintWas Larger Than A Billionaire's?

Dave Heil — Tue, 07 Sep 2010 06:22:56 GMT

> > John Caudwell
>
> I will take only the first fellow here. He makes or made his money from
> mobile phones I gather.
>
> Is his money invested? In what? How big is the total footprint of all
> companies in which he is part owner/shareholder?

This is only for personal stuff.

For example, if you drive a semi-rig for a living, the 25,000 gallons
diesel you burn each year doesn't count.

Goods still need to be delivered and it's not _your_ fault the prime
mover community hasn't developed a cost effective alternative.

Bret Cahill

Koch Brothers Billions Can't Stop Global Warming, Since There Is Nothing to Stop!!

Yoorghis — Mon, 06 Sep 2010 05:30:15 GMT

On Sep 6, 1:30*am, Yoorg...@Jurgis.net wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Sep 2010 14:43:57 -0700 (PDT), "leonard7...@**********"
>
> wrote:
> >> They can suspend the law but they can't suspend global warming.
>
> >� ROTFLMAO
> > * They can not suspend global warming
> > * because it does not exist.
>
> Oh?
>
> Then why did Faux Snooze (yep, you heard me right) run a long segment
> on the demise of Coral reefs, the reinstitution of them, and aired the
> REASON:
>
> GLOBAL WARMING

� I have no reasoning from any news source.
If you do not like Fox news, why do you
watch it?

��*��
There are three types of people that you
can_not_talk_into_behaving_well. The
stupid, the religious fanatic, and the evil.

1- The stupid aren't smart enough to follow the
logic of what you say. You have to tell them
what is right in very simple terms. If they do
not agree, you will never be able to change
their mind.

2- The religious fanatic: If what you say goes
against their religious belief, they will cling to
that belief even if it means their death.

3- There is no way to reform evil- not in a
million years. There is no way to convince

anthropogenic_global_warming_alarmists,

terrorists, serial killers, paedophiles, and

predators to change their evil ways, They
knew what they were doing was wrong, but
knowledge didn't stop them. It only made
them more careful in how they went about
performing their evil deeds.