Earth Hour - 60 minutes for the sheeple

Discussion in 'Et Cetera, Et Cetera' started by faceking, Mar 29, 2008.

  1. faceking

    faceking Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2004
    Messages:
    7,453
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    49
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Mavs, NOR * CAL
    "Earth Hour"... even the dipshits at Google are in on the sham. My guess is Sergey Brin or Larry Page will continue to ride in private jets, vs take "mass transit" when all is said and done. Hypocrites... but even worse, it's for not.



    GLOBAL WARMING = SUN ACTIVITY ... period , end of story. Mankinds effect on the temperature of the global is like saying a hangnail is the cause for lung cancer. Sowell seems to put it well...



    It has almost become something of a joke when some "global warming" conference has to be cancelled because of a snowstorm or bitterly cold weather.


    But stampedes and hysteria are no joke -- and creating stampedes and hysteria has become a major activity of those hyping a global warming "crisis."


    They mobilize like-minded people from a variety of occupations, call them all "scientists" and then claim that "all" the experts agree on a global warming crisis.


    Their biggest argument is that there is no argument.

    A whole cottage industry has sprung up among people who get grants, government agencies who get appropriations, politicians who get publicity and the perpetually indignant who get something new to be indignant about. It gives teachers something to talk about in school instead of teaching.
    Those who bother to check the facts often find that not all those who are called scientists are really scientists and not all of those who are scientists are specialists in climate. But who bothers to check facts these days?
    A new and very different conference on global warming will be held in New York City, under the sponsorship of the Heartland Institute, on March 2nd to March 4th -- weather permitting.


    It is called an "International Conference on

    Climate Change." Its subtitle is "Global Warming: Truth or Swindle?" Among those present will be professors of climatology, along with scientists in other fields and people from other professions.


    They come from universities in England, Hungary, and Australia, as well as from the United States and Canada, and include among other dignitaries the president of the Czech Republic.


    There will be 98 speakers and 400 participants.


    The theme of the conference is that "there is no scientific consensus on the causes or likely consequences of global warming."


    Many of the participants in this conference are people who have already expressed skepticism about either the prevailing explanations of current climate change or the dire predictions about future climate change.
    These include authors of such books as "Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years" by Fred Singer and Dennis Avery, and "Shattered Consensus," edited by Patrick J. Michaels.


    This will be one of the rare opportunities for the media to hear the other side of the story -- for those old-fashioned journalists who still believe that their job is to inform the public, rather than promote an agenda.
    The subtitle of the upcoming conference -- "Global Warming: Truth or Swindle?" -- is also the title of a British television program that is now available on DVD in the United States. It is a devastating debunking of the current "global warming" hysteria.


    Nobody denies that there is such a thing as a greenhouse effect. If there were not, the side of the planet facing away from the sun would be freezing every night.


    There is not even a lot of controversy over temperature readings. What is fundamentally at issue are the explanations, implications and extrapolations of these temperature readings.


    The party line of those who say that we are heading for a global warming crisis of epic proportions is that human activities generating carbon dioxide are key factors responsible for the warming that has taken place in recent times.


    The problem with this reasoning is that the temperatures rose first and then the carbon dioxide levels rose. Some scientists say that the warming created the increased carbon dioxide, rather than vice versa.
    Many natural factors, including variations in the amount of heat put out by the sun, can cause the earth to heat or cool.
    The bigger problem is that this has long since become a crusade rather than an exercise in evidence or logic. Too many people are too committed to risk it all on a roll of the dice, which is what turning to empirical evidence is.


    Those who have a big stake in global warming hysteria are unlikely to show up at the conference in New York, and unfortunately that includes much of the media.
     
  2. D_Gunther Snotpole

    D_Gunther Snotpole Account Disabled

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2005
    Messages:
    14,610
    Likes Received:
    5
    Don't scientists claim to have taken account of solar forcing?
     
  3. faceking

    faceking Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2004
    Messages:
    7,453
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    49
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Mavs, NOR * CAL
    Few do, and those that are enjoying the breezing from the fast-moving hysterical bandwagon.... lessen it's effects tremendously.
     
  4. DaveyR

    DaveyR Retired Moderator
    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2006
    Messages:
    11,908
    Likes Received:
    8
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Northumberland
    If those taking part in the conference were that serious about the cause surely they would do so by not flying all over the World and use a video conferencing facility :rolleyes:
     
  5. dong20

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2006
    Messages:
    6,130
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    The grey country
    Well, clearly they're serious about being seen to be serious, or something.
     
  6. bigjedi

    bigjedi New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2008
    Messages:
    23
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Canberra, Australia
    If global warming isn't real:

    And we don't do anything about it: No big deal.
    And we do something about it: No big deal (planet might be a bit cleaner).

    If global warming IS real:

    And we don't do anything about it: The planet is fucked.
    And we do something about it: We're saved, planet is clean and healthy and we've learnt our lesson.

    So basically we should do something about it. Counter-arguments?
     
  7. checkin

    checkin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2007
    Messages:
    525
    Albums:
    6
    Likes Received:
    282
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    West Chicago (IL, US)
    Why not have "Earth Year" ... and then extend it indefinitely...
     
  8. dong20

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2006
    Messages:
    6,130
    Likes Received:
    5
    Location:
    The grey country
    People might actually have to do things which involve a degree of ... shh ... personal sacrifice. Also, and I can barely say this, it may also cost them a few $$ (or ££ or whatever but right now, it's mostly $$)

    Sorry for the foul language.:rolleyes:
     
  9. D_Gunther Snotpole

    D_Gunther Snotpole Account Disabled

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2005
    Messages:
    14,610
    Likes Received:
    5
    Well, we'll see what comes out of the conference.
    I have no particular view.
    (I'm not sure you're right about solar forcing not having been considered.)
     
  10. transformer_99

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2006
    Messages:
    2,466
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    Yeah, but Google blacked out looks pretty cool for a change, doesn't it ?
     
  11. JustAsking

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2004
    Messages:
    3,249
    Likes Received:
    3
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Ohio
    Rubi,
    Of course faceking is right. Consider for a moment that the Greenhouse effect that we are all concerned about is based on the premise that the Earth's major source of energy comes from the Sun.

    Given that, how could anyone expect climatologists who study this problem to think of something as obscure as factoring in variations in the Sun's output. It takes very special people, such as faceking, to think of something like that.

    This is why we have Internet forums, because these people who have devoted their lives to studying such things as this are really stupid people, and they would otherwise overlook things like this. So faceking is providing a valuable service to the world. He knows that the best way to influence the professional scientific community to correct a grave oversight is to come to a large penis support group forum and insult the intelligence of its contributors.

    [/sarcasm]

    By the way, any ham radio geek like me knows that the sun's output in ionizing and non-ionizing radiation follows an 11 year cycle and can be easily correlated with sunspot activity. Here is the last 50 years of observations.

    Also, here is an article debunking the solar forcing hypothesis. You can tell it is not junk science becuase it doesn't have the words "swindle", and "sheeple" in it and it is not published in a large penis support group forum.

    Oh yes, a brief history of the solar forcing hypothesis swindle.

    Finally, it is stupid to link to articles like this because it supports the erroneous notion that any average joe like you and I could possibly sort through all the professional scientific papers and reach a different conclusion than the worldwide community of professional climatologists. If anyone here thinks they can do this, then they could be in line for a Nobel Prize if they have anything more than insults and YouTube videos as their techniques and evidence.

    Oh, and by the way, faceking's symposium, "International Conference on Climate Change" is sponsored by this organization. This is the famouse Heartland Institute, which is not a scientific organization, but a Public Relations and lobbying firm that is heavily funded by right wing political interests and corporate interests. Here is their website. Notice how scientific they are when most of their website is devoted to lobbying the public to debate Al Gore.

    From tobacco company Phillip Morris' report on its political contributions:

    "as a strategic tool to promote our overall business objectives and to advance our government affairs agenda," in particular by supporting "the work of free market 'think tanks' and other public policy groups whose philosophy is consistent with our point of view. ... [W]e have given general support over the years to such groups as the Heritage Foundation, Heartland Institute, Americans for Tax Reform, Citizens for a Sound Economy, Washington Legal Foundation and a variety of other organizations that help provide information about the ultimate course of legislation, regulation and public opinion through their studies, papers, op-ed pieces and conferences."[
    Notice that the word "science" is conspicuously absent.

    A casual scan of the major donors to the Heartland Institute brings up this gem.


    Welcome to the "Science Denial" industry. It is well funded and actively lobbying for its own special interest day by day.


    Oh yes, and don't forget that "there is no link between cigarette smoking and lung cancer."
     
  12. ZOS23xy

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2007
    Messages:
    5,073
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    7
    Location:
    directly above the center of the earth
    Oh yes, and don't forget that "there is no link between cigarette smoking and lung cancer."

    I used to read science and health books published in the 1930's that had deduced that tobacco smoking was not healthy. Of course, that industry knew it for a long time before. You can look and find a lot of advertising of that time period with "Doctors" in them promoting smoking.

    This is supposed to be a year for sunspot activity.

    Anyway, something that helps reduce oil use is useful in the long run; it provides some sort of backlog.
     
  13. D_Chaumbrelayne_Copprehead

    D_Chaumbrelayne_Copprehead Account Disabled

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2008
    Messages:
    8,978
    Likes Received:
    11
    Great answer, JustAsking.

    Sidebar: how much of a spike in the rate of new babies being born will we see nine months after an hour of all the lights being shut off all over the world?
     
  14. Quite Irate

    Quite Irate Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2007
    Messages:
    720
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    4
    There's always a spike nine months from now (maybe 8-9 by now). Selection bias, hm? :tongue:
     
  15. ZOS23xy

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2007
    Messages:
    5,073
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    7
    Location:
    directly above the center of the earth
    It's not so much gloabal warming as a shift in climate, worldwide. The Anartic shelf just broke off recently. Why? Could it be it melted?
     
  16. B_lamdellboo

    B_lamdellboo New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2008
    Messages:
    618
    Likes Received:
    0

    I knew someone around here had to have a brain around here besides me. :rolleyes:
     
  17. No_Strings

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2007
    Messages:
    4,100
    Likes Received:
    6
    The indefinite, futile, global sacrifice may be worse than the long-term consequences of apathy.
     
  18. D_Gunther Snotpole

    D_Gunther Snotpole Account Disabled

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2005
    Messages:
    14,610
    Likes Received:
    5
    Well said, JA.
    I will be looking closely at those links.
    Tnx.
    (You could have been a very fine science journalist.)
     
  19. B_Artful Dodger

    B_Artful Dodger New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2008
    Messages:
    1,093
    Likes Received:
    4
    Lol. Google told me about that yesterday.
     
  20. SteveHd

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2006
    Messages:
    3,849
    Likes Received:
    6
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Daytona
    Yesterday, I used yahoo instead of google. :smile: Even though my first monitor experience was a 3270 mainframe "green screen," I didn't like the black background .

    Something I noticed: yahoo has gotten better!

    Earth hour: Wasn't it a just big bag of air? :wink:
     
Draft saved Draft deleted