You have GOT to be kidding me. Right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Society
The Royal Society is only THE oldest societies in the world dedicated to knowledge.

Let me educate you:
Martin Rees(Lord Rees), current president of the Royal Society, was elevated to a life peerage, sitting as a crossbencher in the House of Lords in 2005.

Definition: Life Peerage - In the United Kingdom, life peers are appointed members of the Peerage whose titles may not be inherited. (Those whose titles are inheritable are known as hereditary peers.)

Therefore LORD Rees has EARNED that title, but let us not overlook his academic achievements:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Rees

Not only does he hold the honorary title of Astronomer Royal he has made important scientific contributions on how our universe works with regards to quasars and blackholes, CMBR, and galaxy formation.

So... you were saying?

Hahahaha... Ozone Warning Days have to do with Air Pollution/Smog in cities. Not Global Warming and not the now gone Ozone hole that wasn't ever over the Southern States.

That's Lord Rees, who also has a PhD and says there is AGW.

This thread is about Lord Monckton, a hereditary peer who works as a business consultant and has a degree in journalism.

:2 cents:

Sulfur dioxide is an actual pollutant, it can be removed via the use of filters. Carbon dioxide is a necessary part and consequence of all life and all living activities. See the difference?

The ozone science was bunk too. Google: dupont ozone hole.

You're a grade-A sucker. How's that public school textbook treating ya? Feel smart yet?

The prison GED program is not what it used to be. :1orglaugh

As with all things, quantity matters.

Take water, for example:

http://blogs.fayobserver.com/faytoz/...10/drought.jpg

http://www.nwk.usace.army.mil/projec...ges/flood1.jpg

Neither of those is particularly good for humans, although other species might vastly prefer them over what we consider desirable.

With CO2, nobody is claiming that "CO2 is bad". Only an idiot would think that that's what being said. The issue is that a particular amount of CO2 in the atmosphere might have consequences which could impact the global environment in such a manner that it affects human conditions in a way that most humans would consider undesirable.

Whether the earth warmed or cooled 40 degrees in the next 5 years would not matter to earth itself - but it would matter to us.

And that's the issue with global warming: a change of only a few degrees over the next hundred years or so wouldn't "matter" to earth, but it would matter to us. The balance would shift just a little, with an effect that would be utterly negligible in the grand scheme of things.

The problem is that in the grand scheme of things, a few tens of millions of people dying, a global economic crash and your seafront property becoming sea property don't matter either.

We're not talking about the end of the world. We're talking about a slightly altered balance which could have some major effects on many millions of people - ultimately unimportant, perhaps, but pretty damn important if you're one of those people.

These same people have also been manipulating the weather for years. Like most other things they say they aren't doing it and those who say they are are labeled kooks.

BEIJING -- Heavy snowfall in northern China is testing the country's disaster preparedness and prompting fresh questions about Beijing's efforts to alter its weather.

A massive blizzard over the past week has dumped some of the heaviest snow in five decades on China's usually arid north, clogging highways and collapsing buildings in seven provinces. The storm, which began Monday, had caused at least $650 million in damage as of Friday afternoon and killed more than 40 people in traffic accidents or building collapses triggered by the snow and ice, the government said.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125814710015847539.html


BEIJING — Unusually early snow storms in northern China have claimed 38 lives in weather-related incidents and caused more than half a billion dollars in damage, the Civil Affairs Ministry said Friday.

Nineteen of the deaths resulted from traffic accidents related to the storms that began on Nov. 9, the ministry said in a news release posted on its Web site.

The snowfall is the heaviest in the area since records began being taken following the establishment of the communist state in 1949, the ministry said. It estimated economic losses from the storm at 3.5 billion yuan (US$513 million).

More than 4.7 million people have been affected by the storms, which have caused the collapse of more than 7,000 buildings, damaged 297,000 acres (120,000 hectares) of crops, and forced the evacuation of 158,000 people, the ministry said.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/can...SdvlY2vWJ-s63g

No offense, but you're batshit crazy :2 cents:

This is the first global warming thread I have ever posted in... for a reason... trying to explain simple science to people who can't see the change in climate for themselves is a wasted effort. Maybe it's because I am almost 41 years old and have seen more life... I don't know... but it's common sense to me and based on simple earth science... but then again... some of you idiots still believe the bible is an infallible historic document.

Shit me, that's funny! :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

What do you find crazy? That China admits they altered their weather killed people, destroyed thousands of buildings, and displaced hundreds of thousands? Or that you don't want to believe that it has been going on for years? We've got a man made weather problem alright. Just not the type they are trying to sell you.

The fact that you somehow connect a technology which is only somewhat effective to natural disasters as well as to global warming. The fact that you see conspiracies in every little thing that happens. The fact that you think Alex Jones is even close to a credible source.

...I could go on.

Only somewhat effective? How do you know? It seems to have been pretty fucking effective for their first trial run. Must have had some experienced teachers.

You think I'm crazy. You would have to be a goddamn fool to think they don't have tech well beyond your imagination.

omwebcam is clearly mentally disturbed and I hope he gets the help that he needs

This coming from someone named Glenn Beck. A guy who would sell your ass out for his $50 million dollar contract every day of the week. :1orglaugh I'm getting plenty of help. Just not the type you might think.

Seems you ONLY accept the science that supports your view and ignore the rest. That isn't science, that is more akin to religion. I am almost 40 and have spent the better part of 15 years learning. Science, physics, quantum mechanics, astronomy, you name it. I have a FIRM grasp on the subject over someone who has read a few articles and watched a couple documentaries.

I read all the scientific journals, do my own research into subjects, make informed decisions based on information and evidence. NOT based on a few articles and some documentaries.

Let us look at some REAL facts:

1. CO2 is not a gas pollutant in our atmosphere. Quite the opposite. It is actually quite important. FACT
2. CO2 levels have increased and decreased in natural cycles long before we came into the picture. FACT
3. Currently about 57% of human-emitted CO2 is removed by the biosphere and oceans; without this effect CO2 levels would be even higher. FACT
4. Global Warming AND cooling occurred and continues to do so in natural cycles. Long before we came into the picture. FACT.
5. Ice Caps melt and reform in natural cycles. Long before we came into the picture. FACT

6. Man is causing global warming. NON-FACT and at present undecided.
We have no conclusive evidence of this and what little there was now seems to be from fraudulent data discovered by the recent hack. I find it funny that you somehow think the fraudulent activity that has come to light is from unimportant institutions and scientists. You apparently know nothing about it and have read NONE of the leaked information AT ALL.

Do we need to stop polluting? Yes
Are there cleaner forms of energy? Yes
Can we stop or change global warming? No and we shouldn't try
Can we take away or stop CO2 from entering our atmosphere? No and we shouldn't try

The outcome? There are far more (I only listed a few) facts that would cause one to lean towards a natural global warming trend rather than man made global warming.

What I DO agree on, if we don't curb our polluting these things may change. It is idiotic that we have take giant leaps in technology but our energy source and technology is no better than it was 100 years ago.

:2 cents:

Only someone as serially dishonest and self deluded as yourself would consider your anecdotal evidence of changing climate as "simple science". :1orglaugh

Yes but his statement is still false. Having the title Lord does not preclude one from getting a PHD or make them any less a REAL or GOOD scientist.

On s side note, I didn't even watch those videos. I refuse to get any information through Alex Jones. I used to listen to him till I realized he was nuts. Didn't take long.

Here are the parts of what you say that don't fit with the rest:

We know for a fact that we are emitting massive amounts of additional CO2 into the atmosphere, and we know for a fact that if that CO2 has any effect on climate (whether it's cooling or warming), it has negative effects us.

Even if we were to accept everything else you say (which we shouldn't, but going into that subject would lead us to the tired old discussion I've had dozens of times on this board), it would still be a good idea to cut down our CO2 emissions until we knew exactly what the exact long-term effects were.

Since we're talking about something that would be pretty damn big if true, we'd need to have a pretty broad consensus leaning the other way not to take action.

I'm pretty sure that what he was trying to point out is that the title "Lord" in no way lends authority to someone's points of views.

Since Monckton gets most of the attention he gets exactly because he does have that title, I'd say he was making a valid point :2 cents:

Only if I were to believe the hype. If what I believe, global warming is cyclical, then NO we do not need to do anything. Nature is doing its thing just fine and the way it is supposed to.

On the other hand if I BELIEVED in man made global warming of COURSE we should try to fix those 2 things.

You're acting like science is religion, where you either "believe" or not.

It's not.

In most cases, science presents you with a large amount of data which will often contain apparent contradictions. Based on that, you can create hypotheses and theories, the likelihood of which you can test with existing data and new experiments. This, however, will never lead to absolute certainty, since absolute certainty in science is epistemologically impossible.

So instead, you usually end up with a number of competing theories, with varying degrees of likelihood. Eventually, more observations and experiments will eliminate a number of those theories and corroborate one or more others. That will point you in the right direction, and increase chances of those theories and newer ones corresponding with reality, but it will still not lead to absolute certainty.

The problem with the view you express here is that you believe something to be true, and see that as a reason to ignore the possibility that you are wrong.

That is not sound scientific thinking.

Now, you did mention in a previous post that you think that AGW is "at present undecided". Treating a matter you consider to be undecided as if it were a decided matter hardly seems like a good idea, because if it actually is undecided, then there's a chance that your view ends up being incorrect :2 cents:

and thats why most of the US folks think it aint happening at all ... heck, 30yrs ago when it was close to december, we kids were dashing and wading thru deep snow in northern germany ... and now? its fucking over 10°C/50°F! no warming? :disgust

lol, but some even believe in GODS CREATION ... boooo ... RIP GOD - VIVA LA EVULOCION!

Ya its such a threat. Im just as far south as you, and I have yet to put on my "ozone" protection suit before going out... :1orglaugh Where was that "hole" in the ozone layer again?

I am done talking to you on this. All you are doing is taking key statements in my posts and taking them out of context. If what you just said was true then why did I add this at the end of my post?
I say there is more data for these events being cyclical rather than man made RIGHT NOW. See what I highlighted in red? By your very post that I quoted, I HAVE come to my OWN conclusion based on evidence I have collected. Just because I use the word believe does not equate my rationale to backwards religious zealotry. I am an amateur but I can point you towards MANY MANY scientists who believe the EXACT same thing.

If I see other evidence to the contrary I will change my views and opinions, just as all others will. I have no problem with that. I am well aware of the changing nature of theories. I have seen some new evidence lately that may force me to reconsider but as things stand today I am unchanged in my views.

I am sorry you seem to be offended that I have a differing opinion than yours.

The post in which you mentioned that you support an end to pollution also mentions that you do not consider CO2 a pollutant. And it mentions that we should NOT try to curb CO2 emissions, and that we should NOT try to stop global warming.

That certainly gives the impression that you consider global warming to be something that is not "at present undecided", but rather something that is clear as daylight.

Well maybe I didn't make myself clear or you didn't gather what I was saying. CO2 is a naturally occurring gas in our atmosphere that in and of itself is NOT a pollutant. I made no mention of emissions and if I had I have seen studies the contradict one another. 1. We are not producing anymore CO2 than what is normal and 2. We are emitting far more than what is normal.

If we tried to abolish all CO2 in our world and atmosphere we would cause more harm than having to much. We NEED CO2 in out atmosphere. Again, I said nothing about curbing emissions.

You act as though I am one of those saying man could NEVER have a negative effect on his environment. I never said that.

But nobody's talking about abolishing all CO2 emissions including the natural ones... if only because that's absolutely impossible.

Though, I guess, half a billion square miles of saran wrap could go a long way... hmmm.

But back on topic, it is an absolute certainty that we are releasing far more CO2 than is normal. You don't even need any studies for that (though there are many out there), just some common sense: there are billions of metric tons of CO2 stored in the petroleum, natural gas and coal we burn each year. By burning that stuff, we release the CO2 into the atmosphere. Meanwhile, it took various organisms many millions of years to die off and thereby store their carbon underground in the form of coal, oil and natural gas.

You have it exactly backward. The consequences of taking drastic action will be so economically crippling (and will cause untold amounts of human suffering in the third world) that to take such drastic and economically suicidal measures we would have to be absolutely certain that we had no other choice.

I've said it before. Him, StickyGreen and CamGirls should have group therapy sessions. Unfortunately they'll probably devolve into a "crazy-off" to see who can out crazy the others.

It is not absolutely certain... it's certain that we release it, it's not certain that we 'add' to the volume, that's a theory. The growth in global co2 levels does not match any part what humans contribute... our contribution is minor in the scale in growth.

Let me give you an overview of some of the provable/backed research...


10,000's of year process of ice melting, the suns job, creating more co2 from warming up naturally, brought on the the freezing event of 1700's which crippled part of the northern hemisphere. A massive ice-damn melted flooded the oceans with fresh water, moving currents, warm into cold water, creating yet even more co2.

You can see this on every single Co2 chart produced in the world. World Co2 levels drop, due to the massive freeze the world wide temp's dropped. (why ours were already down) Exactly as the temp's started to increase and ice started to melt "again" the Co2 levels sky rocketed.

When you have ice melting, the sun can warm water, that produced more co2. When you mix ocean waters with fresh water, that moves ocean water. Mixing cold and warm currents, changing currents and putting warm water around ice. Making the entire process sky rocket in speed.


The end result..we are in a massive heating up phase on earth, a hot cycle. We aren't anywhere near what the temps were before the little ice age. This lowered Co2 levels an extreme amount... but the sun doesn't care, it continued to do it's job.



Human should focus on saving the Forests, food supplies, ocean foods, our local environments, and water.

Not Co2 levels.... which is impossible to slow down.

How do you compare discussing real current and past events along with the people behind them with thinking you are God, Adam, and whatever else.

Listen dumbfuck. If you don't think these people control information and such then tell me wise ass why has the majority of the US and most other places media pretty much had a complete and total blackout on this very subject? Either way you look at it it's collusion. 5 corporations own and operate directly or indirectly nearly every TV station, radio station, and Newspaper in the US and have for many years. Do you not see something wrong with that picture punk? Do you see how it is done?

That would be some scary shit...... my money is on StickyGreen....... assuming he can pull himself off of Stormfront long enough to participate. :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

zomg its a conspiracy involving thousands of people across the entire world that has never once been leaked! I see the error of my ways. I'll start getting my news exclusively from Alex Jones from now on!

:1orglaugh I have to agree with you on that one.

I don't just get info from Alex Jones. I get it from EVERYWHERE. That's the beauty of the internet. Give them time though. They'll take care of that for us.. They are working on it diligently.


NBC and CBS Researching Climategate; Still No Coverage [Proof]
http://politicallore.com/blog/?p=597