Global Warming: Ten Facts and Ten Myths on Climate Change

[El Nino]

Copenhagen and Global Warming:

Ten Facts and Ten Myths on Climate Change

http://alethonews.wordpress.com/2009/12/09/copenhagen-and-global-warming-ten-facts-and-ten-myths-on-climate-change/

[Rogers]

Copenhagen and Global Warming:

Ten Facts and Ten Myths on Climate Change

http://alethonews.wordpress.com/2009/12/09/copenhagen-and-global-warming-ten-facts-and-ten-myths-on-climate-change/

FACTS

Nos 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9 and 10 are all straw men to the man-made climate change debate. Please try and understand what an informal fallacy is, El Nino. It will help your ability to debate here immensely.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

No2 Using a disproven argument is tantamount to LYING, El Nino. The satellite data was wrong because their orbits had changed and this had not been taken into account in the calculations.
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309068916&page=2

No6 Carter works for this right-wing think-tank:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_of_Public_Affairs
He's in no position to accuse anyone of being political, unless he's a hypocrite.

MYTHS

It's a MYTH that scientists are saying Nos 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, and 10 in the first place. LMAOOOOO!

Nos 5 and 6 are also straw men.

[Rogers]

Climate change: A guide for the perplexed
"Our planet's climate is anything but simple. All kinds of factors influence it, from massive events on the Sun to the growth of microscopic creatures in the oceans, and there are subtle interactions between many of these factors."
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462

Climate myths: Assessing the evidence
"Truth is the first casualty of war. As the political battle over climate change has heated up, so has the propaganda campaign. On one side, green activists sometimes exaggerate claims about the possible consequences of global warming. On the other, sceptics seize upon anything that appears to suggest that climate change is not happening, is not due to human emissions, or will not be a problem."
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11637

[El Nino]

Rogers, The climate is always changing... always has and always will... long before man and long after. CO2 is a life giving compound and it's abundance is key to vegetation proliferation (Key component in the photosynthesis equation). If you think a bunch of hack politicians (by imposing additional taxes and making the cost of living more expensive), can alter the ocean currents, decrease the severity of storms, control the variations of solar intensity, etc.... you are pipedreaming. It's a political scam and you seem to be a victim. Science and politics/government are more tied together now than they ever have been, unfortunately. Do not think that they are somehow inseperable. They are using the same M.O. as they do to rally public opinion into war (Fear-Mongering, essentially).

Read the following article and get a grip on the real agenda, which is attempting to be implemented by a modern, global corporatocracy.

http://alethonews.wordpress.com/2009/12/19/the-world-bank%E2%80%99s-carbon-trade-fiasco/

[El Nino]

Al Gore Refuses to debate this scientist!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2zaPCYgovg

[hippifried]

We can't control vulcanism, & shouldn't be messing around trying to. The same goes for the natural gaia effects on climate change. We also can't stop an asteroid or comet from slamming into the earth if we should be so unlucky before we develop the technology to do so.

What we can do is control our own actions. Even if there was any credence to the deniers' claims, fighting the desire & willingness to clean up our act is a counterproductive disservice to mankind. Does anybody really think it's a good idea to keep pumping crap into the air?

[El Nino]

I agree with you here, Hippi. We should focus on REAL environmental problems that we contribute significantly to... and there are a bunch. Not fall for this Carbon scam, which is overtly corporately driven

[hippifried]

Al Gore Refuses to debate this scientist!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2zaPCYgovg
Al Gore's not a "scientist" per se'. He's an organizer. He's doing a pretty good job at it. If anybody wants to take him on, all they have to do is develop a more powerful organization to promote their ideas or lack of them.

As for the YouTube "scientist": The deniers haven't been able to pass the peer review at all. Who cares about some yokel trying to sell a book?

[El Nino]

Youtube didn't appoint him his credentials, man. Youtube is just an outlet, like it can be for any person. Debate the content of what he speaks of if you are trying to make a point. Regardless, Al Gore (the multi-millionaire grand organizer) won't debate Monckton. Gore is a corporate tool and bases his side of the argument on highly selective 'fluff'!

[hippifried]

Monckton doesn't have any credentials. There's no content either. That whole interview is just a bunch of whining because the people who have credentials aren't giving him a platform to sell whatever it is he's selling.

[El Nino]

He certainly does have credentials. The only thing he is selling is an idea... An alternative idea that stands in opposition, and that is critical of the theory of anthropogenic causes for climate change.

As this graph demonstrates:
http://eclipptv.com/viewVideo.php?video_id=9104

[hippifried]

He doesn't have an idea. He's just a parrot & a tool of those uber-rich corporations you keep whining about.

[El Nino]

http://ilovecarbondioxide.com/2009/12/food-for-thought.html

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/12/18/terence-corcoran-a-2-000-page-epic-of-science-and-skepticism-part-1.aspx

[hippifried]

For somebody that incessently chides everybody else to "do the research!", you sure don't take any time to check out your sources Nino.

[El Nino]

Nice personal pissing match, bro

[hippifried]

It's not personal.

You just don't know what you're talking about.

[El Nino]

Sure thing Hippi, whatever YOU say!

[El Nino]

No one in the world exercised more influence on the events leading up to the Copenhagen conference on global warming than Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and mastermind of its latest report in 2007.

Although Dr Pachauri is often presented as a scientist (he was even once described by the BBC as “the world’s top climate scientist”), as a former railway engineer with a PhD in economics he has no qualifications in climate science at all.

What has also almost entirely escaped attention, however, is how Dr Pachauri has established an astonishing worldwide portfolio of business interests with bodies which have been investing billions of dollars in organisations dependent on the IPCC’s policy recommendations.

These outfits include banks, oil and energy companies and investment funds heavily involved in ‘carbon trading’ and ‘sustainable technologies’, which together make up the fastest-growing commodity market in the world, estimated soon to be worth trillions of dollars a year.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/6847227/Questions-over-business-deals-of-UN-climate-change-guru-Dr-Rajendra-Pachauri.html