View Full Version : Oh really
Looks like the people who make money with with scaring children into loyal taxpayers have found a new aproach to preach DESTRUCTION BY CO2!!!!!11!!!
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/expect-more-extreme-winters-thanks-to-global-warming-say-scientists-2168418.html
It's possible of course, if human-made global warming existed, which it doesn't. But it can't be true as in 2010 Dutch kids won't know what snow is. It's in the schoolbooks of 2002 so it must be true.
In the meantime I had another ad hominum from these snowball-damiens.
hoax, just like acid rain
Tellos Athenaios
12-28-2010, 16:43
Except “acid rain” wasn't a hoax... :shrug:
Vladimir
12-28-2010, 16:49
Except “acid rain” wasn't a hoax... :shrug:
Yea. And chances are that the atmospheric sulphur which caused it also contributed to the global cooling scare. :shrug:
Tellos Athenaios
12-28-2010, 17:08
Yea. And chances are that the atmospheric sulphur which caused it also contributed to the global cooling scare. :shrug:
Eh? I think you've skipped a lesson or two in chemistry class there.
The Stranger
12-28-2010, 17:17
global warming brings ice age... nothing new melting under the sun.
Vladimir
12-28-2010, 17:43
Eh? I think you've skipped a lesson or two in chemistry class there.
Nope. That's the rationale for global cooling in the 70's.
Ironside
12-28-2010, 18:43
Eh? I think you've skipped a lesson or two in chemistry class there.
Has to do with particle content -> cloud formation.
Now they don't have the December data yet, but Fragony was november warmer or colder than normal?
linky. (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/) See the thing is that global doesn't mean local.
Tellos Athenaios
12-28-2010, 19:35
Nope. That's the rationale for global cooling in the 70's.
Oh, you mean you won't notice the difference between SO2 and H2SO4 ? How about HNO3?
Here's a hint: crack open a good, old, lead-acid battery (H2SO4). Compare it to freshly opened Château Migraine (SO2).
“Acid rain” certainly has a lot to do with particle content & cloud formation. However to write it (and thus the effects) off as a hoax smacks of living in blissful ignorance of some of the more obvious chemical properties of “acid rain”, nevermind how church restoration not uncommonly involves repairing damage from acids.
Global warming is a charade to scare the public, but the moooslims destroying our European way of life with their evil foreign-ness is a legitimate concern?
Louis VI the Fat
12-28-2010, 20:35
Before 1989, in Eastern Europe, entire forests dissapeared. Fish glowed green in the dark. Frogs had six, eight, thirteen legs. And the Politbureaus told the populace that nothing was going on, that there really wasn't an ecological disaster unfolding before their very eyes.
Eventually the people got sick of it, had a revolution, and started cleaning up.
Meanwhile in the West, corporations have discovered that the internets is full of useful idiots who will do their work for them. Buy some bogus science, send private eyes to rummage through the waste of real scientific institues until you find some inevitable sleaze, and voilà, you've bought yourself a few decades time to carry on with the pluder, the slash-and-burn capitalism. Sheer plunder. Or better yer, sheer socialism, in that the ecological costs are socialised.
Strangely, whenever some ecological disaster involves Chinese mining, or nine year old girls in India, or Communist practises, the disasters are believed to be true. When it concerns western corporations or governments, the unfolding disasters are invariably considered alarmist nonsense, leftists scaremongering.
Strangely, whenever some ecological disaster involves Chinese mining, or nine year old girls in India, or Communist practises, the disasters are believed to be true. When it concerns western corporations or governments, the unfolding disasters are invariably considered alarmist nonsense, leftists scaremongering.
Correct.
Global warming is a charade to scare the public, but the moooslims destroying our European way of life with their evil foreign-ness is a legitimate concern?
Where's my boring, ah there it is
@TA, yes acid rain was also a hoax, no such thing as acid rain ever existed. Not the kind that killed all the trees all life et moi in 2000 at least.
Flaggalants and clever lobbyists
HoreTore
12-29-2010, 00:50
Global warming is a charade to scare the public, but the moooslims destroying our European way of life with their evil foreign-ness is a legitimate concern?
It must be wonderful to know that one is always correct, and that everyone who disagrees with you only does so because he's stupid, ignorant, detached from reality or brainwashed....
That one wasn't directed at you, Idaho...if that wasn't obvious
It must be wonderful to know that one is always correct, and that everyone who disagrees with you only does so because he's stupid, ignorant, detached from reality or brainwashed....
That one wasn't directed at you, Idaho...if that wasn't obvious
Irony must be a hard loss
PanzerJaeger
12-29-2010, 06:30
Meanwhile in the West, corporations have discovered that the internets is full of useful idiots who will do their work for them. Buy some bogus science, send private eyes to rummage through the waste of real scientific institues until you find some inevitable sleaze, and vola, you've bought yourself a few decades time to carry on with the pluder, the slash-and-burn capitalism. Sheer plunder. Or better yer, sheer socialism, in that the ecological costs are socialised.
I wouldn't write off 'Climategate' so easily. It exposed some serious negligence by the people providing the primary data and analysis that are driving climate policies that effect economies and lives.
Crazed Rabbit
12-29-2010, 07:31
Buy some bogus science, send private eyes to rummage through the waste of real scientific institues until you find some inevitable sleaze, and voilà, you've bought yourself a few decades time to carry on with the pluder, the slash-and-burn capitalism. Sheer plunder.
"Slash and burn"? At a nearby refinery, they just finished applying for an air operating permit from the government. That's the standard permit for everyday operations. They already had one, they just needed to get it renewed.
It took them ten years.
(fulfilling all the requirements the government wanted, getting the data, revising, etc.)
So you should understand I take your fear mongering about corporations running rampant over the environment with two metric tons of salt.
And if the same people a few years ago claiming children wouldn't see snow in 2010 are now claiming that warming is causing blizzards, perhaps we shouldn't accept such claims blindly.
Nor is climategate trivial; it revealed the fudging of scientific data to push a political agenda.
CR
Slashing and burning, how about digging and mining. To make even 10% durable costs more than the earth has to offer. And oil isn't running out for a while (that was also a hoax, club of Rome)
edit: ROFL@Green party, according to these morally and intellectually superior carrotblitz-brigades terrace-heating should be VERBOTEN.
They are against 'warming up air'. Yes they actually said it. And this is not a religion gimme a break. Forgive me Gaia for I have consumed, watermelons, may look green but it's all red inside
InsaneApache
12-29-2010, 11:39
The warmists have been found out and they don't like it. A very hot summer? That's global warming. Three of the coldest winters on record? That's also global warming. Experiencing a drought? Proof of global warming. Flooding? Yep you guessed it, global warming.
Heads you win, tails I lose.
It's a scam. A rip off. A con trick.
It would be amusing if it wasn't having such a tragic effect on people. Here in the UK 30% of all fuel bills goes towards renewable energy. That's those windmills lads, the ones that actually suck electricity from the grid. It's estimated that upwards of 35, 000 people will freeze to death in the UK this winter. How many could have been saved if their fuel bills were reduced by 30%?
Then there's the hilarious retort that the science is settled. LMFAO. Science is never settled. Theories are discredited all the time. That's how it should be. Anything else is faith. Like the Great Pixie in the sky.
I understand the unwillingness to admit that you've been had. I too was conned along with the rest and it took me a long time to come to terms with it. I swallowed this guff for over twenty years.
Now I'm just as mad as hell at the bastards. :embarassed:
Governments love the issue because it provides a good excuse for more taxes, regulation and bureaucracy. Scientists love it because it provides grant money and subsidies, as well as fancy trips to exotic locales on someone else’s dime. Government bureaucrats love it for that too (actually, everyone involved loves it for that). Socialists love it because it shows the evils of capitalism. Environmentalists love it because it shows the evils of civilization. Religious leaders love it because it shows the evils of humanity. Statists love it because it seems to be a problem that can only be solved with a bigger state. Corporations love it because they can get government subsidies to pretend to invent “green” products that people can pretend will solve the non-existent problem. Guilt-ridden middle class liberals love it because it helps them to feel alive for a few brief moments before the emptiness returns. Celebrities love it because it gives them a feel good issue to advocate for in order to assuage their guilt over their own extreme wealth and lavish lifestyles. Pretty much every member of the political and intellectual class has a stake in this issue surviving, and so it probably will
Much more eloquent than I.
http://theemptiness.info/2010/12/happy-christmas-global-warming-is-over/
'Turning back halfway is better than getting lost completely' as we say here. But it does keeps amazing me how people gob these lies up. Must be the very young age at which it all starts, and the suffocating social control when an individual is in doubt
Fisherking
12-29-2010, 11:51
So what happened to the ozone hole?
Is everything all better now?
InsaneApache
12-29-2010, 12:08
So what happened to the ozone hole?
Is everything all better now?
There's not enough money in it. :book:
So what happened to the ozone hole?
Is everything all better now?
Not really, we are all going to die IF WE DON'T ACT RIGHT NOW after all
Ironside
12-29-2010, 12:48
And if the same people a few years ago claiming children wouldn't see snow in 2010 are now claiming that warming is causing blizzards, perhaps we shouldn't accept such claims blindly.
Nor is climategate trivial; it revealed the fudging of scientific data to push a political agenda.
CR
I agree on the top comment, since two years isn't enough for a trend (and NAO and AO has been heavily negative before). But I'm going to repeat that global temperature isn't the same as local temperature and recommend reading about the North Atlantic Ocillation (NAO) and the Artic Ocillation (AO).
This year still have a good shot of being the warmest year measured for example, see link above (NOAA got a very good homepage).
Slashing and burning, how about digging and mining. To make even 10% durable costs more than the earth has to offer. And oil isn't running out for a while (that was also a hoax, club of Rome)
Cheap oil is running out. And you can check out the area around fort MacKay to see what the best replacement does. Those lakes are poisonous wastewater btw.
Edit:
Thanks to reduced emissions, the ozone hole no longer increasing and if current emission decrease still ongoing, the non-polar parts of the ozone layer decrease will be back to pre 1980 levels in about 2050. The hole itself is expected to last much longer.
If you're to throw out this stuff, you could at least read about it.
Like acid rain, that Greek marble has been more affected by acid rain in the last 100 years, than the more than 2000 years before it, is no sign at all that acid rain is real. Calcination of lakes to prevent them from dying was done by the big metal hand in the sky before now obviously, since the lakes would've been dead otherwise.
It would be amusing if it wasn't having such a tragic effect on people. Here in the UK 30% of all fuel bills goes towards renewable energy. That's those windmills lads, the ones that actually suck electricity from the grid. It's estimated that upwards of 35, 000 people will freeze to death in the UK this winter. How many could have been saved if their fuel bills were reduced by 30%?
Nothing to do with Climate Change. It is the privatization of the energy companies and them constantly trying to suck the money out of the population, by constantly rising prices while experiencing massive profits. It isn't anything to do with renewable energy either, since their biggest excuse is the price of oil.
HoreTore
12-29-2010, 15:35
....and how many could've been saved not just this winter, but all year long, if their income was increased by 30%?
But nah, let's not go for the obvious solution and give the poor more money.... Let's lower one of their expenses instead, while we increase the others, that way it'll look like we're doing something to help, thus giving us a clear conscience, while we don't have to raise their standard of living one bit. Yeah, that's what we should do!
InsaneApache
12-29-2010, 16:19
Nothing to do with Climate Change. It is the privatization of the energy companies and them constantly trying to suck the money out of the population, by constantly rising prices while experiencing massive profits. It isn't anything to do with renewable energy either, since their biggest excuse is the price of oil.
No it isn't. It's government policy. Do some research.
....and how many could've been saved not just this winter, but all year long, if their income was increased by 30%?
But nah, let's not go for the obvious solution and give the poor more money.... Let's lower one of their expenses instead, while we increase the others, that way it'll look like we're doing something to help, thus giving us a clear conscience, while we don't have to raise their standard of living one bit. Yeah, that's what we should do!
You should go on the stage, you're a laugh a minute. :laugh4:
HoreTore
12-29-2010, 16:26
How will reducing fuel bills by 30% stop a homeless man from freezing to death under a bridge?
How will reducing fuel bills by 30% stop a homeless man from freezing to death under a bridge?
You offering him a place to sleep perhaps, but such humanity is strictly theory no. I actually do that
HoreTore
12-29-2010, 16:49
You offering him a place to sleep perhaps, but such humanity is strictly theory no. I actually do that
There are no homeless people where I live, I don't have the opportunity...
Socialist paradise and all that ya know ~;)
InsaneApache
12-29-2010, 16:49
How will reducing fuel bills by 30% stop a homeless man from freezing to death under a bridge?
Are you serious? :inquisitive:
If he's homeless he won't have any bills to pay. Honestly. :dizzy2:
HoreTore
12-29-2010, 16:52
Are you serious? :inquisitive:
If he's homeless he won't have any bills to pay. Honestly. :dizzy2:
.....yes...... that was kinda the point....so......how does your proposal to slash fuel bills by 30% do anything to prevent a homeless guy from freezing to death then?
Wouldn't it make a lot more sense to provide him with a place to live so he doesn't have to freeze to death outside?
There are no homeless people where I live, I don't have the opportunity...
Socialist paradise and all that ya know ~;)
Oh really, never saw so many homeless as I did in Norway, parks are packed with junkies at night, don't you go there
HoreTore
12-29-2010, 17:40
Oh really, never saw so many homeless as I did in Norway, parks are packed with junkies at night, don't you go there
I don't live in Oslo, so no.
I don't live in Oslo, so no.
Got a private socialist paradise?
InsaneApache
12-29-2010, 18:01
.....yes...... that was kinda the point....so......how does your proposal to slash fuel bills by 30% do anything to prevent a homeless guy from freezing to death then?
Wouldn't it make a lot more sense to provide him with a place to live so he doesn't have to freeze to death outside?
Talk about missing the point spectacularly......:juggle2:
HoreTore
12-29-2010, 18:01
Got a private socialist paradise?
Norway is a bit more than just the capital, even though it may not look like it all the time...
Norway is a bit more than just the capital, even though it may not look like it all the time...
I know, lotsa trees, and homeless people. Better dental-care would allow them to eat them
HoreTore
12-29-2010, 18:30
I know, lotsa trees, and homeless people. Better dental-care would allow them to eat them
And all the homeless people(or drug addicts, as they're more commonly known) go to Oslo, where they have a couple of spots to hang out at.
Where I live, there are still no homeless people.
Oh, and a few of the illegal immigrants are homeless too of course, those who could've been a resource to society instead of being forced into hiding, but that's another debate.
And all the homeless people(or drug addicts, as they're more commonly known) go to Oslo, where they have a couple of spots to hang out at.
Where I live, there are still no homeless people.
Oh, and a few of the illegal immigrants are homeless too of course, those who could've been a resource to society instead of being forced into hiding, but that's another debate.
Yeah it really is. Never been to Oslo by the way, only been to Bergen, sounds like I should keep things like that
HoreTore
12-29-2010, 18:58
Yeah it really is. Never been to Oslo by the way, only been to Bergen, sounds like I should keep things like that
Bergen isn't part of Norway.
Bergen isn't part of Norway.
Yes it is, second biggest city, thought Norway was more than just the capital you said so
HoreTore
12-29-2010, 19:11
Yes it is, second biggest city, thought Norway was more than just the capital you said so
It is bigger than just Oslo, but Bergen still isn't a part of it... Check your atlas. And if it says its a part of Norway, they're FILTHY LIARS!!!!
It is bigger than just Oslo, but Bergen still isn't a part of it... Check your atlas. And if it says its a part of Norway, they're FILTHY LIARS!!!!
Not lying about it being in Norway though, but when it comes to stubborn denial there's a Swedish in everyone I guess.
HoreTore
12-29-2010, 19:28
Not lying about it being in Norway though, but when it comes to stubborn denial there's a Swedish in everyone I guess.
LIES!!!!!!
Though I salute your attempt to ease the situation with some good old fashioned swede-bashing ~:)
LIES!!!!!!
Though I salute your attempt to ease the situation with some good old fashioned swede-bashing ~:)
Bashing Sweden is the duty of every sane person. But Bergen is still in Norway.
HoreTore
12-29-2010, 19:47
Bashing Sweden is the duty of every sane person. But Bergen is still in Norway.
That's like saying Estonia is part of Spain. Just plain wrong...
Fisherking
12-29-2010, 20:29
I am sure there are large numbers of Norwegians who would disagree with you.
HoreTore
12-29-2010, 23:15
I am sure there are large numbers of Norwegians who would disagree with you.
Then they would be either ignorant, liars or irrelevant.
All true Norwegians will agree. ~;)
Sigurd is from Bergen.
Sigurd is way more of a viking than HoreTore.
-> Bergen is in Norway!
HoreTore
12-30-2010, 08:51
Sigurd is from Bergen.
Sigurd is way more of a viking than HoreTore.
-> Bergen is in Norway!
The Danes and Swedes were also Vikings, yet neither Stockholm nor Copenhagen is part of Norway.
Your argument is flawed. Bergen still isn't part of Norway. Something most people from Bergen will agree to, btw...
What is this Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Iceland and Finland stuff? I thought I got rid of them by uniting Scandinavia ten thousand times or so in EU3.
HoreTore
12-30-2010, 09:22
What is this Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Iceland and Finland stuff? I thought I got rid of them by uniting Scandinavia ten thousand times or so in EU3.
Now you're just trying to get me mad.................
Now you're just trying to get me mad.................
Since Iceland was historically owned by both Norway and Denmark, and Finland was owned by Sweden, I would argue they are part of Scandinavia. These areas were also controlled by 'Scandinavia' during the Kalmar Union as well.
Everybody always forget poor Greenland, I mean it isn't THAT small, just kinda cold and barren. Like Norway
Everybody always forget poor Greenland, I mean it isn't THAT small, just kinda cold and barren. Like Norway
Greenland is not independent, it is controlled by Denmark (though has some autonomous control). It would be saying "What about the Faroe islands?"
Fisherking
12-30-2010, 13:21
@ HoreTore
So, tell us, to whom dose Bergen belong?
I am assuming that you say they are not Norwegian because they talk funny. Their official written language is Nynorsk instead of Bokmål but they don't quite speak either and it is sort of an odd brand of Norsk they use.
But if they aren't Norwegian then who should get the taxes?
Everybody always forget poor Greenland, I mean it isn't THAT small, just kinda cold and barren. Like Norway
Just not as cold as here these days, at least not in southern Greenland.
Ironside
12-30-2010, 18:39
Just not as cold as here these days, at least not in southern Greenland.
Well, your heat had to go somewhere. It's slighly more concentrated towards the Hudson Bay area though. Funny weather page (http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/composites/day/), if a bit unstable.
HoreTore
12-30-2010, 18:48
@ HoreTore
So, tell us, to whom dose Bergen belong?
Don't care, so long as they're not a part of Norway... Give it to the Jews.
I am assuming that you say they are not Norwegian because they talk funny. Their official written language is Nynorsk instead of Bokmål but they don't quite speak either and it is sort of an odd brand of Norsk they use.
Wrong on every count.... Nice try though. Their dialect is but one of their crimes against humanity, there's no such thing as an "official written language" as that would be illegal and like everywhere else most people use bokmål and their dialect isn't any weirder than most other dialects.
Since Iceland was historically owned by both Norway and Denmark, and Finland was owned by Sweden, I would argue they are part of Scandinavia. These areas were also controlled by 'Scandinavia' during the Kalmar Union as well.
Your "argument" is irrelevant, as the simple fact is that "Scandinavia" means "Norway, Sweden and Denmark". You're thinking of a different geographic region, called "The North"(norwegian: "Norden", sometimes "nordic countries"), which also includes Finland and Iceland. No point in "arguing" any further my friend, these are the facts.
Seamus Fermanagh
01-05-2011, 02:49
Horetore, can you comment on the English military's fascination with Bergen? Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bergen)
They seem to have "visited" a bit frequently for a place that's just a touch farther from Brighton than, say, Calais...
Your "argument" is irrelevant, as the simple fact is that "Scandinavia" means "Norway, Sweden and Denmark". You're thinking of a different geographic region, called "The North"(norwegian: "Norden", sometimes "nordic countries"), which also includes Finland and Iceland. No point in "arguing" any further my friend, these are the facts.
But the concept of Scandinavia came into existence when Finland and Iceland didn't exist and were owned by Sweden/Norway/Denmark. So those areas were under the control of the three powers.
Then if you go geographically speaking, only Norway and Sweden are on the Scandinavian peninsula. However, looking at the map, the area known as the Baltic Shield (Fennoscandinavia) looks "together" in the same way Britain does, the Iberian peninsula, Italian peninsula, etc.
Ultimately, common English usage of the term Scandinavia is the Nordic countries, for many different reasons and concepts.
HoreTore
01-05-2011, 13:01
Horetore, can you comment on the English military's fascination with Bergen? Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bergen)
They seem to have "visited" a bit frequently for a place that's just a touch farther from Brighton than, say, Calais...
Well the English government is keen on a friendly Norway due to our coastline being quite ideal to harrass England with, and Bergen is a major port on our west coast... Might be it?
But the concept of Scandinavia came into existence when Finland and Iceland didn't exist and were owned by Sweden/Norway/Denmark.
Wrong at the start. The "concept of Scandinavia" pre-dates our nation states by a milennium, the Romans were the ones who came up with it.
Ultimately, common English usage of the term Scandinavia is the Nordic countries, for many different reasons and concepts.
Then the english language is wrong, plain and simple. It isn't common usage in any of the correct languagues, ie. Norwegian, Swedish or Danish.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.