Major scandal; Now proven that the entire global warming threat is based on fabricated data

  • Thread starter Thread starter WinterWH
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Don_L said:
That is precisely of what you are pushing - ***the moral consequences of collectivist actions ***-all under the guise of climate control…
Click to expand...
This is far fectched, because the photos provide the evidence.
 
StAnastasia said:
Indeed, accompanied by education.
Click to expand...
What you call education, I see as indoctrination and it is fundamentally dishonest and relies upon deceit. Hardly a moral obligation to become one of its apostles. One if the calls Catholics received was to be as wise as serpents - not become one. Another is to wary of being deceive by those who would tickle our ears. The AGW religion doesn’t seem to have learned those admonitions.
 
Don_L said:
What you call education, I see as indoctrination and it is fundamentally dishonest and relies upon deceit. Hardly a moral obligation to become one of its apostles. One if the calls Catholics received was to be as wise as serpents - not become one. Another is to wary of being deceive by those who would tickle our ears. The AGW religion doesn’t seem to have learned those admonitions.
Click to expand...
What is your definition of education and what is your definition of indoctrination.
 
sidbrown said:
This is far fectched, because the photos provide the evidence.
Click to expand...
Does the photo show CO2 nibbling away at the edges; and if it doesn’t then what evidence does the photo show that CO2 is a problem?

Ender
 
sidbrown said:
What is your definition of education and what is your definition of indoctrination.
Click to expand...
As the Supreme Court Justice said about pornography - “I know it when I see it.”

But one example might be how the eco-left has infiltrated our school systems for decades to contaminate young minds (talk about morality)

I’ll humor your request and give but two examples of eco-indoctrination that Catholics ought to abhor and be fighting, not pushing this movement.

Fourth Grade Teacher’s Manual telling teachers to teach, “There is no difference between a boy a dog and a rat.” straight from the mouth of some sick eco-worshipper.

Then you might try the famous advertisement in the wall Street Journal a few years back which are the same thinking folks as those politicians pushing AGW which demanded the principle of bi-diversity where no living creature has any more value than another. You can’t get much more Satanic in demeaning the dignity and preciousness of humans, but 500 of most of the same eco-leftists you hear from today. (Kennedys etc) They never did say whether we should protect living viruses such as HIV, but the entire movement is designed to lower man -not raise other species. Thiink of multi-culturalism amongst species -no culture is better than another (take that you Christians)

I repeat -rational people see this stuff for what it is (anti-Christian leftist propaganda-tickled ears or not.)
 
StAnastasia said:
The people of the island of Tuvalu and other coral atolls – who are having to evacuate their ancestral homelands as they are inundated by rising sea levels…
Can we simply ignore the moral consequences of our collective actions?
Click to expand...
Sea levels have been steadily rising since the last ice age.
Man is no more responsible for the rise in sea levels then we are the spinning of the planet.
 
sidbrown said:
In other words, you don’t really know what the difference is between the two.
Click to expand...
You’d make a lousy lawyer. Why would an intellegent person ever respond seriously to such a transparent “gottcha” question?

I patiently described two examples of flagrant propaganda by the eco-left (there are gazillions more you must have seen and ignored) and you chose to ignore them and repeat your "gotccha"question.

After many decades of teaching children, I’ve learned when someone isn’t after the truth, and this thread has several.

Frankly I think this thread has exhausted all hopes of communication beyond ideology, and “he said, - she said” level debate, which will just not be shaken by truth and reason, so I’m done trying to convince anyone of the obvious.
 
Don_L said:
You’d make a lousy lawyer. Why would an intellegent person ever respond seriously to such a transparent “gottcha” question?

I patiently described two examples of flagrant propaganda by the eco-left (there are gazillions more you must have seen and ignored) and you chose to ignore them and repeat your "gotccha"question.

After many decades of teaching children, I’ve learned when someone isn’t after the truth, and this thread has several.

Frankly I think this thread has exhausted all hopes of communication beyond ideology, and “he said, - she said” level debate, which will just not be shaken by truth and reason, so I’m done trying to convince anyone of the obvious.
Click to expand...
It is true that I am not a lawyer and I am not in the business of defending criminals. But this is beside the point. When a person makes an accusation of indoctrination and not education but then refuses to define what he means by the terms, why would it be out of order to say that the person may be speaking gibberish? It is difficult if not impossible to make sense out of someone’s argument if they themselves do not understand the terms which they are using or cannot communicate the meaning of those terms.
 
sidbrown said:
When a person makes an accusation of indoctrination and not education but then refuses to define what he means by the terms, why would it be out of order to say that the person may be speaking gibberish?
Click to expand...
Well, what would be your definition of this particular video; would you call it indoctrination or education? This is apparently the level to which the warming hysteria has sunk.

mediablips.dailyradar.com/video/actonco2-bedtime-stories-tv-advertisement-october-2009/

Ender
 
Ender said:
Well, what would be your definition of this particular video; would you call it indoctrination or education? This is apparently the level to which the warming hysteria has sunk.

mediablips.dailyradar.com/video/actonco2-bedtime-stories-tv-advertisement-october-2009/

Ender
Click to expand...
I am just a reader here who is trying to understand what people on this thread mean when they use those terms. I don’t know why I am being subject to personal attacks and accused of being a lousy lawyer. If you don’t want to define the terms that you are using, then it makes no sense to require a lousy lawyer to do so.
 
Carbon Scheme: Offset Your Jet-Set Lifestyle by Eliminating African Babies

"Population control groups have been using the hype surrounding the Copenhagen climate change conference to promote their solution to hypothetical impending environmental catastrophes. Earlier this month, two pieces appearing in the same edition of the Guardian revisited a report by Britain’s Optimum Population Trust (OPT) that suggests that people in wealthy first-world countries should “offset” the carbon cost of their jet-setting lifestyles by paying to prevent the births of poor children in the developing world.

"John Vidal, the Guardian’s environment editor, wrote that the OPT’s report suggesting a “radical” plan to cut carbon emissions was the “best bet” to reduce global warming trends. In August, the OPT issued a report claiming to have made a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis to work out exactly how much “carbon emission” a child born in the developing world costs.

“Vidal pointed to the claim in the OPT report that the 10 metric tons of carbon emitted by a single return flight from London to Sydney could be “offset” by “enabling the avoidance of one unwanted birth in a country such as Kenya.””

Continue reading this article at LifeSiteNews
 
Question;

Will Cap-and-trade solve global change? This is the only ] solution offered by the IPCC.

Herein lays the big danger.

You are attacking one small player, even if proved CO2 ].

Why are they attacking only CO2 as the culprit? I remind you, CO2 hasn’t been proven to be the culprit ]

Isn’t weather made-up of many variables? Example…cloud cover…evaporation…other greenhouse emissions…solar radiation…etc etc…in short natural accruing interactions.

What IPCC and CRU and people like Mr. Gore have done is to ignore / exclude ALL other variables. They have scared school children…they have crippled / hindered dissent and because of these practices…indoctrinated for their purposes.

Does anyone think for a minute that these funds will be used to the benifit of devloping countries? Oh I might agree some will…but the majority will line the pockets of those who don’t need it. The UN has a track record IMHO that has watched many suffer, be bruttalized and killed…i.e Where was the U.N.'s in the genocide in Rwanda? Lots of children being not only abused but killed. U.N.'s solution to world problems everywhere? IS Contraception. As I’ve linked here before the World Bank is teamed up with Global Enviromental Facility and is rated by an enviromentalist group here forestpeoples.org/documents/ifi_igo/gef/fpp_gef_briefing_aug06_eng.pdf
For illegal logging practices, no less.

It doesn’t take a scientist OR a lawyer. Common sense alone dictates their ill abused logic used in their actions of indoctrination to promote their agendas
 
This is some of the indoctrination
The report, published in August and titled, “Fewer Emitters, Lower Emissions, Less Cost: Reducing Future Carbon Emissions by Investing in Family Planning,” said that “family planning” is cheaper than low carbon technologies like windmill power generators and low-consumption light bulbs.
“Based on the study’s findings, it is proposed that family planning methods should be a primary tool in the optimum strategy for reducing carbon emissions,” the report said.
OPT insisted that **only “unwanted” children would be targeted for elimination **by the scheme that would provide artificial contraception to those who currently cannot obtain it.
The OPT scheme has been blasted, however, even by some on the far left, as a manifestation of a “crusade against the unique quality of human life” that typifies the environmentalist movement.
Frank Furedi, a secular humanist, author and professor of sociology at the University of Kent, and a noted climate change skeptic, minced no words in his assessment of the OPT’s suggested scheme.
Calling them a “zombie-like Malthusian organisation devoted to the cause of human depletion,” Furedi wrote in Spiked that he was shocked by the lack of outrage at the suggestion from humanists and religious leaders alike.
“There was a time when people who measured the value of human life through sombre calculations based on cost-benefit analyses were regarded with suspicion and contempt.”
“Why is it that, today, the provision of contraception can be promoted as a sensible way of reducing carbon emissions? How do we account for the silence of religious movements whose theology still upholds the unique status of human life?” Furedi added.
Click to expand...
lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/dec/09121404.html

As I’ve said before: Some will try to use Catholic / Christian stance on good stewardship and make it say AGW…No place has Holy Father said climate change is caused by Humans or CO2. BUT I DO NOT Question how He stands toward this nonsense IN the name of Carbon Credits.

If one part of the apple has a worm in it…do you keep eating it?
the worm here is pure evil IMHO ]

Ps thanks itinerant1
 
Andrew Bolt
Code: 
     Tuesday,  December 15, 2009 at 01:14pm
The old fraud gets caught out again spinning whoppers and misrepresenting the science:
*Mr Gore, speaking at the Copenhagen climate change summit, stated the latest research showed that the Arctic could be completely ice-free in five years. *
*In his speech, Mr Gore told the conference: “These figures are fresh. Some of the models suggest to Dr [Wieslav] Maslowski that there is a 75 per cent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years.” *
However, the climatologist whose work Mr Gore was relying upon dropped the former Vice-President in the water with an icy blast.
*“It’s unclear to me how this figure was arrived at,” Dr Maslowski said. “I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this.” *
Mr Gore’s office later admitted that the 75 per cent figure was one used by Dr Maslowksi as a “ballpark figure” several years ago in a conversation with Mr Gore.
This, by the way, is the third different date Gore has given for an ice-free Arctic as the ice stubbornly refuses to melt. His previous guesses were 2013 and 2014.
Why does anyone still believe a word this carpetbagger says?
Click to expand...
blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/gores_deceits_catch_up_with_him/
 
Andrew Bolt
Code: 
     Thursday,  October 29, 2009 at 08:47am
Two years ago Californian researchers warned the ice in the Arctic could vanish in 2012. Or thereabouts, agreed a NASA scientist. The US National Snow and Ice Data Centre claimed it could even be ice-free in 2008.
The Arctic ice in 2008 increased.
Oh. All right, so Al Gore in December 2008 adjusted his prediction of an ice-free Arctic to 2013:

Except the Arctic refreeze that winter was remarkably strong.
So early this year, Al Gore predicted the ice could vanish by 2014.
Yet the ice this year increased again.
Hmm. Britain’s Met Office now puts this catastrophism on ice - just for now:

Modelling of Arctic sea ice by the Met Office Hadley Centre climate model shows that ice invariably recovers from extreme events, and that the long-term trend of reduction is robust — with the first ice-free summer expected to occur between 2060 and 2080.
(This post has been updated with more links.)
UPDATE
Could the ABC’s* Four Corners *now update this scaremongering it perpetrated last year, when it warned “in 2012/13 we could have an ice-free Arctic”?
Click to expand...
blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/arctic_refuses_to_behave_predictions_adjusted/
 
The Arctic ice in 2008 increased.
Oh. All right, so Al Gore in December 2008 adjusted his prediction of an ice-free Arctic to 2013:
Click to expand...
Reminds me of those religious groups that set a date for the end of the world and then set a new one once the first one passes. :rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top