Radical Environmentalism: Now Global Warming Causes Prostitution?

[kimmielittle]

chamber of the deniers.

The very theory of AGW - MMGW - says what to us?
IMHO
In an attempt to prove their theory - they have to leave out God - and for nature lovers, Nature - in their equations The sole agent has to be Human - thus they can not promote AGW - MMGW without excluding or diminishing both, God and or, Nature’s contributions.

Now, they may look like they are including them - but they use them only to facilitate their MMGW. theories…The Name alone Man Made Global Warming - Anthropomorphic Global Warming …speaks volumes as to what exactly is being denied.

As always, just my thoughts

 

[Monte_RCMS]

AND THEN, we have the little matter of scientific fraud.

At least 30 numbered examples of fakery.

ONE example of fraud in science is enough to condemn man made global warming to the dustheap of history.

With 30 examples, we’re talking about jail time, multiple felonies. LIFE imprisonment.

 

[kimmielittle]

Did you know that Global Warming causes indigestion among primates?

news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/01/100111-global-warming-indigestion-monkeys-gorillas/

It can supposedly be at the root of whatever ails you.

health.usnews.com/health-news/articles/2008/09/15/10-ways-global-warming-could-hurt-your-health.html

Global Warming is also causing more violent crime. So criminals will have a new defense. “It wasn’t my fault, Judge. The Global Warming made me do it.”

www.newswise.com/articles/iowa-state-researchers-present-study-on-how-global-climate-change-affects-violence

But what we really know is that Global Warming causes all the world’s problems.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLxicwiBQ7Q

Thank you for these

On the Primates…maybe they will have to do as their ancestors did …Migrate

news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/08/060802-primates.html

An ancient period of global warming spurred the world’s first primates to spread from Asia to North America, new research shows.

I’ve always wanted a Captain Jack Monkey

 

[Monte_RCMS]

There is also some good new stuff on

www.wattsupwiththat.com

And also

www.sepp.org

where there is the TWTW newsletter, reporting on the Chicago meeting last week.

I’ll be dipped if I can find the link to THIS WEEK’s TWTW, [which will appear next week on www.sepp.org] This week’s came to me by email. You can sign up.

But, here is just the intro part from this week’s. I omitting the links to like 76 of the reports.

Whatever.
THIS WEEK:
By Ken Haapala, Executive Vice President, Science and Environmental Policy Project

The Fourth International Conference on Climate Change held by the Heartland Institute ended Tuesday. The conference featured 74 speakers on a diversity of topics relating to climate change. Perhaps Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT summed up the results of the conference best. He said we should no longer be called skeptics. Skepticism implies an existence of a plausible scientific position. Global warming alarmism is no longer plausible.

Not everyone agrees as to the causes of the recent warming, which is as developing science should be. However, over the four conferences there seems to be a direction of convergence in ideas. One, the IPCC’s assumptions that increasing water vapor will amplify carbon dioxide-caused warming is wrong. The temperature change from a doubling of carbon dioxide is likely to be no more than 1 degree Celsius. Two, the IPCC models likely have causation as related to clouds backwards – lack of clouds causes warming not the other way around. Three, natural variations of the climate system that are ignored by the IPCC are important to climate change. An example is the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. Also, natural variations may be influenced by changes external to the earth, such as solar activity and cosmic radiation. Not everyone agrees as to the extent of external influences.

Also coming from different directions, the work of Lindzen, Spencer, and others indicates that the climate system has a negative feedback mechanism – a dampening effect on carbon dioxide-caused warming rather than suggest are suggesting that a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide will produce a warming of no more than 0.5 degrees Celsius, well within natural variation.

The work of a number of scientists, such as Don Easterbrook, suggests we are entering into a cold period. If so, there is significant reason to be concerned. The work of climate pioneer HH Lamb demonstrated that cold periods are harmful to mankind and warm periods are generally beneficial.

There is much to be learned, such as what causes El Niños similar to the one that now appears to be ending? The El Niño caused the global temperatures of the first part of the year, as measured from satellites, to be significantly warmer than normal. Of course, alarmists will claim that this warming is “proof” of human-caused global warming. However, the IPCC rejects the idea that El Niños cause warming; thus such claims by alarmists contradict the IPCC. Ian Plimer speculates that El Niños may be caused by undersea volcanoes, which certainly is intriguing.

If governments would only get away from the egocentric view that humans are the cause of climate change, we may begin to understand the actual causes and be able to adapt to changes as Lamb so hoped.

The proceedings of the full conference are being posted on the web site of the Heartland Institute, heartland.org/. It is well worth a visit or several visits to listen to illuminating lectures on issues relating to climate change.

---

 

[Monte_RCMS]

I had to shorten it; here’s the rest of what I cut.

And don’t forget that there are bunches of links also that there just wasn’t room for.

But check back next week and the whole TWTW will be on the www.sepp.org web page

---

Just in time to support the Kerry-Lieberman Cap and Tax bill, the National Academy of Sciences published three reports advocating action on global warming. This is a dangerous step for the Academy because if it is wrong, and the earth cools, it is likely the Academy will significantly lose the trust of the American public. The reports are referenced below, and the science to justify them will be discussed in future issues of TWTW.

The Kerry-Lieberman bill is the topic in several articles below. As discussed in last week’s TWTW, the Kerry web site says, in effect, that the revenues raised by the bill with have three cuts. The first cut goes to the green industry, the second cut to the Federal Government for deficit reduction, and the final cut to the consumer. An article on the bill from the Wall Street Journal is reproduced below as well as a rebuttal from Senators Kerry and Lieberman. Strangely, the good Senators fail to mention the cut to the Federal Government.

As mentioned in prior TWTWs, the most powerful lobbying group pushing for Cap and Tax is USCAP, an alliance of Big Business and Big Green – large non-profit organizations claiming an environmental agenda. The IRS requires all non-profits to file a form 990 stating, among other things, total revenues. Forbes published a list of the 200 largest charities in the US for 2009. Of these, five are members of USCAP. In descending order by revenues in the Forbes list they are: The Nature Conservancy, World Wildlife Fund, Environmental Defense Fund, Natural Resources Defense Council, and National Wildlife Federation. Their total revenues in 2009 exceeded $1,500,000,000 ($1.5 Billion).
forbes.com/lists/2009/14/charity-09_The-200-Largest-U.S.-Charities_Name_8.html

---

Yesterday was the final day to respond to EPA’s announcement for public comment on its plans to address “ocean acidification.” SEPP recommended that: “EPA should do nothing. The science is misleading, inadequate, and any actions based on it are most likely to be destructive and wrong.” Lowering a chemical solution with a pH between 7.9 and 8.2 by 0.2 does not acidify it but merely lessens its alkalinity.

Last week, TWTW carried an excerpt of the testimony by John Everett to a joint Senate hearing on the subject. Dr. Everett stated that hydrochloric acid and other acids were used to mimic dissolved carbon dioxide in tests studying the possible effects of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide. He kindly provided SEPP with specific references. Such procedures were used in both laboratory and field experiments. Indeed, the April 15, 2009 EPA announcement requesting supporting data for its hypothesis referenced tests using such procedures.

Natural rain water contains dissolved carbon dioxide and has a pH of about 5.6. Apparently, EPA would have Americans believe that during a drought they can water their gardens with hydrochloric acid with a pH of 5.6 to mimic the effect of rain.

SEPP also recommended that to properly apply the scientific method, EPA should solicit research challenging its hypothesis, not research supporting it.

---

Several articles referred to below discuss the status of Virginia Attorney General Cuccinelli’s demand to the University of Virginia to produce documents relating to the work of Michael Mann while at the University. Apparently, Cuccinelli has agreed to extend the deadline to July 26 as well as reduce the scope of the demand. We shall see what follows.

---

Finally on a bright note, a Federal judge in California has injected a modicum of sanity to Federal water allocations in the Central Valley. Judge Wanger ruled that federal regulators must consider the impact of their regulations on human communities. This will not bring the thousands of acres of dead orchards back to life but the orchards, fallow farmland, and extremely high unemployment serve as a reminder of the cruelty and inhumanity of certain “green” regulations. Please see the article “Water Sanity For Central California” below.

---

[SEPP Correction: last week we incorrectly called the Domesday Book, the Doomsday Book. Perhaps this error was caused a psychological aversion to tax records.]

---

 

[kimmielittle]

There is also some good new stuff on

www.wattsupwiththat.com

And also

www.sepp.org

where there is the TWTW newsletter, reporting on the Chicago meeting last week.

I’ll be dipped if I can find the link to THIS WEEK’s TWTW, [which will appear next week on http://www.sepp.org%5D”]www.sepp.org]

This week’s came to me by email. You can sign up.

But, here is just the intro part from this week’s. I omitting the links to like 76 of the reports.

Whatever.
THIS WEEK:
By Ken Haapala, Executive Vice President, Science and Environmental Policy Project

The Fourth International Conference on Climate Change held by the Heartland Institute ended Tuesday. The conference featured 74 speakers on a diversity of topics relating to climate change. Perhaps Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT summed up the results of the conference best. He said we should no longer be called skeptics. Skepticism implies an existence of a plausible scientific position. Global warming alarmism is no longer plausible.

Not everyone agrees as to the causes of the recent warming, which is as developing science should be. However, over the four conferences there seems to be a direction of convergence in ideas. One, the IPCC’s assumptions that increasing water vapor will amplify carbon dioxide-caused warming is wrong. The temperature change from a doubling of carbon dioxide is likely to be no more than 1 degree Celsius. Two, the IPCC models likely have causation as related to clouds backwards – lack of clouds causes warming not the other way around. Three, natural variations of the climate system that are ignored by the IPCC are important to climate change. An example is the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. Also, natural variations may be influenced by changes external to the earth, such as solar activity and cosmic radiation. Not everyone agrees as to the extent of external influences.

Also coming from different directions, the work of Lindzen, Spencer, and others indicates that the climate system has a negative feedback mechanism – a dampening effect on carbon dioxide-caused warming rather than suggest are suggesting that a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide will produce a warming of no more than 0.5 degrees Celsius, well within natural variation.

The work of a number of scientists, such as Don Easterbrook, suggests we are entering into a cold period. If so, there is significant reason to be concerned. The work of climate pioneer HH Lamb demonstrated that cold periods are harmful to mankind and warm periods are generally beneficial.

There is much to be learned, such as what causes El Niños similar to the one that now appears to be ending? The El Niño caused the global temperatures of the first part of the year, as measured from satellites, to be significantly warmer than normal. Of course, alarmists will claim that this warming is “proof” of human-caused global warming. However, the IPCC rejects the idea that El Niños cause warming; thus such claims by alarmists contradict the IPCC. Ian Plimer speculates that El Niños may be caused by undersea volcanoes, which certainly is intriguing.

If governments would only get away from the egocentric view that humans are the cause of climate change, we may begin to understand the actual causes and be able to adapt to changes as Lamb so hoped.

The proceedings of the full conference are being posted on the web site of the Heartland Institute, heartland.org/. It is well worth a visit or several visits to listen to illuminating lectures on issues relating to climate change.

---

AMEN

 

[kimmielittle]

From one of the links
Think-Tank Says Trained Chimp Can Predict Hurricanes Better Than NOAA… And Puts it to the Test

“NOAA’s forecasts have been wrong not because of a lack of dedication or competence of its forecast team, but because climate science is really still its infancy,” said Amy Ridenour, president of The National Center for Public Policy Research. “We should remember this as we consider whether to adopt economically-ruinous caps on energy. If we can’t rely on 6-month forecasts, how can rely on forecasts of what rising carbon concentrations will do to our climate 25, 50 or even 100 years out?”
The National Center for Public Policy Research is also issuing a challenge to NOAA.“If, at the end of the hurricane season, Dr. Hansimian’s forecast turns out to be more accurate than NOAA’s, we challenge the agency to make him an honorary member of NOAA’s hurricane specialists unit,” said David Ridenour. “In return, if NOAA’s forecast is more accurate, we’ll include a prominently-displayed mea culpa on our website.”

wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/18/think-tank-says-trained-chimp-can-predict-hurricanes-better-than-noaa%E2%80%A6-and-puts-it-to-the-test/

 

[lynnvinc]

Someone wrote about water vapor being the most signif GHG, and that is right, except it is a feedback, bec wv molecules only last a few days in the atmosphere. CO2 generally lasts about 100 yrs, and a portion of it can last up to 100,000 yrs in the atmosphere, making it a forcing, not a feedback.

So the CO2 and other forcing GHGs cause warming, and the warm air then can hold more wv – it sucks out the water from water bodies, plants & soils, leading to drought and potential wildfire hazard. But bec there is so much wv in the atmosphere, this leads also to extreme precipitation events and potential flooding. So you could have drought and flooding.

Now CO2 and methane (CH4) can also be dangerous feedbacks, as well. The warming melts ice in the land (permafrost) and sea (hydrates), which then release vast stores of methane and carbon. CH4 last in the atmosphere about 10 yrs, before it degrades to CO2 and other substances, but it is 23 times a more potent GHG than CO2. So the rapidity of the triggering warming we are now causing – much much faster than in the past – is also a very dangerous factor. If enough CH4 gets released within a 10 year period, it can have a very great amplifying affect on the warming, causing more CH4 release, causing more warming, and so on. We may be pulling the trigger on gun that wipes out either a very large portion of life on earth, or if runaway warming as on venus kicks in (due to the solar irradiance being greater than it was in past great warmings on earth), then that would be the end of all life on earth.

When you think about the apocalypse. the Bible sort of indicates we sinful people are the ones to bring it on…so this all sort of fits with the Bible. However, we do have a choic to do good, if we so wish. It’s up to us…

 

[kimmielittle]

Apocalyptic thinking.

The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of History. Here’s the description from The Lucifer Principle:

"In the late 1940’s, the German researcher F. Steiniger put fifteen brown rats who had never met each other into a cage. At first the creatures cowered in the corners, frightened and apprehensive. If they accidentally bumped into each other, they bared their teeth and snapped. Gradually, however, it dawned on some of the males that among this batch of strangers were attractive young females. The gentleman rodents became budding Don Juans and went a courting.

"The first male and female to win each others’ hearts now had something all the others lacked an ally. The pair took full advantage of the situa¬tion: they terrorized their cagemates. At first, the lovers simply chased their fellow rodents away from food, sending them scurrying to the safety of the far end of the enclosure. Later, the romantic duo hunted down their neighbors one by one. The female was a particularly quick kill¬er. She would sneak up on a victim as it was quietly chewing a bit of chow, spring with a sudden speed, and bite the unfortunate in the side of the neck, often opening a wound in the carotid artery. Some of the attacked died of infection. Others, mauled and worn down by frantic efforts to escape, succumbed to exhaustion. When the happy couple had finished, they were the only survivors.

“The rats had cleared the new territory of competitors, transforming the cage into a spacious land of milk and honey for themselves. A new promised land. Now, they could found a tribe that might if left to its own devices thrive for genera¬tions to come. A tribe that would carry the parental line of genes.”

How does this relate to the popularity of notions that the world is about to end? Think for a second. Every millennial end-of-the-world movement has a hitch. We’ll all be broiled, fried, or caught in the crossfire of apocalyptic battles and plague. WE’LL be wiped out. But not the true believers. They’ll be saved. And they’ll have a fresh new world, a world purged of us, a world they can turn into their own private paradise.
Apocalypse-beliefs, I suspect, are land-clearance and land-grab dreams in disguise-dreams left over from our time as beasts.

Now for a few closing suspicions. One of the most popular apocalyptic belief systems of the last 30 years has been the idea that we humans are bringing the destruction of the planet. The greenhouse-gas scenario is partly a scientific hypothesis and partly a deeply appealing myth. Climate-change-beliefs are a secular expression of an antique pattern…perhaps an instinctual pattern. They are a new way of saying that the end is coming and that only the believers will be saved. Only those who’ve embraced the right god or the right philosophy will survive. Only they will know the truth behind the new world order. And they will do more than remain alive, they will come out on top. They will flourish and thrive.

psychologytoday.com/blog/the-genius-the-beast/200912/why-the-world-will-end-in-2012?page=2

 

[kimmielittle]

Someone wrote about water vapor being the most signif GHG, and that is right, except it is a feedback, bec wv molecules only last a few days in the atmosphere. CO2 generally lasts about 100 yrs, and a portion of it can last up to 100,000 yrs in the atmosphere, making it a forcing, not a feedback.

So the CO2 and other forcing GHGs cause warming, and the warm air then can hold more wv – it sucks out the water from water bodies, plants & soils, leading to drought and potential wildfire hazard. But bec there is so much wv in the atmosphere, this leads also to extreme precipitation events and potential flooding. So you could have drought and flooding.

Now CO2 and methane (CH4) can also be dangerous feedbacks, as well. The warming melts ice in the land (permafrost) and sea (hydrates), which then release vast stores of methane and carbon. CH4 last in the atmosphere about 10 yrs, before it degrades to CO2 and other substances, but it is 23 times a more potent GHG than CO2. So the rapidity of the triggering warming we are now causing – much much faster than in the past – is also a very dangerous factor. If enough CH4 gets released within a 10 year period, it can have a very great amplifying affect on the warming, causing more CH4 release, causing more warming, and so on. We may be pulling the trigger on gun that wipes out either a very large portion of life on earth, or if runaway warming as on venus kicks in (due to the solar irradiance being greater than it was in past great warmings on earth), then that would be the end of all life on earth.

When you think about the apocalypse. the Bible sort of indicates we sinful people are the ones to bring it on…so this all sort of fits with the Bible. However, we do have a choic to do good, if we so wish. It’s up to us…

One thing is for sure:
“Other factors than CO2 easily overrules any forcing from CO2. Only this way can the B-situations with high CO2 lead to falling temperatures.”

This is essential, because, the whole idea of placing CO2 in a central role for driving temperatures was: “We cannot explain the big changes in temperature with anything else than CO2″.

But simple fact is: “No matter what rules temperature, CO2 is easily overruled by other effects, and this CO2-argument falls”. So we are left with graphs showing that CO2 follows temperatures, and no arguments that CO2 even so could be the main driver of temperatures.

• Another thing: When examining the graph fig 1, I have not found a single situation where a significant raise of CO2 is accompanied by significant temperature rise- WHEN NOT PRECEDED BY TEMPERATURE RISE. If the CO2 had any effect, I should certainly also work without a preceding temperature rise?! (To check out the graph on fig 1. it is very helpful to magnify)
  Does this prove that CO2 does not have any temperature effect at all?
  No. For some reason the temperature falls are not as fast as the temperature rises. So although CO2 certainly does not dominate temperature trends then: Could it be that the higher CO2 concentrations actually is lowering the pace of the temperature falls?
  This is of course rather hypothetical as many factors have not been considered.

wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/3…-and-ice-ages/

 

[kimmielittle]

When you think about the apocalypse. the Bible sort of indicates we sinful people are the ones to bring it on…so this all sort of fits with the Bible. However, we do have a choic to do good, if we so wish. It’s up to us…

Actually, I fail to see apocalyptic connections to the promoted solutions to Mann Made Global Warming.

I mean, if you are interested in selling us on the apocalypse - shouldn’t you be telling us to turn from sin …not embracing it as a solution?..Frankly, the solutions don’t fit the moral standards of The Holy Bible…do they?

One of the biggest solutions promoted…Population Control …via Abortion… Euthanasia…Eugenics…Assisted Suicide carried out now…to protect the earth for future generations…does it ring a bell to familiarity of the The Lucifer Principle - posted below:?]

Even MMGW- ist agree Cap And Trade …isn’t Biblical

And then there is trading Carbon Credits…Only the rich will have them.

In Short, Until someone has a God fearing - God Loving Solution…please don’t try to sell me on MMGW schemes…as a Biblical / Moral / Civic responsibility…IT FAILS LOGIC

 

[lynnvinc]

RE apocalyptic thinking, I sort of have this idea that those who accept what the scientists are saying about AGW and sincerely mitigate it, assuming they are righteous in all other ways and confess their sins, may be saved. But woe to those who do not.

I’m thinking those climate denialists perhaps even tho they think they may be “raptured” up to heaven, just may well be “ruptured” down to hell. Of course that rapture stuff isn’t our Catholic belief, but I don’t know about this rupture stuff

 

[kimmielittle]

RE apocalyptic thinking, I sort of have this idea that those who accept what the scientists are saying about AGW and sincerely mitigate it,

I’ll ask again: Just how does one mitigate AGW?
How does one mitigate a ghost?
AGW is unproven - as such, it’s a hypothesis… a speculated theory - a ghost of science.

I sort of have this idea that those who accept what the scientists are saying about AGW and sincerely mitigate it, assuming they are righteous in all other ways and confess their sins, may be saved. But woe to those who do not.

Sadly, I think many others have been fooled into a Mr. Jim Jones Guyana cocktail I think it was kool-ade ]…throughout history.

I’m thinking those climate denialists

Just who are you referring to here, please?..I’ve never heard anyone deny the existence of climate - or of it’s ever - changing properties.

perhaps even tho they think they may be “raptured” up to heaven, just may well be “ruptured” down to hell. Of course that rapture stuff isn’t our Catholic belief, but I don’t know about this rupture stuff

I base my thoughts / faith of gaining Heaven on a much HIGHER source than IPCC…Mr. Jones…Mr. Karl…Mr. Mann…Mr Hansen…and even you

 

[lynnvinc]

Well, it works this way. You kill people (or force them into prostitution by harming their livelihood), you go to that much hotter place. Now it seems to me denying one’s part in the killing is just another sin on top of the killing…a Cain thing. I’m thinking even if it does turn out there is not AGW (an extremely remote possibility), the person would still go to hell, bec he/she had been told about AGW and its harms, and even given solutions that save him/her money, and was even told about all the other harms that would be mitigated, and yet still refused to mitigate. That seems to me pretty much the height of extreme sin. Make Cain look like a Boy Scout by comparison. But I could be wrong…maybe we really are down to the 9 Commandments, the “thou shalt not kill” being just too hard – can’t stop aborting babies, can’t stop killing thru environmental harms, just can’t stop killing, so maybe God took that Commandment off the plate. Do you think? As for me, it doesn’t really matter. I just don’t like killing people, even if it isn’t a sin, and even if it doesn’t land me in hell.

 

[kimmielittle]

Well, it works this way.

The problem is simple - AGW doesn’t work…except in hyperbolic theory. And you, nor anyone else has proved different.

You kill people (or force them into prostitution by harming their livelihood),

Actually, if you need AGW to justify prostitution…

you go to that much hotter place. Now it seems to me denying one’s part in the killing is just another sin on top of the killing…a Cain thing. I’m thinking even if it does turn out there is not AGW (an extremely remote possibility), the person would still go to hell, bec he/she had been told about AGW and its harms, and even given solutions that save him/her money, and was even told about all the other harms that would be mitigated, and yet still refused to mitigate. That seems to me pretty much the height of extreme sin. Make Cain look like a Boy Scout by comparison. But I could be wrong…maybe we really are down to the 9 Commandments, the “thou shalt not kill” being just too hard – can’t stop aborting babies, can’t stop killing thru environmental harms, just can’t stop killing, so maybe God took that Commandment off the plate. Do you think? As for me, it doesn’t really matter. I just don’t like killing people, even if it isn’t a sin, and even if it doesn’t land me in hell.

I have read and reread this part of your post…I took a nap and then reread it…I prayed and then reread it…IMHO this is just as unclear as the whole of the AGW hypothesis. In short, I honestly tried to make sense of this part of your post…but like AGW, I found it lacking in commonsense or any logic.

 

[Mimi]

I think that to most earth worshippers, global warming is the devil.

Has anyone done much reading research about Agenda 21?
I started a thread on the paganism associated with it, which is Gaia (or Earth-goddess) worship.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=619788
arkofhope.org/

The Ark of Hope, a 49"(124.5cm) x 32" (81.3cm) x 32" (81.3cm) wooden chest was created as a place of refuge for the Earth Charter document, an international peoples treaty for building a just, sustainable, and peaceful global society in the 21st century. Visit - www.earthcharter.org - for complete information on the Earth Charter. The Ark of Hope also provides refuge for the Temenos Books, Images and Words for Global Healing, Peace, and Gratitude. Over 1,000 handcrafted 8" x 8" x 2" books have been made by artists, schoolchildren, and citizens around the world, expressing their individual and collaborative prayers and affirmations for Earth. The Earth Charter’s 16 principles are the guiding vision behind the creation of these books.

I found this as part of doing extensive reading research on “smart growth” (a program in my community) which is a part of the worldwide Agenda 21, a plan for controlling everyone via their energy use, food production, and land use (taking away private property rights). This also goes under the name of Smart Growth in many areas. Australia is already under this Plan.

Our Liberties are under attack from so many angles. Here is an interesting group which is doing just that:
Exploring market solutions to environmental problems:

[perc.org/](http://www.perc.org/)

Peace,
Mimi

 

[austenbosten]

My problem with AGW is it is nothing but pure Malthusian propaganda, designed to kill off the human race. Every Catholic and Christian should be against it, for Malthusianism promotes all forms of human death and prevention of human birth (such as limiting families, use of contraception and ABC, promoting abortion, and forgoing helping the needy because they will only breed more).

Either the world is going to have Peak Oil (Bull Hockey), in which we have exhausted all forms of hydrocarbons and plunge into economic misery where we live like we’re in North Korea. Or we become so addicted to our hydrocarbon fuel sources that we literally burn up the planet through Anthropological Global Warming (Bull Hockey!) or is it Man-Made Global Warming, or Climate Change, or Anthropological Climate Change, or Global Cooling, or man…notice how they constantly have to evolve the name because even the pseudo-science wonks can’t even agree on what lie they are trying to tell.

Either way you cannot have both scenarios, if we run out of oil, we stop pumping out CO2 and the world is safe from melting ----unless of course the Sun decides to heat up or the volcanoes decided to erupt, the earth decides to tilt more on its axis or any other factor us moronic feeble humans have NO…ZIP…NADA…NEIN, NULLUS CONTROL OVER!---- if we don’t run out of fossil fuels, then that means we have a lot…can’t have it both ways and Malthusians always want to have it their way…Death.

Call me a radical but I don’t subscribe to this notion that we are more powerful than God and can destroy His creation. That doesn’t mean we act careless and reckless and live a life of gluttony which means we will have to produce more and use more resources (See there is a reason gluttony is a sin ) that doesn’t mean we just trash God’s creation, but we respect His creation as we respect Him, not out of fear but out of love.

Hence we decide to clean up after ourselves when we go to the park, we decide to fast on Lent, we accept our fates and die and not stay to continue using up the world’s resources trying to obtain immortality, and we bring new life into this world (marriage and family)…so perhaps the next Norman Borlaug can save over a BILLION (yes billion with a ‘B’) people from starving to death, or the next Henrietta Lacks who’s death has saved millions of lives (especially children during the polio outbreak in the 50s) because her cells could be replicated and used to study diseases…to which they are still used to this day! or James Harrison who’s blood contains a rare enzyme that saved the lives of over 2,000,000 babies worldwide who suffer from a rare disease known as Rhesus Disease, he has donated his blood over 1,000 times in his 56 year span…and his blood has been used to create a vaccine to save those babies lives forever!

Call me crazy, but I believe in humanity’s desire to follow Christ for the good of all and not man’s self-centered ego to follow his views for the good of a few.

 

[lynnvinc]

Here’s an idea. Go ahead and reduce our GHGs as much as feasible without lowering living standards or productivity – which for most Americans is possible to reduce by 1/3 through energy/resource conservation/efficiency, and another 1/3 by going on alternative energy (which actually saves me some $5 a month on Greenmountain 100% wind energy here in Texas, over other fossil-fuel-energy companies). That way people can reduce their harm to others through other types of environmental problems (acid rain, local pollution, resource loss, etc) and other non-environmental problems (wars over oil, economic downturns, etc), even if they don’t accept that they are harming people through global warming…and save $$$ to boot. That’s what we’ve been doing over the past 21 years and have saved $1000s, while actually increasing our standard of living a bit, and reducing our GHGs and other pollution by 2/3s.

No need to sign any Earth Charter or become a witch, just do the EC (environmentally correction) thing. Follow the Little Way of Environmental Healing, doing whatever thing no matter how small to reduce our environmental impact (like carrying a hanky to wipe hands in public restrooms), believing like Mother Teresa that no matter how small our deed, our love makes it infinite. JPII and BXVI are asking this of us. We can do it, I’m sure.

And just in case AGW is real, then one may have also avoided ending up in a much hotter place than a globally warmed world, for all eternity

 

[kimmielittle]

Has anyone done much reading research about Agenda 21?
I started a thread on the paganism associated with it, which is Gaia (or Earth-goddess) worship.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=619788
arkofhope.org/

I found this as part of doing extensive reading research on “smart growth” (a program in my community) which is a part of the worldwide Agenda 21, a plan for controlling everyone via their energy use, food production, and land use (taking away private property rights). This also goes under the name of Smart Growth in many areas. Australia is already under this Plan.

Our Liberties are under attack from so many angles. Here is an interesting group which is doing just that:
Exploring market solutions to environmental problems:

[perc.org/](http://www.perc.org/)

Peace,
Mimi

The UN’s Agenda 21 was what gave birth to the IPCC - Kyoto.

With Climategate 2, we see IPCC leads knowingly email 207 just one example AND it’s related email ] flushing science to politicize an agenda.

At the same time Bradley was privately expressing his doubts, Realists skeptics ] who publicly expressed the same doubts were being excoriated as fools or worse - even on this site CAF ].

I, like many realists, have been actively debating actual scientists since approximately 2006 Here at CAF since 2008 ].

My basic questions from the onset where:

From your statements, can I take it that you believe in the basic hypothesis of AGW, as presented?

To do so, would one not have to agree that Stefan-Boltzmann Blackbody Equations have been properly verified and applied to this hypothesis?

That this is a verifiable equation for Earths Energy Budget?

" Surface: S + \lambda A = G
Atmosphere: \lambda G = 2 \lambda A
Planet: S = \lambda A + (1-\lambda) G
The factor of two for A (the radiation emitted from the atmosphere) comes in because the atmosphere radiates both up and down. From those equations you can derive the surface temperature as a function of the incoming solar and the atmospheric emissivity ‘’ ]

That Ludwig Boltzmann’s law, lambda’s value is 0.22-0.3C per watt… BUT needs to be higher? Can you give reason for this need to change this physic equation ONLY in asserting Climates change - and no other field?

Is there empirical evidence that supports the way these are used?

Does observational climate ] evidence support the way these are used?

These questions of mine, albeit presented on boards completely “open” and participated by scientists from all over the world including IPCC leads ]…have never been answered.

These are the “basics” used in support of the AGW - CAGW hypothesis.

Some insight into the IPCC

 

[kimmielittle]

Here’s an idea. Go ahead and reduce our GHGs as much as feasible without lowering living standards or productivity – which for most Americans is possible to reduce by 1/3 through energy/resource conservation/efficiency, and another 1/3 by going on alternative energy (which actually saves me some $5 a month on Greenmountain 100% wind energy here in Texas, over other fossil-fuel-energy companies).

Question:
Green Mountain Energy “100% Wind” has approximately 300,000 "green"customers.
It’s Parent Company NRG owns four wind farms totaling 521 megawatts at peak performance always producing ].
521 megawatts is enough to serve about 100,000 homes.

Care to explain the math problem?

You are aware that Natural Gas It’s the “BIOGAS” used to offset wind turbines down times ] is considered “renewable - green”?

To get your $5.00 a month “savings” ? ] - I presume you are locked into a 12 month contract?

A twelve month “Indexed Plan” Contract dependent upon …wait for it…the price of Natural Gas.

Would it be safe to guesstimate you are “fixed” at 10.5C - 12.3C kWh?
powertochoose.org/_content/_compare/compare.aspx
bounceenergy.com/texas/green-plan-fixed

I pay approximately 6.9C kWh for the same energy.

Instead of giving the “extra” monies to some energy company that tries to tell me I’m saving $5.00 a month…I use the REAL savings to improve environmental issues here locally - where I can see it doing good.

That’s what we’ve been doing over the past 21 years and have saved $1000s, while actually increasing our standard of living a bit,

Just think how much you could save at 6.0C kWh

and reducing our GHGs and other pollution by 2/3s.

A BOLD statement…Just how did you measure that?

And just in case AGW is real, then one may have also avoided ending up in a much hotter place than a globally warmed world, for all eternity

I’ve explained to you before…YOU have NO moral / ethical standing argument ] about AGW…until you have proof of AGW - AND a MORAL / ETHICAL solution.