Nine Lies Of Global Warming

[Pale Rider]

[gabosaurus]

Which right-wing hate blog did you copy and paste that from?

[MtnBiker]

Here you go;

http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/a...2006forWeb.pdf
You are welcome to debate any of the nine points.

The author lays out a point of view and arguments that have no hate involved.

[Hagbard Celine]

Here you go;

http://http://www.lavoisier.com.au/p...2006forWeb.pdf

You are welcome to debate any of the nine points.

The link doesn't work.

[MtnBiker]

fixed

[Pale Rider]

Which right-wing hate blog did you copy and paste that from?

"Right wing hate blog".... Aaaaaahhh gab... that was a good laugh.

I forgot to post the link. I'll look for it.

"Right wing hate blog".... LMAO!

[Pale Rider]

The link doesn't work.

The link Mtnbiker posted is it, and it worked just fine for me.

[gabosaurus]

Dude, I have enough homework to do already. Why don't one of you guys prove that those are lies.

[MtnBiker]

Dude, I have enough homework to do already. Why don't one of you guys prove that those are lies.

Why did you comment in this thread if you have no intention of putting some thought into the subject? The link I posted goes to report, it would take you all of 10 minutes to read, at which point you could counter with your on arguments.

[Fountainhead]

Pot proponents (NORML and others) realize that they will NEVER convince a majority of the American people to legalize marijuana.

So they came-up with the idea of a rear-guard action to "sorta" normalize marijuana use. They created local laws (in liberal states) that legalized "Medical Marijuana". Americans are practical, compassionate, and sensitive people. Very few people will argue against giving pot to patients with terminal cancer. In fact, my own brother had a cancer called malignant histiocytosis and used both marinol pills and smoked marijuana in an attempt to control the nausea associated with chemotherapy. This was in 1983 and I didn't need medical marijuana laws to deliver his relief.

Now with an "Alternative Doctors" note, you can walk-into a Market Street Pot club and smoke to your hearts content. Ailments such as "multiple chemical sensitivities" can be "treated" with a bowl of Panama Red. Norml is more than halfway to their goal of legalizing marijuana through the clever ploy of legalizing "medical marijuana"

Global Warming is a similar ploy. The alternative lifestylers, and so-called Greens have a goal of killing-off the internal combustion engine (before it dies a natural -economic- death of high fuel cost, and impracticality). They also want to kill-off industrial production, capitalistic consumption of goods and services, high-technology, "exploitation" of natural resources, etc.

Americans are practical, compassionate, and sensitive people. Nearly every American, liberal or conservative wants a clean environment, and is willing to pay for it. Our air and water are cleaner today, than in the 1970's. Countless laws and regulations have been passed that have contributed to this positive change.

But this is NOT ENOUGH for the Global Warmists. They want more control and strangulation on industry. They want to dictate lifestyle and economic models of production. They want to punish Western Industrialized nations while simultaneously ignoring the hyper-pollution spewed by Asian industrial expansion.

Most Americans understand the principle of diminishing returns. The majority of Americans will NOT TOLERATE excessive legislation and curtailing of their lifestyle. Over-regulation and over-taxation will be fought by most Americans.

So what is a Greenie to do ?

Create the concept of antrhopogenic Global Warming !

Try to convince the American people that they are personally destroying the planet. Convince every nation in UN headquarters that America is wrecking the planet. Create a 1950's-style doomsday sci-fi scenario that preaches real end-of-the-world ... fire, flood, hurricane, disastrous kinda catastrophic consequences to our lifestyle.

Global Warming is another rear-guard kind of action that appeals to the emotions of the American people. Change your lifestyle ! or we will kill this puppy ! Every trip to the grocery store costs the life of a baby polar bear ! You don't want to kill polar bears ... do you ? You would'nt be that cold and heartless like an evil republican ... would you ? You would'nt want to flood the poor island nation of Vanuatu ... would you ? Did you know that Global Warming only hurts the poor people of the planet ? Ohhhhhhh Mamma ! Don't you want to help poor people ?

The idea of antropogenic Global Warming isn't meant to open debate and discussion of mans industrial activity ... it's meant to END IT.

[zefrendylia]

sorry, wrong post

[zefrendylia]

Children, please behave! Alright I'll answer for the other guy because he has too much homework. Indeed, after reading this article, like anything you read it's easy to be persuaded if you naturally think along those lines. I could probably write a paper on another topic that is equally as convincing but ultimately untrue. This is why in the scientific community there are things such as peer-reviewed studies. For this article, it's far quicker to be skeptical of the author's arguments by just looking at the sources the author uses. From Source Watch:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...iam_Kininmonth

William Kininmonth is a known Australian climate change skeptic. His only listed qualification is "Director of the Australasian Climate Research Institute" [1], but the Institute is listed as simply a trading name for "Kininmonth, William Robert", and is based at his private residence in Kew, Australia. [2]. It has no website, phone number or existence separate from Kininmonth.

He is listed as an "expert" on Kyoto issues at Envirotruth, is a current member of Australia's delegation to U.N. climate treaty negotiations, and until 1998 was former head of Australia's Bureau of Meteorology's National Climate Centre for 12 years. [3]

His recent book launch was organised by the Lavoisier Group [4] and was chaired by Hugh Morgan, the President of the Business Council of Australia. John W Zillman, President of the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering, also gave a talk at the book launch, "Climate Change: A Natural Hazard?"critiquing some aspects of the book.

In a letter to to The Age newspaper, Kininmonth wrote that "Greenhouse gases emit more radiation than they absorb and their direct impact is to cool the atmosphere." [5]

A subsequent letter went further, appealing to Einstein's laws of nuclear physics (only applicable to nuclear reactions) to explain his bizarre theories: "The laws of physics . . . allow for energy to be transformed between different modes. Remember Einstein and E = MC2?". [6]



Several key concerns should jump out a skeptical reader:

1) The credentials or lack thereof of the source
2) the sources' ties to the Lavoisier group, which is closely tied to the Australian mining industry and presumably would be negatively affected by limits on carbon production
3) the source's ties to Envirotruth, a group underwritten by ExxonMobil

Also, another source for the article, Robert Balling Jr.:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...ert_C._Balling

"...acknowledged that he had received $408,000 in research funding from the fossil fuel industry over the last decade (of which his University takes 50% for overhead). Contributors include ExxonMobil, the British Coal Corporation, Cyprus Minerals and OPEC."



The Lavoisier Group (the author, Ray Evans is the President)

The group is closely associated with the Australian mining industry, and was founded in 2000 by Ray Evans, then an executive at Western Mining Corporation (WMC), who was also involved in founding the HR Nicholls Society and the Bennelong Society. Hugh Morgan, former WMC boss and head of the Business Council of Australia until 2005, delivered the group's inaugural speech.

Lavoisier is a fairly small operation, with under 100 members and an annual budget of around $10,000.

In 2001 Australian economist John Quiggin wrote that the Lavoisier Group is "devoted to the proposition that basic principles of physics...cease to apply when they come into conflict with the interests of the Australian coal industry."

[Fountainhead]

Several key concerns should jump out a skeptical reader:

1) The credentials or lack thereof of the source
2) the sources' ties to the Lavoisier group, which is closely tied to the Australian mining industry and presumably would be negatively affected by limits on carbon production
3) the source's ties to Envirotruth, a group underwritten by ExxonMobil

Yes. It is always wise to consider the agenda or background of a opinion. But what always fascinates me is that fact that Global Warmists suggest that they are "free" of any equally-polarizing agenda.

The Global Warmists have an agenda.

For some, it is the securing of Governmental GRANT money to fund their research.
For others, it is the undermining of conventional technology to help fund their "alternative" technology.
For still others, it is just a polarizing idiology that wants to "tear-it-all-down, man"

Proponents of anthropogenic Global Warming have JUST as much questionable underpinning as those who are skeptical.

The really FRIGHTENING part of the argument is to suggest that only one-side of the argument is underwritten by larger financial or personal interests. That is total rubbish.

[diuretic]

I believe that's called a Killer Post.

[diuretic]

Yes. It is always wise to consider the agenda or background of a opinion. But what always fascinates me is that fact that Global Warmists suggest that they are "free" of any equally-polarizing agenda.

The Global Warmists have an agenda.

For some, it is the securing of Governmental GRANT money to fund their research.
For others, it is the undermining of conventional technology to help fund their "alternative" technology.
For still others, it is just a polarizing idiology that wants to "tear-it-all-down, man"

Proponents of anthropogenic Global Warming have JUST as much questionable underpinning as those who are skeptical.

The really FRIGHTENING part of the argument is to suggest that only one-side of the argument is underwritten by larger financial or personal interests. That is total rubbish.

While I don't believe there's an agenda I do believe there's a need for scepticism. I feel uneasy about ideology from either the right or the left driving any aspect of this debate. I want to read the science (explained for a non-scientific layman like me) and I want to read the policy responses from govt and opposition so I can decide where my support goes.

I also need to know the vested interests behind each side.