'Yea, every leader in the world is a member of a secret movement  that plans to take over the world.'

Well skippy, this isn't a conspiracy theory, they are actually anouncing it.  I don't have to claim this and have you call me crazy.

I'm not allowed to post to you website URL's showing this but just type into youtube Al Gore global government, or Copenhagen global governence and they are so arrogant they are openly announcing it.

And if you read the treaties of this global government at Copenhagen it is about preventing third world countries from being industrialized, taxing the world on CO2, controlling breeding, reducing the world's population by 80%, controlling all air ways and all use of Carbon Dioxide.  They have listed Carbon Dioxide as a toxic waste, Carbon Dioxide that you exhale a toxic waste, higher levels of CO2 has actually been proven to have positive affects on the environment.   

This isn't a conspiracy theory and this isn't a global government that is for the good of the world.  This is corporate take over.

Tom wrote on Dec 9^th, 2009 at 3:48pm:


If you read my other thread, I have explained the science in fairly easy to read chucks.

You can get textbooks in Climatology, but you can't get textbooks on Climate Science denial. You simply can't get a degree in the sort of nonsense that Ian Plimer and Bob Carter are talking about.

Anyone with a basic grounding in science will tell you that their arguments are not scientific. The sticky threads tell you the basics you need to know. On another thread I talked about the fundamental physics behind the greenhouse effect.

The real arguments are about the magnitude of the effect, and the likes of John Christy and Roy Spencer have very little credibility with other climate scientists after the stunt they pulled.

Now If you want a real example of scientists fudging the data, that was it. Suddenly it became apparent why satellite data and land-based data were out of synch. Somebody was messing with the data.

http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/22/should-you-believe-anything-john-christy-o...

There are 31, 000 scientists and more than 9000 PHD's in fields such as atmospheric science, climatology, Earth science, environment and dozens of other specialties that oppose the global warming theory in a petition to sue Al Gore.  Do they have no standing?

On the other side at the UN the 2,500 bureaucrats who support the global warming theory.

The reason why conflicting arguments against the global warming theory arn't put into text books or even mentioned at schools or are easy to access or be accepted in the media or public is because the establishment are the ones who created the global warming farce and will prevent any conflicting arguments from being accessed easily.

Grendel wrote on Dec 9^th, 2009 at 3:36pm:


Grendel - I'll remind you once more about the posting rules. No changing other contributors' nicknames. If you don't like it, post elsewhere. Let's keep it civil.

Now where did you get that 32 from? Let's talk in thousands of gigatonnes.

Let's look at it in detail - To get a figure of times 32, you'd have to take a total carbon flux from fossil fuel and cement production of 8, and 32 times 8 is 256.

That 256 must include about +90 from the oceans and +60 from soils and +60 from forests. That gives us 210  so far, and other minor emissions take us up to about 250 or so. OK, we won't argue about that.  The actual fossil fuel derived flux has increased from 5 to 8 in the past 10 years.

However, the positive flux (to the atmosphere) of 90 from the oceans is balanced by a negative flux of 92, giving us a net flux of -2.

The 60 from the land and 60 from soils is balanced by a negative flux (Carbon sink) of -120 or so.  So there is no net flux between the land and the atmosphere. Actually that varies a little bit from year to year.

So as you can see, if you conveniently forget about the carbon sinks, and just talk about carbon emissions, then strictly speaking, the statement is correct.  However in terms of net fluxes, we are emitting about 8 thousand Gigatonnes, and about 6 of that is ending up in the atmosphere. The other 2 is ending up in the ocean.

Clear as mud? As you can see, a dishonest argument can be used to create a false impression.

My god Grendel you are embarrassing yourself, just regurgitating ridiculous arguments that nobody who has put an ounce of effort into researching this issue would ever fall for.

You, like all denialists, refuse to ever listen to, or read scientific explanations from real scientists, instead you go to denialist blog sites.

Perhaps you could petition the UN to create an international panel to look into why anyone would believe an anonymous bloggers over the type scientific institutions of every country on earth.

Perhaps their political bias makes them reason blind.

lol, Tom, I will restrain my natural inclination to stereotype you, perhaps you have a subset all of your own.

Now a little tip for you, to cut and paste denialist blog site lies, is not debate, we have seen a lot of debate, where actual science issues are discussed, and every time, the denialists run away, because their lies do not stand up to scientific scrutiny, none of them.

Denialist arguments come in only two types, irrelevant, and wrong.

As for research, well that is accepted as either reviewing scientific studies, or reputable scientific opinion, neither of which you will find on denialist blog sites, so I can pretty safely assume your research amounts to zero, because if you had visited any place other than denialist blogsites, you would have already dumped your ludicrous position.

Hahaha that's nice, yet another post I wish would just be removed.

How am I lying?  Look it up, I'm not guessing at this, they themselves are announcing it.  If you want to run out of the room with your hands clamped over your ears and screaming that's okay.  It's obvious now who is the denialist.

Alot of debate you say mozzaok?  I have seen very little or none of any debate.  The warmists are always the ones to say, the debate is over and that the science is proven.

Grendel has already slammed you but you are so moronic you just refuse to acknowledge common sense. 

'Oh the denialist blog websites'  Are you serious?  If you can't debate this you are the ones in denial I think I know now what it is to try to debate with you people it's like beating your head into a wall.

Global warming is coming apart at the seams, it is now undesputably proven false.  Al Gore will not debate with anybody, the climategate emails show how fraudulant this false science is and how biased their views are.  Al Gore will not debate the 31,000 scientists and climatologists attempting to sue him nor respond to that.

The Northern Ice Caps didn't melt into nothing as predicted in 2007, they grew by 30% in one year.

You don't like debating or being told anything so maybe look up some videos since you can't do your research.