Rense supports the official global warming theory.

Posts: 707

I've been searching his site to see if he has posted any articles claiming global warming is a hoax. Unfortunately, he actually supports the stupid hoax! I'll say this is evidence he's probably a disinformationalist.

Posts: 8235

He or we could just be wrong. It wouldn't make him a disinformation source. I have severely reduced how much I check on him and Alex Jones though for similar reasons.

Posts: 707

It's strange how telegraph supports so much conspiracy theories like global warming and life expectancy. This is a quote from their site:

	Quote:
	This year, telegraph.co.uk was highly commended in the Best Daily Newspaper on the World Wide Web category

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/portal/main.jhtml?xml=/portal/aboutus/exclusions/history.xml

and the Guardian also supports a variety of conspiracy theories. Both originates from the United Kingdom. Both are newspapers.

Do you think Britain's newspapers provide more uncensored news? Or, is this a set up?

Posts: 8235

I don't have an opinion on that and I'm not sure what to think of the global warning scare other than to relate it to the phony mad cow scare. (both situations are being handled poorly if they're real). I'm pretty certain that mad cow is not a contagious disease, but a cover for neurotoxic pesticide poisoning.

Posts: 23

I don't know if those of you saying that GW is a hoax also mean this with respect to climate change, but if you do, then I'll say that I doubt that it's a hoax. Many independent scientists have been saying that major ices are melting, and this is not something that is really difficult to verify, for anyone who has the means of travelling to such destinations anyway.

The Arctic's major ices are melting, the polar bears are dying in increasing numbers because they have to swim so march further to get to the ices where their prey is found. That's not difficult to verify, for anyone capable of travelling to the area.

Hence, before I'd agree that it's really all a hoax, there'd have to be truly concrete proof that the Arctic's ices are not melting, that the polar bears are not dying due to the disappearing ices, that glaciers around the world are not melting at certainly unusual speeds, etc. We don't have such proof, so I can't agree to call this all a hoax.

But it really doesn't matter what people believe about this topic, that is, not for as long as they live in environmentally sustainable, healthy ways. If people live that way, then time alone will eventually prove who's been right on this topic.

mike c.

Posts: 707

I got a whole wack of evidence on this site:

http://www.iceagenow.com/

If you're still not convinced, reply back.

Posts: 37

First of all, global warming is a grossly misleading term... because it inadvertently, maybe consciously, frames the debate a particular way, which actually ends up misleading allot of people. That's why I prefer the term climate change....

Some people say that climate change is part of a natural cycle of the earth, and they'd be right in saying that. There's a vast collection of information from ice-boaring (samples that are miles deep from all over the world), as well as various other information from a wide-range of other sources, collectively showing a large history of earth's historical climate record. Even as I type here, information is STILL being processed!

However, given that, there are some people that would say that the climactic cycles can be altered by specific human activity. Now, I'm sure you've heard of chaos theory... and the old saying, a butterfuly flaps its wings and inadvertently causes a hurricane half way around the world. Now, ...that's a bit of an extreme exagerated example, but you can't deny that nature operates on a rather delicate, interdependant balance... Can you figure out any plausable reason why certain substances are toxic? lol...

Let me burst a dogmatic bubble and attempt to merge two philosophical outlooks to help avoid the constant ignorance bashing between two ideological viewpoints. I know I know, that's harsh words; but how else am I going to get someone's attention? lol

question: natural climate change, what's the deal?

There is a vast natural storehouse of greenhouse gas resevoirs all over the planet; everywhere from the bottom of the ocean & within permafrosts, to trees & various fossil fuels... However, ...these greenhouse gasses generally get recycled in many ways, usually not by way of vapour released toward the sky. Occasionally a forest fire occurs, or some permafrosts melt and release some methane hydrates; but generally it's chaotic and allows some break time between each event.

That's not the case all the time though, and generally there are naturally occuring periods in time where events fall into place just right, under certain conditions, where relatively large climate shifts are made possible, that can outpace the natural cycles of various earth inhabitants. This, as well as non-earth events (like the state, size, and temperature of the sun) are what effect climate. Even the moon effects climate, by effecting the tide... Just replace butterfly with moon, and you'll suddenly see what I mean, lol.

Can we now all agree that there is, to some degree, a delicate balance inherint in the natural order?

Now, imagine that humans are part of nature. Imagine that oil is part of nature. Even imagine that Flouride & Agent Orange, in some ways, are part of nature! ...If you're smart, you probably don't even have to imagine this, you may already know it to be true.

However, now that I've got your imaginative juices flowing, try to imagine that one of these storehouses of natural greenhouse gasses were systematically harvested and continuously vapourised into the atmosphere, without any breaks... Imagine that this isn't happening just in a few locations distributed throughout a relatively expansive time, but happening in numerous continents, often simultaneously, non-stop continuously, for decades upon decades, and for numerous decades to come. Imagine this nudging the climate just enough in a particular direction, that it begins to set off a minefield of a large percentage of other natural resevoirs of greenhouse gasses...

A slight increase in temperature, globally... A slight increase in forest fires. More greenhouse gasses from forest fires, more slight increases of temperature globally. Coupled with the continuous vapour that originally started the temperature increases, as well as the natural climactic cycles, it's easy to see how the butterfly effect could apply. There are thousands of minefields all over the planet! ...Hell, there's even 10,000 billion tons of methane hydrates, a greenhouse gas 21 times more powerful than CO2, existing at the bottom of the ocean in a frozen form, as well as within permafrosts.

Now, I'm not saying that warming is the actual course that we're going to traverse... Far be it for me to postulate the intricacies of climactic cycles... Hell, in some places, you can wipe out wolves, and the trees disappear! There's always cracks and fissures of unexpected behaviours that were never entirely calculated into a mathematical data-set of projections...

Yes... there is a natural climate cycle that the earth goes through, based on this as well as non-earth influences; ...just because the natural cycle exists, doesn't give us the right to hijack one of these natural resevoirs of climate changing substances, to then systematically & continuously vaporize it into the atmosphere. Some people talk of the sun increasing temperature/size, or volcanoes exploding; but I see no reason to add on top of all of that, a constant stream of our own hijacked natural supply of greenhouse gas vapour. I can't imagine that it would help our situation any, lol.

Posts: 707

I've yet to see or do a scientific experiment proving that carbon dioxide increases temperature.

Fill two plant bottles with CO2 and the other wihout it and place it beside the sun. An hour later, which one is hotter? IS there a significant difference?

Posts: 37

	funzone36 wrote:
	I've yet to see or do a scientific experiment proving that carbon dioxide increases temperature. Fill two plant bottles with CO2 and the other wihout it and place it beside the sun. An hour later, which one is hotter? IS there a significant difference?

That's a fair postulation... However, pulling CO2 out of context, and into a "controlled?" experiment, with new elements (like plastic), might very well be leaving out essential elements that make the whole system work... For instance, other atmospheric layers, plant-life, clouds, ice, radiative heat, interdependant ecological elements, and the actual temperature of the earth & how the earth handles it's heat. A plant or soda bottle cannot replicate these features alone...

However, to be fair, ...since there do seem to be allot of factors playing into the enhanced greenhouse effect, it's fair to postulate that error in complex mathematical models are a definite possibility... Even if there are no errors, there could still be essential elements being left out that were never represented or even considered, until the day it happens. You know? lol... why, with all the super computers and computational number crunching happening all over the world for weather prediction, year after year, we can barely even come out the other side of the week lock-step-in-line with reality; lol. How are we ever going to project anywhere from 50 to 200 years into the future on advanced complex climactic potentials?

Of course, there is always a possibility that intentional misrepresentation(s) may have occured, so that a pre-concieved agenda can be carried forth... But even so, ...there is always room in every conspirator's intentionally errored modeling, even if they think they know how the earth's system works (so they can "misrepresent" the data to their agenda's advantage), they themselves might actually be dipshit ecologists that don't know that they may very well be in for a rude awakening when they realize that maybe global climate change really will knock all complex biological life-forms back to aquatic goo... Or, maybe they'll think they can go into lavish underground bunkers.

...but leave it to spite's chance that hurricanes flood and salinate massive amounts of land masses, and erosion occurs more rapidly than at any other point in the history of the earth, exposing the bunkers to an ocean where phytoplankton levels collapse, 70-90% of the rest of the ocean life collapses in result, ice caps completely melt, and 10,000 billion tons of methane hydrates melt from the bottom of the ocean, causing the earth to spin out of control as the oceans start boiling, the dipshits' "lavish" bunkers melt, and the earth enters into the next stage, ahead of it's natural life cycle, as the earth smashes modern day civilization all the way back down to the bacterial level in digust for our own lack of care for tyranical & ecological greed & infection.

I hold no false illusions that we wouldn't be stupid enough to ignorantly, blindly, and carelessly prescribe to this unintentional future; even as advanced a civilization as we are; ...I still think we're way too relaxed in our dogmatic & anti-dogmatic mental models; everyone from the conspirator's snickering global conspiracies, all the way over to the anti-conspiracy truth seekers that somehow often seem to take solace in the fact that they think they know that civilization, the way it is now, is sustainable; just so long as 9-11 is uncovered & exposed, and the constitution re-established in it's complete form...

I'm not saying that the constitution is a bad thing, ...but when our own ignorance/lack-of-care allows us to buy products that are made by human slaves, and/or made by companies that pollute the air, food, and groundwater, going so far as to ban people from collecting rainwater from their rooftops when a company pollutes all the water in a given area and requires the "clean" water falling from the sky in order to keep the Coca-Cola/Pepsi/Bechtel/Nestle/etc plant in production & generating profit...

The freedom we have been granted through the constitution that allows our own ignorance to flourish giving way to purchases like the ones mentioned in the above paragraph, and the already existent greed factor in the human soul that allowed this despotism to flourish, leaves me with nothing less than a cosmic black hole in the very epicent of my entire core being... If the earth is alive, ...I'm quite certain it'd be feeling about the same way; wondering how it's inhabitants that sprung forth from it's body, ever turned out to be so tyranically despotic & ecologically impure.

In summation; a complete open-source democratic republic with no dictatorship can still produce tyranical circumstances... Secondly, a dictator can take it upon themself the responsibility of pushing forward the most nourishing societal structure in existence... Humanity allows for all of these extreme ends, in different combinations, and everything inbetween!

But now that we're all aware of my occasional depressive tendencies, lol... here's Tom with the weather!

Quote:

Increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere can warm the planet, but other factors can cool it. These include aerosols in the atmosphere, such as volcanic ash, soot, dust and sulphates. Small aerosol particles are very effective at reflecting incoming solar radiation back into space and consequently cooling the Earth. Increasing the area of reflective surfaces can also lead to cooling (referred to as increasing albedo). Deforestation is an example, as the exposed ground is more reflective than the forest canopy. Increasing snow cover acts in the same way, as snow and ice are more reflective than the land or the ocean.

Quote:

According to NASA, every year the sun delivers an average of 340 watts of energy to every square metre of the Earth... It would get uncomfortably hot on Earth with all this energy, but fortunately for us, the amount of heat we receive from the sun is balanced by heat radiated back into space by the atmosphere. Radiative forcing is the change in the balance between radiation coming into the atmosphere and radiation going out. A positive radiative forcing tends on average to warm the surface of the Earth, and negative radiative forcing tends on average to cool the surface. Greenhouse gases, for example, produce positive radiative forcing – they trap outgoing terrestrial (infrared) radiation, which causes a temperature rise at the Earth’s surface – the “greenhouse effect”. In contrast, negative radiative forcing from clouds and aerosols, which can reflect back into space, acts as a cooling mechanism.

Quote:

Greenhouse gases are a natural part of the atmosphere. Without these gases the global average temperature would be around -20ºC. The more of these gases there are, the more heat is trapped. This is known as the enhanced greenhouse effect. Naturally occurring greenhouse gases include water vapour, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone. Greenhouse gases that are not naturally occurring include hydro-fluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulphur hexafluoride (SF6), which are generated in a variety of industrial processes. On average, about one-third of the solar radiation that hits the Earth is reflected back into space. The land and the oceans mostly absorb the rest, with the remainder trapped in the atmosphere. The solar radiation that strikes the Earth’s surface heats it up, and as a result infrared radiation is emitted.

	Quote:
	Evidence from tree ring records, used to reconstruct temperatures over this period, suggests that the 1990s was the warmest period in a millennium. According to this, ...the global average surface temperature of the Earth has increased, over the 20th century, by about 0.6 degrees Celsius.

Quote:

As we can see from models of temperature changes caused by natural forcing, we should have observed a decrease in the global average temperature lately, but we have not. We have observed an increase. A climate model can be used to simulate the temperature changes that occur from both natural and anthropogenic causes.

The best match is obtained when both forcings are combined, as in c.

Quote:

and lastly... the clencher; or so it appears... The information presented in the two graphs above indicates a strong correlation between carbon dioxide content in the atmosphere and temperature. A possible scenario is when anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases bring the climate to a state where it reverts to the highly unstable climate of the pre-ice age period. Rather than a linear evolution, the climate follows a non-linear path with sudden and dramatic surprises when greenhouse gas levels reach an as-yet unknown trigger point.

Posts: 707

"Global warming stopped in 1998"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/04/09/do0907.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/04/09/ixworld.html

"Greenland's ice caps growing"
http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/10/21/greenland.icecap.reut/index.html

"Antartica's ice caps growing"
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/20/science/20ICE.html

From the period after World War One to the beginning of World War 2, there was a significant warming of the planet. That was a time when carbon dioxide emissions wasn't even a problem.

I just don't think carbon dioxide is the problem and I especially don't think it's warming. I think it's cooling and we're up for the second ice age. If it wasn't for chemtrails, we've already be in it because we're at the end of the ice age cycle.