REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Climate change: what to do?

POSTED BY: GEEZER
UPDATED: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 13:52
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1669
PAGE 1 of 1

Sunday, February 11, 2007 1:52 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Okay. Let's assume that the IPCC's latest report is correct and that things will be warming up in the next 100 years(And they predict it will warm up, pretty much whatever we do.) What do we want to do about it?

Even if we maintain greenhouse emmissions at 2000 levels, we can expect a .6 Deg c increase by 2099. The IPCC's best scenario gives a 1.8c increase and .18 to .38 meter sea level increase. Their worst gives a 4.0c temp increase and a .26 to .59 meter higher sea level. Either the best or worst scenarios are also going to cause changes in rainfall patterns and storm tracks. Here's the IPCC's executive summary.
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

So would it be better to try and stop climate change, or spend our time trying to prepare for it? Consider that China will be the biggest producer of greenhouse gasses by 2009, and has no plans of doing anything serious about it. India is getting right up there, and probably won't put much effort into emissions control. Even if the First World manages to impose harsh restrictions, we're still heading for an increase.

Might it be better to concede that climate change is coming and prepare for it? Encourage movement of populations from coastlines where storms and flooding are likely. Plan to move agriculture to areas that aren't in the new drought zones. People have coped with climate change before. Why not again?



"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 11, 2007 2:08 PM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
So would it be better to try and stop climate change, or spend our time trying to prepare for it?

Can't we do both? Any restraint of emissions is just going to reduce the rise and thus give more time to adjust to a changing climate.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 11, 2007 3:39 PM

ANTIMASON


a new article from the London Telegraph, which claims that "Man-made climate change may be happening at a far slower rate than has been claimed, according to controversial new research."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/11/warm11
.xml

Quote:

"Cosmic Rays blamed for Global Warming"

Richard Gray
London Telegraph
Sunday, February 11, 2007

Man-made climate change may be happening at a far slower rate than has been claimed, according to controversial new research.

Scientists say that cosmic rays from outer space play a far greater role in changing the Earth's climate than global warming experts previously thought.

In a book, to be published this week, they claim that fluctuations in the number of cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere directly alter the amount of cloud covering the planet.

High levels of cloud cover blankets the Earth and reflects radiated heat from the Sun back out into space, causing the planet to cool.

Henrik Svensmark, a weather scientist at the Danish National Space Centre who led the team behind the research, believes that the planet is experiencing a natural period of low cloud cover due to fewer cosmic rays entering the atmosphere.

This, he says, is responsible for much of the global warming we are experiencing.

He claims carbon dioxide emissions due to human activity are having a smaller impact on climate change than scientists think. If he is correct, it could mean that mankind has more time to reduce our effect on the climate.

The controversial theory comes one week after 2,500 scientists who make up the United Nations International Panel on Climate Change published their fourth report stating that human carbon dioxide emissions would cause temperature rises of up to 4.5 C by the end of the century.

Mr Svensmark claims that the calculations used to make this prediction largely overlooked the effect of cosmic rays on cloud cover and the temperature rise due to human activity may be much smaller.

He said: "It was long thought that clouds were caused by climate change, but now we see that climate change is driven by clouds.

"This has not been taken into account in the models used to work out the effect carbon dioxide has had.

"We may see CO2 is responsible for much less warming than we thought and if this is the case the predictions of warming due to human activity will need to be adjusted."

Mr Svensmark last week published the first experimental evidence from five years' research on the influence that cosmic rays have on cloud production in the Proceedings of the Royal Society Journal A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences. This week he will also publish a fuller account of his work in a book entitled The Chilling Stars: A New Theory of Climate Change.

A team of more than 60 scientists from around the world are preparing to conduct a large-scale experiment using a particle accelerator in Geneva, Switzerland, to replicate the effect of cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere.

They hope this will prove whether this deep space radiation is responsible for changing cloud cover. If so, it could force climate scientists to re-evaluate their ideas about how global warming occurs.

Mr Svensmark's results show that the rays produce electrically charged particles when they hit the atmosphere. He said: "These particles attract water molecules from the air and cause them to clump together until they condense into clouds."

Mr Svensmark claims that the number of cosmic rays hitting the Earth changes with the magnetic activity around the Sun. During high periods of activity, fewer cosmic rays hit the Earth and so there are less clouds formed, resulting in warming.

Low activity causes more clouds and cools the Earth.

He said: "Evidence from ice cores show this happening long into the past. We have the highest solar activity we have had in at least 1,000 years.

"Humans are having an effect on climate change, but by not including the cosmic ray effect in models it means the results are inaccurate.The size of man's impact may be much smaller and so the man-made change is happening slower than predicted."

Some climate change experts have dismissed the claims as "tenuous".

Giles Harrison, a cloud specialist at Reading University said that he had carried out research on cosmic rays and their effect on clouds, but believed the impact on climate is much smaller than Mr Svensmark claims.

Mr Harrison said: "I have been looking at cloud data going back 50 years over the UK and found there was a small relationship with cosmic rays. It looks like it creates some additional variability in a natural climate system but this is small."

But there is a growing number of scientists who believe that the effect may be genuine.

Among them is Prof Bob Bingham, a clouds expert from the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils in Rutherford.

He said: "It is a relatively new idea, but there is some evidence there for this effect on clouds."



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 11, 2007 3:56 PM

KANEMAN


Lets take the hairspray out of the hands of New Jersey women.....It may buy us some time. Or we can go back to living in caves and eating worms and sh*t like that. Or we can get rid of cars and planes, who needs them anyway?






NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 11, 2007 4:16 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
So would it be better to try and stop climate change, or spend our time trying to prepare for it?

Can't we do both? Any restraint of emissions is just going to reduce the rise and thus give more time to adjust to a changing climate.



In a world of unlimited resources and money we could. Given that we have a finite amount to spend, is there a best mix of reduction in change and preparation for the change we'll get? If we limit the temp increase by 2099 to 2.0c instead of 4.0c, is it going to make that much difference in drought and storm patterns? maybe we'll have to wait for more detail from the IPCC.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 11, 2007 6:38 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


I've seen this claim before. There are some reasons to think that cosmic rays could affect lower cloud cover, but none to explain why night-time temperatures are ALSO higher. And the cosmic-ray data doesn't apparently show the long-term trend that Henrik Svensmark says it does. Anyway, this is the best explanation that I could find.

www.seedmagazine.com/news/2006/10/the_cosmic_climate_connection.php?pa
ge=2


However, there is another part of the explanation which scientists are finally getting around to. I'm surprised it took them this long. Cloud cover COULD be a cooling force but only if it's bright, white cloud cover like clouds formed around sulfuric acid droplets. But we're spewing out hundred and thousands of tons of carbon particles every day, mostly from forest-burning (clearing), wood-burning and dung-burning. That seriously changes cloud (and ice) albedo. Although carbon particles ostensibly cause condensation, they raise the cloud temperature and re-evaporate the water, allowing more visible light past where the cloud layer SHOULD be, and efficiently convert visible light to heat.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 11, 2007 6:44 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


The United States is still by far the largest - not per capita, but total- emitter of greenhouse gases. We are, compared to other industrialized naitons, profligate in our energy use: car mileage requirements are more stringent everywhere else in the developed world- even China- than here.

So, for the most part it would be ridiculously easy for the United States to reduce it's emission of greenhouse gases to less than 1980 levels with no reduction in living standards.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 12, 2007 3:28 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
The United States is still by far the largest - not per capita, but total- emitter of greenhouse gases.



Not for long, China will take over by 2010-2025, depending on who you ask. Kinda hard to tell, because neither China nor India submit information to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change for inclusion in their reports.

Quote:

We are, compared to other industrialized naitons, profligate in our energy use: car mileage requirements are more stringent everywhere else in the developed world- even China- than here.


True. We produce around 21% of the total man-made greenhouse gasses. http://www.epa.gov/oms/climate/420r06003.pdf
U.S. transportation produces 27% of that, or 5.7% of the total (almost all CO2). Cars and light trucks make up around 60% of the transportation emissions, or 3.4% of the total. Say we make an instant 25% improvement in fuel economy and emissions, that'd be .85% of the world total.

Also, while China talks a good game on transportation emissions, their record on actually enforcing environmental laws makes ours look absolutely sterling.

Quote:

So, for the most part it would be ridiculously easy for the United States to reduce it's emission of greenhouse gases to less than 1980 levels with no reduction in living standards.


I don't know about "Ridiculously easy" but it could probably be done. My question is, would we be better off spending the time and money getting ready for the climate change that's pretty much inevitable unless everyone gets on board?

Read the scenarios in the IPCC report and pick the one you think most likely. Most would require either world government or every nation passing, and enforcing, tough emissions laws, changing the way electricity is generated and agriculture is carried out, and major redesign in manufacturing. Scrapping SUV's isn't going to do it.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 12, 2007 8:41 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
In a world of unlimited resources and money we could.

Actually I think the arguments against saving resources are more of the unlimited vein.

Reducing emissions is mainly about reducing resource usage, not increasing it so I'm at somewhat of a loss to understand why you think doing both would require infinite resources. Most emission curbs are about buying local goods, driving less and avoiding flying if at all possible, so indeed huge curbs could be made without unlimited resources.

If you mean switching to new lower polluting technologies then yeah, that costs, but the people bearing those costs, and the people bearing the costs for adapting to climate change aren't the same groups.
Quote:

Given that we have a finite amount to spend, is there a best mix of reduction in change and preparation for the change we'll get?
Governments already spend vast sums of cash on measures protecting the general populace from environmental conditions. What I mean is that it wouldn't be a staggering increase in what is already being done if started early enough, more a redirection of efforts. A lot of the rest is the purview of private citizens and enterprise. From walking more or taking the bus instead of driving to the CEO not flying everywhere. A great many pollution saving measures pay for themselves in short order, so I'm at a loss to explain why a business run by anyone with half a brain or business acumen wouldn't want to adopt them, even given the short term outlay.
Quote:

If we limit the temp increase by 2099 to 2.0c instead of 4.0c, is it going to make that much difference in drought and storm patterns? maybe we'll have to wait for more detail from the IPCC.
4c is 100% more than 2c, if 2c has an impact then 4c is going to have a greater impact. You're argument sounds like "it's only 2c, what difference can it make", the mini ice age of Europe had average temperatures of 1c lower.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 12, 2007 10:01 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
Reducing emissions is mainly about reducing resource usage, not increasing it so I'm at somewhat of a loss to understand why you think doing both would require infinite resources. Most emission curbs are about buying local goods, driving less and avoiding flying if at all possible, so indeed huge curbs could be made without unlimited resources.



The entire world's transportation sector(cars, trains, ships, rail, etc.) generates 14% of greenhouse gasses. The U.S., Canada, and Europe produce a bit less than half of that, say 6%. A 25% decrease in all transport emissions for these regions would lower world totals 1.5%, assuming the rest of the world just holds steady. I've seen projections that China and India are expected to increase their transportation emissions 3.5 to 5.5 TIMES (not percent), easily counteracting any reductions by the "industrialized" nations.

Any effort to control global climate change by reducing emissions is going to require global action and cooperation. The "developing" world, to include China, India, and South America, have pretty much said that they have higher priorities, such as improving the standard of living for their people. If the industrialized nations try to reduce climate change by themselves, by whatever means, I'm not sure they're going to get much result with the rest of the world not playing.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 12, 2007 10:22 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

The entire world's transportation sector(cars, trains, ships, rail, etc.) generates 14% of greenhouse gasses. The U.S., Canada, and Europe produce a bit less than half of that, say 6%. A 25% decrease in all transport emissions for these regions would lower world totals 1.5%, assuming the rest of the world just holds steady. I've seen projections that China and India are expected to increase their transportation emissions 3.5 to 5.5 TIMES (not percent), easily counteracting any reductions by the "industrialized" nations.
Have you a cite for these figures.
Quote:

Transport accounted for about 21% of G8 greenhouse gas emissions in 2000, about the same as the manufacturing, construction and industrial sector combined.

http://www.g8.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowP
age&c=Page&cid=1097073714996

Quote:

Any effort to control global climate change by reducing emissions is going to require global action and cooperation. The "developing" world, to include China, India, and South America, have pretty much said that they have higher priorities, such as improving the standard of living for their people. If the industrialized nations try to reduce climate change by themselves, by whatever means, I'm not sure they're going to get much result with the rest of the world not playing.
Yes, but right at this moment we have the worlds biggest producer refusing to make any cuts because they might somday be larger producers. Why should developing countries worry when the current largest producer couldn't give a rats arse? Before the industrialised nations start saying "we don't have to do anything because they'll be big producers someday" perhaps they should be setting a good example, rather leaving the door open for the developing nations to say "why should we do anything when those that ARE the biggest contributers couldn't care less".



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 12, 2007 10:45 AM

BARNSTORMER



Well, I'll answer Geezers original question.

I think everyone should sell their oceanfront property as soon as humanly possible. Think of all the pain and suffering and drowning and property loss and stuff that is not just on the horizon, but bearing down on all the poor idiotic ocean front home owners.

Everyone, please, tell (in as an insistant and annoying way as possible) all your friends and family who are unfortunate enough to own these "drowning pool" properties that they can hand over ownership in these future disaster area's by donating them to the following non profit organization:

www.UN.LoadIPCC.org/relief/Barnstormer/VACA

Remember, Only YOU can end your own stupidity.

God Bless and pass the Life Raft..

Am I a Lion?... No, I think I'ma tellin' the truth.

BarnStormer

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 12, 2007 11:28 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
Have you a cite for these figures.


Transportation percent: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas
Increased emissions from Indian & Chinese transport (one of several. I averaged):
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/12/adb_study_co2_e.html

Quote:

Yes, but right at this moment we have the worlds biggest producer refusing to make any cuts because they might somday be larger producers.

Not signing te Kyoto accords isn't the same as refusing to make cuts. I'll need to do some more research on this.

Quote:

Why should developing countries worry when the current largest producer couldn't give a rats arse?


Because they are less able to bear the costs of climate change. They're also not as convinced that climate change is the major thing they need to worry about. I suspect that the mext U.S. administration will be much more into actions to control grenhouse gas emissions, but I very much doubt that will have any impact on the developing world's prioritization of the problem.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 12, 2007 11:29 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Rats. Double posts keep adding to my carbon debt. Guess I'd better turn a light off for a while.

Oh, yeah. Interesting article in this week's Newsweek. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17080934/site/newsweek/

in part:

Quote:

Most studies predict that the world will double its consumption of energy by 2050. Since much of that growth in consumption will take place in China and India, it will involve the burning of fossil fuels.

Between them, these two countries are currently building 650 coal-fired power plants. The combined CO2 emissions of these new plants is five times the total savings of the Kyoto accords—that is, if the Kyoto targets were being adhered to by Western countries, which they are not.




"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 13, 2007 9:09 AM

ANTIMASON


i wanted to share with you all this article from prisonplanet.com today

Quote:

The Creeping Fascism of Global Warming Hysteria: Man-made orthodoxy is a dogma of coercion, bias, and junk science

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Tuesday, February 13, 2007

The hoax of the doctrine of man-made global warming that is being foisted upon the world by decree, and the junk science that is manipulated to support it, represents a creeping fascism whose agenda to stifle open debate betrays the fact that climate change hysteria is a farce intended to crush freedoms and further centralize global power.

In an interview with a Czech newspaper, Vaclav Klaus, the President of the Czech Republic blamed the "whip of political correctness" for preventing more scientists and statesmen from going public with their skepticism on man-made global warming. This is precisely what we have arrived at, in a bizarre vacuum of common sense and without any attribution, the establishment and the controlled left have managed to squash reasoned two-sided debate about global warming by coating their argument with the nebulous claim that expressing disagreement is somehow bigoted, backward and even racist.

The very fact that the man-made advocates have to introduce such a far distant concept as race into a debate about scientific climate change makes it self-evident that their argument is inherently weak and vulnerable.

In an article we published in November about global warming being primarily caused by the sun, we commented somewhat tongue in cheek that people who express doubts about global warming would soon be compared to holocaust deniers by the media and other self-appointed cultural kingpins who demand total adherence to orthodox religion style beliefs about climate change.

Here's what we wrote:

The assertion that global warming is man made is so oppressively enforced upon popular opinion, especially in Europe, that expressing a scintilla of doubt is akin to holocaust denial in some cases. Such is the insipid brainwashing that has taken place via television, newspapers and exalted talking heads - global warming skeptics are forced to wear the metaphoric yellow star and only discuss their doubts in hushed tones and conciliatory frameworks, or be cat-called, harangued and jeered by an army of do-gooders who righteously believe they are rescuing mother earth by recycling a wine bottle or putting their paper in a separate trash can.

It's not longer a joke.

The Boston Globe's Ellen Goodman wrote an op-ed last week denouncing anyone who dares dissent against the God-like authoritative status of the IPCC UN report on climate change.

I would like to say we're at a point where global warming is impossible to deny. Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future.

This assault betrays what's at the heart of the global warming agenda - a cadre of control freaks who can't respond to the overwhelming evidence that the Sun and other long term natural cycles are responsible for climate change and thus have to resort to vile propagandistic personality attacks to sway the court of public opinion.

During a debate on the BBC's Question Time program, a panelist's appeal for viewers to simply look at both sides of the argument and consider other causes besides the man-made explanation was met with boos and cat-calls from the audience and the speaker was shouted down. It's now treated as sacrilegious to even question the force fed dogma that leads the automatons to endlessly repeat what has been brainwashed into them by the establishment media like a broken record.

"We can't afford to have this debate," they scream, arguing that the end is nigh and unbelievers need to be metaphorically burned at the stake of public opinion in the interests of human survival.

But for those with memories and the nerve to actually think for themselves, the climate doomsayers have been proven wrong throughout the decades. In the late 60's and early 70's, the in-vogue hysteria about climate change and how it spelled the end for humanity as we know it revolved around the concept of global cooling. Again, this arose out of a misunderstanding of long term temperature fluctuations and the fact that the earth was at the end of the cycle of the Little Ice Age.

Writer John Bender has done an excellent job of compiling quotes from environmental "authorities" of past decades who told us that the sky was falling yet have been completely discredited with hindsight. Keep these dire proclamations in mind when you hear yet another "repeater" regurgitate the brainwashing that he or she has been indoctrinated with by the establishment.

The continued rapid cooling of the earth since WWII is in accord with the increase in global air pollution associated with industrialization, mechanization, urbanization and exploding population. -- Reid Bryson, "Global Ecology; Readings towards a rational strategy for Man", (1971)

The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s, the world will undergo famines. Hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. Population control is the only answer -- Paul Ehrlich - The Population Bomb (1968)

I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000 -- Paul Ehrlich in (1969)

In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish. -- Paul Ehrlich, Earth Day (1970)

Before 1985, mankind will enter a genuine age of scarcity . . . in which the accessible supplies of many key minerals will be facing depletion -- Paul Ehrlich in (1976)

This [cooling] trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century -- Peter Gwynne, Newsweek 1976

There are ominous signs that the earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production - with serious political implications for just about every nation on earth. The drop in food production could begin quite soon... The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologist are hard-pressed to keep up with it. -- Newsweek, April 28, (1975)

This cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people. If it continues and no strong action is taken, it will cause world famine, world chaos and world war, and this could all come about before the year 2000. -- Lowell Ponte "The Cooling", 1976
If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder by the year 2000...This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age. -- Kenneth E.F. Watt on air pollution and global cooling, Earth Day (1970)

The IPCC is a political body, not a scientific organization, therefore its proclamation is purely intended at achieving a political agenda. The document they released on February 2 that was devotedly afforded days of intense coverage by the compliant establishment media was a political manifesto based on a scientific undertaking that has not even been completed. How empirical is a "scientific experiment" whose conclusions are announced before tests have even been completed? The document immediately states that the "scientific" research is being edited to conform to the already released political summary.

“Changes (other than grammatical or minor editorial changes) made after acceptance by the Working Group or the Panel shall be those necessary to ensure consistency with the Summary for Policymakers or the Overview Chapter,” states the brief.

The U.N. has confidently announced "case closed" on man-made global warming because they are editing their own uncompleted report to mirror their pre-conceived conclusion. Hardly "independent" is it?

The IPCC report was piggybacked onto a bandwagon of public relations stunts that had nothing to do with the evidence behind global warming but were enough to leave an impression in the mind of the casual viewer that the man-made explanation was a global consensus. These included the Eiffel Tower's lights being turned off for 5 minutes and a ludicrous incident in which British primate expert Jane Goodall imitated the wild call of a tropical chimpanzee.

Czech President Klaus stated, "Global warming is a false myth and every serious person and scientist says so. It is not fair to refer to the U.N. panel. IPCC is not a scientific institution: it's a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavor. It's neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment."

Man-made advocates go to great lengths to highlight the fact that transnational oil giants such as Exxon-Mobil offer thousands of dollars for reports aimed at disproving the UN theory, claiming this taints any opposing viewpoint as biased, and yet conveniently ignore the fact that it was the U.N. itself and Ted Turner, a man-made devotee and advocate of drastic population reduction to save the planet, who gifted the organization $1 Billion which in part funded the IPCC report. Is that not biased? Is that not a example of scientists being lavishly bankrolled to produce evidence that fits a pre-conceived outcome? Is the fact that a carbon tax fueled by fear of climate change that will go directly to assorted U.N. agencies itself a commentary on the U.N.'s role on hyping man-made global warming?

In addition, Greenpeace are recruiting "global warming field organizer's" whose job it is to lobby members of Congress to push the agenda for man-made global warming. So if you thought your donation was going to help save whales or protect the rainforest you're sorely mistaken - it's partly funding a PR assault that will eventually orbit right back to you in the form of a draconian carbon emissions tax that will do nothing to prevent global warming but will fill the pockets of global government and the U.N.

Not all scientists were prepared to sacrifice their impartiality to be in on the scam. Dr. Chris Landsea resigned from the IPCC in his own words because, “I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound.”

Landsea is one of many climate experts, meteorologists, geologists and others who have braved the scorn of the flat-earthers to point out that man-made advocates have utilized myopic and blinkered scientific trickery to make their case.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Internet leader in activist media - Prison Planet.tv. Thousands of special reports, videos, MP3's, interviews, conferences, speeches, events, documentary films, books and more - all for just 15 cents a day!
Click here to subscribe!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Timothy Ball, Chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg, recently penned an outstanding piece in which he detailed how the illusion is being played out and how skeptics of the farce are increasingly being made pariahs simply for having an opposing view. Ball puts it better than I ever could so I make no apologies for quoting his article at length.

" Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was one of the first Canadian Ph.Ds. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.

Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification.

No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we don't pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world come to believe that something is wrong?

Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago, that global cooling was the biggest threat: a matter of faith. "It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species," wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976.
I was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as I am to the threats made about Global Warming. Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on.

Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.

No doubt passive acceptance yields less stress, fewer personal attacks and makes career progress easier. What I have experienced in my personal life during the last years makes me understand why most people choose not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent."

No one disagrees with the notion that global warming is occurring, but to discount the fact that it has anything to do with that giant flaming ball of fire in our sky that we can barely look at without being blinded is ignorance unparalleled.

How do we square the fact that almost every planet in our solar system is simultaneously undergoing temperature change and volatile weather patterns? Does this not suggest that global warming is a natural cycle as a result of the evolving nature of the sun and other celestial phenomena? Can Al Gore fill me in on this one?

Mars, Pluto, Jupiter, Saturn, Triton and numerous other nooks and crannies throughout the solar system are experiencing warming trends and volatile weather patterns. How many SUV's are there on Jupiter?

The earth and its celestial counterparts are getting hotter because the Sun is burning more brightly than at any time in the past 1,000 years, according to a study undertaken by the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Gottingen, Germany.

In addition, cosmic rays from exploding stars have now been found to contribute substantially to cloud formation and the greenhouse effect as the London Times reported yesterday.

The simple fact is that throughout the ages the earth has swung wildly between a warm, wet, stable climate, to a cold, dry and windy one - long before the first fossil fuel was burned. The changes we are now witnessing are a walk in the park compared to the battering that our rugged planet has taken in the past.

This is not a defense of the oil cartels or the Neo-Con wreckers, who would have every motivation to ignore global warming whether it is man-made or not.

Nor is it a blanket denial of the fact that the earth is getting very gradually hotter, but how do we reconcile global warming taking place at the farthest reaches of the solar system with the contention that it is caused by human activity? Have our exhaust fumes left earth's atmosphere and slipped through a black hole to Triton?

Countless other heroes of science have put their reputation and careers on the line in the name of truth to expose the man-made fraud and challenge the creeping fascism being engendered by means of using political correctness to hijack the debate. They have bucked the orthodoxy and risked being stripped of their credentials, as the Weather Channel’s most prominent climatologist would have it. Here are several insightful statements from these brave individuals.

I have been in operational meteorology since 1978, and I know dozens and dozens of broadcast meteorologists all over the country. Our big job: look at a large volume of raw data and come up with a public weather forecast for the next seven days. I do not know of a single TV meteorologist who buys into the man-made global warming hype. I know there must be a few out there, but I can’t find them. Billions of dollars of grant money is flowing into the pockets of those on the man-made global warming bandwagon. No man-made global warming, the money dries up. This is big money, make no mistake about it. Always follow the money trail and it tells a story. Even the lady at “The Weather Channel” probably gets paid good money for a prime time show on climate change. No man-made global warming, no show, and no salary. Nothing wrong with making money at all, but when money becomes the motivation for a scientific conclusion, then we have a problem. For many, global warming is a big cash grab. The climate of this planet has been changing since God put the planet here. It will always change, and the warming in the last 10 years is not much difference than the warming we saw in the 1930s and other decades. And, lets not forget we are at the end of the ice age in which ice covered most of North America and Northern Europe.
ABC-TV Meteorologist James Spann.

"It's not 2,500 people offering their consensus, I participated in that. Each person who is an author writes one or two pages in conjunction with someone else. They travel around the world several times a year for several years to write it and the summary for policymakers has the input of about 13 of the scientists, but ultimately, it is written by representatives of governments, of environmental organizations like the Union of Concerned Scientists, and industrial organizations, each seeking their own benefit."
MIT's Professor of Atmospheric Science Dr. Richard Lindzen on the IPCC report.
"Climate keeps changing all the time. The fact that climate changes is not in itself a threat."
Dr. S. Fred Singer, Atmospheric Physicist at George Mason University.

Man-made global warming feeds into humanity's arrogant self-importance in thinking that it has become the master and therefore the decider of the earth's destiny. On an individual level, it also helps a person stroke their ego and feel good about themselves for recycling a few beer cans or wine bottles in the belief that they're saving the planet, and also gives them the excuse to exercise their judgment against anyone who doesn't do likewise.

Fearmongering about an imminent climate doomsday also hogs news coverage and important environmental issues like GM food, mad scientist chimera cloning and the usurpation and abuse of corporations like Monsanto flies under the radar.

Global warming is cited as an excuse to meter out further control and surveillance over our daily lives, RFID chips on our trash cans, GPS satellite tracking and taxation by the mile, as well as a global tax at the gas pump.

The extremist wing of the environmentalist movement, characterized by people like Dr. Erik Pianka, advocate the mass culling of humanity via plagues and state sanctioned bio-terrorism, in order to "save" the earth from the disease of humanity. Nazi-like genocidal population control measures and the environmental establishment have always held a close alliance.

The world is laboring under enforced adherence to a program of mass deception while scientists who attempt to blow the whistle on the fraud are silenced, tarred, ridiculed and fired. The biased control freaks at the United Nations and their intellectually spayed cheerleaders, whose goal it is to use the hysteria of climate change to impose draconian control measures on society and centralize world power, have declared "case closed" on the man-made origins of global warming. However, their foolish attempts to zealously mute mere expression of an opposing view betray the inherent flaws of their own mantra and will ultimately lead to its downfall.



http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/130207globalwarming.
htm

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 13, 2007 9:15 AM

CITIZEN


Ohh, prisonplanet, the last bastion for unbiased reporting. No wait, the other things, lies portrayed as unbiased fact. I'd trust FOX news before I'd trust those hacks and crazies.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 13, 2007 9:40 AM

ANTIMASON


i wouldnt say unbiased.. but definately biased towards actual human beings, the 90% that dont make up the super rich of the world. if we assume both prisonplanet, and your typical establishment mouthpiece agency like FOX are both biased(in their own way), lets consider their motives- i see the UN and their global government scheme as being far worse then what the alternative media(like prisonplanet)promotes, which is ultimately freedom from oppressive authorities

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 13, 2007 10:14 AM

CITIZEN


No I think they're both a group of loonies that'll say anything for effect and or pushing they're agenda, and that neither report anything even remotely resembling news of what is really happening in real life.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 13, 2007 3:31 PM

JONGSSTRAW


Even if there is some global warming...a few degrees every millenium or so......so what! Everybody likes it a little warmer anyhow...right?

Instead of being -20 in Michigan today it would be -15, or in Philly today it was 8..so in a hundred years it'll be 10. It's really a good thing, this global warming. And for all you whack jobs out there on this subject; I 'aint gonna change any of my own personal enviro-climatic indulgences one iota just so some lonesome caribu can wonder about in the Arctic in search of moose poontang.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 13, 2007 3:52 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Geezer- to answer your question (which has already been answered by large studies) the costs associated with global climate change far outweigh the costs of reducing carbon emissions. There are a lot of reasons why this is so, but the most basic reason is that we're living at the margin... in our highly populated, interdependent world, with cities placed on coastlines and nil food surpluses any change for the worse will be felt.

There is no question that monies must go towards reducing carbon dioxide emissions, the only question is "What percent of GDP?" In other words, at what point does it become AS expensive to reduce greenhouse gases as it does to mitigate their effect?

www.nytimes.com/2006/12/14/business/14scene.html?ex=1323752400&en=f752
c231684bfc0a&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss


AFA China is concerned... unfortunately they have lots and lot of coal. 350 coal-fired power plants at about 1000 MW each (that's a hefty-sized power plant) is 350,000 MW. They also plan on building a (much smaller) number of wind-turbines by 2020 totalling 30,000 MW (they have very good 'wind resources', they should take more advantage of it) and the Three Gorges Dam will produce about 18,000 MW. I've heard thet China is seriously looking into hydrogen fuel (good luck on that). I think the big problem is India, which doesn't have enough control of it's economy to reform energy production in any meaningful way.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 14, 2007 10:05 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Okay. Let's assume that the IPCC's latest report is correct and that things will be warming up in the next 100 years


Thats so funny. I'm going to name my forty foot snowman in your honor.

Geezer the Snowman,
was a jolly happy soul,
without a corncob pipe cause smoking's illegal,
and two eyes made of bio-degradable dog crap.

Global warming,
is a fairytale, they say.
It causes warm winters and hurricanes,
but the scientists know
how its all politcal bullshit.

There must have been some magic in
that old ALGore they found,
for when Bush kicked his sorry ass,
he began to dance around!

Oh, Geezer, the Snowman,
was as felt warm as he could be;
and the children say
he could he could point and say,
"the end will come someday".

Geezer the Snowman,
knew the sun was hot that day,
so he said, "Let's run, and we'll have some fun,
now, before I melt away."

Thumpety, thump thump, thumpety, thump thump . . .
look at Geezer go!
Thumpety, thump thump, thumpety, thump thump . . .
over the hills of snow!

Thanks, global warming is so funny. Gotto run, turns out shoveling snow is much harder then shoveling the crap you guys are spreading.

H

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 14, 2007 3:43 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Geezer, I'm going to expand on the subject a bit, because there are so many easy things that COULD be done both in the USA and worldwide that aren't.

Just to toss out a few:

DC power transmission. It's already in use for very long-distance tranmission (the Pacific Intertie between the Columbia Dam and Los Angeles) That would save about 10% electricity right away.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Intertie

More efficient fluorescent, diode lights.

Solar ovens. Very useful in places where wood, dung, or coal is used for cooking. Costs $5-$20 each depending on how sophisticated you want it to be.

Windpower. Tall towers (about the size the the Statue of Liberty) with similarly-sized, slow-turning baldes create huge amounts of power even in moderate-wind areas. Being slow-moving, they do not represent a hazard to birds.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 14, 2007 4:03 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by Hero:


Thanks, global warming is so funny. Gotto run, turns out shoveling snow is much harder then shoveling the crap you guys are spreading.


That was clever, Hero. Brought a smile to my face. But you are, as usual, missing the big picture.
Whatever.

Freezing cold on a planet who's mean temperature is rising Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 14, 2007 4:42 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


What to do now? All engines hard astern. We've got a lot of reversal to do.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 14, 2007 5:46 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


I'd love to worry about it, but I'm kind of scared of the world we're growing into and I think maybe everyone and everything will be better off if the weather finally does us all in and the animals get it back for a while.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 14, 2007 5:46 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


My first double post. Yay!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 14, 2007 5:51 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


CONGRATS !

"I'd love to worry about it, but I'm kind of scared of the world we're growing into and I think maybe everyone and everything will be better off if the weather finally does us all in and the animals get it back for a while." I'm sorry that we're going to take down a lot of the animals and plants before we go down ourselves. I'm mean, what did they ever do except live on the same planet as an eff'ed up species that can't stop, as they saying goes, shitting in its own nest.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 14, 2007 6:21 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


We done outgrown our nest quite some time ago and now we have no choice but to shit where we eat.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 14, 2007 8:00 PM

ANTIMASON


Quote:

RUE-
I'm sorry that we're going to take down a lot of the animals and plants before we go down ourselves. I'm mean, what did they ever do except live on the same planet as an eff'ed up species that can't stop, as they saying goes, shitting in its own nest.



how curious it is, that we *appear to hold the balance of life in our hands- what miracle of evolution allowed us to be the guardians of this planet? ... we cant even take care of our own 'species'






NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 14, 2007 8:08 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Quote:

Originally posted by antimason:
how curious it is, that we *appear to hold the balance of life in our hands- what miracle of evolution allowed us to be the guardians of this planet? ... we cant even take care of our own 'species'



Hah.... put that in your pipes and smoke it Evocrats!



P.S.... or perhaps put it in your patch and wear it. I guess you people don't smoke too much anymore. You're so smart!

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 15, 2007 4:55 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


SignyM, I'm combining responses to your last two posts.


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
AFA China is concerned... unfortunately they have lots and lot of coal. 350 coal-fired power plants at about 1000 MW each (that's a hefty-sized power plant) is 350,000 MW. They also plan on building a (much smaller) number of wind-turbines by 2020 totalling 30,000 MW (they have very good 'wind resources', they should take more advantage of it) and the Three Gorges Dam will produce about 18,000 MW. I've heard thet China is seriously looking into hydrogen fuel (good luck on that). I think the big problem is India, which doesn't have enough control of it's economy to reform energy production in any meaningful way.



And that's sort of the problem. If we take steps to control emissions and they don't, it doesn't mean we avoid climate change and they don't.

Quote:

Geezer, I'm going to expand on the subject a bit, because there are so many easy things that COULD be done both in the USA and worldwide that aren't.

Just to toss out a few:

DC power transmission....More efficient fluorescent, diode lights...Solar ovens...Windpower.



These may be good ideas, but, for example, I know that folks have been pushing the solar ovens for 30 or 40 years, and still can't get any significant use. I use flourescent when possible, to save on power bills, incandescent is more useful in some situations. Then there's the question of what lengths government should go to to enforce such changes.

But the real point is still in "...both in the USA and worldwide...". If "worldwide" doesn't play, is there a point at which the USA and the rest of the First World are just spending their capital on a feel-good gesture that will have little or no impact on climate?

I got no problem with reducing the use of fossil fuels. I've seen the problems that acid rain has caused in the Shennandoah mountains and would like the trees to come back. But I don't think we're going to get the required number of players involved to do much about preventing global climate change.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 15, 2007 5:07 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Okay. Let's assume that the IPCC's latest report is correct and that things will be warming up in the next 100 years


Thats so funny. I'm going to name my forty foot snowman in your honor.

Geezer the Snowman,
was a jolly happy soul,
without a corncob pipe cause smoking's illegal,
and two eyes made of bio-degradable dog crap.



Okay. I'll edit this for those who don't understand the concept of proposing a hypothetical assumption so that a theoretical discussion can take place.

Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Okay. Let's hypothetically assume, for the sake of a theoretical discussion, that the IPCC's latest report is correct and that things will be warming up in the next 100 years.





"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 15, 2007 5:57 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

And that's sort of the problem. If we take steps to control emissions and they don't, it doesn't mean we avoid climate change and they don't.
And that's the age-old problem of "the commons". But I'm facing a busy day today so I'll have to get back to you later.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, February 15, 2007 7:01 AM

KHYRON


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/6354759.stm



The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 16, 2007 3:26 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


If the US works like hell to avoid climate change and 'they' don't the US will be efficient and energy independent and 'they' won't. Not a bad spot to be in.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, February 16, 2007 3:27 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


6-string

Was your relationship with your mother highly conflicted? Not meant to be insulting, I'm really curious.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, February 17, 2007 2:31 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:

And that's sort of the problem. If we take steps to control emissions and they don't, it doesn't mean we avoid climate change and they don't.
And that's the age-old problem of "the commons". But I'm facing a busy day today so I'll have to get back to you later.



---------------------------------
Rue: If the US works like hell to avoid climate change and 'they' don't the US will be efficient and energy independent and 'they' won't. Not a bad spot to be in.


I posted that later but I think it applies. Aside from climate change, there are good reasons to be ahead of the curve.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 20, 2007 6:33 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Geezer- How 'bout this?

Turnbull to pull plug on light bulbs

Federal Environment Minister Malcolm Turnbull is announcing today that conventional, incandescent light bulbs are to be phased out over the next three years and replaced with energy-saving globes. He says this will save up to two million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions in Australia over the next few years. Mr Turnbull has told AM that new energy standards will be introduced.

"It'll be illegal to sell a product that doesn't meet the energy standard so that'll happen by 2009, 2010, and so by that stage you simply won't be able to buy incandescent light bulbs because they won't meet the energy standard," he said. Mr Turnbull told Channel Nine this action could also make an enormous impact globally.

"If the rest of the world supports us, does what we've been doing here, follows our lead, this will reduce an amount of energy, in effect make the world more energy efficient to the tune of five times as much energy as Australia consumes, so this is a little thing but it's a massive change," he said.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/070219/21/12h62.html





---------------------------------
Taking one step back from Earth that was.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 20, 2007 12:04 PM

KHYRON


Now that the Ozzies have finally gotten their arses handed to them in cricket, it looks like Howard could at last tear himself away from watching them on the telly long enough to get one of his ministers to do something sensible.



The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 20, 2007 1:52 PM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by Khyron:
Now that the Ozzies have finally gotten their arses handed to them in cricket, it looks like Howard could at last tear himself away from watching them on the telly long enough to get one of his ministers to do something sensible.

Read over that sentence again and realise where you went wrong.

Hint:
Howard. Doing. Something. Usefull.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
White Woman Gets Murdered, Race Baiters Most Affected
Thu, November 28, 2024 07:40 - 20 posts
Alex Jones makes himself look an even bigger Dickhead than Piers Morgan on live TV (and that takes some doing, I can tell you).
Thu, November 28, 2024 07:29 - 81 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, November 28, 2024 07:11 - 7514 posts
Hollywood exposes themselves as the phony whores they are
Thu, November 28, 2024 07:02 - 46 posts
Elections; 2024
Thu, November 28, 2024 06:03 - 4846 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, November 28, 2024 05:58 - 4776 posts
Trump, convicted of 34 felonies
Thu, November 28, 2024 03:56 - 44 posts
Thread of Trump Appointments / Other Changes of Scenery...
Thu, November 28, 2024 03:51 - 48 posts
Where Will The American Exodus Go?
Thu, November 28, 2024 03:25 - 1 posts
What's wrong with conspiracy theories
Wed, November 27, 2024 17:06 - 21 posts
Ellen Page is a Dude Now
Wed, November 27, 2024 17:05 - 238 posts
Bald F*ck MAGICALLY "Fixes" Del Rio Migrant Invasion... By Releasing All Of Them Into The U.S.
Wed, November 27, 2024 17:03 - 41 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL