This topic is directed at all of those who have been spouting their knowledge about global warming and mans place in it. And pointing out how "ALL THE FACTS ARE NOT IN YET"
If you caught any of the nightly news programs you are now aware that G.W. and his cabinet have been releasing rewritten scientific reports on global warming.
There has not been any debates going on about man's effect on the climate, our government's highest leader has been altering the scientific reports!!
The articles and reports you have been so kindly providing are tainted by our government and, well, there are not worth the paper they were written on!
Doesn't it make you feel like an absolute fool for putting your faith in information supposedly printed by credible scientific reporting agencies? (if you don't you should)
Along with all the other lies Bush has told to our nation, he and his affiliates have been tampering with scientific data changing it to have you believe that there are scientists who are not sure either way about global warming, when all the time the scientists have been telling our administration that there is no-doubt about global warming.
To those of you who may be a bit younger than I, may not be aware of how powerfull our political leaders can be when it comes to what, we the public are allowed to know.
This isn't the first time our leaders have lied to us, or filled us with propaganda that they wanted us to get behind, and by God this won't be the last!
When this topic came up for dicussion some time ago I along with others were tagged as alarmists.
I boldly stood up and screamed at the top of my voice "YES I'M AN ALARMIST" and so should you be.
You all may say what you will, but just observing the weather patterns and the bugs all us farmers have known for a while now that something has been changing dramatically.
So pooh pooh Al Gore all you want, but if we don't make DRASTIC changes in our behavior now, it won't be long when there will be no place left on earth for humans!!!
AND THAT AIN'T NO-LIE!!!



The preceeding message was brought to you by a little old farmer with some common sense.
Unjust John

P.S. I am not a graduate from any school of higher learning.
But my knowledge goes way beyond what anyone will ever read in a book or learn from a class!

It should come as no surprise that political aims and religious agendas have attempted to influence, suppress, or modify the product of independent thought and science.

I agree with that.

Howerver, it would be good for UJJ to provide a link to his source.

Thanks ! Don't mind if I do
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard...onvenient-truth
He (Pres. Bush) controls the Australians, British, Canadians and Danish as well apparently.
http://ideonexus.com/2008/03/25/more-globa...ipcc-orthodoxy/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7329799.stm
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm
http://sermitsiaq.gl/klima/article30834.ece?lang=EN
and of course the classic "Do as I say , Not as I do"
http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/articl...?article_id=367

I'm not disagreeing with the fact that weather patterns are changing. But weather patterns have constantly changed "dramatically" since the beginning of the Earth. This heating could very easily and probably be just a normal weather variation. I'm not sure how far back your records go. Even if they go to around the 1800's, you will still, in the end, be looking at 200 years worth of weather patterns compared to billions of years of weather cycles. Not very comparable in the end.

The Ice Age wasn't man made, the heating that caused the Ice Age to melt wasn't man made, so why must this be man made?

That's pretty much it, Sphinx -

the scientific argument/discussion/debate revolves around what, if any, effect man's CO2 emissions have on the planet's climate.


Cooling and warming have been happening for as far back as we can record it.

Sorry about not providing links, but ever since Z showed me how to do that I have been in and out of the hospital and have not perfected the technique.
But should you look back over my posting, you will note that I had gotten my information from the Nightly News. All three major networks ran a segment with regards to G.W. altering scientific documents and how we now could be on the cusp of irreversable damage to our planet.
Anyone who made it through grade school knows about the ice age and catstrophic weather petterns produced by mother nature herself. The arguement here was about man made global warming and the facts are in! have been in! and have been altered to serve a political purpose! There is no debate between scientists about the effects of man made pollution upon this planet, they all agree that we are doing irreversable damage and things have to change NOW!
You can quote studies until your blue in the face, but the fact remains that almost all of those studies that would have you believe that this is just another natural cycle of events have been altered period, and therefore cannot be trusted to be used as a basis for making decisions about the future.
Just being good shepards of our enviroment becomes a mute point if you do nothing about greenhouse gases produced by man.
Mother nature works in a fashion as to rejuvinate herself or to bring about new life in a different form.
Man does no-such thing.
The polution we create is most often synthetic and mother nature has no defenses to our attack..
Greenhouse gases, while produced in mother nature, are now being produced at levels that nature itself cannot counteract.Therefore it is up to us to stop!
One of the main points made here has been about the high cost of changing our ways, but I ask you:
"How many weather patterns have to be changed because of pollution before it becomes apparent that we are the cause?"
And the costs that will be charged in the future will be in human life and not dollar amounts.
2008 has already had in excess of 1,000 tornados this year, and we are just starting the tornado season. There was over two hundred tornados during the winter months of this year when this phenominom has not been previously recorded by man. ( there have been times when one or two tornados were recorded during the winter season)
Flooding in parts of the country that have no-previously recorded floods, and draughts where water was once prevelant.
Oue lake Erie is at it's lowest level since the begining of keeping statistics on the lake.
States are trying to pass Federal laws in order to pump the water from the Great Lakes because they are dying of thirst.
South American rain forests are being harvested at the rate of two thousand acres per hour and not being replanted.
North American rain forests are being attacked by insects that normally die off during the winter months, but now are eating our trees at about three thousand acres per day.
Fires throughout the west are burning 10,000 acres per day and are forcasted to burn even at a faster rate for the rest of this year. Firefighters have forcasted the rate of burn to double by 2009 and then double every four months beyond that.
These are all events directly related to global warming caused by the man made greenhouse gases!
And one final statement; (this is only because you guys are really p'ing me off)
Get your heads out of the damn books and off the computer and just look outside.
If you can't see the effects of our pollution on our enviroment then you ARE the problem!

Oh there is one more thing I want to say and it's about quoting my sources;
I AM THE SOURCE! I have lived for fifty seven years on this planet and I have taken the time to pay attention to all the things going on in this world my whole life.
If I were to provide you with all the places I have gotten my information from, it would take fifty more years of typing on this computer to provide you with the links to my knowledge.
I realize that unless some of you can not find this information in some publication then to you it can't be true. Let me assure you, Not everything you read is the gospel trueth, and in many many cases, the information you are quoting has been altered for someones hidden agenda!

And not one thing you "source" proves that Global Warming is being caused by man's emissions of CO2.



Making such a false statement does not change the fact that it is false.

There is quite a lot of debate - both healthy and productive, I might add, as long as we are only talking about actions other than anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

Debate based on more scientific sources, I might add.

We are talking about three separate situations here, UJJ -


One - natural global cooling and warming cycles that have been going on essentially forever.

Two - man's activities on the planet other than CO2 emissions. For example, cutting down the rainforests, polluting rivers, over-fishing the oceans, etc.

Three - anthropogenic (man's) CO2 emissions into the atmosphere.

Obviously, there probably will never be much we can do about item One.

Item Two is something that should concern all of us. I'm for doing whatever we can to reduce or eliminate these effects. We should all be better stewards of the planet.

Item Three, however, is tied to the economically damaging and highly profitable (to Al Gore and his business associates) carbon trading schemes. This is what I feel requires debate since not all of the facts are in, not all of the scientists agree, and the debate is not only not over but is being stifled by the big money associated with the recommended preventitive action. The evidence we have right now does not conclusively prove that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are either the main cause of global warming or one of the contributing factors at even a negligible level.

If you don't fully understand these differences, then you will not be part of any solution.

Actually John I have been paying very close attention to this discussion.


There was no-discussion about anything other than anthropogenic global warming in the begining.

Yes it has gotten extended into other catagories, divisions, and deversions around this base topic, but in the begining it was all about mans co2 emissions with regards to global warming.

The FACTS are all in. ALL scientists agree that we (mankind) are the main reason for the accelerated warming of this planet, and that our emmisions will continue to warm this planet to the point of no-return unless acted upon NOW.

As I pointed out nearly two months ago, there is only ONE scientist still holding to his guns about this dilema, and he his being funded entirely by oil money to say so.

Our government and other governments have now been found to be altering the scientific data in order to stay on their hidden agendas.

Once the data has been altered it now becomes totally useless and that's when common sense has to be the one to make a decision.

I have read almost all of the links you and others have provided and now knowing that those opinions have been tainted or completely altered has left me to no-longer give any weight to their points.


So this leaves the debate to those scientists who do agree that we are contributing to our own demise due to co2 emissions.

The question then only becomes what are the next steps we must take period.

I get your point that Gore's way of addressing this problem is going to be very costly, but it won't make a darn buit of difference who's method we use to clean up our mess.

Some may cost less than others, but in the end no matter how you go about cleaning up our emmisions, all solutions are going to be costly.

The only question to be asked at this time is: "How long are we going to wait before taking action?"

Your worry about Gore and his cronies making huge amounts of money off the clean up is ludicrious.

Some one, or some company/companies are going to make gigantic profits from the clean up of our air, so is it that you're just against Al Gore's methods?

Please take note that the debate about man accelerating global warming through co2 emmisions has been settled and agreed upon by ALL but three nations; The U.S.A, China, and India. And these three countries have agendas that would make it extremely benificial to keep the debate going.

The U.S. because of the astronomical profits still being made off of internal combustion engines, and their use of oil.

China because they are now purchasing more U.S. manafactured cars than ever before and soon will surpass the U.S. in that market.

And India because they too are now purchasing more automobiles than ever before.

Surely no one wants to kill the goose who has laid the golden egg.

There comes a point where I have to give up the debate because in this particular case you are one person who is never going to listen. I do believe that you have become so wound up within your point that you can not allow yourself to change positions.
There may be other reasons for you to hang on to this in such a profound way, but for the life of me I have not been able to figure that out, nor do I care to.

I will end by saying this: you will either spend the money now or you will spend the money later, but non-the less you will be picking up the tab provided the clock doesn't run out before you are afforded the opportunity!

This article in the NY Times seems pertinent to both the debate on global warming, and to serve as an illustration of the current central government's penchant for suppressing or distorting certain viewpoints with which it might not be comfortable ( written byANDREW C. REVKIN, published: May 30, 2008).

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/30/washingt...amp;oref=slogin

"Under a 1990 law, presidents must submit a report to Congress every four years summarizing what is known about impacts of climate change and other global environmental problems on the United States.
The last such assessment, undertaken in the Clinton administration and published in 2000, was attacked by groups and industries opposing restrictions on greenhouse gases. References to it were deleted from some government reports by political appointees in the White House.
Environmental groups sued to force the completion of a new study. In court, the White House contended that a series of more than 20 studies requested by President Bush in 2003 satisfied the 1990 law, but Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong of Federal District Court for the Northern District of California rejected that assertion last August and ordered a comprehensive assessment to be published by the end of May."

(Emphasis mine)
Z

That remains a false statement.

Tired of repeating myself.

I kinda feel we should all pause, take a few calming breaths and try to think outside the square - let's consider a few points..

Stated earlier in in this and other threads is the inescapable fact that a handful of global corporations control 90% of the western worlds economy and they are ruled entirely by the bottom line - anything that threatens to reduce it will be opposed covertly and overtly with all the (huge) resources at their disposal.

There are many instances recorded of the power that big money wields - look at discoveries that have been made - and disappeared - in medicine, energy, transport etc. Fortunately, a lot of later discoveries in solar and other types of energy production, cleaner fuels are now well known to the world at large and irrespective of C02 emissions/global warming, it makes sense for everyone to push for further development and incorporation of these discoveries - especially when new power stations, factories, housing developments are being planned - the technology is available, currently expensive as it's the smaller end of the market, but that will change with growth.

Understandably, big busines in any area doesn't want to sacrifice the huge, expensive, infrastructure that has been built up, and improved, to maintain their current production, marketing, workforce and operating supplies/systems. This is where all western governments should be legislating mandatory planning to switch production methods to cleaner renewable energy souces - and supplying finance asistance to achieve this - any country involved in Iraq is finding and spending incredibly huge amounts of money in arms and military maintenance etc - surely equally huge amounts of money can be made available to further the development and implementation of cleaner "greener" energy and production? If a truly determined effort for all this was required, by the peoples of the world, from their governments and global corporations, we could do away with the farcical 'carbon credits' monstrosity and actually start some positive gains in cleaning up the climate - whether it is the cause of our climate problems or not, there's no harm in making it better anyway.........

This hasn't been expressed very well, and I'm sure someone will point out the insurmountable difficulties of implemeting all this (please do - it's only by pointing out the problems that we can achive solutions!). Just my H.O's.

Agree, with what your saying, Mike,except the part where you said,Carbon Credits are a farce.
Countries that have implimented this,haven't done it as a knee jerk decision.
We have to start somewhere, to encourage Countries to manufacture Cleaner.Isn't something better than nothing?
Then it's time for the ordinary Guy, to get serious also.
Then the Government should offer cash reinbursement incentives to build our houses,utilizing all the latest technologies available,so we rely less on power derived from fossil burning Power Plants.
Like new roofs now that can be made of Solar panels.Here in OZ there are some pathetic incentives, but not enough.IMO.

EDIT.Speeling.

This post has been edited by DSTM: Jun 2 2008, 02:00 AM

The Carbon Credit scheme is ony valid IF anthropogenic CO2 emissions are having a negative effect on the climate.

The Carbon Credit people will not allow debate on this because it may expose their false science.

If one accepts QuietMike's assertions that big business somewhat directs what we do and hear, then understanding that the Carbon Credit scheme is big business should make one realize the importance of their disinformation program.

Again, I am specifically talking about CO2 emissions, not polution, which should be viewed separately, as is the move toward alternate energy sources.

John, unjustjohn's header post #1, covers many aspects,and I thought I was quite within my rights, to discuss the whole junket.
To me,you are trying to continue your debate, that you more than covered, in your other thread, on Global Warming.
Am I reading unjustjohn's first post wrong?