Just like you're smothering the production process of the Western World with your black hole faith?
Its like Mr. Miagi said in the Karate Kid, walk on left side of road *safe* walk on right side of road *safe* walk in the middle *squish* just like grape.
Remind me again why those who look on humanity as parasitic don't rid themselves of the burden they impose on the mother earth in the first place (and leave the asthmatics and producers in peace)?
Oh yeah, now I remember they are L_A_S and H_P_C_I_S!
So, an earnest request for the archinect crowd. A bunch of us have been baited into this shit recently, maybe me worst of all. Ive started to think though that Steven and some of the wiser posters were right all along, that our best option is to just not respond. So Id like to propose that if at all possible, and trust me, I know it isnt easy, we just ignore everything Onefella4 has to say from here on out. I just dont think sentiments of ethnic hatred, homophobia, jewish conspiracies, in insinuated form or any other, reflects the community weve built here.
This certainly need not reflect on any other posters, I dont think anyone else has come close to crossing the threshold of outright unapologetic racism that he has. Were all for spirited debate, but if people have no genuine interest in the basic worth of human beings I dont see much purpose.
So again, sorry for bringing this on you guys. Youre certainly welcome to do as you wish. I just dont think this guy is a serious person or has earned our time and energy to respond to him.
Just remember that I don't feign to believe that bigotry is avoidable in the first place. At least in the way in which the term is leveraged by the contemporary idiocracy.
As if Amerika isn't in enough of a economic situation:
On Thursday, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the US was prepared to help establish funding of $100bn a year for developing countries if a deal emerged that met US requirements.
Another pathetic comment from the pro global warming nuts.
Perhaps you now realise you've swallowed a lie, hook, line and sinker, with your only respone being to post mindless comments that attempt to attack those few who called this out as a con long ago.
As if Amerika isn't in enough of a economic situation:
On Thursday, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the US was prepared to help establish funding of $100bn a year for developing countries if a deal emerged that met US requirements.
Yet more evidence, as if it were needed, that the elites will continue extravagant lifestyle while they force changes that will destroy the quality of living for everyone else.
wow... you know, the thing that really undermines all of the right wing consipiracy theorists is that in all of their politcal spin, they can't help but let slip their nutjob and irrational propagandistic nature.
#1. right wing conspiracy theorists like glen beck always make irrational associations and try to demonize and play mind games along side their theories that take away any possibility of credibility that they might have with rational people... things like: posters of obama with a hitler mustache that say "global warming is a fraud like obama"... this is what a bunch of brainwashed right wing high school kids are pinning up on what looks like a hotdog stand on the streets here in seattle as they try to spread their "word"...
#2. they always try to come up with *slogans* and play *word games* to spin their headlines and commentary their way: basically it's someplace between propaganda and tabloids... Things like: "the Axis of Evil: the FED, Washington, and Wall Street"... On Fox news, you hear all these right wing kooky commentators who are being passed off as journalists saying things like that... What on earth are they talking about? If you need to keep recycling and repeating slogans like "Axis of Evil" to get your demonizing message accross and to try to manipulate uneducated people's emotions, you have no credibility among the scientific community or rational educated society... It's like tabloids, peopel are skeptical of all info from tabloids because they are gossip sources. Same thing with the "global warming is a scam" slogan... *Climate change* is not the same thing as "Global Warming". Stop trying to pull the wool over they eyes of ignorant people by using manipulative words...
it's easy to see why oil companies and coal and polluting companies would have incentive to convince people that polution is not damaging or affecting our climate if a cap and trade system would force them to invest $$$ and shift the market away from their status quo... their motive is obvious: $$$.
wait, did you just compare yourself to... galileo? now the irony in that is hilarious, as galileo was correct, and the flat-earthers (aka skeptics) were insanely wrong.
do you mean this randy bright?
the man practically worships jim inhofe. and he lives in tulsa. do you really think this man could give a rats ass about science?
i wouldn't ask this clown for advice on architecture (dear god, those things are fugly), let alone his ridiculous thoughts regarding science.
what's wrong with equality, onefella? are you saying women should be back in the kitchen cooking your food, pumping out your babies? should blacks be related to the kitchen and back of the bus? shopuld gays be denied the same rights as hetero couples?
A new study suggests the financial burden of Arctic climate change is already falling on Inuit people and the heaviest costs are hurting those families least able to pay.
The study backs demands made by Inuit leaders for a share of global funds being proposed to help adapt to a warming planet. It says governments should shift some of their funding focus to help the Inuit meld new tools with traditional knowledge to survive in today's North.
"Inuit can adapt to climate change," says James Ford, a geographer at Montreal's McGill University, whose paper will be published early in 2010. "We have a number of concerns about whether Inuit can afford to adapt."
Concrete examples of climate change in the North have been piling up for years. Temperatures are rising at twice the global average, sea ice is disappearing and becoming more dangerous and weather is becoming less predictable.
The Inuit, many of whom rely on the land for some or all of their food, are adapting. They've begun to use GPS locators, satellite phones and immersion suits to stay safe. They've bought all-terrain vehicles to back up their snow machines because the land stays bare longer, and they're stalking their prey from boats as sea ice grows less reliable. They've found new places to hunt and new ways to get to old ones.
But those adaptations cost money, Ford said.
Early results from another of Ford's projects suggest that new hunting routes developed to bypass now-unreliable ice or newly uncrossable rivers average twice as long as the originals. Gas for snow machines or ATVs currently sells in Iqaluit for about $1.20 a litre.
And the families that rely most heavily on hunting are the least likely to be plugged into the wage economy.
FOUR SIDES TO EVERY STORY [12.18.09]
By Stewart Brand
The calamatists and denialists are primarily political figures, with firm ideological loyalties, whereas the warners and skeptics are primarily scientists, guided by ever-changing evidence. That distinction between ideology and science not only helps clarify the strengths and weaknesses of the four stances, it can also be used to predict how they might respond to future climate developments.
STEWART BRAND is cofounder and co-chairman of The Long Now Foundation. He is the founder of the Whole Earth Catalog, cofounder of The Well, and cofounder of Global Business Network.
He is the original editor of The Whole Earth Catalog, (Winner of the National Book Award). His latest book is Whole Earth Discipline: An Ecopragmatist Manifesto.
Basically, China ruined everything. More and more, China feels unaccountable to anyone but itself. It's a scary situation, because I don't think China operates with any morality at all.
Oil and coal companies not anti carbon taxes and trading caps, they are funding this environmental agenda and are going to make billions from it.
Haha what?? HOW?? Yea. No Im sure youre right. Companies making hundreds of billions each year burning hydrocarbons are just dying to give it away to poor farmers in amazon.
has a number of great charts showing how relatively few scientists actually signed the petition project
here's my favorite, though:
interesting to note that of the top 30 most profitable companies the last 2 years, half were gas/oil/coal... and how many billions they made - and have no issues driving us off the cliff...
so zoo, jack, et al: please tell me these guys
2007 profit: $266,000,000,000
1. Exxon Mobil
2. Royal Dutch Shell
4. BP
5. Gazprom
6. HSBC
7. Chevron
8. Petronas
9. Total
14. China National Petroleum
16. ENI
17. BHP Billiton
20. Petrobras
21. Rosneft Oil
29. ConocoPhillips
30. CVRD
2008 profit: $268,300,000,000
1. Exxon Mobil
2. Gazprom
3. Royal Dutch Shell
4. Chevron
5. BP
6. Petrobras
11. Total
12. BHP Billiton
13. Petronas
16. CVRD
19. ENI
24. Rosneft Oil
26. China National Petroleum
29. Lukoil
i haven't followed this thread, but there's an article about this in today's philadelphia inquirer that centers on the michael mann the director of penn state's earth system science center...
The saddest thing about all this is all the poor ass people being fooled by ludicrously wealthy companies into slavishly deconstructing their own interest thinking theyre standing up to the man. Its like a parent with a kid dying of curable cancer refusing treatment because "Its the government!". Its a republicans fucking wet dream.
"The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.
Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research.
In an interview with The Mail on Sunday, Dr Lal, the co-ordinating lead author of the report’s chapter on Asia, said: ‘It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.
‘It had importance for the region, so we thought we should put it in.’
Its not so much stupidity that bothers me. Theres lots of very charming people who just dont know all that much. Its people that are intentionally stupid. That I find weird.
lol... republicans are hillarious... they think they *win* when they:
a. come up with a new slogan... demonize as a strategy to "disprove" scientific evidence...
b. make shit up...
c. "i know you are but what am i?" BUUURN!!!
d. repeat, repeat, repeat... "wow... now it must be true!"
unfortunately in reality there are no winners. we all lose because we've fucked up our planet... thanks republidicks...
What caused a fall from grace so sudden that IPCC’s insiders now demand Pachauri’s ouster, and that leads the Indian government to set up an “Indian IPCC” as a national alternative to the IPCC, declaring that it “cannot rely” any longer on the organization that its own representative heads?
One answer is Climategate — the unauthorized release of emails in November that showed the duplicity of scientists associated with the IPCC. Unquestionably, Climategate opened the floodgates to the torrent of scandals that have since poured out, seemingly without end. Many of the new scandals, some of them sporting “-gate” as a suffix, were little known before the Climategate emails were released; many were well known, but not publicized by a compliant press. Their sheer number deserves cataloguing.
Glaciergate: The post-Climategate scandal with the greatest repercussions involves a scientifically impossible yet much-touted IPCC claim that Himalayan glaciers would melt by the year 2035. This claim originated in a conversation in 1999 between a UK journalist and an Indian glaciologist, who made an off-hand remark about India’s glaciers disappearing. The World Wildlife Fund then cited this glaciologist’s speculation in a fundraising and advocacy campaign in 2005. Then the IPCC cited the World Wildlife Fund’s campaign material as the source for the imminent end of the Himalayan glaciers.
At no point did the IPCC require anything remotely resembling peer-review to test the speculation that the end of the Himalayan glaciers was nigh, and this was deliberate. As Murari Lal, the IPCC’s coordinating lead author for the glacier chapter explained, he knew the work hadn’t been verified but felt scary scenarios were needed to rouse public concern: “We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.”
More WWF: The IPCC’s reliance on the World Wildlife Fund as an authority in Glaciergate was no anomaly. Blogger Donna Laframboise thought to do a search on the IPCC’s own site of “WWF” and found it turned up dozens of times, and was a source on everything from mudflows and avalanches to fish in the Mesoamerican reef.
Greenpeace et al.: Ms. Framboise then checked out Greenpeace and found that this advocacy organization, too, was an IPCC source. For example, Greenpeace’s report, The Pacific in Peril, was the sole source for a claim that linked global warming to coral reef degradation. On a roll, she then found that members of other advocacy organizations, such as people from David Suzuki Foundation, Environmental Defense and Friends of the Earth were among the IPCC’s “expert reviewers.”
Ice-capped mountains: The IPCC relied on even sketchier sources in deciding that ice was disappearing from the world’s mountain tops. In blaming global warming for the loss of mountain ice in the Andes, Alps and Africa, the IPCC’s most recent 2007 report cited two papers as the basis for its conclusions. One was authored by a geography student and climate change campaigner who was trying for the equivalent of a master’s degree at Switzerland’s University of Berne. The student made his case on the basis of interviews with mountain guides in the Swiss Alps. The second paper was a popular article in Climbing, a magazine for mountain climbers that quoted mountaineers about the changes they had observed.
Sea-levels: This week, the Dutch Environmental Assessment Agency revealed that the IPCC blundered in its 2007 report in claiming that 55% of the Netherlands lay below sea-level. IPCC scientists who were evidently out of their depth had added the area of the Netherlands below sea-level to the area susceptible to flooding, not realizing that these areas overlap. To the embarrassment of the Dutch Environment Minister, her department then based Dutch environmental policy on the IPCC’s mangled stats of her country. The correct stat: 20% of The Netherlands is susceptible to flooding should global warming cause sea levels to rise.
Urban Warming: Also this week, the IPCC stands accused of relying on a bogus 20-year-old study that discounted a mountain of evidence that cities become reservoirs of heat, making them warmer than the surrounding countryside. The study that found this “urban heat island effect” to be minimal based its claim on a long series of temperature measurements from 84 Chinese weather stations, half in the countryside and half in cities. The co-author of this study, Phil Jones, director of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit of Climategate fame, for years resisted Freedom of Information requests by skeptics seeking to obtain the locations of the 42 rural stations. It now appears that the documents needed to validate the Jones study no longer exist.
Climategate USA: Last month, evidence emerged that the manipulation of weather data by the UK’s Climatic Research Unit had a no-less impressive counterpart on this side of the Atlantic. Two U.S. government agencies, NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, are implicated in a massive and unannounced re-do of data from weather stations around the world. In the 70s, these two agencies obtained their temperature data from 6,000 weather stations around the world. By 1990, they had discarded three-quarters of the weather stations, leaving but 1500. Most of the discarded stations were cold-weather stations. The remaining 1500 then acted as surrogates for the discarded 4500.
In Canada, for example, the U.S agencies discarded data from 565 of 600 stations, including most high up in the Rockies or in Canada’s northern territories. In Bolivia, a country in the Andes, every last weather station was discarded. To get Bolivian temperatures, NASA and NOAA used readings from 1200 miles away — from the Amazon and the beaches of Peru.
The Amazon Jungle: Last week, the IPCC came under fire for claiming that the entire Amazon was threatened by climate change, an exaggeration of a study that merely claimed that “up to 40% of Brazilian rainforest was extremely sensitive to small reductions in the amount of rainfall,” drying out the forests and making them susceptible to fires.
Not that the study the IPCC relied upon was itself unimpeachable. The report, A Global Review of Forest Fires, was co-authored by a freelance journalist and environmental activist who had worked for organizations such as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth. The other co-author was a WWF campaigner.
Stern Review: Another study that the IPCC relied upon – The Stern Review, written by a prominent former World Bank economist, commissioned by the UK Treasury, and published by Cambridge University Press — had all the trappings of authority. Yet its dire estimates of the financial costs of climate change were so extreme that it was castigated by some of the world’s leading climate change economists when it was initially published. Last week, more errors came to light that also point to an academic cover-up, designed to avoid embarrassment.
Between the time The Stern Review was first released in October 2006, and its publication in book form by Cambridge University Press in January 2007, various unsupportable claims were scrubbed, including claims that North West Australia had been hit by stronger tropical typhoons in the previous 30 years, that southern regions in Australia had lost rainfall due to rising ocean temperatures, that air currents adversely affected Australian rainfall, and that savannahs would increasingly take over Australian terrain. A typo that exaggerated the cost of hurricanes by a factor of 10 was also corrected.
Remarkably, a formal erratum or corrigendum — mandatory in academia when corrections or changes are made — was not published in the case of The Stern Review. “Such a practice is very much a whitewash of the historical record,” commented the University of Colorado’s Roger Pielke Jr, one of the many Stern Review critics. “One would assume — and expect — that studies designed to inform government (and international) policy would be held to at least these same standards if not higher standards.”
It will be interesting to see into the future and know when AIA/ NCARB-Gate will inevitably occur, if its not already happening behind the scenes at this time....
I can't tell the difference between big things and little things! I don't think it matters cause numbers are just to confuse people anyways. Usually I just believe whatever I want to make myself feel better.
funny how no word from Klamp-ass about the lack of snow in Vancouver, i guess after a week of snowing like a mofo - where their supposed to have snow - and Faux Gnews ejaculating all over the screen about how that was evidence of no global climate change, you hear nothing from these idiots about how no snow, for nearly a month - where it's supposed to snow - as evidence of global climate change.
hey monkey, go back into your cage, and starting flinging crap at the other monkeys.
Climate Change Emails Hacked
Just like you're smothering the production process of the Western World with your black hole faith?
Its like Mr. Miagi said in the Karate Kid, walk on left side of road *safe* walk on right side of road *safe* walk in the middle *squish* just like grape.
Remind me again why those who look on humanity as parasitic don't rid themselves of the burden they impose on the mother earth in the first place (and leave the asthmatics and producers in peace)?
Oh yeah, now I remember they are L_A_S and H_P_C_I_S!
the parasites are liars and hypocrites.
How can you feign a belief practicing peace through redemption of the environment and then suggest such a horrific thing even in gest?
Oh yeah! now I remember parasites are l_a_s and h_p_c_i_s. How depressing for you and your fellow parasites and what little remains of your humanity.
So, an earnest request for the archinect crowd. A bunch of us have been baited into this shit recently, maybe me worst of all. Ive started to think though that Steven and some of the wiser posters were right all along, that our best option is to just not respond. So Id like to propose that if at all possible, and trust me, I know it isnt easy, we just ignore everything Onefella4 has to say from here on out. I just dont think sentiments of ethnic hatred, homophobia, jewish conspiracies, in insinuated form or any other, reflects the community weve built here.
This certainly need not reflect on any other posters, I dont think anyone else has come close to crossing the threshold of outright unapologetic racism that he has. Were all for spirited debate, but if people have no genuine interest in the basic worth of human beings I dont see much purpose.
So again, sorry for bringing this on you guys. Youre certainly welcome to do as you wish. I just dont think this guy is a serious person or has earned our time and energy to respond to him.
how bigoted of you oe. LOL.
Just remember that I don't feign to believe that bigotry is avoidable in the first place. At least in the way in which the term is leveraged by the contemporary idiocracy.
The lunacy continues:
http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2009/11/24/federal-support-carbon-dioxide-pipeline.html
As if Amerika isn't in enough of a economic situation:
On Thursday, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the US was prepared to help establish funding of $100bn a year for developing countries if a deal emerged that met US requirements.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8420714.stm
You environmental nutters are digging your own grave, no question about it.
Absolute madness
Confirmation of tempering.
Not to mention the politicans are arranging to back date carbon taxes to the dark ages, hows that for ending an hope of economic revovery?
yep.
yep, but you'll be the cushion i'll lay on, you turd.
Another pathetic comment from the pro global warming nuts.
Perhaps you now realise you've swallowed a lie, hook, line and sinker, with your only respone being to post mindless comments that attempt to attack those few who called this out as a con long ago.
As if Amerika isn't in enough of a economic situation:
On Thursday, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the US was prepared to help establish funding of $100bn a year for developing countries if a deal emerged that met US requirements.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8420714.stm
You environmental nutters are digging your own grave, no question about it.
Absolute madness
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020126/climategate-goes-serial-now-the-russians-confirm-that-uk-climate-scientists-manipulated-data-to-exaggerate-global-warming/
Another case of do as i say, not as i do:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1977662.ece
Yet more evidence, as if it were needed, that the elites will continue extravagant lifestyle while they force changes that will destroy the quality of living for everyone else.
Global Warming is a SCAM.
that's ok, zoo, your mommy still loves you.........
wow... you know, the thing that really undermines all of the right wing consipiracy theorists is that in all of their politcal spin, they can't help but let slip their nutjob and irrational propagandistic nature.
#1. right wing conspiracy theorists like glen beck always make irrational associations and try to demonize and play mind games along side their theories that take away any possibility of credibility that they might have with rational people... things like: posters of obama with a hitler mustache that say "global warming is a fraud like obama"... this is what a bunch of brainwashed right wing high school kids are pinning up on what looks like a hotdog stand on the streets here in seattle as they try to spread their "word"...
#2. they always try to come up with *slogans* and play *word games* to spin their headlines and commentary their way: basically it's someplace between propaganda and tabloids... Things like: "the Axis of Evil: the FED, Washington, and Wall Street"... On Fox news, you hear all these right wing kooky commentators who are being passed off as journalists saying things like that... What on earth are they talking about? If you need to keep recycling and repeating slogans like "Axis of Evil" to get your demonizing message accross and to try to manipulate uneducated people's emotions, you have no credibility among the scientific community or rational educated society... It's like tabloids, peopel are skeptical of all info from tabloids because they are gossip sources. Same thing with the "global warming is a scam" slogan... *Climate change* is not the same thing as "Global Warming". Stop trying to pull the wool over they eyes of ignorant people by using manipulative words...
what the hell is a "pro global warming" nut??
can you explain to me exactly what the grand overarching motive is for your conspiracy theory?
i can fully understand where t
it's easy to see why oil companies and coal and polluting companies would have incentive to convince people that polution is not damaging or affecting our climate if a cap and trade system would force them to invest $$$ and shift the market away from their status quo... their motive is obvious: $$$.
wait, did you just compare yourself to... galileo? now the irony in that is hilarious, as galileo was correct, and the flat-earthers (aka skeptics) were insanely wrong.
do you mean this randy bright?
the man practically worships jim inhofe. and he lives in tulsa. do you really think this man could give a rats ass about science?
i wouldn't ask this clown for advice on architecture (dear god, those things are fugly), let alone his ridiculous thoughts regarding science.
what's wrong with equality, onefella? are you saying women should be back in the kitchen cooking your food, pumping out your babies? should blacks be related to the kitchen and back of the bus? shopuld gays be denied the same rights as hetero couples?
your arguments are retarded. stay on topic.
bRink,
Again all these topics have been covered before in this thread.
Oil and coal companies not anti carbon taxes and trading caps, they are funding this environmental agenda and are going to make billions from it.
Derek
sucks to be the inuit....
A new study suggests the financial burden of Arctic climate change is already falling on Inuit people and the heaviest costs are hurting those families least able to pay.
The study backs demands made by Inuit leaders for a share of global funds being proposed to help adapt to a warming planet. It says governments should shift some of their funding focus to help the Inuit meld new tools with traditional knowledge to survive in today's North.
"Inuit can adapt to climate change," says James Ford, a geographer at Montreal's McGill University, whose paper will be published early in 2010. "We have a number of concerns about whether Inuit can afford to adapt."
Concrete examples of climate change in the North have been piling up for years. Temperatures are rising at twice the global average, sea ice is disappearing and becoming more dangerous and weather is becoming less predictable.
The Inuit, many of whom rely on the land for some or all of their food, are adapting. They've begun to use GPS locators, satellite phones and immersion suits to stay safe. They've bought all-terrain vehicles to back up their snow machines because the land stays bare longer, and they're stalking their prey from boats as sea ice grows less reliable. They've found new places to hunt and new ways to get to old ones.
But those adaptations cost money, Ford said.
Early results from another of Ford's projects suggest that new hunting routes developed to bypass now-unreliable ice or newly uncrossable rivers average twice as long as the originals. Gas for snow machines or ATVs currently sells in Iqaluit for about $1.20 a litre.
And the families that rely most heavily on hunting are the least likely to be plugged into the wage economy.
Inuit can adapt to climate change, but only if you give them money. lol
Heres a good piece from a good source:
FOUR SIDES TO EVERY STORY [12.18.09]
By Stewart Brand
The calamatists and denialists are primarily political figures, with firm ideological loyalties, whereas the warners and skeptics are primarily scientists, guided by ever-changing evidence. That distinction between ideology and science not only helps clarify the strengths and weaknesses of the four stances, it can also be used to predict how they might respond to future climate developments.
STEWART BRAND is cofounder and co-chairman of The Long Now Foundation. He is the founder of the Whole Earth Catalog, cofounder of The Well, and cofounder of Global Business Network.
He is the original editor of The Whole Earth Catalog, (Winner of the National Book Award). His latest book is Whole Earth Discipline: An Ecopragmatist Manifesto.
See here: http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/brand09.1/brand09.1_index.html
Here's the most informative thing I've read on what happened in Copenhagen:
link
Basically, China ruined everything. More and more, China feels unaccountable to anyone but itself. It's a scary situation, because I don't think China operates with any morality at all.
Haha what?? HOW?? Yea. No Im sure youre right. Companies making hundreds of billions each year burning hydrocarbons are just dying to give it away to poor farmers in amazon.
has a number of great charts showing how relatively few scientists actually signed the petition project
here's my favorite, though:
interesting to note that of the top 30 most profitable companies the last 2 years, half were gas/oil/coal... and how many billions they made - and have no issues driving us off the cliff...
so zoo, jack, et al: please tell me these guys
2007 profit: $266,000,000,000
1. Exxon Mobil
2. Royal Dutch Shell
4. BP
5. Gazprom
6. HSBC
7. Chevron
8. Petronas
9. Total
14. China National Petroleum
16. ENI
17. BHP Billiton
20. Petrobras
21. Rosneft Oil
29. ConocoPhillips
30. CVRD
2008 profit: $268,300,000,000
1. Exxon Mobil
2. Gazprom
3. Royal Dutch Shell
4. Chevron
5. BP
6. Petrobras
11. Total
12. BHP Billiton
13. Petronas
16. CVRD
19. ENI
24. Rosneft Oil
26. China National Petroleum
29. Lukoil
Yet more madness from the greenies:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6918024.ece
Absolute stupidity the whole environmental agenda.
Lessons never learned?... or is it all planned.
http://www.georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2009/12/woman-who-invented-credit-default-swaps.html
The agenda continues:
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/local_state/story/257388.html?story_link=email_msg
Save the world, kill yourself.
Dude what the fuck are you talking about? Did you even read that article?
Im serious brother. Its not healthy.
i haven't followed this thread, but there's an article about this in today's philadelphia inquirer that centers on the michael mann the director of penn state's earth system science center...
The saddest thing about all this is all the poor ass people being fooled by ludicrously wealthy companies into slavishly deconstructing their own interest thinking theyre standing up to the man. Its like a parent with a kid dying of curable cancer refusing treatment because "Its the government!". Its a republicans fucking wet dream.
"The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.
Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research.
In an interview with The Mail on Sunday, Dr Lal, the co-ordinating lead author of the report’s chapter on Asia, said: ‘It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.
‘It had importance for the region, so we thought we should put it in.’
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245636/Glacier-scientists-says-knew-data-verified.html#ixzz0deSgXslB
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245636/Glacier-scientists-says-knew-data-verified.html#ixzz0dUx6pwXe
What a bunch of wankers. Using the report to preasure governments now admitted. Next - how much are they being paid?
HAAAAAAAAAHAAAHAAAHAAA silly fools
Its not so much stupidity that bothers me. Theres lots of very charming people who just dont know all that much. Its people that are intentionally stupid. That I find weird.
Bin Laden blames the West for global warming too, your in good company folks;
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100129/D9DHDH582.html
oe: it's called cultism and political propaganda... they're not intentionally stupid, they are just trying to manipulate the honestly ignorant...
Climate Gate, "Hide the Decline":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEiLgbBGKVk&feature=player_embedded
lol... republicans are hillarious... they think they *win* when they:
a. come up with a new slogan... demonize as a strategy to "disprove" scientific evidence...
b. make shit up...
c. "i know you are but what am i?" BUUURN!!!
d. repeat, repeat, repeat... "wow... now it must be true!"
unfortunately in reality there are no winners. we all lose because we've fucked up our planet... thanks republidicks...
I more amazed that people are surprised. Didnt republicans stop worrying about facts in 1992?
Republicans are more dangerous/ stupid than democrats.
Their policies are even less sustainable than those of the democrats.
Same poop different color.
Climategate is one of many known IPCC failings
What caused a fall from grace so sudden that IPCC’s insiders now demand Pachauri’s ouster, and that leads the Indian government to set up an “Indian IPCC” as a national alternative to the IPCC, declaring that it “cannot rely” any longer on the organization that its own representative heads?
One answer is Climategate — the unauthorized release of emails in November that showed the duplicity of scientists associated with the IPCC. Unquestionably, Climategate opened the floodgates to the torrent of scandals that have since poured out, seemingly without end. Many of the new scandals, some of them sporting “-gate” as a suffix, were little known before the Climategate emails were released; many were well known, but not publicized by a compliant press. Their sheer number deserves cataloguing.
Glaciergate: The post-Climategate scandal with the greatest repercussions involves a scientifically impossible yet much-touted IPCC claim that Himalayan glaciers would melt by the year 2035. This claim originated in a conversation in 1999 between a UK journalist and an Indian glaciologist, who made an off-hand remark about India’s glaciers disappearing. The World Wildlife Fund then cited this glaciologist’s speculation in a fundraising and advocacy campaign in 2005. Then the IPCC cited the World Wildlife Fund’s campaign material as the source for the imminent end of the Himalayan glaciers.
At no point did the IPCC require anything remotely resembling peer-review to test the speculation that the end of the Himalayan glaciers was nigh, and this was deliberate. As Murari Lal, the IPCC’s coordinating lead author for the glacier chapter explained, he knew the work hadn’t been verified but felt scary scenarios were needed to rouse public concern: “We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.”
More WWF: The IPCC’s reliance on the World Wildlife Fund as an authority in Glaciergate was no anomaly. Blogger Donna Laframboise thought to do a search on the IPCC’s own site of “WWF” and found it turned up dozens of times, and was a source on everything from mudflows and avalanches to fish in the Mesoamerican reef.
Greenpeace et al.: Ms. Framboise then checked out Greenpeace and found that this advocacy organization, too, was an IPCC source. For example, Greenpeace’s report, The Pacific in Peril, was the sole source for a claim that linked global warming to coral reef degradation. On a roll, she then found that members of other advocacy organizations, such as people from David Suzuki Foundation, Environmental Defense and Friends of the Earth were among the IPCC’s “expert reviewers.”
Ice-capped mountains: The IPCC relied on even sketchier sources in deciding that ice was disappearing from the world’s mountain tops. In blaming global warming for the loss of mountain ice in the Andes, Alps and Africa, the IPCC’s most recent 2007 report cited two papers as the basis for its conclusions. One was authored by a geography student and climate change campaigner who was trying for the equivalent of a master’s degree at Switzerland’s University of Berne. The student made his case on the basis of interviews with mountain guides in the Swiss Alps. The second paper was a popular article in Climbing, a magazine for mountain climbers that quoted mountaineers about the changes they had observed.
Sea-levels: This week, the Dutch Environmental Assessment Agency revealed that the IPCC blundered in its 2007 report in claiming that 55% of the Netherlands lay below sea-level. IPCC scientists who were evidently out of their depth had added the area of the Netherlands below sea-level to the area susceptible to flooding, not realizing that these areas overlap. To the embarrassment of the Dutch Environment Minister, her department then based Dutch environmental policy on the IPCC’s mangled stats of her country. The correct stat: 20% of The Netherlands is susceptible to flooding should global warming cause sea levels to rise.
Urban Warming: Also this week, the IPCC stands accused of relying on a bogus 20-year-old study that discounted a mountain of evidence that cities become reservoirs of heat, making them warmer than the surrounding countryside. The study that found this “urban heat island effect” to be minimal based its claim on a long series of temperature measurements from 84 Chinese weather stations, half in the countryside and half in cities. The co-author of this study, Phil Jones, director of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit of Climategate fame, for years resisted Freedom of Information requests by skeptics seeking to obtain the locations of the 42 rural stations. It now appears that the documents needed to validate the Jones study no longer exist.
Climategate USA: Last month, evidence emerged that the manipulation of weather data by the UK’s Climatic Research Unit had a no-less impressive counterpart on this side of the Atlantic. Two U.S. government agencies, NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, are implicated in a massive and unannounced re-do of data from weather stations around the world. In the 70s, these two agencies obtained their temperature data from 6,000 weather stations around the world. By 1990, they had discarded three-quarters of the weather stations, leaving but 1500. Most of the discarded stations were cold-weather stations. The remaining 1500 then acted as surrogates for the discarded 4500.
In Canada, for example, the U.S agencies discarded data from 565 of 600 stations, including most high up in the Rockies or in Canada’s northern territories. In Bolivia, a country in the Andes, every last weather station was discarded. To get Bolivian temperatures, NASA and NOAA used readings from 1200 miles away — from the Amazon and the beaches of Peru.
The Amazon Jungle: Last week, the IPCC came under fire for claiming that the entire Amazon was threatened by climate change, an exaggeration of a study that merely claimed that “up to 40% of Brazilian rainforest was extremely sensitive to small reductions in the amount of rainfall,” drying out the forests and making them susceptible to fires.
Not that the study the IPCC relied upon was itself unimpeachable. The report, A Global Review of Forest Fires, was co-authored by a freelance journalist and environmental activist who had worked for organizations such as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth. The other co-author was a WWF campaigner.
Stern Review: Another study that the IPCC relied upon – The Stern Review, written by a prominent former World Bank economist, commissioned by the UK Treasury, and published by Cambridge University Press — had all the trappings of authority. Yet its dire estimates of the financial costs of climate change were so extreme that it was castigated by some of the world’s leading climate change economists when it was initially published. Last week, more errors came to light that also point to an academic cover-up, designed to avoid embarrassment.
Between the time The Stern Review was first released in October 2006, and its publication in book form by Cambridge University Press in January 2007, various unsupportable claims were scrubbed, including claims that North West Australia had been hit by stronger tropical typhoons in the previous 30 years, that southern regions in Australia had lost rainfall due to rising ocean temperatures, that air currents adversely affected Australian rainfall, and that savannahs would increasingly take over Australian terrain. A typo that exaggerated the cost of hurricanes by a factor of 10 was also corrected.
Remarkably, a formal erratum or corrigendum — mandatory in academia when corrections or changes are made — was not published in the case of The Stern Review. “Such a practice is very much a whitewash of the historical record,” commented the University of Colorado’s Roger Pielke Jr, one of the many Stern Review critics. “One would assume — and expect — that studies designed to inform government (and international) policy would be held to at least these same standards if not higher standards.”
It will be interesting to see into the future and know when AIA/ NCARB-Gate will inevitably occur, if its not already happening behind the scenes at this time....
Humble pie is now being served in this thread, courtesy of Jack Klompus and zoolander....
I'm sure no apologies can be expected but doubt sincere ones would be rejected.
I can't tell the difference between big things and little things! I don't think it matters cause numbers are just to confuse people anyways. Usually I just believe whatever I want to make myself feel better.
hehe..
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-february-10-2010/unusually-large-snowstorm
A lead IIPC author states The world may not be warming and the data is unreliable
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7026317.ece
funny how no word from Klamp-ass about the lack of snow in Vancouver, i guess after a week of snowing like a mofo - where their supposed to have snow - and Faux Gnews ejaculating all over the screen about how that was evidence of no global climate change, you hear nothing from these idiots about how no snow, for nearly a month - where it's supposed to snow - as evidence of global climate change.
hey monkey, go back into your cage, and starting flinging crap at the other monkeys.
We've had the coldest winter on record here, plenty of snow.
i heard florida was pretty cold this year. i heard that texas got a ton of snow this year.
Record Cold
Snow?
nope, nothing to see here, climate change is a myth.
Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html
Correct yourself you spin doctoring POS beta; Man Made Global Warming is a myth. Of course the climate changes. Its the weather.
to be fair, ill just interject weather does not equal climate
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.