More defense spending from crowd scares

Fake news and propaganda
JohnNada
Member
Posts: 18
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:22 pm
Contact:

Unread post by JohnNada »

excised @ Dec 18 2009, 09:09 PM wrote: This is a little gem and shows maybe how the defence against AGW will be mounted its very concise and bases all its findings on real data sets and not projections as the AGW scandal pre-supposes.


http://bnp.org.uk/pdf_files/Global-Warm ... -Paper.pdf
Your gem is a disgusting turd, that's a link to the britishnaziparty/MI5.
millions comatose in a world of illusion
excised
Member
Posts: 53
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 7:34 pm
Contact:

Unread post by excised »

JohnNada 4 Dec 18 2009, 11:39 PM wrote: someone said.....
Your gem is a disgusting turd, that's a link to the britishnaziparty/MI5.
Shock horror its a LINK to the BNP.

Now i agree that the BNP isnt the most likely place you would find a cogent articulate defence to anything, but in this case they actually have done something right.

I get the impression that information is only any good to you if it comes from a source that is all flowers and light.

Did you read the PDF? or just react to the word BNP and throw your coffee?.
Would it have made it easier for your sensibilities if i tiny url'ed it into flowers and light for wimpywhinyleftyfops.

One thing i believe you will discover about the members on this forum, the majority are "A" political, meaning that they do not have any belief that ANY party is capable of being honest or forthright enough to effect the changes required to achieve proper leadership.
As such not having ANY political affiliation means that i and no doubt many others will look for decent information wherever our weather eye might take us looking for it.

As such the rebuttal document against AGW produced by the BNP is the best defence i have seen as yet.
I agree the BNP isnt particularly attractive and if you are the sort of person who can wipe your arse with fact, then, carry on sunshine, your in VERY eminent company.
McCob
Member
Posts: 26
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 6:21 pm
Contact:

Unread post by McCob »

Racingwiththemoon @ Nov 4 2009, 10:34 PM wrote: hoi --

Some info on ozone hole for any interested --

QUOTE:
A common misconception is that there is an ozone hole above us in the sky which is letting in harmful ultraviolet (UV) radiation from the Sun. Ozone depletion, in fact, is occurring all over the world due to man-made pollution, at levels within the stratosphere, 19 to 30 km above the Earth's surface. However, in certain parts of the world, ozone depletion is particularly severe, and it is in the regions where the term "ozone hole" strictly applies. UNQUOTE

http://www.ace.mmu.ac.uk/eae/Atmosphere ... _Hole.html


There are DELAYED effects of chemicals already in atmosphere which will
continue to deplete ozone for many decades to come.

Progressive loss of ozone during Southern Hemisphere spring.

50%-75% depletion of total ozone = ozone hole

Steadily grown in size and duration of existence -- August thru early December --
over the last decades.

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/s ... hole.shtml


UVB radiation - skin cancer, cataracts, suppressed immune systems.

Harmful to plant life, single cell organisms and aquatic ecological systems.

2001 - Antarctic ozone hole was larger than combined area of US/Canada/Mexico


Other links of interest on ozone hole --
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/s ... olar.shtml
http://www.theozonehole.com/


AND further to your comments re pollution and the need for change ... :)

"The Scientists Warning to Humanity" from 1992 re Global Warming
and the need for a change in ethics . . .

http://www.ucsusa.org/about/1992-world-scientists.html


And --
http://dieoff.org/page82.htm
How do you know there wasn't holes in the ozone layer before scientists started studying such things?

1000 yrs ago Greenland was arable and settled by Vikings. They eventually had to leave because the winter wouldn't go away.

Climate change is a fact of life but whether people caused it has not really been shown.

Personally, I believe men can foul their own well but destroying the ecology of the whole planet?? Well, we are just too puny for that.

I find your arguments and sources dubious at best.

Scientists will say anything for a grant. And they are always fudging results so their papers will get accepted. They are not trustworthy.

I find it easy to believe that "climate change" is a big scam.
wraith36
Posts: 9
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 5:30 pm
Contact:

Unread post by wraith36 »

Here are a couple of link you may like to look at.

Peter Foster: An Inconvenient Film which is the film you can download below.
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blog ... -film.aspx

And this documentary at concen thats part of the story from above.

Not Evil Just Wrong DVDrip.mkv
Description:
Not Evil Just Wrong (2009) is a documentary film challenging Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth by suggesting that the evidence of global warming is inconclusive and that the impact global warming legislation will have on industry is much more harmful to humans than beneficial. The movie was filmed in 2008 and was screened at the International Documentary Film Festival Amsterdam and at the Right Online conference in 2009.
Category: Video > Documentary

http://tracker.concen.org/torrents-details.php?id=12315

Worth a watch in my veiw.
Rasta84
Member
Posts: 38
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 2:54 pm
Contact:

Unread post by Rasta84 »

MartinL 4 Nov 26 2009, 03:35 PM wrote: You guys have heard about the Climate-Gate scandal by now?

It ties in neatly with this little document:

The need for enemies seems to be a common historical factor?Bring the divided nation together to face an outside enemy, either a real one or else one INVENTED for the purpose? In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the... like would fit the bill - “The First Global Revolution” (1991) published by the Club of Rome.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/13160503/The- ... 991-Report

"I've done Mikes nature trick to hide the decline" - Top IPCC Scientist in leaked e-mails. :D
That's not really accurate about what the Club of Rome document says. If you read it in full instead of the version edited with ...'s in between sentences they clearly say that they believe that the environmental problems are real and they're not sure how to persuade people to change their lifestyles to help it. Not that they're fake and they're just fooling everyone, if that is what they're really doing they don't admit it in the document. The whole paper is about how environmental problems are real and a growing concern of theirs.

This issue is confusing to me because you have big government and elites like Al Gore on one side saying the warming is real and big buisness on the other like Exxon and Chevron saying it's not and funding tens of millions of dollars into the skeptic groups. One claim that's been made by people like Alex Jones is that the oil companies are secretly funding the pro-warming arguers and only pretending to be against the carbon emission regulations for some reason. There was an article at Prison Planet saying that they had given four times the amount of money to the pro-agw people. So I looked into it and found that's that's not an accurate assessment of the situation. Exxon did give a 100 million dollars to Stanford University's Global Climate and Energy Project. But according to the The San Jose Mercury News: "Stanford University has found itself caught squarely in the middle of a major proxy battle between a group of New Jersey nuns and the world's largest privately owned oil company.

The university, which has been heavily criticized for taking up to 100 million from Exxon Mobil for climate and energy research, is poised this week to vote in favor of the nuns' proposal that the oil giant immediately reduce its greenhouse gas emissions contributing to global warming.

The vote would fall in line with the university's policy to support proxy resolutions addressing climate change.

But Exxon Mobil officials are steadfastly against the proposal, and they've urged their shareholders to vote against it.

...Skeptics immediately questioned what Exxon Mobil would get out of the deal. And now they say it's evident: the perfect marketing tool. None of the other donors to the program, they say, have been touting the arrangement in advertising, let alone proxy statements for millions of shareholders." - http://www.oilwatchdog.org/articles/?storyId=5057
fred
Banned
Posts: 592
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 12:43 pm
Contact:

Unread post by fred »

The original Limits Of Growth paper they published is interesting. When I listened to Alex Jones he seemed to demonize The Club of Rome on a regular basis. I have no idea if they're good or bad, but the paper they're famous for was just summarizing the results of a model they built in the 1970's.

In my personal opinion Alex Jones's Bohemian Grove stuff is pretty weak too. He seems to want to shift blame from readily identifiable perpetrators onto shadowy institutions and ancient conspiracies.

Why go after Howard Lutnick when you can attack the NWO and the Illuminati and the thousands of naked drunk men pissing on redwood trees at the Bohemian Grove?
MartinL
Banned
Posts: 319
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 10:08 am
Contact:

Unread post by MartinL »

Rasta84 4 Apr 27 2010, 11:05 AM wrote: This issue is confusing to me because you have big government and elites like Al Gore on one side saying the warming is real and big buisness on the other like Exxon and Chevron saying it's not and funding tens of millions of dollars into the skeptic groups. One claim that's been made by people like Alex Jones is that the oil companies are secretly funding the pro-warming arguers and only pretending to be against the carbon emission regulations for some reason. There was an article at Prison Planet saying that they had given four times the amount of money to the pro-agw people. So I looked into it and found that's that's not an accurate assessment of the situation. Exxon did give a 100 million dollars to Stanford University's Global Climate and Energy Project. But according to the The San Jose Mercury News: "Stanford University has found itself caught squarely in the middle of a major proxy battle between a group of New Jersey nuns and the world's largest privately owned oil company.

The university, which has been heavily criticized for taking up to 100 million from Exxon Mobil for climate and energy research, is poised this week to vote in favor of the nuns' proposal that the oil giant immediately reduce its greenhouse gas emissions contributing to global warming.

The vote would fall in line with the university's policy to support proxy resolutions addressing climate change.

But Exxon Mobil officials are steadfastly against the proposal, and they've urged their shareholders to vote against it.

...Skeptics immediately questioned what Exxon Mobil would get out of the deal. And now they say it's evident: the perfect marketing tool. None of the other donors to the program, they say, have been touting the arrangement in advertising, let alone proxy statements for millions of shareholders." - http://www.oilwatchdog.org/articles/?storyId=5057
Do you have a link to the article? Who wrote it?

I am always sceptical about articles from newspapers founded and owned by the current chairman of the board of directors of the Associated Press.

Mercury News is under MediaNews Group, one of the largest newspaper companies in the United States, and as I mentioned earlier their owner is the current chairman of the board of directors of the 9/11 perp company Associated Press.

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

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

http://www.mercurynews.com/portlet/layo ... itemap.jsp

http://www.mercurynews.com/

"group of nuns" sounds a bit like the "article" about Uday Hussein's pink rolls royce entrance to the polling station in Iraq.

Relink to Idi Amin video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERkQL0geCJo

Oh and regarding Uday Hussein's pink Rolls Royce, the story comes from this guy:

Image

"Arnett worked for National Geographic magazine, and later for various television networks, most notably CNN. He is well known for his coverage of war, including the Vietnam War and the Gulf War. He was awarded the 1966 Pulitzer Prize in International Reporting for his work in Vietnam, where he was present from 1962 to 1975, most of the time reporting for the Associated Press news agency. In 1994, Arnett wrote Live from the Battlefield: From Vietnam to Baghdad, 35 Years in the World's War Zones. In March 1997, Arnett was able to interview Osama bin Laden."

Bah!!!! What a perp! :o

"In March 1997, former CNN correspondent Peter Arnett became the first Western journalist to interview Osama bin Laden. Arnett's 40-year career as a war correspondent began in Vietnam covering the war for the Associated Press. He was awarded the Putlizer Prize in 1966. In 1981 he joined CNN as its first Moscow bureau chief. By 1991, Arnett achieve worldwide attention for his exclusive coverage of the bombings of Baghdad during the Gulf War, which were broadcast live on CNN."
http://edition.cnn.com/2001/COMMUNITY/1 ... index.html

Is it possible that they did something to the footage from the Gulf War also ?
simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7341
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Unread post by simonshack »

MartinL @ Apr 28 2010, 08:59 PM wrote:
Is it possible that they did something to the footage from the Gulf War also ?

CHARLES JACO in action - GULF WAR 1991 :rolleyes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5z0VxWZszyg&fmt=18
http://www.septemberclues.org
Rasta84
Member
Posts: 38
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 2:54 pm
Contact:

Unread post by Rasta84 »

MartinL 4 Apr 28 2010, 09:59 PM wrote:
Rasta84 4 Apr 27 2010, 11:05 AM wrote: This issue is confusing to me because you have big government and elites like Al Gore on one side saying the warming is real and big buisness on the other like Exxon and Chevron saying it's not and funding tens of millions of dollars into the skeptic groups. One claim that's been made by people like Alex Jones is that the oil companies are secretly funding the pro-warming arguers and only pretending to be against the carbon emission regulations for some reason. There was an article at Prison Planet saying that they had given four times the amount of money to the pro-agw people. So I looked into it and found that's that's not an accurate assessment of the situation. Exxon did give a 100 million dollars to Stanford University's Global Climate and Energy Project. But according to the The San Jose Mercury News: "Stanford University has found itself caught squarely in the middle of a major proxy battle between a group of New Jersey nuns and the world's largest privately owned oil company.

The university, which has been heavily criticized for taking up to 100 million from Exxon Mobil for climate and energy research, is poised this week to vote in favor of the nuns' proposal that the oil giant immediately reduce its greenhouse gas emissions contributing to global warming.

The vote would fall in line with the university's policy to support proxy resolutions addressing climate change.

But Exxon Mobil officials are steadfastly against the proposal, and they've urged their shareholders to vote against it.

...Skeptics immediately questioned what Exxon Mobil would get out of the deal. And now they say it's evident: the perfect marketing tool. None of the other donors to the program, they say, have been touting the arrangement in advertising, let alone proxy statements for millions of shareholders." - http://www.oilwatchdog.org/articles/?storyId=5057
Do you have a link to the article? Who wrote it?

I am always sceptical about articles from newspapers founded and owned by the current chairman of the board of directors of the Associated Press.

Mercury News is under MediaNews Group, one of the largest newspaper companies in the United States, and as I mentioned earlier their owner is the current chairman of the board of directors of the 9/11 perp company Associated Press.

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

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

http://www.mercurynews.com/portlet/layo ... itemap.jsp

http://www.mercurynews.com/

"group of nuns" sounds a bit like the "article" about Uday Hussein's pink rolls royce entrance to the polling station in Iraq.

Relink to Idi Amin video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERkQL0geCJo

Oh and regarding Uday Hussein's pink Rolls Royce, the story comes from this guy:

Image

"Arnett worked for National Geographic magazine, and later for various television networks, most notably CNN. He is well known for his coverage of war, including the Vietnam War and the Gulf War. He was awarded the 1966 Pulitzer Prize in International Reporting for his work in Vietnam, where he was present from 1962 to 1975, most of the time reporting for the Associated Press news agency. In 1994, Arnett wrote Live from the Battlefield: From Vietnam to Baghdad, 35 Years in the World's War Zones. In March 1997, Arnett was able to interview Osama bin Laden."

Bah!!!! What a perp! :o

"In March 1997, former CNN correspondent Peter Arnett became the first Western journalist to interview Osama bin Laden. Arnett's 40-year career as a war correspondent began in Vietnam covering the war for the Associated Press. He was awarded the Putlizer Prize in 1966. In 1981 he joined CNN as its first Moscow bureau chief. By 1991, Arnett achieve worldwide attention for his exclusive coverage of the bombings of Baghdad during the Gulf War, which were broadcast live on CNN."
http://edition.cnn.com/2001/COMMUNITY/1 ... index.html

Is it possible that they did something to the footage from the Gulf War also ?
The info about who the author was referenced in the article and I provided the link to it. It's further corroborated by this article:

Stanford's Deal with Exxon Mobil Raised Concerns

The alliance between the oil giant BP and the University of California, Berkeley, stands out because of its 500 million price tag, its commercial scope and the potential for BP to exert excessive influence over the academic research. But it isn’t an isolated case.

The second largest such partnership is a 10-year, 225-million deal Stanford University signed with Exxon Mobil and other energy firms in 2002 to fund a Global Climate and Energy Project.

The Stanford deal was controversial from the start, but one aspect recently captured headlines. The San Jose Mercury News reported March 11 that Steve Bing -- a movie producer and environmentalist -- was withdrawing a 2.5 million donation to Stanford and all future donations. (Bing had already donated 22.5 million to the school.) Why? Because Exxon Mobil has exploited its close relationship with Stanford in ads -- on TV and in print -- that seek to portray the company as a "green" company.

The most egregious of these was an ad in The New York Times, part of a series appearing on the commentary page, which celebrated the company’s new research partnership with the "best minds" at Stanford.

The ad suggested the global warming debate is ongoing: "Although climate has varied throughout Earth’s history from natural causes, today there is a lively debate about ... the climate’s response to the presence of more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere." The ad was signed by Lynn Orr, who directs the Global Warming and Energy Project.

About this time, Exxon Mobil was pushing the U.S. government to reject any mandatory curbs on greenhouse gases; it was also continuing to call for more research on whether human use of fossil fuels actually caused global warming, despite the overwhelming scientific consensus that it does. Many observers found the university’s blatant endorsement of Exxon’s PR campaign shameful.

The Stanford deal has many unusual features. A management corporation, with representatives appointed by each of the corporate sponsors and one university representative, Orr, approves the budget and the areas of research that will receive funding. This gives the sponsors considerable power to shape the institute’s research priorities.

The sponsors also enjoy an automatic, exclusive license to any of the project’s discoveries. The sponsors can block outside companies from gaining access to the university’s discoveries for up to five years. What’s more, they don’t have to pay any royalties to the university.

Criticism of the Stanford deal has been more muted, but from time to time the deal continues to raise eyebrows. During the campaign for Proposition 87, which called for a tax on oil extraction to raise public money for alternative energy research, some observers detected something strange. James Sweeney, a Stanford professor, began giving quotes to the media opposing Proposition 87. Sweeney’s ties to Exxon were never mentioned. But his research with the Global Climate and Energy Project was funded by Exxon, and he also served as a consultant.

http://www.newamerica.net/node/8513

So all the evidence points to this Stanford research thing being a ruse to fool people into thinking that Exxon is on board w/the environmental movement when really they're using it to subvert those efforts. That's not to say that Al Gore's cap & trade is a good deal either, but it's not a good deal b/c the fines on the CO2 emmssion go to the IMF and all these billionaires rather than actually funding clean energy development. Maybe I'm wrong on this but I don't think, I'm still in the process of researching. But the suspiscion I have is that the whole truth movement is playing into the hands of these ridiculously evil oil companies with all this global warming hoax stuff. Cause people like Sean Hannity say the same about it.

Here's a quick example of what these oil companies are, this kind of stuff is par for the course:

"BP Opposed Drilling Safety Rules
The rig was drilling oil for the energy giant BP. Eleven crew members are still missing and presumed dead. Newly-disclosed documents meanwhile show BP heavily lobbied against stricter offshore drilling safety rules when they were being considered last year. In September, BP wrote the U.S. Minerals Management Service that additional safety regulation was unnecessary to replace existing voluntary standards. On Tuesday, Democratic Congressmembers Henry Waxman of California and Bart Stupak of Michigan asked BP to explain what they knew about safety risks at the drilling site before the explosion took place. In a letter to BP, Waxman and Stupak also expressed concern BP is attempting to manage the spill “with techniques that have never been used before at these ocean depths.” - http://www.democracynow.org/2010/4/28/headlines#4
Dcopymope
Banned
Posts: 670
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 1:59 am
Contact:

Unread post by Dcopymope »

Racingwiththemoon @ Nov 4 2009, 10:34 PM wrote: hoi --

Some info on ozone hole for any interested --

QUOTE:
A common misconception is that there is an ozone hole above us in the sky which is letting in harmful ultraviolet (UV) radiation from the Sun. Ozone depletion, in fact, is occurring all over the world due to man-made pollution, at levels within the stratosphere, 19 to 30 km above the Earth's surface. However, in certain parts of the world, ozone depletion is particularly severe, and it is in the regions where the term "ozone hole" strictly applies. UNQUOTE

http://www.ace.mmu.ac.uk/eae/Atmosphere ... _Hole.html


There are DELAYED effects of chemicals already in atmosphere which will
continue to deplete ozone for many decades to come.

Progressive loss of ozone during Southern Hemisphere spring.

50%-75% depletion of total ozone = ozone hole

Steadily grown in size and duration of existence -- August thru early December --
over the last decades.

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/s ... hole.shtml


UVB radiation - skin cancer, cataracts, suppressed immune systems.

Harmful to plant life, single cell organisms and aquatic ecological systems.

2001 - Antarctic ozone hole was larger than combined area of US/Canada/Mexico


Other links of interest on ozone hole --
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/s ... olar.shtml
http://www.theozonehole.com/


AND further to your comments re pollution and the need for change ... :)

"The Scientists Warning to Humanity" from 1992 re Global Warming
and the need for a change in ethics . . .

http://www.ucsusa.org/about/1992-world-scientists.html


And --
http://dieoff.org/page82.htm
Who really cares rather the ozone hole is there or not, a phenomenon that no one else can see except NASA? Mind you, NASA wasn’t actually looking for the Ozone hole; they just discovered it, assuming that it’s actually there and it’s not just more made up quackery like Anthropogenic Global Warming. Somehow along the way of their discovery, with no evidence, they came to the conclusion that humans caused it. It’s like me discovering a volcanic eruption through a pair of binoculars and saying humans caused it, absolute rubbish.
antipodean
Member
Posts: 745
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 1:53 am
Contact:

Unread post by antipodean »

Speaking as someone who resides in the southern hemisphere, the sun's rays are definately stronger here relative to the geographical position of the equator (the further south you go), than in the Northern Hemisphere.

When arriving back here from a trip to Europe, it's as though someone has turned up the brightness of the lights.

I've seen many a POM arrive down here & get burnt to a cinder, including yours truly. I recently had a skin cancer removed from my face, & I'm no sun worshipper.

But this is the way it may have always been, given that I am a climate change, global warming sceptic.
Rasta84
Member
Posts: 38
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 2:54 pm
Contact:

Unread post by Rasta84 »

You should check out the documentary Run From the Cure about cannabis oil. It's supposed to work really well on skin cancers, you just put it on them for a while and they go away.
Post Reply