Church Of Climatology - Page 14

Bent8 · 22-12-2009, 12:50 AM

Any Jesse Ventura fans here?...you'll love his latest work!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D51xjrvr4bM

It's in 6 parts (43min episode)

rodderz · 22-12-2009, 01:08 AM

Hows this comment by David Rockefeller-

Quote:

"We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order."
"We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries."

-- David Rockefeller... Baden-Baden, Germany 1991

Bent8 · 22-12-2009, 01:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by snappy84

Love your work rodderz , But ill add some icing to that cake for you.
The rockafeller's are also funding global warming protest and and believe i read somwhere that the rockafeller's created greenpeace.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index....as-earth-cools

You couldn't be more right mate, the Rockefellers (US) and more importantly the Rothschilds (City of London) bankers control most of the world!

They create fake protests to rally people into their traps, "false flag" events work a treat too....some examples include "The Reichstag Fire", "The Gulf of Tonkin fiasco" and of course the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty in the late 60's...but I digress....

It's part of their problem, reaction, solution strategy...these guys have so much money and power that they can create a problem in society, get the population to react just as they predict, then introduce their "solution"...clever stuff!

Of course they have other techniques aswell, like "social engineering" where they use Hollywood and their bought-off celebrities to promote their "One World" views while setting the social norm for people to follow.

Anyways, now that Copenhagen has been a complete failure because the developing nations have caught onto the IMF's latest scam (which is to completely obliterate the 3rd world through endless loans and then taking their resources because they can't pay it back), the nations that have committed to doing something about "climate change" (AKA global warming) have decided to go back to their countries and try to impose some sort of dictatorial agenda for their populations. (eg. Mr Obama has vowed to go ahead with his climate change plans even if it goes against the US Constitution which clearly states "...that the president cannot sign treaties without the approval of two-thirds of the Senate. (treading some extremely thin ice there Mr Obama!)

Some light reading here...
http://www.infowars.com/obamas-push-...n-critics-say/

I believe Rudd want's to re-introduce the ETS next year...well, of course he does, he has many many extremely wealthy backers telling him what to do and when to do it or otherwise it's "pack your bags and get out Mr Rudd" if he doesn't play ball.

Only problem is a good portion of the Aussie population is awake and aware of the "climate change" scam and will they not stand for it. (as has been recently demonstrated)

But nevertheless, they will push on with their pathetic agenda because they are spineless creatures driven by greed and have absolutely no regard for human life or freedom!

It may get ugly at some point but then at least we still have our gun rights like the good 'ol Yanks right?....

Before I go, a short synopsis by Alex Jones and why he believes Copenhagen is a slow march to World Govt...
http://www.infowars.com/alex-jones-c...science-fraud/

Okay, enough ranting for one night...time for a beer!

snappy · 22-12-2009, 02:12 AM

Quote:

Only problem is a good portion of the Aussie population is awake and aware of the "climate change" scam and will they not stand for it. (as has been recently demonstrated)

That's easily fixed they could just censor our greatest communication tool the internet . Surely

:

BHDOGS · 22-12-2009, 02:56 AM

lol this thread is hillarious ............. *edited ........... haha

ltd · 22-12-2009, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BHDOGS

lol this thread is hillarious ............. *edited ........... haha

Your comment is far too offensive and dumb to warrant substantive reply suffice to say; you've managed to offend just about everybody and identified your ideology as aligned with Adolph Hitler. Brilliant, just brilliant.
Why is it the most unintelligent comments come from those with no grammar, no punctuation and ostensibly no brains?

trippytaka · 22-12-2009, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gtfpv

i disagree on that now. it's a double edged sword, the american citizens each owe $175 000. that is a debt that can be passed onto generations . culling the population will not reduce it , but increase it per head, increasing it whilst creating big problems will leesen the burden per capita

explaining further , the economy is a closely tied problem increased taxes is a way to pay this debt , so is more working labour. these things need to take priority before any emmissions control , thats what the ETS conferance was all about , thats why china ran from it.

And China owns what, 2 trillion of that debt? It's certainly a sticky situation.

trippytaka · 22-12-2009, 01:40 PM

I don't doubt for a minute that there is collusion with the powers that be on carbon trading and the markets, plus them using the influence to push the agenda to make $ out of it.

What I do believe, however, is that the science is true. Regardless on the economies spawned and how they came to be, I find it impossible to believe that thousands of scientists working independently from one another are caught up in some huge conspiracy. It's impossible to pull off. Sorry.

I also know some scientists who have assisted in studies off the Barrier Reef, and a mate of mine has spent time in Antarctica filming the scientists working down there... he lived with them for 4 months and got a real feel for who they are and the work they do. These people are dedicated, honest people, mostly underpaid and doing their job for the love of it and because they want to serve the world. They are also just a tiny portion of the thousands of scientists around the world like them.

gtfpv · 22-12-2009, 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trippytaka

And China owns what, 2 trillion of that debt? It's certainly a sticky situation.

thats chicken feed per chinise citizen , and they work and have employment at thier feet these days i think ( i could be wrong ) dont know the employment stats of china

trippytaka · 22-12-2009, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gtfpv

thats chicken feed per chinise citizen , and they work and have employment at thier feet these days i think ( i could be wrong ) dont know the employment stats of china

Very true, but China were playing silly buggers a while ago and there were rumours that they were going to call in the debt. This would cripple the U.S, big time. Also would cripple China because they rely heavily on manufacturing.

Have you ever seen US Debt: 10 Trillion and counting? Brilliant doco on how up the creek the US economy really is... too much spending and not enough revenue.
Link Watch Movie: Must see

XRQTR · 22-12-2009, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trippytaka

What I do believe, however, is that the science is true. Regardless on the economies spawned and how they came to be, I find it impossible to believe that thousands of scientists working independently from one another are caught up in some huge conspiracy. It's impossible to pull off. Sorry.

Dude again with the independance issue, the hacking of the CCC in East Anglia disproved the "independance" of many of the scientists, I don't doubt that there would be some, very few in fact, that would be independant. But then who's to say that they're not just trying to get some kind of research grant or fellowship through their research.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trippytaka

I also know some scientists who have assisted in studies off the Barrier Reef, and a mate of mine has spent time in Antarctica filming the scientists working down there... he lived with them for 4 months and got a real feel for who they are and the work they do. These people are dedicated, honest people, mostly underpaid and doing their job for the love of it and because they want to serve the world. They are also just a tiny portion of the thousands of scientists around the world like them.

Again, they may well be but we are all driven by greed, you of all are proof with your t-shirt sales even though you're not a sponsor on this site you still push your wares. The all mighty dollar drives us all to go that one step further than last time, than the last guy, than anyone before us.

I'm not saying that all are but can you honestly say that you know for fact that none of these scientists are striving for the allmighty research grant, which could obliterate any doubts of a decent future for them or their families.

It's great to believe far better though to understand why.

snappy · 22-12-2009, 05:35 PM

lord christopher monckton on the micheal coren show - good viewing
http://video.google.com.au/videosear...8&sa=N&tab=wv#

**cs123** · 22-12-2009, 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XRQTR

Again, they may well be but we are all driven by greed,

That is completely untrue. Many people give up greater wealth to work on something they love or truly believe in, or they love working for their company. This happens across all vocations from education to research to private enterprise.

Don't believe everyone has an ulterior motive.

snappy · 22-12-2009, 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cs123

That is completely untrue. Many people give up greater wealth to work on something they love or truly believe in, or they love working for their company. This happens across all vocations from education to research to private enterprise.

Don't believe everyone has an ulterior motive.

Yeah there called sceptic's

trippytaka · 22-12-2009, 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XRQTR

Dude again with the independance issue, the hacking of the CCC in East Anglia disproved the "independance" of many of the scientists, I don't doubt that there would be some, very few in fact, that would be independant. But then who's to say that they're not just trying to get some kind of research grant or fellowship through their research.

Again, they may well be but we are all driven by greed, you of all are proof with your t-shirt sales even though you're not a sponsor on this site you still push your wares. The all mighty dollar drives us all to go that one step further than last time, than the last guy, than anyone before us.

I'm not saying that all are but can you honestly say that you know for fact that none of these scientists are striving for the allmighty research grant, which could obliterate any doubts of a decent future for them or their families.

It's great to believe far better though to understand why.

OK, now you're pulling out personal attacks? Are you serious?

1) I was in contact with the admins about becoming a sponsor weeks ago before I joined, I have seen the ad rate card and I have ordered the forms to fill out. These were emailed to me two days ago. I am signing up as a paid supporter in the new year.

2) I didn't realise that it was a sponsor's-only privilege to have a hyperlink in my signature. It was an option to fill out when I joined the site, so I filled it out. Other forums I am a part of encourage links to your business etc. I assumed that because the option was there to create a hyperlink that I was able to do it.

3) I removed the hyperlink the moment I received an email from admin/mods asking me to do so.

4) I contribute to this forum constructively and intelligently.

As a soon-to-be (starting Jan 2010) long-term paying supporter of the site who is looking to form a long term business relationship with FF and its members I have been testing the waters to see what kind of members it attracts (their views tastes etc). It's marketing 101.

I won't swear at you or lower myself to your level by attacking you. What I would ask is that if you feel the need to say something about me (either openly on the forum, or to other members) in the future, PM me instead. Ask me. If you had done that in the first place, you would have known it was an honest mistake.

:

MO · 22-12-2009, 06:52 PM

Simmer gentleman please. Lets not draw down the wrath of the Mods.

Now trippy you said a few posts back that you had been having deep and meaningful discourse on this subject with your family. What was it about 15 years ago it started. When I was in my teens all I was after was a good time.

Surely in that time you would have seen what is what and not be duped by the new 'church'?

Auslandau · 22-12-2009, 07:19 PM

What Mo said ..........

Watch the off topic talk and personal digs and things will stay wonderful .....

| [/url] |

trippytaka · 23-12-2009, 12:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MO

Simmer gentleman please. Lets not draw down the wrath of the Mods.

Now trippy you said a few posts back that you had been having deep and meaningful discourse on this subject with your family. What was it about 15 years ago it started. When I was in my teens all I was after was a good time.

Surely in that time you would have seen what is what and not be duped by the new 'church'?

Yeah, started talking at least 15 years ago... It's sad, but I used to love getting to the bottom of things at school. A nerd footy player... didn't partymuch - just surfing, skating and training for footy. I left school in '96 and was well versed as a sceptic by that stage. I even had many of my own counter theories to the "theoretical" research that had been going on in the '90s. Since then I have watched as the science has hardened... and the debates between the two sides got more vocal.

Unfortunately I feel both sides rely on blind faith and have both formed "churches", with opposing views. The vast majority of society is not educated enough to truly understand the debate fully. If you think about the kinds of scientific theories that need understanding to grasp the debate fully, it's mind boggling that most of the members in both camps can shout so loudly from their roof tops at all. Most of these people couldn't grasp year seven science, let alone the complexity of climate science.

bluestreak · 23-12-2009, 01:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trippytaka

Since then I have watched as the science has hardened...Edit...Most of these people couldn't grasp year seven science, let alone the complexity of climate science.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2...24/2751492.htm

Quote:

In one of the leaked emails, respected US climatologist Kevin Trenberth admits that scientists cannot account for the lack of global warming to date.

"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't... Our observing system is inadequate," the email says.

Climate change sceptics are hailing the emails as proof the research data has been skewed and suppressed.

But Professor Flannery has told ABC TV's Lateline that the scientific community knows enough to say greenhouse gases cause global warming, and that humans are responsible.

"The thing is we deal with an incomplete understanding of the way the Earth's system works, we know enough to say as the IPCC said that greenhouse gases cause warming," he said.

"They are 90 per cent-plus sure that it's caused by humans, we can go that far.

"In the last few years, where there hasn't been a continuation of that warming trend, we don't understand all of the factors that creates Earth's climate, so there are some things we don't understand, that's what the scientists were emailing about."

Professor Flannery says scientists are working to find out how the whole system works.

"These people (scientists) work with models, computer modelling. When the computer modelling and the real world data disagrees you have a problem. That's when science gets engaged.

"What Kevin Trenberth, one of the most respected climate scientist in the world, is saying is, 'We have to get on our horses and find out what we don't know about the system, we have to understand why the cooling is occurring, because the current modelling doesn't reflect it'.

If the scientists are saying that the Rapture and End of Days aren't occurring, even if they think it should be, I'm going to be cautious about running around screaming "the sky is fallin".

The previous youtube link I posted also stated that(paraphrasing)"The debate has departed from the science" ie, it doesn't matter what the science says, this is our position. This may not be the scientists' fault, but there it is: politicised science, used to back up the doctrine that we sinners have brought about the end of the earth, but we can be saved for just a small donation, a token of faith.

Cheers

:

**cs123** · 23-12-2009, 07:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trippytaka

Unfortunately I feel both sides rely on blind faith and have both formed "churches", with opposing views. The vast majority of society is not educated enough to truly understand the debate fully. If you think about the kinds of scientific theories that need understanding to grasp the debate fully, it's mind boggling that most of the members in both camps can shout so loudly from their roof tops at all. Most of these people couldn't grasp year seven science, let alone the complexity of climate science.

Well said, very true.

MO · 23-12-2009, 09:19 AM

@trippy,then maybe its time the science was brought right out in the open and explained in laymens terms.

I also find it interesting that the likes of David Suzuki,Al Gore et al,will NOT debate with Lord Monckton on this issue.

XRQTR · 23-12-2009, 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cs123

That is completely untrue. Many people give up greater wealth to work on something they love or truly believe in, or they love working for their company. This happens across all vocations from education to research to private enterprise.

Don't believe everyone has an ulterior motive.

Mate even the want of recognition is still brought on by greed, the greed to be recognized by your peers not necessarily for financial gain but the admiration that it could bring and prestige.

Greed is more than just striving for a financial gain.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trippytaka

OK, now you're pulling out personal attacks? Are you serious?

No it wasn't actually, and for you to assume that, well then obviously there is some guilt in your mind to even think that.

trippytaka · 23-12-2009, 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MO

@trippy,then maybe its time the science was brought right out in the open and explained in laymens terms.

I also find it interesting that the likes of David Suzuki,Al Gore et al,will NOT debate with Lord Monckton on this issue.

I completely agree... I would love to see it all laid out on the table and distributed to every literate person on Earth. I would also like to see a full (week or month long is need be) debate between the sceptics and the scientists. Just so we can get everything on the table.

trippytaka · 23-12-2009, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XRQTR

Mate even the want of recognition is still brought on by greed, the greed to be recognized by your peers not necessarily for financial gain but the admiration that it could bring and prestige.

Greed is more than just striving for a financial gain.

No it wasn't actually, and for you to assume that, well then obviously there is some guilt in your mind to even think that.

I'm sorry then, there must be some sort of miscommunication... when someone uses the word GREEDY and directs it at me, I take offence. In the context that you put it, it could have only been taken one way.

Am I guilty about my mistake? Yes. But does that reveal an underlying desire and motivation to rape and pillage as much as I can from this community? No! There was guilt as soon as I received the PM by the mods/admin asking me to remove the hyperlink. I had no idea I was doing the wrong thing, and the fact is, I don't want to do the wrong thing, step over any boundaries, or p*** anyone off. When I realised that I had done something worng, then I felt both guilty and embarrassed. But as I say, it was never my intention in the first place.

And back on topic... the idea that because scientists are looking for recognition by their peers means they are driven by greed. Come on man, seriously. That's like saying that every sports star out there is training their **** day in, day out so they can get recognition. Or that every academic is researching and writing just for recognition and money. You'll find most people are driven by a passion. The passion for the subject (chosen vocation) and the idea that they can contribute and move it forward etc.

In my experience, the scientists that immerse themselves in research on one topic are driven by an innate passion for that topic. Why the hell else would you spend months away from your family and friends trying to save an insect from extinction, clock up years of monotonous hours analysing samples from one certain area of the world? Remember the weird, smart kid at school who loved lizards or got off on rock formations? Many of them grew up and became passionate, hard working scientists.

In the church of scepticism I get the impression that there is a fundamental mistrust of scientists. I haven't bothered saying anything about the emails before, but it was a tiny handful of scientists in a group of thousands.

**Falcon Coupe** · 23-12-2009, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MO

I also find it interesting that the likes of David Suzuki,Al Gore et al,will NOT debate with Lord Monckton on this issue.

To win a debate all one needs to do is provide an irrefutable argument, the refusal to debate shows a lack of confidence in ones theory.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trippytaka

In the church of scepticism I get the impression that there is a fundamental mistrust of scientists. I haven't bothered saying anything about the emails before, but it was a tiny handful of scientists in a group of thousands.

The scientists who were involved are also directly involved in advising those pushing the Copenhagen agreement.

trippytaka · 23-12-2009, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Falcon Coupe

To win a debate all one needs to do is provide an irrefutable argument, the refusal to debate shows a lack of confidence in ones theory.

The scientists who were involved are also directly involved in advising those pushing the Copenhagen agreement.

I know, but they aren't able to change the data gathered by thousands of scientists over the last decade.

snappy · 23-12-2009, 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trippytaka

I know, but they aren't able to change the data gathered by thousands of scientists over the last decade.

They were using the theory that co2 stops the heat from being released in to the atmosphere . If you watch the link i posted with christopher monckton on micheal coren show . He said only just resently the have been able to measure the radiation entering the atmosphere and as it warms up more radiation leaves its does not get trapped by co2 the earth is actually increasing the output. So every computer model the have done has the wrong theory entered in it.
Well the ones that count the ones that the U.N is using.

Cobra · 23-12-2009, 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by snappy84

lord christopher monckton on the micheal coren show - good viewing
http://video.google.com.au/videosear...8&sa=N&tab=wv#

Thanks for posting that up, it was very enlightening. Lord Chris is a very smart man, and a very well spoken one too. I would pay (not 300k) to see him and Gore go head to head.

xtremerus · 23-12-2009, 09:42 PM

Any theory, or model, put forward that predicts a certain outcome and is not backed up by current or future data, means that the theory is WRONG, fullstop. It must be fundimentally flawed.That is how science works.

naddis01 · 23-12-2009, 10:19 PM

Any computer model at some stage has had to be programmed by someone. That someone may have some sort of bias either way. To totally rely on computer modelling is a little flawed in my opinion.

Trends such as climate change take decades, centries and milleniums to develop. To say that the climate is warming using data collected for the past 20 years is not really long enough to get the true picture of what is happening. Climate change may well be happening at an accelerated rate, but it may also just be a little blip in the overall scheme of things.