22-01-2016, 03:52 PM
1st post
Hello, DPF.
Let me begin by saying that I do not agree with the theory that CO[SUB]2[/SUB] is to blame, or that any warming to date is catastrophic. I do not agree with most of the information which has been posted in this thread. I have been researching the issue at hand for quite some time, and I started from a neutral position. I have never received any money from the Kochs, either. I find the term 'denier' to be disingenuous; I prefer the term skeptic. In my estimation, the IPCC has a mandate which is political rather than scientific. Many of the contributing scientists involved in draughting their reports have migrated away from the organization into the skeptic camp. I believe computer models are over-rated and that CO[SUB]2[/SUB] is not pollution, but plant food. (CO is pollution.) Nor do I believe that the world is over-populated. I agree with many of the tenets of globalization yet I oppose it. These are my views and I do not wish to debate them here. There is enough Hegelian argumentation on the subject as is.
"In climate research and modelling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible." The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Third Assessment Report (2001), Section 14.2.2.2, page 774
The 'conspiracy-minded' (for lack of a better term) agree on most aspects of the political and even the financial spectrum yet remain divided on the subject of AGW. I believe this is by design. I do not believe that CO[SUB]2[/SUB] is responsible for any warming, however, I do see a possibility for AGW to exist. Despite the fact that man has not influenced the climate to the extent which is portrayed in the MSM, I believe this to be the future intent. Every climate conference to date has been a confluence of lawyers and policy-makers, and each has ended with some new international diktat or other about a global environmental policy which supersedes the law of sovereign nations. Many trade agreements follow the same structure. This is the foundation of fascism, not environmentalism.
Some posit that there is an organized effort to warm the planet in order to further the goals of future hegemons-to-be. This would be accomplished through techniques of weather modification and geo-engineering. Melting the ice caps would accomplish (at least) four things: lessen the population somewhat, and increase its dependance; corner the food and seed market; cash-in on the 'disaster capitalist' derivatives market; and open up an enormous area to mineral exploitation. To wit, from Bloomberg: "The World Has Discovered a $1 Trillion Ocean."
The people participating in the forum at Davos have been assembling a plan to control the resources which would abound from the polar region. My opinion is that whether or not the poles will melt, and whether or not this is due to human activity, these people will do all they can to make it so, and as quickly as possible. (It is useful to remember, at this point, that classified technology is 30-40 years ahead of public information, and on an exponential curve, this makes the potential for current knowledge unimaginable. Google and NASA just verified their proof of concept for a quantum computer, after all.)
Man-made global warming is a possibility and a danger, but not for the reasons we think. The rest remains, in my opinion, a distraction.
Hello, DPF.
Let me begin by saying that I do not agree with the theory that CO[SUB]2[/SUB] is to blame, or that any warming to date is catastrophic. I do not agree with most of the information which has been posted in this thread. I have been researching the issue at hand for quite some time, and I started from a neutral position. I have never received any money from the Kochs, either. I find the term 'denier' to be disingenuous; I prefer the term skeptic. In my estimation, the IPCC has a mandate which is political rather than scientific. Many of the contributing scientists involved in draughting their reports have migrated away from the organization into the skeptic camp. I believe computer models are over-rated and that CO[SUB]2[/SUB] is not pollution, but plant food. (CO is pollution.) Nor do I believe that the world is over-populated. I agree with many of the tenets of globalization yet I oppose it. These are my views and I do not wish to debate them here. There is enough Hegelian argumentation on the subject as is.
"In climate research and modelling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible." The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Third Assessment Report (2001), Section 14.2.2.2, page 774
The 'conspiracy-minded' (for lack of a better term) agree on most aspects of the political and even the financial spectrum yet remain divided on the subject of AGW. I believe this is by design. I do not believe that CO[SUB]2[/SUB] is responsible for any warming, however, I do see a possibility for AGW to exist. Despite the fact that man has not influenced the climate to the extent which is portrayed in the MSM, I believe this to be the future intent. Every climate conference to date has been a confluence of lawyers and policy-makers, and each has ended with some new international diktat or other about a global environmental policy which supersedes the law of sovereign nations. Many trade agreements follow the same structure. This is the foundation of fascism, not environmentalism.
Some posit that there is an organized effort to warm the planet in order to further the goals of future hegemons-to-be. This would be accomplished through techniques of weather modification and geo-engineering. Melting the ice caps would accomplish (at least) four things: lessen the population somewhat, and increase its dependance; corner the food and seed market; cash-in on the 'disaster capitalist' derivatives market; and open up an enormous area to mineral exploitation. To wit, from Bloomberg: "The World Has Discovered a $1 Trillion Ocean."
The people participating in the forum at Davos have been assembling a plan to control the resources which would abound from the polar region. My opinion is that whether or not the poles will melt, and whether or not this is due to human activity, these people will do all they can to make it so, and as quickly as possible. (It is useful to remember, at this point, that classified technology is 30-40 years ahead of public information, and on an exponential curve, this makes the potential for current knowledge unimaginable. Google and NASA just verified their proof of concept for a quantum computer, after all.)
Man-made global warming is a possibility and a danger, but not for the reasons we think. The rest remains, in my opinion, a distraction.