Major scandal; Now proven that the entire global warming threat is based on fabricated data

[06convert]

If the water starts rising too much we can just blast it into orbit.

That way when everything cools off again we can bring it back..

On my way to work today I passed a sign that said it was -3 degrees. But the thermometer in my car said it was -6. So I floored it. That damn global warming was right on my tail!

[Ender]

Originally Posted by StAnastasia

More than that. California is planning on a possible 55-inch rise

Did you miss the analysis done by an actual scientist (Dr. John Christy) on sea level rise? The rate of sea level rise is now (and has been for some time) a bit over an inch a decade and that rate is not changing despite the hype. That is, in 100 years the sea level may be 16 inches higher but - and more to the point - even massive changes on our part will have a negligible impact.

"I did a calculation on what 1000 new nuclear power plants operating by 2020 would do for the IPCC best guess in the year 2100. The answer is 1.4 cm – about half an inch (if you accept the IPCC projection A1B for the base case.)"

If the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets were to melt completely, seal level would reach the deck of the Golden Gate Bridge.

The melting of the Antarctic ice sheets would take 10,000 years in even a worst case scenario. I suspect the Golden Gate Bridge wouldn't be around to be threatened by it.

Ender

[StAnastasia]

Originally Posted by buffalo

Except we now know oil is being produced in the earth today.

Oil takes tens of millions of years to produce, from organic material put under intense heat and pressure. The process would never replace the 85 billion barrels per day used by the world now, much less the projected demand in the future. We face a future of walking, bicycling, more localized living, more communal solidarity, and humility. Those things don't sound bad from a Catholic perspective!

[fultonfish]

Originally Posted by StAnastasia

Oil takes tens of millions of years to produce, from organic material put under intense heat and pressure. The process would never replace the 85 billion barrels per day used by the world now, much less the projected demand in the future. We face a future of walking, bicycling, more localized living, more communal solidarity, and humility. Those things don't sound bad from a Catholic perspective!

Actually, there is a lot of "old oil" that predates the fossils and organic matter. The earth is a massive fireball and down deep there is a massive reactor that creates oil continuously and that bubbles up through cracks in the various rock layers in the earth.

We see this when played out oil fields start filling up again.

Interested readers can research the R-U Theory. [There are other names for it as well.] The Russians use this approach in their explorations.

There is just so much that we are learning about the planet Earth. We know very little, actually. Consequently we are surprised all the time when we discover new things. New species. New mineral deposits. New things are being discovered all the time.

12 men walked on the moon. Armstrong and Aldrin, the first two, were there for more than two hours. Whereas only two men have been to the deepest part of the ocean and what they saw frightened them so badly that they only stayed 20 minutes. Those two who descended to the Marianas Trench, only seven miles deep, were shocked and stunned by the new life forms, the openings in the earth spewing minerals and heat. [The "smokers" are so hot, they feared the heat would melt their submarine.]

[buffalo]

Originally Posted by StAnastasia

Oil takes tens of millions of years to produce, from organic material put under intense heat and pressure. The process would never replace the 85 billion barrels per day used by the world now, much less the projected demand in the future. We face a future of walking, bicycling, more localized living, more communal solidarity, and humility. Those things don't sound bad from a Catholic perspective!

Uh no - oil is filling areas already pumped out and guess what they found? New oil (they fingerprint the oil so to speak) is filling it up. This surprised the geologists, they believe that oil is a precipitate of the reaction between the mantle and core.

[StAnastasia]

Originally Posted by fultonfish

:Actually, there is a lot of "old oil" that predates the fossils and organic matter. The earth is a massive fireball and down deep there is a massive reactor that creates oil continuously and that bubbles up through cracks in the various rock layers in the earth..]

Ah -- the old abiotic theory of oil production.

[StAnastasia]

Originally Posted by buffalo

Uh no - oil is filling areas already pumped out and guess what they found? New oil (they fingerprint the oil so to speak) is filling it up. This surprised the geologists, they believe that oil is a precipitate of the reaction between the mantle and core.

Buffalo -- do you have evidence to support this claim?

[Barry Gabriel]

Originally Posted by CJFrancis

...

Smokers with integrity listened to the majority of scientists who said that smoking and second-hand smoke are killers. Smokers who didn't want to change agreed with the scientists paid by the cigarette companies. Let's do the right thing now and listen to the scientists who are collecting data and analysing it. Let's not get distracted by the columnists and posters who are telling us to ignore the vast majority of the scientists.

This is not true. What "vast majority of scientists"? Show me the numbers. Smokers of my acquaintance all know that smoking is not a good idea. It is not because they believed the tobacco companies (which by the way have admitted their product is not good for you)... they choose to continue smoking because they like it, or are hooked. If anything, the believers in "man made global warming" are the ones who are believing the baloney and are being distracted by columnists, posters, and the very vocal environmentalists (not a majority of scientists).

[Barry Gabriel]

Originally Posted by StAnastasia

More than that. California is planning on a possible 55-inch rise <http://sfappeal.com/news/2009/08/it-could-have-been-a.php>.

If the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets were to melt completely, seal level would reach the deck of the Golden Gate Bridge. A 250 foot rise would eliminate Florida, Manhattan, Boston, Los Angeles, Portland, Seattle, Vancouver, London, Paris, Rome, Venice, etc. The Gulf of Mexico would extends northwards to Missouri.

For interactive flood maps, see:

http://flood.firetree.net/
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Special:SeaLevel

This is a guess at best, using "data" from fellow travelers. It hasn't (and probably will not) happened yet, so how do the Californians et al know this will happen?

[StAnastasia]

Originally Posted by Barry Gabriel

This is a guess at best, using "data" from fellow travelers. It hasn't (and probably will not) happened yet, so how do the Californians et al know this will happen?

Your guess is that it won't happen, using "data" from your fellow travelers. We're gambling that playing around with the global climate won't have any adverse effects. Perhaps that gamble is worth it, as we won't be around to see it, and what have future generations done for us anyway?

[Barry Gabriel]

Originally Posted by StAnastasia

Your guess is that it won't happen, using "data" from your fellow travelers. We're gambling that playing around with the global climate won't have any adverse effects. Perhaps that gamble is worth it, as we won't be around to see it, and what have future generations done for us anyway?

Repeating my words as such in your argument...what are you...12? I look at the scientific facts. I even look things up for myself and get as much information I can before making an informed decision. Just because Kyoto, Al Gore, hockey stick environmentalists say something is true, doesn't mean it is. Here's a fact for you (look it up if you don't believe me). Temperatures on the surface of Mars and Venus are rising too. Did man have anything to do with that? Also, dendrochronology (a science... a REAL science) clearly shows (and this isn't a guess, it's a fact...look it up) that we are not going into a warm phase on this planet, but coming out of a cold phase. Don't believe everything you read and hear in the media.

So far, there is nothing to gamble over.

[StAnastasia]

Originally Posted by Barry Gabriel

Repeating my words as such in your argument...what are you...12? I look at the scientific facts. I even look things up for myself and get as much information I can before making an informed decision. Just because Kyoto, Al Gore, hockey stick environmentalists say something is true, doesn't mean it is. Here's a fact for you (look it up if you don't believe me). Temperatures on the surface of Mars and Venus are rising too. Did man have anything to do with that? Also, dendrochronology (a science... a REAL science) clearly shows (and this isn't a guess, it's a fact...look it up) that we are not going into a warm phase on this planet, but coming out of a cold phase. Don't believe everything you read and hear in the media.So far, there is nothing to gamble over.

Barry Gabriel, by your intemperate language I have suspected that you yourself are on the nether side of adolescence. But that's neither here nor there.

I have studied this issue a lot, and I agree with the overwhelming majority of the world's climate scientists, for whom anthropogenic global warming is a serious enough threat that the nations are meeting in Copenhagen right now to address it. That they disagree with the extremists in the Republican Party and with the opinion of Barry Gabriel is perhaps regrettable, but in the long run irrelevant.

StAnastasia

[kimmielittle]

Originally Posted by 4elise

FROM THE VATICAN:

http://zenit.org/article-27758?l=english

ZE09120605 - 2009-12-06
Permalink: http://zenit.org/article-27758?l=english
Aide: Climate Change Talks Must Affect Our Lives

Spokesman Notes Ethical Implications of Copenhagen Conference

VATICAN CITY, DEC. 6, 2009 (Zenit.org).- The elements that have led to this week's U.N. climate change conference in Copenhagen must also be a call to lifestyle conversion, according to a Vatican spokesman.

On the most recent edition of Vatican Television's "Octava Dies," Jesuit Father Federico Lombardi, director of the Vatican press office, analyzed the ethical implications of the Dec. 7-18 U.N. conference.

The priest proposed that "some time ago environmental and climate concerns seemed to many to be a luxury -- worries for the rich. The concerns of the poor, who had to survive and meet basic needs, were different."

But then, he said, "We understood that things were not quite that way.

"When there is drought or when there are environmental catastrophes, the poor are the first to suffer and die. Those who are in safer places or who have more resources for food or protection can better survive the worst environmental conditions."

Thus, the spokesman asserted, caring for the health of the planet is something that must be done for everyone, and first of all, for the poor.

"The planet is like an organism in which imbalances reflect on each other," Father Lombardi illustrated. "The alteration of the atmosphere's composition, the increase of sea levels, the reduction of unpolluted fresh water reserves, the change in precipitation and hurricanes, soil erosion and desertification, damage to agriculture and human health. … And all of this fundamentally largely depends on human behavior and decisions."

Our problem too

The Vatican spokesman observed that "the Copenhagen conference on climate will be considered a success or a failure according to the commitments that the governments will take on, above all those of the most powerful and largest countries. The 'magic' numbers on the reductions of harmful gas emissions and the funding to be procured will be pronounced."

"But," the Jesuit affirmed, "in the end everything will depend on the sum of each of our actions, [we] inhabitants of the earth, too used to thinking ourselves clever in shifting the responsibility on others."

Referencing Benedict XVI's "Caritas in Veritate," Father Lombardi proposed "new lifestyles" and noted that "the ecological system depends on a good relationship between man and nature but also on his relationship with other men."

"So," he concluded, "Copenhagen's problem is our problem too."


And I add

IMHO It is a shame. A shame that you try to us the Vatican to bolster your argument.
1 The Vatican depends on the same scandalous fabricated data.
2 the Vatican NOR this good Priest conclude or address co2 as the culprit of Climate Change.....when people try to put words into the Vatican we end up with other Churches.
3 The Vatican is clearly calling uss to be good stewards....but is not attributing climate change to AGW .

We ALL have been lied to...IS the FACT

[kimmielittle]

Originally Posted by Barry Gabriel

Repeating my words as such in your argument...what are you...12? I look at the scientific facts. I even look things up for myself and get as much information I can before making an informed decision. Just because Kyoto, Al Gore, hockey stick environmentalists say something is true, doesn't mean it is. Here's a fact for you (look it up if you don't believe me). Temperatures on the surface of Mars and Venus are rising too. Did man have anything to do with that? Also, dendrochronology (a science... a REAL science) clearly shows (and this isn't a guess, it's a fact...look it up) that we are not going into a warm phase on this planet, but coming out of a cold phase. Don't believe everything you read and hear in the media.

So far, there is nothing to gamble over.

It goes to show just how deep this lie has been imprinted. Most of these people only look to people of like mindedness.

Have you ever noticed the lack of posts by these people in other issues here...ie. abortion...euthanasia...religious issues? Aren't these the same world issues that should concern Christians? It just shows to me, and others...the shallowness of the perceived IMPORTANCE of their agendas.

[Barry Gabriel]

Originally Posted by StAnastasia

Barry Gabriel, by your intemperate language I have suspected that you yourself are on the nether side of adolescence. But that's neither here nor there.

I have studied this issue a lot, and I agree with the overwhelming majority of the world's climate scientists, for whom anthropogenic global warming is a serious enough threat that the nations are meeting in Copenhagen right now to address it. That they disagree with the extremists in the Republican Party and with the opinion of Barry Gabriel is perhaps regrettable, but in the long run irrelevant.

StAnastasia

Intemperate language? You were the one who repeated what I said at your argument attempt. Forgive me. Clearly you are 7. Where have you studied this issue (I have too, and came about face from my original beliefs which were akin to yours). Why politicize the argument? I'm a Canadian and couldn't care less what the Republicans in the US believe. I gave you facts. Look it up. Spouting the usual line about scientists etc. doesn't wash with me anymore. Show me the numbers, point me to the research (which I've probably already read). Which scientists? What are your sources that the "vast majority" of "scientists" agree with you?