Nails in the Coffin

[braincell]

Listen to your leader, Glenn Beck.

[dawman]

exotic-parrot-wallpaper.jpg

[braincell]

.

[dawman]

m-h-statistics.gif

[valis]

.

• 

Wait, this isn't the OT thread?

[braincell]

.

[Mr Arkadin]

Gary thinks there is an unlimited amount of oil because it's not derived from organic compounds. That just show you the idiocy of some of these conservative ideas...

Maybe you should do some research first. In the East (Russia particularly) they have had a theory for some time now that oil is derived as a chemical reaction at the magma interface (i don't know the details). Now the 'fossil fuel' theory is just that - it's the accepted theory of the West. Read that again: accepted theory - not fact.

Now as a non-scientist i haven't a clue which is correct (if indeed either therory is), but just because someone hasn't researched a better model doesn't mean i'm going to accept one theory over another without some damned good evidence: the evidence isn't there. Believe me i only found out about this Russian theory last year and i was shocked because of the way i'd been taught fossil fuels as fact, and i was more shocked and embarrassed because i'd never even quesioned it. Now i question everything. i keep an open mind.

You however, spout what you've been told (hence your constant reliance on force-fed political models for name-calling: ooh, you're a conservative etc. ). You're a politician's dream, repeating verbatum everything they feed you and disallowing any debate.

Further, and this is the most important bit, the politicans do not care about the environment, they care about power (and money, which leads to power). Climate change is a red herring, a distraction from the real problem. Here's some examples of the problems:

In the UK i can buy New Zealand lamb - flown from the other side of the world, perhaps every day because it's got to be 'in date'. How is that a sensible use of resources? Yet the fields in the UK are full of rapeseed - very fucking useful. We need to have more food locally grown. We need to stop over-fishing. We need to reduce plastic packaging. We need to stop cutting down rainforests to graze cattle. We need to efficiently recycle (not ship to China for landfill as some councils in the UK have done - again self-serving liars). We need to research creating clean fuels. i bet gary thinks the same.

What we need is a paradigm shift in the way we think, not another fucking tax. Have you seen any such shift from COP15? Oh, and why is it that we use a load of resources (planes, limos) to fly everyone to a party, sorry summit, when you could video conference via the internet and lead by example? Because without the parties, free champagne, pretty ladies and limos they wouldn't bother turning up.

So my solution is simple: treat the planet with respect. If we do this then the climate change argument becomes irrelevant, because if it's real, we help it by treating the planet properly. If it's not real then we still gain because we're treating the planet with respect. Do you see? But no, they'll talk about bullshit like 'carbon credits' whereby i can pump a load of pollution into the air as long as i buy a few trees in Brazil . It's just another way of creating money ('green industries') from nothing tangible (which, in the UK, with no factories anymore, we have to do).

You see, if the politicans really cared they wouldn't be talking about taxes, they would actually make certain things illegal, but that would ruin business and remember money (and moreover the power that comes with it) is the important thing. Taxes will change nothing.

[braincell]

.

[dawman]

Well shoot.
I was hoping for some more of those outbursts without spell checking.........

[Mr Arkadin]

.

i think that sums up your argument.

In the meantime check the ice-core records which go back a bit further than 1880. Hang on - what's that huge bump i see at 1000AD?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mxmo9Ds ... re=related

[braincell]

.

[Mr Arkadin]

That new looper pedal is really working out for you but don't overuse it...

[braincell]

.

[Mr Arkadin]

How about commenting on my long post, or at least looking at the youtube clip? What about 1000AD? My graph is scientific too, from scientists, so you should believe it without question. The ice-core samples don't even disagree with your 'stuck on repeat' graph and you still have no intelligent comment to make.

Repeating a graph isn't really an argument, but then that may be because you haven't got a case to put forward.

[dawman]

C'mon Tony, give him a few minutes for spell checking.
Posing as intellectual isn't easy for him, it's a big step up.

[braincell]

NASA's images are legal to be used for any purpose (except their logo).

May I remind everyone It is totally illegal and immoral to post copyrighted photos and images even if you alter them.

[Mr Arkadin]

Blinkers are for horses so they don't see things that scare them. I didn't realise they made human ones too. You're like those people that avoid hearing nasty stuff by sticking their fingers into their ears and shouting, "La la la, I can't hear you!" Perhaps it's because you can't handle the truth.

[braincell]

.

[siriusbliss]

Poor tactics there BC.
One graph from NASA (a huge polluter), while denying all the other data that's been posted in this thread won't get you anywhere. You're only living in a narrow view of the world - mostly in denial, and afraid of confronting the truth. Evidence being that you're relegated to name-calling and rhetoric as a debate forum thinking that this will put you above the discussion. NOT helping you at all.
Not accepting natural cycles going back way before the industrial age.
name calling and blathering Rush Limbaugh-type rhetoric.
Buying into the government-fed, media brainwash retoric of convenient phrases as 'wingnuts', and 'conservatives'. More insubstantiated wordsmithing...

You should start buying carbon credits from Al Gore - because that will SURELY save the polar bears.

Oh....and the leader of the Copenhagen climate meeting just resigned today...

[garyb]

...because of the LYING.

it's hard to accept, but there it is.

braincell, that's a mighty SCAAARRRY graph. it doesn't necessarily mean anything though. as to the oil thing, it's no secret that petroleum which is CARBON, HYDROGEN and OXYGEN in long chains, may have SOME organic source, but it's also clear(from evaluation of deep-deep well samples with have NO organic markers) that much of it does not. that's not at all surprising in that using 3 of the most common ingredients on the earth, hydrogen, oxygen(water) and carbon, and high pressure, petroleum can be made in the lab and synthetic oil is popular. the Nazi war machine ran on synthetic petroleum for much of WW2. deep within the earth, it is not unreasonable to find the correct conditions for petroleum to form. isn't that interesting?

those Russian researchers that Mr A mentioned realized that very, very deep in the earth, there must be tremendous amounts of untapped sweet crude of the highest caliber, based on the theory of abiotic oil. they drilled and found that the oil was where it should have been, much too deep and clean for it to be from fossil sources. Russia is a petroleum king now because of that work! old wells here in the USA that were thought dead 20 years ago, have refilled in many cases. abiotic petroleum is a well known phenomenon these days, except for in the minds of the consuming public.

sorry braincell, but you are slightly deluded. i'm sure you want to be doing good work by "exposing" my insanity, and i MAY be insane. in an insane world, that's to be expected, but you have also exposed your own insanity. good work.

remember, the point of this thread is that the original compilers of the co2 global warming data were lying. this is an indisputable fact now, as we have their own words to prove it.