The 'Climate Change' Lie - iPeace.us2024-03-28T08:49:46Zhttps://ipeace.us/forum/topics/the-climate-change-lie?commentId=2217368%3AComment%3A2292894&feed=yes&xn_auth=nohttp://www.dailykos.com/story…tag:ipeace.us,2010-04-04:2217368:Comment:25030522010-04-04T12:00:30.999ZLeah D (Pixie)https://ipeace.us/profile/LeahDiMaria
<a href="http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/3/3/828855/-Eight-BRILLIANT-" target="_blank">http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/3/3/828855/-Eight-BRILLIANT-</a>...<br />
<br />
It is best to review the data and not the media!The media is doing a very poor job of covering all science and most politics. Search NASA and NOAA for a wealth of data and clear explanations. I was especially disappointed when CNN cut lose their science editor. There are good sources for science news, but in the world that we…
<a href="http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/3/3/828855/-Eight-BRILLIANT-" target="_blank">http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/3/3/828855/-Eight-BRILLIANT-</a>...<br />
<br />
It is best to review the data and not the media!The media is doing a very poor job of covering all science and most politics. Search NASA and NOAA for a wealth of data and clear explanations. I was especially disappointed when CNN cut lose their science editor. There are good sources for science news, but in the world that we live in, everyone needs to be well informed and better educated about many scientific topics.<br />
To many people form opinions & beliefs from media, Youtube vids, etc...the truth(s) are out there,one only needs to do the (proper) research for their selves, I did and continue to..20yrs now. Yes, <u>A lot</u> of contradictory info out, but if do proper research & stay informed ,educated at least any conclusions that are formed are from reliable sources.<br />
Okay, yes this link is online media source,however is full of scientific info...is a must see in this debate/discussion..in my humble opinion.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?…tag:ipeace.us,2010-04-04:2217368:Comment:25030352010-04-04T11:50:54.386ZLeah D (Pixie)https://ipeace.us/profile/LeahDiMaria
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7lzYj7bCf7M" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7lzYj7bCf7M</a>
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7lzYj7bCf7M" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7lzYj7bCf7M</a> "The Sydney Morning Herald"
*…tag:ipeace.us,2010-02-12:2217368:Comment:24370412010-02-12T18:16:32.256ZLeah D (Pixie)https://ipeace.us/profile/LeahDiMaria
"The Sydney Morning Herald"<br />
* 5:13AM Sat February 13, 2010<br />
<br />
ADAM MORTON<br />
February 2, 2010<br />
<br />
<b>Climate sceptic clouds the weather issue</b><br />
<br />
A NASA satellite that would have measured atmospheric carbon dioxide with unprecedented accuracy fell into the Indian Ocean in February last year.<br />
<br />
NASA said the crash was ''extremely disappointing''. Viscount Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, dubbed the ''high priest of climate sceptics'', doubts the space agency meant it.<br />
<br />
''Not greatly to my surprise -…
"The Sydney Morning Herald"<br />
* 5:13AM Sat February 13, 2010<br />
<br />
ADAM MORTON<br />
February 2, 2010<br />
<br />
<b>Climate sceptic clouds the weather issue</b><br />
<br />
A NASA satellite that would have measured atmospheric carbon dioxide with unprecedented accuracy fell into the Indian Ocean in February last year.<br />
<br />
NASA said the crash was ''extremely disappointing''. Viscount Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, dubbed the ''high priest of climate sceptics'', doubts the space agency meant it.<br />
<br />
''Not greatly to my surprise - indeed I predicted it - the satellite crashed on take-off because the last thing they want is real world hard data,'' he told a climate sceptics' lunch in South Yarra yesterday.<br />
<br />
NASA understood that getting the satellite into orbit would have demonstrated ''the whole darn thing'' - climate-change science - ''is nonsense''.<br />
<br />
Bold claims are stock-in-trade for Lord Monckton, a hereditary peer and one-time adviser to former British prime minister Margaret Thatcher who swung through Melbourne yesterday as part of a two-week national speaking tour.<br />
<br />
He said he was the first to explain the theory of global warming on British television in the late 1980s; that the United Nations wanted to use climate change policy to create a world government; that today's environmentalists were just yesterday's communists in different clothing.<br />
<br />
His biggest laugh at the first of his two Melbourne speeches came when he said describing environmentalists as ''green'' was a misnomer. ''I tend to call them the traffic-light tendency - greens too yellow to admit they're really red.''<br />
<br />
His interests stretch beyond climate change. He makes the extraordinary claim, one that he admits sounds ''bonkers'', that he has also manufactured a cure to a long-term illness that attacked his endocrine system and patented the cure in conjunction with a British surgeon.<br />
<br />
Though stressing it was in its early stages, he said the drug had had positive results treating HIV and multiple sclerosis. ''It also has been used to cure cases of colds, flu,'' he said.<br />
<br />
Lord Monckton's stump speech is built around attacks on the science underpinning man-made climate change and the scientists and those that believe them. Though not a climate scientist, he said he had uncovered flaws through his understanding of mathematics - ''the language of science''.<br />
<br />
He described government attempts to tackle climate change as ''a plot by the rich against the poor'' that would ''kill 5 billion, 6 billion people''.<br />
<br />
The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was guilty of ''systematically telling lies'' and exaggerating by up to 15 times the global warming that was likely by 2100.<br />
<br />
Scientists associated with the UN panel dismiss his claims. Even Senate leader Barnaby Joyce, probably Federal Parliament's most prominent climate sceptic, has described Lord Monckton as being on ''the fringe''.<br />
<br />
In the blogosphere, where the climate science debate thrives, his views are reviled and celebrated in roughly equal enthusiasm.<br />
<br />
Yesterday he drew about 100 people -mostly retirees - to his lunch-time speech and an estimated 1000 to an evening address at the Sofitel.<br />
<br />
Source: The Age<br />
<br />
Link to article:<br />
<a href="http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/climate-sceptic-clouds-the-weather-issue-20100201-n8y3.html" target="_blank">http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/climate-sceptic-cl...</a> hahaha..like this retard can…tag:ipeace.us,2010-01-07:2217368:Comment:23745062010-01-07T17:40:42.586ZLeah D (Pixie)https://ipeace.us/profile/LeahDiMaria
hahaha..like this retard can educate anyone,hmmm ?? unless already have a head full of idiocy.
hahaha..like this retard can educate anyone,hmmm ?? unless already have a head full of idiocy. tag:ipeace.us,2009-12-27:2217368:Comment:23504792009-12-27T15:11:50.268Zs <3https://ipeace.us/profile/clclay2
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/yscHx2Hb23c&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x3a3a3a&color2=0x999999"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="false"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="never"></param><embed wmode="opaque" src="http://www.youtube.com/v/yscHx2Hb23c&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x3a3a3a&color2=0x999999" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="never" width="425" height="344"></embed> <param name="wmode" value="opaque"></param></object>
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/yscHx2Hb23c&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x3a3a3a&color2=0x999999"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="never"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/yscHx2Hb23c&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x3a3a3a&color2=0x999999" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="never" width="425" height="344"></embed></object> 2020 vision
Dec 10th 2009 |…tag:ipeace.us,2009-12-15:2217368:Comment:23266652009-12-15T18:26:43.862ZLeah D (Pixie)https://ipeace.us/profile/LeahDiMaria
<b>2020 vision</b><br />
<br />
<b>Dec 10th 2009 | PARIS<br />
From The Economist print edition<br />
The IEA puts a date on peak oil production</b><br />
<br />
FATIH BIROL, the chief economist of the International Energy Agency (IEA), believes that if no big new discoveries are made, “the output of conventional oil will peak in 2020 if oil demand grows on a business-as-usual basis.” Coming from the band of geologists and former oil-industry hands who believe that the world is facing an imminent shortage of oil, this would be…
<b>2020 vision</b><br />
<br />
<b>Dec 10th 2009 | PARIS<br />
From The Economist print edition<br />
The IEA puts a date on peak oil production</b><br />
<br />
FATIH BIROL, the chief economist of the International Energy Agency (IEA), believes that if no big new discoveries are made, “the output of conventional oil will peak in 2020 if oil demand grows on a business-as-usual basis.” Coming from the band of geologists and former oil-industry hands who believe that the world is facing an imminent shortage of oil, this would be unremarkable. But coming from the IEA, the source of closely watched annual predictions about world energy markets, it is a new and striking claim.<br />
<br />
Despite repeated downward revisions in recent years in its forecasts of global oil supply in 2030, the IEA has not until now committed itself to a firm prediction for when oil supplies might cease to grow. Its latest energy outlook, released last month, says only that conventional oil (as opposed to hard-to-extract sources like Canada’s tar sands) is “projected to reach a plateau sometime before” 2030.<br />
Mr Birol’s willingness to acknowledge that conventional supplies may peak in a decade’s time points to a subtle shift in policymakers’ attitude towards the “peak oil” debate. This debate is not about whether the supply of oil, a finite resource, could some day stop growing. Rather, it hinges on the timing of an end to increases in global oil production, and on what happens next. The most pessimistic peak-oil proponents think that global oil supply has peaked or is about to do so. Given projections of demand increasing well into the future, they fear economic disaster.<br />
<br />
By contrast, oil optimists like Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA), an energy-research firm based in Boston, argue that high prices will lead to improved technology that will enable oil firms to find new oilfields; make it economically feasible to extract oil under more challenging geological conditions or manufacture it from coal or natural gas; and increase the amount of oil that can be recovered from existing fields. This, they argue, will allow demand to be met for at least a couple of decades. After that, CERA reckons, “supply may well struggle to meet demand, but an undulating plateau rather than a dramatic peak will likely unfold”. Until now official estimates from the IEA were far closer in spirit to those from the likes of CERA than the pessimists. Mr Birol’s statement suggests that the IEA has extended a tentative foot into the other camp.<br />
<br />
The reasons are not hard to find. After analysing the historical production trends of 800 individual oilfields in 2008, the IEA came to the conclusion that the decline in annual output from fields that are past their prime could average 8.6% in 2030. “Even if oil demand were to remain flat, the world would need to find more than 40m barrels per day of gross new capacity—equal to four new Saudi Arabias—just to offset this decline,” says Mr Birol.<br />
A daunting task. Peak-oil proponents point out that the average size of new discoveries has been declining since the mid-1960s. Between 1960 and 1989 the world discovered more than twice the oil it produced. But between 1990 and 2006 cumulative oil discoveries have been about half of production. Their opponents argue that long periods of relatively low oil prices blunted the incentives for exploration. A sustained period of higher prices, they argue, should increase discoveries. They point out that the first half of 2009 saw 10 billion barrels of new discoveries, an annual rate higher than any year since 2000. The pessimists retort that recent discoveries are still not enough.<br />
The IEA expects unconventional sources of oil to take up a lot of the slack, as progressively higher prices make them economically viable. But these sources are also much dirtier than conventional oil and require significantly more energy to tap. That sits uneasily with efforts to mitigate climate change, the subject of talks that began in Copenhagen this week.<br />
These negotiations matter hugely for the peak-oil debate. The IEA reckons that co-ordinated action to restrict the increase in global temperatures to 2ºC will restrict global demand for oil to 89m b/d in 2030, compared with 105m b/d if no action is taken. That, Mr Birol says, “could push back the peak of production, as it would take longer to produce the lower-cost oil that remains to be developed.” Action on climate change may yet save the world from an early supply crunch<br />
<br />
*Just something else that should be discussed in this debate.... I am not saying Politics and…tag:ipeace.us,2009-12-13:2217368:Comment:23228412009-12-13T21:39:42.959ZLeah D (Pixie)https://ipeace.us/profile/LeahDiMaria
I am not saying Politics and Greed are not a big part of the summit. It is the nature of business as usual of Politicians. This I do not dispute. I don't know what will actually come of the Climate summit. What I do know,is frightening. I have been an advocate/activist and community organizer over 20 years now, on a wide range of issues,including environmental,political,Peace and Social Justice. So I'm not someone that's based my opinions on a few YouTube vids or Talk show Host or any single…
I am not saying Politics and Greed are not a big part of the summit. It is the nature of business as usual of Politicians. This I do not dispute. I don't know what will actually come of the Climate summit. What I do know,is frightening. I have been an advocate/activist and community organizer over 20 years now, on a wide range of issues,including environmental,political,Peace and Social Justice. So I'm not someone that's based my opinions on a few YouTube vids or Talk show Host or any single person. I'm well educated on the problems of our world! So, When I see bits of the truth mixed with propaganda being put out by the same ones that are the perpetrators well it pisses me off. Because enough of the truths are mixed in with the "big lies" that many are believing it. It is to distract and divide and it's working! http://codylogan.net/2007/09/…tag:ipeace.us,2009-12-13:2217368:Comment:23228022009-12-13T21:28:56.014ZLeah D (Pixie)https://ipeace.us/profile/LeahDiMaria
<a href="http://codylogan.net/2007/09/13/alex-jones-is-a-nutcase/" target="_blank">http://codylogan.net/2007/09/13/alex-jones-is-a-nutcase/</a><br />
<br />
No, climate change is NOT only created by Humans,is also a natural cycle of the planet,including theories of the Sun..however what once took thousands of years, now since industrial revolution is 100's or less years. We are speeding up the natural cycle of the planet.
<a href="http://codylogan.net/2007/09/13/alex-jones-is-a-nutcase/" target="_blank">http://codylogan.net/2007/09/13/alex-jones-is-a-nutcase/</a><br />
<br />
No, climate change is NOT only created by Humans,is also a natural cycle of the planet,including theories of the Sun..however what once took thousands of years, now since industrial revolution is 100's or less years. We are speeding up the natural cycle of the planet. http://www.realclimate.org/in…tag:ipeace.us,2009-12-13:2217368:Comment:23227892009-12-13T21:21:39.553ZLeah D (Pixie)https://ipeace.us/profile/LeahDiMaria
<a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/cuckoo-science/" target="_blank">http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/cuckoo-science/</a><br />
debunking, the debunker Lord Monckton's coocoo science
<a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/cuckoo-science/" target="_blank">http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/cuckoo-science/</a><br />
debunking, the debunker Lord Monckton's coocoo science Man is of course contributing…tag:ipeace.us,2009-12-13:2217368:Comment:23227282009-12-13T20:44:36.803ZTeddyhttps://ipeace.us/profile/Teddy
Man is of course contributing to the pollution of the earth but the point is that, man is NOT the overall cause of ‘global warming’! Those people at the Copenhagen meeting are pushing that ‘global warming’ is MAN-MADE when in fact it is NOT! There is more going on at that meeting which is politics and greed!<br />
<br />
They are pushing for carbon taxes and regulation on the technological development of poorer countries. These poorer countries think they can cash-in on the taxes that will be paid by the…
Man is of course contributing to the pollution of the earth but the point is that, man is NOT the overall cause of ‘global warming’! Those people at the Copenhagen meeting are pushing that ‘global warming’ is MAN-MADE when in fact it is NOT! There is more going on at that meeting which is politics and greed!<br />
<br />
They are pushing for carbon taxes and regulation on the technological development of poorer countries. These poorer countries think they can cash-in on the taxes that will be paid by the richer countries, but just recently, a 'Danish text' draft agreement on climate change was leaked that will actually give more power and control to these richer nations, particularly to corrupt bureaucracies!<br />
<br />
Please open your mind. Look also into CLIMATEGATE and see how hacked emails reveal that scientists manipulated data to hide the fact that earth is actually cooling!<br />
<br />
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />
Copenhagen climate summit in disarray after 'Danish text' leak<br />
<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/08/copenhagen-climate-summit-disarray-danish-text" target="_blank">http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/08/copenhagen-climate-summit-disarray-danish-text</a><br />
<br />
Developing countries react furiously to leaked draft agreement that would hand more power to rich nations, sideline the UN's negotiating role and abandon the Kyoto protocol.<br />
<br />
The UN Copenhagen climate talks are in disarray today after developing countries reacted furiously to leaked documents that show world leaders will next week be asked to sign an agreement that hands more power to rich countries and sidelines the UN's role in all future climate change negotiations.<br />
<br />
The document is also being interpreted by developing countries as setting unequal limits on per capita carbon emissions for developed and developing countries in 2050; meaning that people in rich countries would be permitted to emit nearly twice as much under the proposals.<br />
<br />
The so-called Danish text, a secret draft agreement worked on by a group of individuals known as "the circle of commitment" – but understood to include the UK, US and Denmark – has only been shown to a handful of countries since it was finalised this week.<br />
<br />
The agreement, leaked to the Guardian, is a departure from the Kyoto protocol's principle that rich nations, which have emitted the bulk of the CO2, should take on firm and binding commitments to reduce greenhouse gases, while poorer nations were not compelled to act. The draft hands effective control of climate change finance to the World Bank; would abandon the Kyoto protocol – the only legally binding treaty that the world has on emissions reductions; and would make any money to help poor countries adapt to climate change dependent on them taking a range of actions.<br />
<br />
The document was described last night by one senior diplomat as "a very dangerous document for developing countries. It is a fundamental reworking of the UN balance of obligations. It is to be superimposed without discussion on the talks".<br />
<br />
A confidential analysis of the text by developing countries also seen by the Guardian shows deep unease over details of the text. In particular, it is understood to:<br />
<br />
• Force developing countries to agree to specific emission cuts and measures that were not part of the original UN agreement;<br />
<br />
• Divide poor countries further by creating a new category of developing countries called "the most vulnerable";<br />
<br />
• Weaken the UN's role in handling climate finance;<br />
<br />
• Not allow poor countries to emit more than 1.44 tonnes of carbon per person by 2050, while allowing rich countries to emit 2.67 tonnes.<br />
<br />
Developing countries that have seen the text are understood to be furious that it is being promoted by rich countries without their knowledge and without discussion in the negotiations.<br />
<br />
"It is being done in secret. Clearly the intention is to get [Barack] Obama and the leaders of other rich countries to muscle it through when they arrive next week. It effectively is the end of the UN process," said one diplomat, who asked to remain nameless.<br />
<br />
Antonio Hill, climate policy adviser for Oxfam International, said: "This is only a draft but it highlights the risk that when the big countries come together, the small ones get hurting. On every count the emission cuts need to be scaled up. It allows too many loopholes and does not suggest anything like the 40% cuts that science is saying is needed."<br />
<br />
Hill continued: "It proposes a green fund to be run by a board but the big risk is that it will run by the World Bank and the Global Environment Facility [a partnership of 10 agencies including the World Bank and the UN Environment Programme] and not the UN. That would be a step backwards, and it tries to put constraints on developing countries when none were negotiated in earlier UN climate talks."<br />
<br />
The text was intended by Denmark and rich countries to be a working framework, which would be adapted by countries over the next week. It is particularly inflammatory because it sidelines the UN negotiating process and suggests that rich countries are desperate for world leaders to have a text to work from when they arrive next week.<br />
<br />
Few numbers or figures are included in the text because these would be filled in later by world leaders. However, it seeks to hold temperature rises to 2C and mentions the sum of $10bn a year to help poor countries adapt to climate change from 2012-15.<br />
<br />
<br />
Draft Copenhagen climate change agreement - the 'Danish text'<br />
<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/08/copenhagen-climate-change" target="_blank">http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/08/copenhagen-climate-change</a><br />
<br />
Alex Jones: Secret Copenhagen Documents Leaked (1/2)<br />
<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/SJdZDrWUqpw&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="never"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/SJdZDrWUqpw&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="never" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>
<br />
Alex Jones: Secret Copenhagen Documents Leaked 2/2<br />
<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/94KH-WMZuw0&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="never"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/94KH-WMZuw0&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="never" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>
<br />
.