Emission Trading and climate change

Page 246 of 377 FirstFirst ... 146 196 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 296 346 ... LastLast
Results 12,251 to 12,300 of 18819
  1. #12251
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    Re-read indeed. And read well this time, instead of reading what you want to believe. #12213

    You said: I would be embarrassed to bring up funding. I said: I would not be embarrassed as I was well read on the topic. It is pretty obvious I was talking about funding.
    Oh my god who cares
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  2. #12252
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    [QUOTE=intertd6;949816] not the global average since 1998, Or haven't you properly focused yet?[/QUOT

    I must confess I had not focussed yet. The global average since 1998... Kind of like asking what is your intelligence since you had your head cut off. I really am struggling in this forum... (not)
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  3. #12253
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    So no response that shows that climate science is funded to the tune of more than US$2900 BILLION per year? Can't find that sort of funding? What a surprise, your suggestion that climate science has more funding than the fossil fuel industry is a smoking wreck. Try basing your proposals on facts.

    I don't need to do better than to point out the hollow argument you propose. This is a very unbalanced discussion on financial terms, thankfully the facts unearthed by the science tend to balance the discussion. Parts of the the fossil fuel industry are funding the proposal that science is a scam and some people believe them. Surprise!
    Is this post for real? Are you trying to say that skeptics get funded by 2900 billion a year?
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  4. #12254
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    Oh my god who cares
    Why post then?
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  5. #12255
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    I really am struggling in this forum
    True that
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  6. #12256
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    Derr, yes. the obvious. You haven't a link, and haven't posted a link, to a record of temperature to support your fallacious position.

    I might be wrong, and I will apologise if you post the link.
    what link? It's been posted on this debate on the pages beforehand by your side, who in their right mind would get sucked into some time wasters perverse little time wasting games, it's not my problem you have a problem by trolling up this stuff.
    inter

  7. #12257
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    what link? It's been posted on this debate on the pages beforehand by your side, who in their right mind would get sucked into some time wasters perverse little time wasting games, it's not my problem you have a problem.
    inter
    Inter, the only problem is you havn't provided the link that proves all the things you claim. Don't waste time arguing - just post your link. It will counter Marc's link #12227 showing warming is continuing.
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  8. #12258
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    what link? It's been posted on this debate on the pages beforehand by your side, who in their right mind would get sucked into some time wasters perverse little time wasting games, it's not my problem you have a problem by trolling up this stuff.
    inter

    Inter, the only problem is you havn't provided the link that proves all the things you claim. Don't waste time arguing - just post your link. It will counter Marc's link #12227 showing warming is continuing.
    Are you in need of help or something?
    inter

  9. #12259
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    Are you in need of help or something?
    Just post your link - not for my benefit, but for the benefit of all others reading this forum. And if you have time, you might explain why you are in disagreement with Marc's post which purports to expose the worse liars of the world.
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  10. #12260
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    Just post your link - not for my benefit, but for the benefit of all others reading this forum. And if you have time, you might explain why you are in disagreement with Marc's post which purports to expose the worse liars of the world.
    You can try & get your jollies off someone else!
    inter

  11. #12261
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    You can try & get your jollies off someone else!
    What no link? Some casual observers might think you have been making a bit up along the way. But they don't know like we forum regulars do - you've been making it all along.
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  12. #12262
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    Inter, the only problem is you havn't provided the link that proves all the things you claim. Don't waste time arguing - just post your link. It will counter Marc's link #12227 showing warming is continuing.
    nor have you john
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  13. #12263
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    nor have you john
    Lazy claim Rob, and not true. I very often post links. You are welcome to take issue with the veracity of the information in the links, but don't shoot the messenger.

    FWIW Inter has stated several times in the past couple of days that he does not dispute the data I have linked. You can't both be right.
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  14. #12264
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    Is this post for real? Are you trying to say that skeptics get funded by 2900 billion a year?
    Nice try to move the goal posts Rod.

    The fossil fuel industry is substantially better funded through their massive cash flow than the relatively piddling amounts spent on climate science. Your proposal was "anyway they are funding the exposure of a giant scam. Far less than the funding available to support the scam."

    My suggestion is that there is far higher funding available to the FF industry than to climate science. I'm not suggesting that it is all spent on climate science denial.

    At least you admit that portions of the FF industry are funding denial. Accepting facts is a good trait to have.

    Those who want to ignore the science are increasingly alone. They are on their own shrinking island.


  15. #12265
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    Lazy claim Rob, and not true. I very often post links. You are welcome to take issue with the veracity of the information in the links, but don't shoot the messenger.

    FWIW Inter has stated several times in the past couple of days that he does not dispute the data I have linked. You can't both be right.
    Yes but none that prove your claim as you are asking!
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  16. #12266
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    Nice try to move the goal posts Rod.

    The fossil fuel industry is substantially better funded through their massive cash flow than the relatively piddling amounts spent on climate science. Your proposal was "anyway they are funding the exposure of a giant scam. Far less than the funding available to support the scam."

    My suggestion is that there is far higher funding available to the FF industry than to climate science. I'm not suggesting that it is all spent on climate science denial.

    At least you admit that portions of the FF industry are funding denial. Accepting facts is a good trait to have.
    Why do you always have to try a gotcha on something you know full well is not true? Anyone reading this forum would know its not true so why bother?
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  17. #12267
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    Yes but none that prove your claim as you are asking!
    No one has refuted any of the links I have posted, by explaining why they are wrong or have misinterpreted things. Not you, not Marc, not Inter. All you have collectively done is post a lot of emotive claptrap with not a fact in sight.
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  18. #12268
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    What no link? Some casual observers might think you have been making a bit up along the way. But they don't know like we forum regulars do - you've been making it all along.
    who would need a link when the subject in recent history started out the same as this latest silly little farce, a claim was made that we were all dreaming that there had been no significant warming since 1998, some one provided a doctored graph, it was pointed out that it was a farce, other graphs turned up, these again were a farce, finally a graph was presented which was indicative of reality which showed 0.02'C or so warming over the period ( 1998 to then ) , then you or one of your clones claimed this was significant warming in their opinion, then it was pointed out that the real definition meaning of significant did not apply to this increase in temperature, then you or one of your clones dropped the argument like a hot potato because they didn't have a leg to stand on! Now tell us all this isn't basically what happened? then ask yourself who in their right mind would engage any further in such a fruitless pursuit when nothing has changed other than their contempt for anything but your own warped agenda.
    inter

  19. #12269
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    who would need a link when the subject in recent history started out the same as this latest silly little farce, a claim was made that we were all dreaming that there had been no significant warming since 1998, some one provided a doctored graph, it was pointed out that it was a farce, other graphs turned up, these again were a farce, finally a graph was presented which was indicative of reality which showed 0.02'C or so warming over the period ( 1998 to then )
    Where? Not in this forum. BTW none of the graphs I provided were "doctored". You can provide your own graphs if you don't agree with the ones posted. The data is available for free to everyone.

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    then you or one of your clones claimed this was significant warming in their opinion, then it was pointed out that the real definition meaning of significant did not apply to this increase in temperature, then you or one of your clones dropped the argument like a hot potato because they didn't have a leg to stand on! Now tell us all this isn't basically what happened? then ask yourself who in their right mind would engage any further in such a fruitless pursuit when nothing has changed other than their contempt for anything but your own warped agenda.
    So here's a challenge Inter: don't. Especially as all you seem to do is denigrate and belittle the people you don't agree with.
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  20. #12270
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    So here's a challenge Inter: don't. Especially as all you seem to do is denigrate and belittle the people you don't agree with.

    Wake up! I already said I won't

    BTW none of the graphs I provided were doctored. You can provide your own graphs if you don't agree with the ones posted.

    Just like the latest ones hey! You couldn't lie straight in bed
    inter

  21. #12271
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    Wake up! I already said I won't
    But you just have.

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    You couldn't lie straight in bed
    And another dose of denigration thrown in for good measure.
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  22. #12272
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    Why do you always have to try a gotcha on something you know full well is not true?
    I agree with you that FF companies are funding denial of climate science. Where is the gotcha?

    You claim to accept the basics of climate science, but you call it a scam. If anyone is playing gotcha, it is you.

    Those who want to ignore the science are increasingly alone. They are on their own shrinking island.


  23. #12273
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    Is this post for real? Are you trying to say that skeptics get funded by 2900 billion a year?
    What's funny is they think it is! Somehow gross turnover means funding!!! If that was the basis of an argument, then this amount would be a minuscule fraction of the globes govt revenues in the multi trillions that go on to fund climate research & so they lose another red herring argument!
    Regards inter

  24. #12274
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,412

    Default

    Prof. Says Global Warming to Blame for ISIS

    by Jeff Davis on September 30, 2014 in Loonies
    A professor is blaming climate change and overpopulation for the creation of the terrorist group ISIS. Charles Strozier, Professor of History and the founding Director of the John Jay College Center on Terrorism and Kelly Berkell, research assistant at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, wrote a blog piece in the Huffington Post called “ How Climate Change Helped ISIS,” where they argue that a four-year drought in Syria, from 2006 through 2010, “devastated the livelihoods of 800,000 farmers and herders; and knocked two to three million people into extreme poverty.”
    Read more at Campus Reform
    Fear is the foundation of most government.
    John Adams

  25. #12275
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,412

    Default

    BIG NEWS VIII: New solar theory predicts imminent global cooling


    To recap — using an optimal Fourier Transform, David Evans discovered a form of notch filter operating between changes in sunlight and temperatures on Earth. This means there must be a delay — probably around 11 years. This not only fitted with the length of the solar dynamo cycle, but also with previous independent work suggesting a lag of ten years or a correlation with the solar activity of the previous cycle. The synopsis then is that solar irradiance (TSI) is a leading indicator of some other effect coming from the Sun after a delay of 11 years or so.
    The discovery of this delay is a major clue about the direction of our future climate. The flickers in sunlight run a whole sunspot cycle ahead of some other force from the sun. Knowing that solar irradiance dropped suddenly from 2003 onwards tells us the rough timing of the fall in temperature that’s coming (just add a solar cycle length). What it doesn’t tell us is the amplitude — the size of the fall. That’s where the model may (or may not) tell us what we want to know. That test is coming, and very soon. This is an unusual time in the last 100 years where the forecasts from the CO2 driven models and the solar model diverge sharply. Oh the timing!
    Ponder how ambitious this simple model is — the complex GCM’s only aim to predict decadal trends, and have failed to even do that. Here is a smaller simpler model proffering up a prediction which is so much more specific. The Solar Model has not shown skill yet in predictions on such short time-scales, though it hindcasts reasonably well on the turning points and longer scales. It cannot predict ENSO events, and obviously not aerosols, nor volcanoes. But if the notch-delay theory is right, the big drop coming is larger than the short term noise.
    As we head to the UNFCCC meeting in Paris 2015 where global bureaucracy beckons, a sharp cooling change appears to be developing and set to hit in the next five years. Yet consortia of five-star politicans are not preparing for climate change, only for global warming. Around the world a billion dollars a day is invested in renewable energy, largely with the hope of changing the weather. Given that 20% of the world does not even have access to electricity, history books may marvel at how screwed priorities were, and how bureaucratized science cost so much more than the price of the grants.
    As Bob Carter has been saying for a long time, politicians need to prepare for everything the climate may throw at us — see Climate the Counter Consensus.
    Jo

    Fear is the foundation of most government.
    John Adams

  26. #12276
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    What's funny is they think it is! Somehow gross turnover means funding!!!
    No Woodbe did not. What's more, that fallacious claim has already been dealt with here: #12264

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    If that was the basis of an argument, then this amount would be a minuscule fraction of the globes govt revenues in the multi trillions that go on to fund climate research & they lose another red herring argument!
    Keep digging Inter - you're nearly at Senegal LOL!
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  27. #12277
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    Somehow gross turnover means funding!!!
    US$2,900 BILLION is not gross turnover. What's funny is that you think it is!

    There is a difference between raw material costs and gross turnover.

    What is missing from your post is recognition that the results of climate science threaten the fossil fuel industry and they clearly have a lot to lose. Even Rod accepts that the industry is funding attacks on climate science. The exact same thing happened in the tobacco industry, they used funding to bury the science for as long as they could. Truth came out in the end, and for those who are not sycophants for the fossil fuel industry, the truth is already out.

    You should send a bill to the FF industry for flying their flag here for them.

    Those who want to ignore the science are increasingly alone. They are on their own shrinking island.


  28. #12278
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    BIG NEWS VIII: New solar theory predicts imminent global cooling
    Ah - a theory that disproves conservation of energy - that might work. Except everything built on the assumption that the conservation of energy holds would be broken, and that is just about everything that has been designed or made by mankind.

    Just more tripe - who wudda thort. It is hard to find two of Marc's counter climate theories that can even co-exist, because they are so often mutually contradictory. But who cares when the mantra running inside someone's head is all that is required to justify the means?
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  29. #12279
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    Why do you always have to try a gotcha on something you know full well is not true? Anyone reading this forum would know its not true so why bother?
    The funniest thing is their perceived gotcha's turn out to be, got themselves into such a mess, so they have to lie, doctor, weasel & manipulate their way into more of a mess, it a laugh a minute which never ends!
    regards inter

  30. #12280
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    The funniest thing is their perceived gotcha's turn out to be, got themselves into such a mess, so they have to lie, doctor, weasel & manipulate their way into more of a mess, it a laugh a minute which never ends!
    regards inter
    Not to mention those that still don't understand the simple concept of industry defending it's position by funding attacks on science. (not to mention the inability to grasp the difference between raw material cost and gross turnover)

    You've still got less than nuffin, inter.

    Those who want to ignore the science are increasingly alone. They are on their own shrinking island.


  31. #12281
    1K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Logan Qld
    Posts
    1,377

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    Ah - a new theory that disproves conservation of energy - that might work. Except everything built on the assumption that the conservation of energy holds would be broken, and that is just about everything that has been designed or made by mankind.

    Just more tripe - who wudda thort. It is hard to find two of Marc's counter climate theories that can even co-exist, because they are so often mutually contradictory. But who cares when the mantra running inside someone's head is all that is required to justify the means?
    Not exactly new; Evans has been pushing this one in different variations for about ten years now.

  32. #12282
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    US$2,900 BILLION is not gross turnover. What's funny is that you think it is!

    There is a difference between raw material costs and gross turnover.

    What is missing from your post is recognition that the results of climate science threaten the fossil fuel industry and they clearly have a lot to lose. Even Rod accepts that the industry is funding attacks on climate science. The exact same thing happened in the tobacco industry, they used funding to bury the science for as long as they could. Truth came out in the end, and for those who are not sycophants for the fossil fuel industry, the truth is already out.

    You should send a bill to the FF industry for flying their flag here for them.
    you dreaming stuff up again I see! Some how you have dreamed up I have some where confused your unquoted material costs to my referenced turnover amount.
    I couldn't care less about who funds what propaganda because I'm only just bright enough to see it for what it is & not be one of the sheep that follows the herd whatever direction it goes in! then wait to see the scientific proof what ever or way it reveals the facts. You guys or girls only have your immovable dogma that you follow & can't or won't entertain anything else! Oops I by accident just described the followers of a cult again!
    inter

  33. #12283
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PhilT2 View Post
    Not exactly new; Evans has been pushing this one in different variations for about ten years now.
    Thanks. Edited.
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  34. #12284
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,412

    Default

    I mentioned the link between eugenics and the global warming fabrication before.
    This article mainly dedicated to the modern version of eugenics mentions the link once again.The Population Reduction Agenda For DummiesPaul Joseph Watson
    http://www.prisonplanet.com/the-popu...r-dummies.htmlPrison Planet.com
    Friday, June 26, 2009

    There are still large numbers of people amongst the general public, in academia, and especially those who work for the corporate media, who are still in denial about the on-the-record stated agenda for global population reduction, as well as the consequences of this program that we already see unfolding.

    As was reported only last month by the London Times, a “secret billionaire club” meeting in early May which took place in New York and was attended by David Rockefeller, Ted Turner, Bill Gates and others was focused around “how their wealth could be used to slow the growth of the world’s population”.

    We questioned establishment media spin which portrayed the attendees as kind-hearted and concerned philanthropists by pointing out that Ted Turner has publicly advocated shocking population reduction programs that would cull the human population by a staggering 95%. He has also called for a Communist-style one child policy to be mandated by governments in the west. In China, the one child policy is enforced by means of taxes on each subsequent child, allied to an intimidation program which includes secret police and “family planning” authorities kidnapping pregnant women from their homes and performing forced abortions.

    The notion that these elitists merely want to slow population growth in order to improve health is a complete misnomer. Slowing the growth of the world’s population while also improving its health are two irreconcilable concepts to the elite. Stabilizing world population is a natural byproduct of higher living standards, as has been proven by the stabilization of the white population in the west. Elitists like David Rockefeller have no interest in “slowing the growth of world population” by natural methods, their agenda is firmly rooted in the pseudo-science of eugenics, which is all about “culling” the surplus population via draconian methods.

    As is documented in Alex Jones’ seminal film Endgame, Rockefeller’s father, John D. Rockefeller, exported eugenics to Germany from its origins in Britain by bankrolling the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute which later would form a central pillar in the Third Reich’s ideology of the Nazi super race. After the fall of the Nazis, top German eugenicists were protected by the allies as the victorious parties fought over who would enjoy their “expertise” in the post-war world.

    As Dr. Len Horowitz writes, “In the 1950s, the Rockefellers reorganized the U.S. eugenics movement in their own family offices, with spinoff population-control and abortion groups. The Eugenics Society changed its name to the Society for the Study of Social Biology, its current name.”

    In the latter half of the 20th century, eugenics merely changed its face to become known as “population control”. This was crystallized in National Security Study Memorandum 200, a 1974 geopolitical strategy document prepared by Rockefeller’s intimate friend and fellow Bilderberg member Henry Kissinger, which targeted thirteen countries for massive population reduction by means of creating food scarcity, sterilization and war.

    Marie Stopes was a feminist who opened the first birth control clinic in Britain in 1921 as well as being Nazi sympathizer and a eugenicist who advocated that non-whites and the poor be sterilized.Stopes, a racist and an anti-Semite, campaigned for selective breeding to achieve racial purity, a passion she shared with Adolf Hitler in adoring letters and poems that she sent the leader of the Third Reich.

    Stopes also attended the Nazi congress on population science in Berlin in 1935, while calling for the “compulsory sterilization of the diseased, drunkards, or simply those of bad character.” Stopes acted on her appalling theories by concentrating her abortion clinics in poor areas so as to reduce the birth rate of the lower classes.Stopes left most of her estate to the Eugenics Society, an organization that shared her passion for racial purity and still exists today under the new name The Galton Institute.
    The society has included members such as Charles Galton Darwin (grandson of the evolutionist), Julian Huxley and Margaret Sanger.In the 21st century, the eugenics movement has changed its stripes once again, manifesting itself through the global carbon tax agenda and the notion that having too many children or enjoying a reasonably high standard of living is destroying the planet through global warming, creating the pretext for further regulation and control over every facet of our lives.As we have tirelessly documented, the elite’s drive for population control is not based around a benign philanthropic urge to improve living standards, it is firmly routed in eugenics, racial hygiene and fascist thinking.
    The London Times reports that the secret billionaire cabal, with its interest in population reduction, has been dubbed ‘The Good Club’ by insiders. This couldn’t be further from the truth. Anyone who takes the time to properly research the origins of the “population control” movement will come to understand that the Rockefeller-

    Turner-Gates agenda for drastic population reduction, which is now clearly manifesting itself through real environmental crises like chemtrails, genetically modified food, tainted vaccines and other skyrocketing diseases such as cancer, has its origins in the age-old malevolent elitist agenda to cull the human “chattel” as one would do to rodents or any other species deemed a nuisance by the central planning authorities.

    As we highlighted at the time, respondents to a Daily Mail article about Royal Mail honoring Marie Stopes by using her image on a commemorative stamp were not disgusted at Royal Mail for paying homage to a racist Nazi eugenicist, but were merely keen to express their full agreement that those deemed not to be of pure genetic stock or of the approved character should be forcibly sterilized and prevented from having children.
    “A lot of people should be sterilized, IMO. It’s still true today,” wrote one.
    “Just imagine what a stable, well-ordered society we’d have if compulsory sterilisation had been adopted years ago for the socially undesirable,” states another respondent, calling for a “satellite-carried sterilisation ray” to be installed in space to zap the undesirables.
    Shockingly, another compares sterilization and genocide of those deemed inferior to the breeding and culling of farmyard animals, and says that such a move is necessary to fight overpopulation and global warming. Here is the comment in full from “Karen” in Wales;
    We breed farm animals to produce the best possible stock and kill them when they have fulfilled their purpose. We inter-breed pedigree animals to produce extremes that leave them open to ill-health and early death. It is only religion that says humans are not animals. The reality is that we are simply intelligent, mammalian primates.The world population of humans has increased from 2 billion to 6.5 billion in the last 50 years. This planet can support 2 billion humans comfortably. 6.5 billion humans use too many resources and leads to global warming, climate change and a very uncertain future for all of us – humans and all other life sharing this planet with us.Marie Stopes believed in population control and in breeding the best possible humans. So did Hitler.Neither of the aims are bad in themselves. It is how they are achieved that is the problem. The fact that we still remember Marie Stopes is an achievement in itself.
    Fear is the foundation of most government.
    John Adams

  35. #12285
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    you dreaming stuff up again I see! Some how you have dreamed up I have some where confused your unquoted material costs to my referenced turnover amount.
    If someone is dreaming stuff up, it is inter dreaming up ways to weasel out of his misunderstanding.



    The subject is clearly the value of the crude oil consumption, not gross turnover. Man up, big boy and admit to a mistake.

    You've still got nothing.

    Those who want to ignore the science are increasingly alone. They are on their own shrinking island.


  36. #12286
    1K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Logan Qld
    Posts
    1,377

    Default

    World Scientific have made all their journals open access for the month of October. http://www.worldscientific.com/page/highlights-physics
    One of their journals, the International Journal of Modern Physics B has some discussion on the the Gerlich & Tscheuschner "greenhouse" paper and the Lu paper on cosmic rays.

    Sadly they do not have any articles on the conspiracy by the illumanati or the secret lizard people to form a one world govt with the UN under Agenda 21 and kill off the population with vaccines. i know that will be a disappointment to some.

  37. #12287
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,412

    Default

    In the sixties and seventies the catchcry phrase was "information is power". When that may have been the case in the middle ages where only the elite could read and write, today information is not power at all and probably was not so even then. Otherwise university professors would all be millionairs.

    It is not information that is power or being informed that makes you powerful, but it is what you do with the information you receive.
    So in essence the power comes from action and not from knowledge.I know well respected people with decades of experience in investment that were told to buy shares in Yahoo and in Google at the time the shares were a dollar or so, yet dismissed it as a fad, another .com bubble. Their position as experts clashed with the possibility that someone else, new, green, not in the loop, may possibly know and act outside of what it is done by those in the know.
    Most amazing is that they refused to buy even after years of phenomenal performance each year dismissing it as the last and now the beginning of the end. The bubble will bust any minute now...

    What each individual does with the information available, will depend from his own set of values. If you "like" what you hear or read, you might act on it, maybe or maybe not.
    If you don't like it or would rather it be wrong, you ridicule it or call it a conspiracy theory.
    Usually there is an official position that appeals to the majority and then there is the minority report (pun intended) that is suppressed in any way possible or if made public, ridiculed and called a conspiracy theory. This title automatically labels the information as fringe lunacy to be dismissed by any thinking person with even a trace of personal balance.

    As you probably notice, this can be applied back to the majority position and the majority position labelled lunatic. it does not matter. The only thing that matters is what each person does with what he or she knows or is told or taught.

    The world is an amazing place.
    Fear is the foundation of most government.
    John Adams

  38. #12288
    1K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Logan Qld
    Posts
    1,377

    Default

    The term 'Knowledge is power" does not necessarily have anything to do with wealth. Information maybe, especially a bit of inside information may help with your google shares; I'll leave that up to you. The laws of physics do not care whether you like them or ridicule them. If your ideas requires that those laws cease to work then being labelled a conspiracy is the least you can expect to happen to them.

  39. #12289
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    If someone is dreaming stuff up, it is inter dreaming up ways to weasel out of his misunderstanding.



    The subject is clearly the value of the crude oil consumption, not gross turnover. Man up, big boy and admit to a mistake.

    You've still got nothing.
    we'll see if you can re produce your invisible reference to material costs in your original claim of the amount?
    you have nothing yet claim it's something! Mmmmm seems to be a pattern emerging!
    inter

  40. #12290
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    Mmmmm seems to be a pattern emerging!
    Not emerging. The pattern of your posts has been consistent and obvious to all for yonks. Miss the point of the post, point the finger at others, duck the obvious issue, lose the plot, denigrate those who you don't agree with, drop your claim like a stone as though you never posted.
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  41. #12291
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    we'll see if you can re produce your invisible reference to material costs in your original claim of the amount?
    you have nothing yet claim it's something! Mmmmm seems to be a pattern emerging!
    inter
    and also mysteriously material costs have been reinvented into the value of crude oil consumption! Which anybody with half an ounce of intelligence would know is.........ta da! Gross turnover!
    inter

  42. #12292
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    Not emerging. The pattern of your posts has been consistent and obvious to all for yonks. Miss the point of the post, point the finger at others, duck the obvious issue, lose the plot, denigrate those who you don't agree with, drop your claim like a stone as though you never posted.
    i miss a lot! Especially the recognition that there has been no significant warming since 1998, or something that proves CO2 can, has, or ever will cause uncontrollable catastrophic dangerous warming of the atmosphere from you, then as the old saying goes "you can't miss something you have never had!
    Everybody including me is sick & tired of me asking the same questions over & over & over...............again! So in the meantime we are all amused with evangelical like antics of your farce evasion of some of the least complicated straight forward questions directed to your side, yet they remain unanswered!
    Inter

  43. #12293
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    i miss a lot! Especially the recognition that there has been no significant warming since 1998
    I miss that as well. Never seen any record posted by you or anyone else that shows no significant arming since 1998. Why are you hiding your "piece de resistance"?

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    or something that proves CO2 can, has, or ever will cause uncontrollable catastrophic dangerous warming of the atmosphere from you
    Where have I made that claim (hint: I have not.) You say I have, so show everyone, or they will be justified in believing you just made it up.


    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    Everybody including me is sick & tired of me asking the same questions over & over & over...............again!
    The big unanswered question is where you base your belief system - it isn't based on the record of what is happening on this planet.

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    So in the meantime we are all amused with evangelical like antics of your farce evasion of some of the least complicated straight forward questions directed to your side, yet they remain unanswered!
    I'll leave that for others to judge. But thank you (yet again) for pointing out my personal failings. Lucky for me I have you to remind me, and you find it more pressing to do it for my benefit than to show why you think you are right about climate change by posting something relevant on topic.
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  44. #12294
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    and also mysteriously material costs have been reinvented into the value of crude oil consumption! Which anybody with half an ounce of intelligence would know is.........ta da! Gross turnover!
    inter
    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    Not to mention those that still don't understand the simple concept of industry defending it's position by funding attacks on science. (not to mention the inability to grasp the difference between raw material cost and gross turnover)
    Suggestion to Inter: when you are in a hole, don't keep digging. You can't see from down there what is obvious to everyone above.
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  45. #12295
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    nsw
    Posts
    4,122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John2b View Post
    I miss that as well. Never seen any record posted by you or anyone else that shows no significant arming since 1998. Why are you hiding your "piece de resistance"?

    are you for real? Or just a habitually contentious


    Where have I made that claim (hint: I have not.) You say I have, so show everyone, or they will be justified in believing you just made it up.

    It seems you agree with of our side then & there is nothing more to discuss then!

    The big unanswered question is where you base your belief system - it isn't based on the record of what is happening on this planet.

    It would be truly marvellous for you to open your eyes & engage your brain before running off at the mouth! its quoted by me on this very page.

    I'll leave that for others to judge. But thank you (yet again) for pointing out my personal failings. Lucky for me I have you to remind me, and you find it more pressing to do it for my benefit than to show why you think you are right about climate change by posting something relevant on topic.

    And there I was thinking I was just describing your antics, no wonder you come to all sorts of weird & wonderful assumptions & conclusions!
    inter

  46. #12296
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    are you for real? Or just a habitually contentious
    Simple request. Show your evidence.

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    And there I was thinking I was just describing your antics
    How about focusing on climate change, instead of describing your opinion of my antics? You don't even know me. I am honoured but as much as you might want to make it, this forum isn't about me. It is about this:

    Indicators of climate change



















    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  47. #12297
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by woodbe View Post
    . Even Rod accepts that the industry is funding attacks on climate science.
    Pathetic Woodbe just pathetic.

    It is a no brainer that funding goes to both sides of the debate. There are vested interest all over the place on both sides of the debate.

    I also ACCEPT that grant money is paid to carpetbaggers that are on the AGW bandwagon funding all sorts of BS claims that IF this happens then this MAY happen all sold as if it is a foregone conclusion.

    I also ACCEPT that Billions of dollars of Government money all over the world are poured into a giant money pit called climate science. Money that should be used to prevent the REAL pollution and environment issues facing the world. This pisses me off more than anything.

    Yes I agree money should be spent bringing people to account on outlandish claims and waste of public money. Bring it on, spend more outing this farce.
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  48. #12298
    4K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Kangaroo Island
    Posts
    4,248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    Pathetic Woodbe just pathetic.

    It is a no brainer that funding goes to both sides of the debate.
    Pathetic Rod. There is no debate, excluding the pseudoscientific lunatic fringe.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    There are vested interest all over the place on both sides of the debate.
    There are corporations and people who profit from the exploitation of fossil fuel reserves on the one side, and there are people who just observe what is happening to the planet on the other side.


    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    I also ACCEPT that Billions of dollars of Government money all over the world are poured into a giant money pit called climate science. Money that should be used to prevent the REAL pollution and environment issues facing the world. This pisses me off more than anything.
    Money for research does not normally determine the result of that research; the exception is if the money comes from profit vested interests. It seems you don't think money should be spent on research if there is a chance it will find results that don't suit your agenda.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    Yes I agree money should be spent bringing people to account on outlandish claims and waste of public money. Bring it on, spend more outing this farce.
    The farce is the spending of billions of dollars of money syphoned of in profits charged to YOU for the cost of energy and services provided that YOU have paid for, to convince YOU that the world isn't as we know it. More than a farce, it's a joke.
    Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? - Baba

  49. #12299
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by intertd6 View Post
    and also mysteriously material costs have been reinvented into the value of crude oil consumption! Which anybody with half an ounce of intelligence would know is.........ta da! Gross turnover!
    inter
    Do we have to do this? Are you so ignorant of FF and business that it has to be explained?

    A Barrel goes for $90 average. It contains 159 litres of crude oil. That is the raw material. Without going into huge detail, lets just look at something simple enough for you to grasp.



    149 litres x 50% = 74.5 Litres. How much are you paying for petrol? Lets say $1.50 There is $111.75 Gross Turnover from petrol alone from that barrel.

    Raw material costs do not equal gross turnover. If they did, the business would go out the door backwards.

    You still have less than nothing.

    Those who want to ignore the science are increasingly alone. They are on their own shrinking island.


  50. #12300
    3K Club Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    3,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    Pathetic Woodbe just pathetic.
    Came from your mouth not mine. You agreed that the industry is funding attacks on climate science, a science you have agreed the basic tenets of. Yet you want it taken down because you don't like the answers it provides.

    Like inter, you've got nothing.

    Those who want to ignore the science are increasingly alone. They are on their own shrinking island.


Page 246 of 377 FirstFirst ... 146 196 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 296 346 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •