The Global Warming Distractor

**Percy** · #1 16th-October-2007

Along with terrorism, which in 50 years has so far killed fewer people than died on the Normandy Beaches in the first half hour, we are being deliberately scared and distracted by Global Warming hysteria. This keeps our fellow citizen's attention off the destruction of our way of life, our family disaster and the evils of Feminism.

Here are a few questions raised by a couple of skeptical scientists whom Al Gore reckons don't exist.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/opinion/editorial/sfl-forum07climatenboct07,0,2082680.story

Quote:

Ask questions of global warming gurus
October 7, 2007
By Tom Harris and Ian Clark

(Tom Harris is an Ottawa-based engineer and Executive Director of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project ( www.nrsp.com). Dr. Ian Clark, a science advisor to NRSP, is a professor of Earth Sciences at the University of Ottawa, focusing on Paleoclimatology and Isotope Hydrogeology. )
With the intense climate rhetoric of last month's UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon's high-level event in New York, the Clinton Global Initiative and President Bush's leaders summit, it is time to start asking some fundamental questions of those who would radically restructure our economy in the hope of "stopping global warming." Here is a sample:

1.) What is your climate science-related background?

Most of those grabbing the spotlight have little or no post-secondary training in science or technology, let alone climate change. What do climate campaigners like Leonardo DiCaprio, Ted Turner and Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., know about climate science? Once merely the rallying cry of environmentalist extremists, calls to "save the planet from climate catastrophe" has become de rigueur for celebrities, media commentators and Fortune 500 CEOs seeking to enhance their green credentials.
That few of them have even the slightest idea what they are talking about doesn't make any difference. As Canadian Professors Chris Essex and Ross McKitrick explained in their award-winning book, Taken by Storm, "the stage is populated by many people whose desire to save the world is deemed an acceptable, even preferable, substitute for technical understanding."

2.) How do you know the "vast majority of scientists" agree with your viewpoint?

Despite the confident proclamations of Al Gore, the only place that a climate change science consensus exists is in what Essex and McKitrick call "official science." the collective voice of governments and so-called "science authorities." But this is not real science. Among qualified researchers, there is a debate raging about the causes of the past century's modest warming. Ignoring science, but sensing a massive shift in public awareness of the issue, politicians have jumped on the climate catastrophe bandwagon.

3.) If we delayed carbon dioxide, or CO2, reduction decisions by a few years to allow examination of the science, what would be the impact on climate?

Essentially none. Even its supporters admit that complete compliance with Kyoto by all nations held to limits would result in less than a 0.1° C difference to global climate a half century from now.

4.) How closely has climate tracked CO2 levels in the past?

About 440 million years ago, when CO2 levels are estimated to have been over 10 times today's, our planet was in the depths of the coldest period in the last half billion years. At other times, high CO2 levels coincided with warm periods. There is no meaningful correlation with temperature in the geological record.

Al Gore points out that, over the past half million years, the Antarctic ice core records show a link between temperature and CO2. What he neglects to mention is that these records consistently show that temperature rises some 800 years before CO2 rise, not after it. Even over the past century, the CO2 and global warming correlation is poor, with significant cooling taking place between 1940 and 1980 while human produced CO2 emissions were increasing rapidly.

Considering what's at stake — either the end of civilization, if you believe extremists, or a waste of hundreds of billions of dollars in one of the biggest science news scandals of all time — society must start to hold "warmers" to a far higher standard. Asking the right questions would be a good start.

**bachelor tom** · #2 16th-October-2007

Thanks Percy. Al Gore and his posse give me a headache.

field marshall watkins · #3 16th-October-2007

Gore is full of shit.

http://www.truthnews.us/?p=294

They're having difficulty pushing their globalist agenda. Global warming is connected with environmentalism.

The goal of environmentalism is eugenics. Depopulation of the planet because 'humans are harming Gaia' or some other fucking uber-sick nonsense.

This whole planet needs a revolution.

FFFF · #4 16th-October-2007

Whatever the state sees as a means of increasing taxation and hence its own power..

As ever, you will note, the richest and most indulgent folk just want things to themselves and you wont see them cutting back their "carbon fuckprint"..

I have heard it said that for at least the next 100 years, global warming will be a NET POSITIVE for humanity..

Opening up much more agricultural land etc..

Male-Rights-Network · #5 16th-October-2007

Quote:

This whole planet needs a revolution.

Without doubt it does. But how?

The world has undergone a major revolution after WWII. Is it really ready for another one? Those were the very words of feminists and cultural Marxists 50 years ago. And boy, did they get one.

"There is a revolution under way. It is not like the revolutions of the past. It has originated with the individual and with culture, and if it succeeds, it will change the political structure only as its final act. It will not require violence to succeed, and it cannot be successfully resisted by violence." - Herbert Marcuse (1960s Cultural Marxist and student of the Frankfurt School. Originator of the phrase "make love not war".)

http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:w....htmll&strip=1
http://www.uta.edu/huma/illuminations/kell12.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Marcuse

Quote:

Economic Marxists expropriated the property of the middle and upper classes and gave it to the state. Cultural Marxists, on campuses and in government, lay penalties on white men and give privileges to the groups they favor. Affirmative action is an example of this kind of expropriation ...

Both types of Marxism employ a method of analysis guaranteed to show the correctness of their ideology in every situation. For classical Marxists, the method is Marxist economics. For Cultural Marxists, the method is linguistic: deconstruction. Deconstruction first removes all meaning from "texts," then inserts new meaning: one way or another, the text illustrates the oppression of women, blacks, homosexuals, etc., by white men and Western culture. The intended meaning of the author is irrelevant.

Following World War I, European Marxists faced a difficult question: why did the proletariat throughout Europe not rise in revolution and establish a new, Marxist order, as their ideology said it would? Two prominent Marxist thinkers, Antonio Gramsci in Italy and Georg Lukacs in Hungary, came up with an answer: Western culture. Western culture so blinded the workers to their true "class" interests that they could not act on them. So before socialism could come to power, Western culture had to be destroyed. Lukacs in 1919 posed the question, "Who will save us from Western civilization?" As Deputy Commissar for Culture in the Bolshevik Bela Kun government in Hungary that same year, the first thing he did was introduce sex education into Hungarian schools.

In 1923, Lukacs and a group of German Marxist intellectuals founded a "think tank" intended to translate Marxism from economic into cultural terms, the Institute for Social Research at Frankfurt University. The Institute quickly became known as the Frankfurt School. In 1933, when the National Socialists came to power in Germany, the Frankfurt School moved to New York City.

There, its key figures—Theodor Adorno, Erich Fromm and Wilhelm Reich—developed critical theory," a crossing of Marx with Freud that labeled the key components of Western culture "prejudice," i.e., a psychological disease. The "critical theorists" argues that to eliminate "prejudice," Christianity, capitalism and the traditional "patriarchal" family all had to be destroyed.

The connection between the Frankfurt School and the student rebellion of the 1960s was made primarily by a key Frankfurt School member, Herbert Marcuse.. Marcuse’s books Eros and Civilization argued that the tools with which to destroy Western culture were, in effect, sex, drugs and rock ‘n’ roll. He popularized the Frankfurt School’s ideas in ways the ‘60s student radicals could understand and absorb, and we now know his work as Political Correctness.

Adrian · #6 16th-October-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Male-Rights-Network

Without doubt it does. But how?

That was a great little blurb on the history of ideas, by the way. Personally, I think it would be great if our revolutions just continued to be peaceful. With greater and greater technological advancements, the costs of violent conflict go up and up. It wouldn't surprise me if there came a point where it just wasn't that feasible anymore. On the other hand, if people get backed into a corner, they will take it to that level no matter what the cost. I think it will just take a certain amount (a whole lot) of oppression before something like that happens.

But, I think the cultural revolution can just as easily completely wipe out marxism in the future as it has made it happen in the past. We could quite easily swing back to a classical liberal world similar to the one from whence we came or even back to monarchy in such cultural revolutions. And, ready or not, they will just keep happening as long as large sectors of the population have the will to do it which they almost certainly will if they are being severly abused by other sectors. Whether it is a violent upheaval or a peaceful cultural shift, either way it will take a certain amount of a popular will.

And so, the real problem is actually pretty simple. There are just a lot of manginas out there that think that all this feminism, socialism, environmentalism -- "activism", in general -- is really great. And not many people that are calling bullshit on it -- or not enough at any rate. Until that changes, there will be no revolutions cultural or otherwise.

TheSharpenedPen · #7 16th-October-2007

Ah, it warms my heart to see so many MRAs denying global warming - and that's not some hotspot pinpointed on my chest through a hole in the ozone talking, that's a warm feeling that comes deep from within. Environmentalists, feminists, and socialists work in tandem on so many issues that it's really all a blur. Consider the Green Party here in Canada - it's platform on women's equality rights, (and they use the term 'equality' in a counter-intuitive way), could well have come from the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, or as it's known in the US - NOW.

For some years, I believed the gloom and doom scenarios put forth by these groups whose real aim is a global socialized and feminized society, but when I scratched the surface, I found it was all a big lie.

Michael Crichton wrote an excellent book on the topic of environmental fiction and fixation, which utilizes real data to dispel the widely held myth that is global warming. For more on this, see the article below. I think in an age of misinformation and special rights for special people, it's a must read:

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCommentar...20050117d.html

(snippet)
Global Warming Fiction Versus Facts
By Alan Caruba
CNSNews.com Commentary from the National Anxiety Center
January 17, 2005

Famed novelist Michael Crichton may achieve what mountains of scientific data produced by meteorologists and others have not: He may get the public to understand that the U.N. Kyoto Climate Control Protocol is, itself, a work of fiction.

His novel, "State of Fear," (HarperCollins, 603 pages, $27.95) is a technopolitical thriller based on the widely ignored data that global warming is a hoax, but worse than that, it is a hoax specifically designed to harm the lives and the economy of people living in industrialized nations....
(end snippet)

field marshall watkins · #8 17th-October-2007

I agree. These 'activisms' all originate from the same Marxist think tanks, funded by the same bankers and corporate heads.

There is a scientific dictatorship brewing. That is, corps, politicians and powerful people are hoarding the scientific advances and warping the acadamies in order to further their own ends.

For example, lots of scientists won't go on record to deny the global warming/ tax lie, because the grants they receive have conditions attached. That is, they need to be actively seeking connections between puny humans and global warming.

The corruption has spread almost everywhere.

FFFF · #9 17th-October-2007

According to a TV program I saw a few months ago, the scientists haev already got "solutions" to reverse climate change if needed!

SmtmsAlwys · #10 17th-October-2007

I don't buy into this whole global warming crap, either. I've always been a bit skeptical ever since it started getting "popular." My husband claims it's all the same thing that's been going on for centuries - a cycle of life, if you will... I don't get all the details because I'm not a big science geek.

And, can you believe that the fucktard (Gore) actually got awarded the Nobel Peace Prize? Didn't that used to mean something??

Male-Rights-Network · #11 17th-October-2007

Quote:

And, can you believe that the fucktard (Gore) actually got awarded the Nobel Peace Prize? Didn't that used to mean something??

Yep, that's a total joke. Of all the people it could have been awarded to, of all the causes, Gore and phony Global Warming??

Funnily enough though, I think it may turn out to be positive. There have been alot more TV coverage and articles debunking global since Gore upped the ante with Earth Day and his documentary.