Frozen Wasteland

[Dude]

If Michael Moore can be accused of being a conspiracy theorist nut for pointing out the strange relationships between the Bush family, the bin Laden clan, the Saudis, Haliburton, Saddam, etc., prior to 9/11, then I guess the term is fair game when dealing with people who literally think the world is being taken over by a monolithic socialist empire who happens to also really hate oil.

[Doug C]

And Tom Brokaw notes:

 

All wars on based on propaganda.

Attributing the above quote to Tom Brokaw can only be the work of a conspiracy theorist attempting to discredit the erudite newsman by making him appear to be some unlearned yokel.

[Sparky speaks]

This has been a fun thread. By the way, about six inches of snow here in Fort Worth, with no signs of letting up.

 

You are getting so much snow in Fort Worth because it is getting warmer there.....

 

Another link no one will read.....

 

http://www.ihatethemedia.com/global-warming-causes-more-snow-except-when-it-causes-less-snow

[futureage1]

Ha Ha Sparky big mistake opening this subject on this board. They are immune to facts outside of corporate media propaganda. Since the original thread was about climate change, I thought quoting the UN Secretary general about what a carbon tax will be used for would be appropriate. Curiously, he says something about global governance. Of course, you won't get the same answers questioning his mental stability. But then you will be told how it's good and the details have been kept secret for your own good. Seriously why bother some people can see it and comprehend what they read and some can't. What are you going to do?

 

 

 

Q & A

U.N. chief weighs in on climate talk expectations

December 16, 2009

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-fg-climate-ban16-2009dec16,0,1781040.story

 

 

Is a political deal in Copenhagen still possible?

 

We need to have a very strong, robust, binding political deal that will have an immediate operational effect. This is not going to be a political declaration, just for the sake of declaration. It is going to be a binding political deal, which will lead to a legally binding treaty next year.

 

We will establish a global governance structure to monitor and manage the implementation of this.

 

We Can Do It

 

By BAN KI-MOON

Published: October 25, 2009

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/26/opinion/26iht-edban.html?_r=1

 

Every country must do its utmost to reduce emissions from all major sources, including from deforestation and emissions from shipping and aviation. Developed countries must strengthen their mid-term mitigation targets, which are currently nowhere close to the cuts that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says are needed. Developing countries must slow the rise in their emissions and accelerate green growth as part of their strategies to reduce poverty.

 

A deal needs to be backed by money and the means to deliver it. Developing countries need funding and technology so they can move more quickly toward green growth. The solutions we discuss cannot be realized without substantial additional financing, including through carbon markets and private investment.

 

A deal must include an equitable global governance structure.

[Doug C]

Another link no one will read.....

 

http://www.ihatethemedia.com/global-warming-causes-more-snow-except-when-it-causes-less-snow

I read the link. Then I read the comments section. Here is a good representation of them:

 

"danybhoy February 11, 2010, 12:57 pm at 12:57 pm

Here is a little secret, climate change is a fancy way of saying weather. The weather is always changing, & it goes in cycles.

1.Spring

2.Summer

3.Fall

4.Winter

Repeat anually. Not too difficult to figure out."

 

Again, credibility blown. The blog is read by yahoos.

[Good Old Neon]

Ha Ha Sparky big mistake opening this subject on this board. They are immune to facts outside of corporate media propaganda. Since the original thread was about climate change, I thought quoting the UN Secretary general about what a carbon tax will be used for would be appropriate. Curiously, he says something about global governance. Of course, you won't get the same answers questioning his mental stability. But then you will be told how it's good and the details have been kept secret for your own good. Seriously why bother some people can see it and comprehend what they read and some can't. What are you going to do?

 

 

 

Q & A

U.N. chief weighs in on climate talk expectations

December 16, 2009

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-fg-climate-ban16-2009dec16,0,1781040.story

 

 

Is a political deal in Copenhagen still possible?

 

We need to have a very strong, robust, binding political deal that will have an immediate operational effect. This is not going to be a political declaration, just for the sake of declaration. It is going to be a binding political deal, which will lead to a legally binding treaty next year.

 

We will establish a global governance structure to monitor and manage the implementation of this.

 

We Can Do It

 

By BAN KI-MOON

Published: October 25, 2009

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/26/opinion/26iht-edban.html?_r=1

 

Every country must do its utmost to reduce emissions from all major sources, including from deforestation and emissions from shipping and aviation. Developed countries must strengthen their mid-term mitigation targets, which are currently nowhere close to the cuts that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says are needed. Developing countries must slow the rise in their emissions and accelerate green growth as part of their strategies to reduce poverty.

 

A deal needs to be backed by money and the means to deliver it. Developing countries need funding and technology so they can move more quickly toward green growth. The solutions we discuss cannot be realized without substantial additional financing, including through carbon markets and private investment.

 

A deal must include an equitable global governance structure.

 

You, sir, are the absolute fucking king of drawing false inferences. As was the case when you quoted “facts” regarding the Amero, and the internment camps that would be created in response to the H1N1 virus.

[futureage1]

You, sir, are the absolute fucking king of drawing false inferences. As was the case when you quoted “facts” regarding the Amero, and the internment camps that would be created in response to the H1N1 virus.

 

And you are the king of denial.

[Good Old Neon]

You are getting so much snow in Fort Worth because it is getting warmer there.....

 

Another link no one will read.....

 

http://www.ihatethemedia.com/global-warming-causes-more-snow-except-when-it-causes-less-snow

 

You really just don’t get it, it’s embarrassing.

 

And you are the king of denial.

 

I'll bet you a bazillion Amero's I'm not, oh wait, we can't wager Ameros because they don't fucking exist.

[Doug C]

I'll bet you a bazillion Amero's I'm not, oh wait, we can't wager Ameros because they don't fucking exist.

Until the above post, I thought well of you and had never heard of Ameros, therefore I Googled. Now I know about Ameros and think ill of you. Thanks a hell of a lot for exposing me to fine websites such as: http://www.amerocurrency.com/ and http://www.onemillionameros.com/ , Good Old Jerkface.

[caliber66]

You, sir, are the absolute fucking king of drawing false inferences. As was the case when you quoted “facts” regarding the Amero, and the internment camps that would be created in response to the H1N1 virus.

Not to mention that eating pork would expose you to swine flu.

[futureage1]

Not to mention that eating pork would expose you to swine flu.

 

Don't eat pork from infected animals: WHO

 

http://www.nationalpost.com/m/story.html?id=1570736

 

Meat from pigs infected with H1N1 flu should not be eaten by humans, a World Health Organization official said yesterday, while emphasizing existing checks were sufficient to safeguard the food supply from the new virus strain.

 

Jorgen Schlundt, director of the WHO's department of food safety, zoonoses and foodborne diseases, said care must be taken to ensure pigs and their meat were checked for all diseases, including the H1N1 virus that may be present in the blood of infected animals.

 

"Meat from sick pigs or pigs found dead should not be processed or used for human consumption under any circumstances," he said.

 

Flu viruses such as the new H1N1 strain could survive freezing, and contaminate thawed meat and blood, he added. But there was no risk of infection from eating or handling pork so long as normal precautions were taken.

 

I know what an outlandish question to ask the doctors and nurses on the board before anyone knew what was up. Nice try at deflection. Thanks for proving once again you have no clue what you are talking about, which the UN chief's statement on carbon taxes makes clear. Get it? You're wrong no matter how much you say it's not true, it is. You can debate the definition of what global government means, but the definition has never changed. They are not kidding. So if you want to still believe people lying to your face and saying it's not what the UN states it is, then be my guest. Now go calculate how many breaths you take in a day, so you can be accurately taxed for your "carbon footprint".

 

Watch this video again you are exactly what he is talking about.

 

How To Brainwash A Nation

 

[dagwave]

Fact:

 

Sparky Lyle has been known to sit naked on birthday cakes for both the amusement of himself and those around him.

 

You can look it up.

[caliber66]

 

Flu viruses such as the new H1N1 strain could survive freezing, and contaminate thawed meat and blood, he added. But there was no risk of infection from eating or handling pork so long as normal precautions were taken.

So how am I going to catch the swine from eating a ham sandwich that hasn't been dipped in fresh, contaminated pig blood?

[Dude]

If there really are Ameros, I hope they aren't as crappy / cheap looking as this. I mean, surely a global conspiracy can do better in the coin design department:

 

[Sparky speaks]

Fact:

 

Sparky Lyle has been known to sit naked on birthday cakes for both the amusement of himself and those around him.

 

You can look it up.

 

Only if the candles had been blown out first.

You can't believe everything you read on the internet.

[D-Dogg]

The fear of giving up America's sovereignty is more realistic than the oceans swallowing up the earth due to melting ice.

[bjorn_skurj]

And you are the king of denial.

You can't be in denial of something that hasn't been proven to be true. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

[Sparky speaks]

A blast form the past....and present....You can't have it both ways boys and girls. But I am sure you will try. Keep on shoveling.

 

Link.....

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html

 

Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past

 

By Charles Onians

 

 

Monday, 20 March 2000

 

 

Britain's winter ends tomorrow with further indications of a striking environmental change: snow is starting to disappear from our lives.

 

 

Britain's winter ends tomorrow with further indications of a striking environmental change: snow is starting to disappear from our lives.

Sledges, snowmen, snowballs and the excitement of waking to find that the stuff has settled outside are all a rapidly diminishing part of Britain's culture, as warmer winters - which scientists are attributing to global climate change - produce not only fewer white Christmases, but fewer white Januaries and Februaries.

 

The first two months of 2000 were virtually free of significant snowfall in much of lowland Britain, and December brought only moderate snowfall in the South-east. It is the continuation of a trend that has been increasingly visible in the past 15 years: in the south of England, for instance, from 1970 to 1995 snow and sleet fell for an average of 3.7 days, while from 1988 to 1995 the average was 0.7 days. London's last substantial snowfall was in February 1991.

 

Global warming, the heating of the atmosphere by increased amounts of industrial gases, is now accepted as a reality by the international community. Average temperatures in Britain were nearly 0.6°C higher in the Nineties than in 1960-90, and it is estimated that they will increase by 0.2C every decade over the coming century. Eight of the 10 hottest years on record occurred in the Nineties.

 

However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event".

 

"Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said.

The effects of snow-free winter in Britain are already becoming apparent. This year, for the first time ever, Hamleys, Britain's biggest toyshop, had no sledges on display in its Regent Street store. "It was a bit of a first," a spokesperson said.

 

Fen skating, once a popular sport on the fields of East Anglia, now takes place on indoor artificial rinks. Malcolm Robinson, of the Fenland Indoor Speed Skating Club in Peterborough, says they have not skated outside since 1997. "As a boy, I can remember being on ice most winters. Now it's few and far between," he said.

 

Michael Jeacock, a Cambridgeshire local historian, added that a generation was growing up "without experiencing one of the greatest joys and privileges of living in this part of the world - open-air skating".

 

Warmer winters have significant environmental and economic implications, and a wide range of research indicates that pests and plant diseases, usually killed back by sharp frosts, are likely to flourish. But very little research has been done on the cultural implications of climate change - into the possibility, for example, that our notion of Christmas might have to shift.

 

Professor Jarich Oosten, an anthropologist at the University of Leiden in the Netherlands, says that even if we no longer see snow, it will remain culturally important.

 

"We don't really have wolves in Europe any more, but they are still an important part of our culture and everyone knows what they look like," he said.

 

David Parker, at the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research in Berkshire, says ultimately, British children could have only virtual experience of snow. Via the internet, they might wonder at polar scenes - or eventually "feel" virtual cold.

 

Heavy snow will return occasionally, says Dr Viner, but when it does we will be unprepared. "We're really going to get caught out. Snow will probably cause chaos in 20 years time," he said.

 

The chances are certainly now stacked against the sortof heavy snowfall in cities that inspired Impressionist painters, such as Sisley, and the 19th century poet laureate Robert Bridges, who wrote in "London Snow" of it, "stealthily and perpetually settling and loosely lying".

 

Not any more, it seems.

 

Time, this week.....

 

Link....

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20100210/us_time/08599196229400;_ylt=AiqCLcJVY5QmdMY2k2GVtw.s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTJkYnNiYWs1BGFzc2V0A3RpbWUvMjAxMDAyMTAvMDg1OTkxOTYyMjk0MDAEcG9zAzUEc2VjA3luX21vc3RfcG9wdWxhcgRzbGsDc25vd3N0b3JtZWFz

 

Snowstorm: East Coast Blizzard Tied to Climate Change

 

By BRYAN WALSH Bryan Walsh – Wed Feb 10, 3:50 pm ET

As the blizzard-bound residents of the mid-Atlantic region get ready to dig themselves out of the third major storm of the season, they may stop to wonder two things: Why haven't we bothered to invest in a snow blower, and what happened to climate change? After all, it stands to reason that if the world is getting warmer - and the past decade was the hottest on record - major snowstorms should become a thing of the past, like PalmPilots and majority rule in the Senate. Certainly that's what the Virginia state Republican Party thinks: the GOP aired an ad last weekend that attacked two Democratic members of Congress for supporting the 2009 carbon-cap-and-trade bill, using the recent storms to cast doubt on global warming. (See pictures of the massive blizzard in Washington, D.C.)

 

 

Brace yourselves now - this may be a case of politicians twisting the facts. There is some evidence that climate change could in fact make such massive snowstorms more common, even as the world continues to warm. As the meteorologist Jeff Masters points out in his excellent blog at Weather Underground, the two major storms that hit Philadelphia, Baltimore and Washington, D.C., this winter - in December and during the first weekend of February - are already among the 10 heaviest snowfalls those cities have ever recorded. The chance of that happening in the same winter is incredibly unlikely.

 

 

But there have been hints that it was coming. The 2009 U.S. Climate Impacts Report found that large-scale cold-weather storm systems have gradually tracked to the north in the U.S. over the past 50 years. While the frequency of storms in the middle latitudes has decreased as the climate has warmed, the intensity of those storms has increased. That's in part because of global warming - hotter air can hold more moisture, so when a storm gathers it can unleash massive amounts of snow. Colder air, by contrast, is drier; if we were in a truly vicious cold snap, like the one that occurred over much of the East Coast during parts of January, we would be unlikely to see heavy snowfall. (See pictures of the effects of global warming.)

 

 

Climate models also suggest that while global warming may not make hurricanes more common, it could well intensify the storms that do occur and make them more destructive. (Comment on this story.)

 

 

But as far as winter storms go, shouldn't climate change make it too warm for snow to fall? Eventually that is likely to happen - but probably not for a while. In the meantime, warmer air could be supercharged with moisture and, as long as the temperature remains below 32°F, it will result in blizzards rather than drenching winter rainstorms. And while the mid-Atlantic has borne the brunt of the snowfall so far this winter, areas near lakes may get hit even worse. As global temperatures have risen, the winter ice cover over the Great Lakes has shrunk, which has led to even more moisture in the atmosphere and more snow in the already hard-hit Great Lakes region, according to a 2003 study in the Journal of Climate. (Read "Climate Accord Suggests a Global Will, if Not a Way.")

 

 

Ultimately, however, it's a mistake to use any one storm - or even a season's worth of storms - to disprove climate change (or to prove it; some environmentalists have wrongly tied the lack of snow in Vancouver, the site of the Winter Olympic Games, which begin this week, to global warming). Weather is what will happen next weekend; climate is what will happen over the next decades and centuries. And while our ability to predict the former has become reasonably reliable, scientists are still a long way from being able to make accurate projections about the future of the global climate. Of course, that doesn't help you much when you're trying to locate your car under a foot of powder.

[Good Old Neon]

A blast form the past....and present....You can't have it both ways boys and girls. But I am sure you will try. Keep on shoveling.

 

 

OK, listen, just because YOU do not understand (even remotely, apparently) the science behind climate change, doesn’t mean the mechanisms by which it “works” don’t exist – the only thing you are making apparent, blindingly I might add, is your own ignorance – but keep it up, your cluelessness is vastly entertaining, just maybe not in the way you intend. If you have any self respect left, walk away – just walk the fuck away.

[Good Old Neon]

 

 

I know what an outlandish question to ask the doctors and nurses on the board before anyone knew what was up. Nice try at deflection. Thanks for proving once again you have no clue what you are talking about, which the UN chief's statement on carbon taxes makes clear. Get it? You're wrong no matter how much you say it's not true, it is. You can debate the definition of what global government means, but the definition has never changed. They are not kidding. So if you want to still believe people lying to your face and saying it's not what the UN states it is, then be my guest. Now go calculate how many breaths you take in a day, so you can be accurately taxed for your "carbon footprint".

 

 

Unless you can provide compelling evidence to the contrary (and you cant, because, outside of the cottage conspiracy industry, none exists), the UN is doing (more or less) precisely what it was established to do, from wikipedia (I know I know, the New World Orderers have their hands all over that site, but maybe take your foil cap off for a second and like, humor me):

 

“…it is primarily associated with the ideological notion of global governance only in the sense of new collective efforts to identify, understand, or address worldwide problems that go beyond the capacity of individual states to solve.”

 

So, when you view a statement such as this through the preceding lens, it is stripped of its menace, which is not to suggest I find it menacing, I’m talking in your terms.

 

Every country must do its utmost to reduce emissions from all major sources, including from deforestation and emissions from shipping and aviation. Developed countries must strengthen their mid-term mitigation targets, which are currently nowhere close to the cuts that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says are needed. Developing countries must slow the rise in their emissions and accelerate green growth as part of their strategies to reduce poverty.

 

A deal needs to be backed by money and the means to deliver it. Developing countries need funding and technology so they can move more quickly toward green growth. The solutions we discuss cannot be realized without substantial additional financing, including through carbon markets and private investment.

 

A deal must include an equitable global governance structure.

 

The idea that the US is somehow (or in growing danger of becoming) subservient to the UN is absurd, and simply not supported by the facts.

 

Whether or not you believe in climate change, we would be extremely fucking wise to do everything within our power to conserve, conserve and then conserve some fucking more, the earth’s remaining petroleum reserves, cause, when it’s gone, it’s gone, and it ain’t coming back – well, it will, eventually perhaps, but when it does, we along with lots of other organic matter might serve as its source. Many credible folks within the petroleum industry have indicated that we’ve already passed peak (oil), or, if not, we will within the very near future. Our entire civilization is entirely dependent on petroleum, and not just petroleum, but cheap and (relatively) easy access to it. As of today, we do not have a replacement, at least nothing that comes even remotely close to providing a viable alternative, one (or more) that will provide a similar bang for the buck, so to speak, as petroleum. Our entire infrastructure rests upon continued access to it. Alternatives are in their infancy, and time is running short.

 

The following article written by James Kunstler, though, on the whole, maybe a little too hyperbolic, is a good place to start.

 

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/7203633/the_long_emergency

[Central Scrutinizer]

I would just like to add that I'm glad that no one posting in this thread has used the term "snowmagedden"

No one has posted about the pending population explosion, as all these people, suffering from cabin fever from the storms, start "snowmagedden-it on."

[Good Old Neon]

No one has posted about the pending population explosion, as all these people, suffering from cabin fever from the storms, start "snowmagedden-it on."

 

[M. (hristine]

Unless you can provide compelling evidence to the contrary (and you cant, because, outside of the cottage conspiracy industry, none exists), the UN is doing (more or less) precisely what it was established to do, from wikipedia (I know I know, the New World Orderers have their hands all over that site, but maybe take your foil cap off for a second and like, humor me):

 

“…it is primarily associated with the ideological notion of global governance only in the sense of new collective efforts to identify, understand, or address worldwide problems that go beyond the capacity of individual states to solve.”

 

So, when you view a statement such as this through the preceding lens, it is stripped of its menace, which is not to suggest I find it menacing, I’m talking in your terms.

 

 

 

The idea that the US is somehow (or in growing danger of becoming) subservient to the UN is absurd, and simply not supported by the facts.

 

Whether or not you believe in climate change, we would be extremely fucking wise to do everything within our power to conserve, conserve and then conserve some fucking more, the earth’s remaining petroleum reserves, cause, when it’s gone, it’s gone, and it ain’t coming back – well, it will, eventually perhaps, but when it does, we along with lots of other organic matter might serve as its source. Many credible folks within the petroleum industry have indicated that we’ve already passed peak (oil), or, if not, we will within the very near future. Our entire civilization is entirely dependent on petroleum, and not just petroleum, but cheap and (relatively) easy access to it. As of today, we do not have a replacement, at least nothing that comes even remotely close to providing a viable alternative, one (or more) that will provide a similar bang for the buck, so to speak, as petroleum. Our entire infrastructure rests upon continued access to it. Alternatives are in their infancy, and time is running short.

 

The following article written by James Kunstler, though, on the whole, maybe a little too hyperbolic, is a good place to start.

 

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/7203633/the_long_emergency

Say amen somebody.

[M. (hristine]

OK, listen, just because YOU do not understand (even remotely, apparently) the science behind climate change, doesn’t mean the mechanisms by which it “works” don’t exist – the only thing you are making apparent, blindingly I might add, is your own ignorance – but keep it up, your cluelessness is vastly entertaining, just maybe not in the way you intend. If you have any self respect left, walk away – just walk the fuck away.

Why do you always have to bring skygod into it?

[Good Old Neon]

Why do you always have to bring skygod into it?

 

Why you son of a....