Thread: the movie great global warming swindle

Originally Posted by scarface

My point was....the damage to New Orleans wasn't due to Global Warming...it was due to building a large city below sea level in an area that experiences hurricanes and storm surges on a yearly basis.

Getting hit by the big one was just a matter of time....not Global Warming.

I guess I wasn't clear. Thanks for pointing that out.

-whatever

-Lou

Sorry Lou, *I* was being unclear - your original post was really very clear. I was being a smart -a**.

James.

Originally Posted by Jimbo

Sorry Lou, *I* was being unclear - your original post was really very clear. I was being a smart -a**.

James.

hey!...we don't allow smart-a**e* on the forum -






-only dumb ones!

(....and that's why I'm here....)

-whatever

-Lou

Originally Posted by scarface

...
Getting hit by the big one was just a matter of time....not Global Warming.

...
-Lou

The problem is, there's not a lot a ways to absolutely prove that Katrina wasn't associated with G.W., or that it was for that matter. G.W. advocates can say that Katrina was so severe, and that the storm surge was so destructive, because of conditions already in place due to G.W. Opponents/skeptics can say that it's one of those 1 in a 1000 year storms that just come around anyway.

Personally, I haven't got a clue - and I work in this area.

James.

Originally Posted by scarface

hey!...we don't allow smart-a**e* on the forum -






-only dumb ones!

(....and that's why I'm here....)

-whatever

-Lou

Must be why I'm allowed to stay too

James.

Originally Posted by scarface

One word: WTF???

Take a look at the following map of New Orleans- anything with a reddish tint is BELOW SEA LEVEL


...let me repeat that..Anything with a reddish tint is BELOW SEA LEVEL...

...the freakin' town is built in a hole....and, it's on the hurricane coast....so, when it FINALLY gets hit head-on with a Category V hurricane, suddenly it's Global Warming's fault? I'm sorry, but I'm having a LOT of trouble buying into that.....if you build a city in a hole...and don't get me wrong...it's a great city...but if you build it in a hole, when a big storm comes, it's going to fill up...no science about it...pumps have limits...it's not the Corps of Engineer's fault...it's not Global Warming....it's BUILT IN THE WRONG PLACE!!!!!(yes...that is a Kinnison scream)...IT'S A HOLE!!!...MOVE TO WHERE THE DRY IS!!!

great city....wrong place..

-whatever

-Lou

As much as this made me laugh....the half of the Netherlands has been built under sea level....dutch engineers warned people (I don't have any names...sorry) about problems with their floodturning systems and yet they did nothing about it.

It might not be anyone's fault but I bet the engineer who refused to strengthen the dykes in the right places feels a bit dumb.

Originally Posted by scarface

My point was....the damage to New Orleans wasn't due to Global Warming...it was due to building a large city below sea level in an area that experiences hurricanes and storm surges on a yearly basis.

Getting hit by the big one was just a matter of time....not Global Warming.

I guess I wasn't clear. Thanks for pointing that out.

-whatever

-Lou

Everything about the placement of New Orleans is unatural really. The Mississippi is forced to travel through New Orleans by levees -- it really wants to travel throught the Atchafalaya Basin and Louisiana has suffered some major floods because of it (when a levee breaks or rain causes flooding). We Louisianers have been waiting for this hurricane/f-upped New Orleans scenario to happen for a looooooong time. The absolute corruption of Louisana politics is as much to blame as anything along with a declining marshland --- partially caused by hurricanes that destroy marshland when salt water is forced into them. Global warming? -- I don't know --- it's more like the game of russian rullet finally catching up with you.

Justin

Originally Posted by xman

You'd have to provide me with the source for that. I find it very difficult to believe.

X

After rereading from this source I found some errors and found a better source that does not seem to be pushing a religous idealology. It's the Mayan "Baktun" cycle not the aztec sorry about that, and the planet entering our solar system was the summerian texts that he implied corolated with Mayan calendar and aztec legends. Here's a link that all about the science of this planet x as it's called without the religous overtones or implicatons. Which is how I prefer my science anyway.

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/he...colobus_49.htm

Also here are some links to other planets in our solar system going through global warming as well.

http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/odyssey/new...20031208a.html
http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/newsroom/20050920a.html
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture02470.html
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2002/pluto.html
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems...7/s1697309.htm

Because of this I firmly believe global warming is caused by periodic cycle of our planets and not CO2, but that does not mean I advocate polluting our enviroment in any way. We are part of the earth and when it dies or gets sick so do we. I just think we should be told the truth so we can fix the problems instead of pouring trillions of dollars into industries who paid for some B.S. science and lots of adds on t.v.'s purely for profit and not the benefit of mankind.

I don't think there's much doubt Earth is going through a warming cycle. These cycles have been affecting the Earth for millions of years, haven't they? Science admits the earth's climatic system is not completely understood... if it were our weather forecasts would be a lot more accurate, lol. So how can you judge cause and effect on global warming?

And, it seems to me that science is unclear on how abnormal events (eg, meteor impact, volcano eruptions, etc.) have affected these cycles. Now man's effect is entering into the equation, it's logical that our effect is adding stress, be it cutting the forests in Brazil or car exhaust and industrial fumes from all the G8 countries. But I don't think that science has real evidence as to how much effect this is having on the cycle... lots of theories and circumstantial evidence, but very little validation.

None the less, what does exist is the ever present "crisis making" from the media. Anymore, I'm a news "cynic"... there's just nothing very credible in the news these days. What's reported may be more-or less factual, but it's lacking perspective and is distorted to gain sensationalism in the name of ratings. Every newscast is like listening to Orsen Well's "War of the Worlds" broadcast... it's just a different crisis and newscaster.

Has the pressure to "publish or perish" caused our science to reach the same state? Certainly the marketing organizations of the academic publishers and documentary makers utilize advertising techniques designed to draw attention to their products. And it seems the same has become true to get funding for research at universities and publicly funded think tanks. What seems to have disappeared is the truth.

Originally Posted by scarface

That's interesting - I did watch the link that you posted the other day, and in fact forwarded it on to a couple of friends - I shall have to research out this latest article that you refer to and forward it along, as well.

I believe that there are two sides to every argument, and that the debate over man's influence on Global Warming is not over....as we discussed earlier, this issue has been SO politicized, and clouded by marginal (if not down right wrong) science that, at this point, I have a hard time buying into either sides arguments.

Thanks for posting this.

-whatever

-Lou

Where can I find this link?

BTW in the Netherlands the rumor goes that Al Gore lives in a most energy-ineffecient house himself.