• Please be sure to read the rules and adhere to them. Some banned members have complained that they are not spammers. But they spammed us. Some even tried to redirect our members to other forums. Duh. Be smart. Read the rules and adhere to them and we will all get along just fine. Cheers. :beer: Link to the rules: https://www.forumsforums.com/threads/forum-rules-info.2974/

I am so glad

God Jul, Gunnar.

xmasgirl.jpg


Is there a lot of duck-breeding in your home town? :yum:
Believe it or not, but there is!
local rally
http://www.aul.no/andebu_grangpriks.htm


For the rest of you, duck= and. Where Donald Duck lives is called Andeby (duck city) in Norway, I live in Andebu, lots of funny remarks on that.
 
Bunch of religious fanatics . . .

http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OTk4OTEzMDU1YjdiMmVlYWJjYTE4MzY2ZGU5ZmNkZDQ=

"Shut up!" they argued [Henry Payne]

Taking a page from their mentor, Al Gore - and determined to keep the focus on a global warming “consensus” and U.S. heresy – the U.N. continued its campaign to muzzle dissenting scientists at this week’s Bali climate conference.


Just as Gore has refused requests to debate the warming threat, Bali organizers cancelled a scheduled press conference Thursday morning by the International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC) - a group of international scientists who protest the scientific basis of climate alarmism.
It’s the second such incident in a week.

The Heartland Institute reports that “earlier in the week. . . (UN official) Barbara Black interrupted the press conference and demanded the scientists immediately cease. She threatened to have the police physically remove them from the premises. (In addition) ICSC scientists have been prevented from participating in panel discussions, side events, and exhibits.”

12/13 02:36 PM
 
Sure doesn't look like much of a "consensus" in the scientific community to me . . . .


http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164002

Don't fight, adapt

We should give up futile attempts to combat climate change
Published: Wednesday, December 12, 2007

Open Letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations
Dec. 13, 2007
His Excellency Ban Ki-Moon
Secretary-General, United Nations
New York, N.Y.

Dear Mr. Secretary-General,
Re: UN climate conference taking the World in entirely the wrong direction
It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages. Geological, archaeological, oral and written histories all attest to the dramatic challenges posed to past societies from unanticipated changes in temperature, precipitation, winds and other climatic variables. We therefore need to equip nations to become resilient to the full range of these natural phenomena by promoting economic growth and wealth generation.

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued increasingly alarming conclusions about the climatic influences of human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2), a non-polluting gas that is essential to plant photosynthesis. While we understand the evidence that has led them to view CO2 emissions as harmful, the IPCC's conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity. In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions. On top of which, because attempts to cut emissions will slow development, the current UN approach of CO2 reduction is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather than to decrease it.

The IPCC Summaries for Policy Makers are the most widely read IPCC reports amongst politicians and non-scientists and are the basis for most climate change policy formulation. Yet these Summaries are prepared by a relatively small core writing team with the final drafts approved line-by-line by ­government ­representatives. The great ­majority of IPCC contributors and ­reviewers, and the tens of thousands of other scientists who are qualified to comment on these matters, are not involved in the preparation of these documents. The summaries therefore cannot properly be represented as a consensus view among experts.
Contrary to the impression left by the IPCC Summary reports:

-Recent observations of phenomena such as glacial retreats, sea-level rise and the migration of temperature-sensitive species are not evidence for abnormal climate change, for none of these changes has been shown to lie outside the bounds of known natural variability.

-The average rate of warming of 0.1 to 0. 2 degrees Celsius per decade recorded by satellites during the late 20th century falls within known natural rates of warming and cooling over the last 10,000 years.

-Leading scientists, including some senior IPCC representatives, acknowledge that today's computer models cannot predict climate. Consistent with this, and despite computer projections of temperature rises, there has been no net global warming since 1998. That the current temperature plateau follows a late 20th-century period of warming is consistent with the continuation today of natural multi-decadal or millennial climate cycling.

In stark contrast to the often repeated assertion that the science of climate change is "settled," significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming. But because IPCC working groups were generally instructed (see http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/wg1_timetable_2006-08-14.pdf) to consider work published only through May, 2005, these important findings are not included in their reports; i.e., the IPCC assessment reports are already materially outdated.

The UN climate conference in Bali has been planned to take the world along a path of severe CO2 restrictions, ignoring the lessons apparent from the failure of the Kyoto Protocol, the chaotic nature of the European CO2 trading market, and the ineffectiveness of other costly initiatives to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Balanced cost/benefit analyses provide no support for the introduction of global measures to cap and reduce energy consumption for the purpose of restricting CO2 emissions. Furthermore, it is irrational to apply the "precautionary principle" because many scientists recognize that both climatic coolings and warmings are realistic possibilities over the medium-term future.

The current UN focus on "fighting climate change," as illustrated in the Nov. 27 UN Development Programme's Human Development Report, is distracting governments from adapting to the threat of inevitable natural climate changes, whatever forms they may take. National and international planning for such changes is needed, with a focus on helping our most vulnerable citizens adapt to conditions that lie ahead.

Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity's real and pressing problems.

Yours faithfully,

[List of signatories]

The only people benefitting from all this BS are the Al Gore's that are getting rich promoting the hype. You "believers" crack me up because you present yourselves as great critical thinkers and cynics when you are nothing more than lemmings following the flow.
 
It's always about the $$$$$$$$$$$, keep that in mind before you jump on
any bandwagons.
I think you use that expression in matters that suits you. Why dont you follow the money floating in the NRA system? --- or tobacco industry ?--- or into the pockets of the "there is no global warming" scientists.

This is my bandwagon
 

Attachments

  • Bilde 014.jpg
    Bilde 014.jpg
    68.6 KB · Views: 32
I think you use that expression in matters that suits you. Why dont you follow the money floating in the NRA system? --- or tobacco industry ?--- or into the pockets of the "there is no global warming" scientists.

This is my bandwagon

Nope, you'd be wrong, it's always about the $$$$. As far as GW goes, the money is in the research, lots of folks like the founder of the Weather channel are stepping up to the plate to denounce the Man made part of it anyway. I like your bandwagon, be sure and save up lots of carbon credits so you can play with it!:thumb:
 
Nope, you'd be wrong, it's always about the $$$$. As far as GW goes, the money is in the research, lots of folks like the founder of the Weather channel are stepping up to the plate to denounce the Man made part of it anyway. I like your bandwagon, be sure and save up lots of carbon credits so you can play with it!:thumb:

Yep you are right, but its terrible to be jealous of others making money. Many denier's of global warming have lots to lose and I can understand there concerns.

The interesting thing about global warming is the first affected are really not the ones that have caused it. But who gives a **** about the third world.
 
You're assuming a lot there bro, I'm not jealous of folks making money, I'm a big Halliburton fan myself. No one, now read my lips, NO ONE is denying that the earth is getting warmer, what is in question is man's contribution.
If you want to see what's causing the globe to warm just go out of your house during a clear day and look at the really bright spot in the sky. Mars is getting warmer too, it's a cycle, Greenland will be green again. All the hand wringing in the world won't change it. How arrogant of some men to think "they" control the Earth's climate.
 
You're assuming a lot there bro, I'm not jealous of folks making money, I'm a big Halliburton fan myself. No one, now read my lips, NO ONE is denying that the earth is getting warmer, what is in question is man's contribution.
If you want to see what's causing the globe to warm just go out of your house during a clear day and look at the really bright spot in the sky. Mars is getting warmer too, it's a cycle, Greenland will be green again. All the hand wringing in the world won't change it. How arrogant of some men to think "they" control the Earth's climate.
Well said! :applause: :applause:
 
Top