If you are using Internet Explorer 6, you may not have the best Bebo experience. Please consider upgrading.
We Hate Al Gore
- Man-induced Global Warming : it's a politically motivated SCAM!
- Me, Myself, and I
- Global Warming has become more than just a scientific issue and has been portrayed as nothing less than the End of the World by some. However, despite all the hoopla from Hollywood, Politicians and Science Bureaucrats, there is another side, but it's being suppressed. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.
In short, global warming is the greatest criminal scam in human history.
Climate change is a natural occurence and there is no real scientific evidence that proves humans are inducing global warming. It is a left-wing power ploy, i.e., it is politically driven. Even if you don't care about politics, it is important that you stand up, be counted, and express your distaste at the lies we are being fed on a daily basis.
A conservation committee is being held at the local town hall. Its aim is to protect endangered species from being killed off by humans.
A man arrives during the committee with a large box in his hand. The chairman of the committee asks what is in it.
The man with the box proudly proclaims, "In this box, I have the one of the last Dodos in existance. It was sold to me for quite a substantial sum by a farmer whom I met when on holiday. He found it on the outskirts of his farm. It must be the descendant of a Dodo that was taken from the island of Mauritius before they were all made extinct, and then escaped from captivity!"
"Are you quite sure?" a woman with a baby on her lap asks.
"Well, I haven't looked inside it yet. It was in this box when I bought it, and the farmer said it was heavily pregnant, and if I opened the box then it might get frightened and have a miscarriage, which might kill it. But I'm certain it is."
"Well, if he hasn't given you proof," the woman says reasonably, "Then why should you believe what the farmer said? Have you heard it make Dodo noises?"
"No, it's a mute Dodo, according to him. But I do have proof. I felt it lurch around a few times."
"But that could have been caused by any other animal! It doesn't have to have been a Dodo!"
"Hey," the man with the box says "Are you saying you want Dodos to be extinct?"
"Then why are you being so horrid? It's pleasant to think that there's a Dodo in there, so why ruin it for everyone?"
"Ugh, whatever." The woman turns to an old man on her right. "You don't believe this surely?"
"Hmm, I don't know. I mean, there's no proof that it is a Dodo, but there's no proof that it isn't. So I'm not going to take a stance on this until I have some more information."
"Quiet, please!" The chairman commands irritably. He turns to "Can you please show us what's inside the box?"
"No! The Dodo might get hurt!"
"Look, we'll open it just a tiny fraction in a darkened closet. Is that good enough?"
"Um . . . okay, all right. But I'll have to get the key to the padlock, it's in my car. Hold on!"
The man leaves the room. There is an awkward silence for several moments.
"Chairman?" the skeptical woman enquires.
"You aren't taken in by this?"
"Haha, of course not! The chances are ridiculously slim."
"Although . . . I think we should all make out like we do, when we leave this committee."
"Well, having an animal that was thought to be extinct for hundreds of years, well, that's got to be good publicity, hasn't it? Drums up a bit of interest for the conservation movement!"
"But that's just lying!"
"No, it's not. I mean, there could be a Dodo in there, for all we know. We're just misrepresenting our stance on it. That's all." He winks at her.
"That's enough." the woman growls "I'll have no part of this. Come on, Amy." She picks up the baby and leaves the room.
The man returns. "I can't believe it. I've lost the key! I'll have to feed her through the air holes!"
"Nevermind, good man!" the chairman chortles. "Who needs concrete proof? I'm sure that Dodo is in there. It just feels like the truth. Eh, what?"
"I knew you'd see the light!" the man with the box grins.
Several days later, it's all over the news. "Live Dodo found after believed to have been extinct!"
And on a farm somewhere in South Africa, a farmer stuffing a chicken into a box looks up at his TV. He smirks, and takes the box out to sell to another gullible tourist.
Remind u of a certain situation?
0 Comments 260 weeks
MYTH 1: Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate.
FACT: Accurate satellite, balloon and mountain top observations made over the last three decades have not shown any significant change in the long term rate of increase in global temperatures. Average ground station readings do show a mild warming of 0.6 to 0.8Cover the last 100 years, which is well within the natural variations recorded in the last millennium. The ground station network suffers from an uneven distribution across the globe; the stations are preferentially located in growing urban and industrial areas ("heat islands"), which show substantially higher readings than adjacent rural areas ("land use effects").
There has been no catastrophic warming recorded.
MYTH 2: The "hockey stick" graph proves that the earth has experienced a steady, very gradual temperature increase for 1000 years, then recently began a sudden increase.
FACT: Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time. For instance, the Medieval Warm Period, from around 1000 to1200 AD (when the Vikings farmed on Greenland) was followed by a period known as the Little Ice Age. Since the end of the 17th Century the "average global temperature" has been rising at the low steady rate mentioned above; although from 1940 – 1970 temperatures actually dropped, leading to a Global Cooling scare.
The "hockey stick", a poster boy of both the UN's IPCC and Canada's Environment Department, ignores historical recorded climatic swings, and has now also been proven to be flawed and statistically unreliable as well. It is a computer construct and a faulty one at that.
MYTH 3: Human produced carbon dioxide has increased over the last 100 years, adding to the Greenhouse effect, thus warming the earth.
FACT: Carbon dioxide levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout geologic time. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased. The RATE of growth during this period has also increased from about 0.2% per year to the present rate of about 0.4% per year,which growth rate has now been constant for the past 25 years. However, there is no proof that CO2 is the main driver of global warming. As measured in ice cores dated over many thousands of years, CO2 levels move up and down AFTER the temperature has done so, and thus are the RESULT OF, NOT THE CAUSE of warming. Geological field work in recent sediments confirms this causal relationship. There is solid evidence that, as temperatures move up and down naturally and cyclically through solar radiation, orbital and galactic influences, the warming surface layers of the earth's oceans expel more CO2 as a result.
MYTH 4: CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas.
FACT: Greenhouse gases form about 3 % of the atmosphere by volume. They consist of varying amounts, (about 97%) of water vapour and clouds, with the remainder being gases like CO2, CH4, Ozone and N2O, of which carbon dioxide is the largest amount. Hence, CO2 constitutes about 0.037% of the atmosphere. While the minor gases are more effective as "greenhouse agents" than water vapour and clouds, the latter are overwhelming the effect by their sheer volume and – in the end – are thought to be responsible for 60% of the "Greenhouse effect".
Those attributing climate change to CO2 rarely mention this important fact.
MYTH 5: Computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant global warming.
FACT: Computer models can be made to "verify" anything by changing some of the 5 million input parameters or any of a multitude of negative and positive feedbacks in the program used.. They do not "prove" anything. Also, computer models predicting global warming are incapable of properly including the effects of the sun, cosmic rays and the clouds. The sun is a major cause of temperature variation on the earth surf
1 Comment 260 weeks
Global Warming and ‘Climate Change’ are two of the most dangerous and fraudulent campaigns in history. Advocates of human-induced climate change howl that Marxist solutions to save the earth goddess are mandatory. The eco-fascists, like all fascist-utopians demand the immediate destruction of the unheroic, selfish, ego-centric modern world to appease the cult – in this case to ‘save our earth goddess’. Al Gore’s brave new world of Marxist-environmental fantasy would increase taxes, destroy industry, shrink markets and increase poverty in the third world. Is that the type of society you want to live in? If it is you are as mentally unhinged and unstable as the fanatics that supported Hitlerism and Communism – all in the name of a ‘brave new utopia’ which would replace ‘decadent liberalism’.
Kyoto as an example of the eco-fascist pre-modern cult, is a monstrosity of redistribution from clean, richer nations, to poorer, dirtier countries. There is no science to support human induced climate change. There is certainly no reason to destroy the modern world to feed the egotistical political aspirations of Al Gore, the Sierra Club, or politicians that want to win elections and think that the eco-fascist club is their ticket to power.
The science on climate change is bafflingly incoherent but a small list suffices to show the insipidity of the concept. In fact the junk science put forward by Gore and his minions is so bad 19.000 climatologists have signed a protocol against the idea of human centric climate change. Why should our world be destroyed if there is no evidence to support eco-fascist assertions? [see below for a list of simple questions that the eco-warriors cannot answer].
Any rational, objective observer can list some commonsensical rejections of human induced climate-change baloney. These would include the fact that CO2 is not a toxin but a necessary natural gas; that climate change is caused by the earth’s distance to the sun; that there are 1 million variables in the climate making ‘climate models’ a mockery; that the earth’s temperature today is 14 C on average which has been the mean temperature for the past 150 years; that 1000 years ago it was warmer than today; that the Antarctic is increasing in mass; that sea levels have risen by 1.5 feet in the past 100 years without massive flooding [vs. 1 foot between today and 2100]– just to name a few.
Yet the eco-fascists and their government-political puppets persist. For less than $100 billion the rich world could provide clean water and sanitation to all the poorer people of the world. Yet for 100 times that investment we must destroy our economies; transfer money to polluting nations; and ‘cap CO2’ emissions to satisfy government activists who cry about climate-change. Such concepts will actually make people in both the richer and poorer nations worse off, derail trade, curtail investments in poorer nations and shrink national GDPs by 3-4% on average. It is madness. There is no evidence that poorer states are cleaner than richer states – but lots of evidence to support the converse.
If Kyoto or some idiotic eco-fascist scheme like it were to become policy, then the average person in a rich country would end up paying about $4000 more per year, in taxes and fees. It is estimated that richer, cleaner countries such as Canada and the US would transfer to Russia, Asia and other poorer, dirtier areas of the globe, about USD$20-25 Billion per annum, in addition to seeing their domestic GDP shrink by 2-4%. Why would politicians willingly transfer money to these areas of the world when the receiving countries have no interest in limiting so-called ‘greenhouse gas emissions’ – 95 % of which is water vapor – and derail their domestic economies in so doing?
Maybe before committing collective eco-fascist suicide the eco-warriors can answer some simple questions:
1. Why is CO2 a toxin and not a beneficial natural ga
0 Comments 261 weeks
close Video Box
Having AutoPlay on gives you the best media experience on Bebo. When you visit another user's profile, their Video Box will automatically start playing their current favorite video.
You can change your account settings at anytime here: account settings
close Video Blog
- The inconvenient quiz 25 Taken
All the Greenie scares during my lifetime have been based on really bad science and been plain wrong. Some have been dangerous. What annoys me is that the scientific errors were so basic and obvious, it didn't even need a B.Sc. level of scientific knowledge to expose them. Improper use of statistics was often partly to blame.0 Replies 260 weeks
1. Imminent Ice Age. They've forgotten that one. Not even PC these days!!
2. Plasticisers. Pthalates were bioaccumulating in our fatty tissues and we were all going to die of cancer. That's been swept under the carpet.
3. Chlorine. The "Devil's Element" (!) was going to end life on Earth. Brilliant science, that was. Not.
4. DDT. The safest effective insecticide ever finished up banned in Western industrialised countries. Undeveloped countries were paid (with Western taxpayers money) not to use it. The result has been, over the last thirty years or so, millions - no exaggeration, MILLIONS, - of completely unnecessary deaths from malaria in undeveloped, poor countries. Environmentalists have that on their conscience. Not that it seems to worry them.
5. Chlorofluorocarbons. CFCs were going to destroy the ozone layer which would cause millons to die of skin cancer. Montreal Accords banned the CFCs then being used (conveniently, just as the patents were running out) and mandated new "safer" ones (which, surprise, surprise, had recently been patented). Thirty years later, you don't hear much about this, but observation of the "ozone hole" (it isn't even an ozone hole, but let's not be picky) shows that it's a perfectly natural and cyclic phenomenon which exists in the absence of man-made CFCs. And the CFC ban hasn't affected UV exposure at ground level ONE LITTLE BIT. A scare exposed in a respected, peer-reviewed journal,
by a respected NASA scientist, who categorised the science as "dishonest". A waste of time, resources and money.
6. Waste incinerators. The most effective and environmental method of dealing with waste, far superior to burial, because the energy can be recovered to generate electricity and heat for local disribution and the ash for construction material. But, oh, no, the Greenies won't have it. They are stopping an effective, environmental, energy-efficient policy.
7. Nuclear power. The only effective way of escaping the grip that Arab countries and Russia have over our economy, but the Greenies have done all they can to stop it. In Germany Greenies stopped development of the safest type of reactor ever developed, which the Chinese have now taken up and are bringing to fruition. Just think, we used to be WORLD leaders in civil nuclear power - now, we'll have to buy from the French and in the not too distant future, we could well finish up buying Chinese reactors. But Greenies don't care about that. Makes you wonder who's side they are on.
8. Sinking obsolete oil rigs. Remember when Shell wanted to sink an old oil rig and the Greenies kicked up a massive campaign to stop them, saying it would destroy fish stocks? Well, eventually Shell sank their rig somewhere and it turned out to be an artificial reef, ideal to protect juvenile fish from predators and boost fish populations. Now marine scientists recommend sinking old ships and rigs to rejuvenate fished-out areas. Greenies shot their own foot off with that one, but of course they won't admit it.
Where do the Greenies find their third-rate scientists?
Whatever have the Greenies ever done right?
The 35% price hike by British Gas has got the socialists hot under the collar as usual. If only we could find a way to use this heat created by fulminating watermelons we'd have no need for gas - but while they are moaning about the "obscene" profits of these energy companies they might like to consider the fact that the main cause of the price hike and why it matters so much is that stupid, short-sighted, ignorant socialists masquerading as eco-friendly environment lovers operating at all levels of society from grungy protesters to senior cabinet ministers are the ones who have set this country up to be held hostage to foreign gas, oil and energy supplies while our own resources go unused underground.0 Replies 260 weeks
There is a delicious irony to the fact that British Gas announce this price rise just as a bunch of fools are about to set up a "climate camp" outside the Kingsnorth coal-fired power station - a station which supplies 1.5 million homes with electricity (half million more than E-On can supply across the whole UK from its renewable development portfolio).
These protesters are threatening to shut down Kingsnorth - permanently - completely disregarding the need of those 1.5 million homes that rely on it for their electricity supply. Though I have no problem with anyone demonstrating peacefully, I believe that an overt threat to shutdown a power station "permanently" is sufficient to question the motivation of this "climate camp". With such a threat in place, anyone found trespassing on Kingsnorth property should be prosecuted under the full power of anti-terrorist legislation including long prison sentences.
I also think that the names of every protester at this camp should be taken and their access to energy removed. This is what they are seeking for the 1.5 million homes that rely on Kingsnorth - it is only fair that they should accept the same for themselves.
But most of all, they should realise that the reason more and more people are finding themselves in fuel poverty is the simple fact that the protestations of socialists in green hats have ensured that a cheap, plentiful resource of our own - coal - has been marginalised and led to our reliance on the supply of foreign controlled gas and oil which is not only much more expensive than coal, but in considerably shorter supply.