Antarctic Sea Ice Up Over 43% Since 1980, Where Is The Media?
Friday, 10. April 2009, 19:50:45
A very insightful article that I couldn't help but add my two pence to.
Truly we are governed these days by stark, raving lunacy. . .
Thursday, 9. April 2009, 11:00:52
BBC abandons 'impartiality' on warming
Thursday, 5. March 2009, 15:23:24
This was written by one of the best climate change reporters, Christopher Booker, so I'll try to keep my comments down to a minimum because I can safely say, after reeding his work for several years, I agree with pretty much everything this man says.
My comments will mainly be backing him us with what I know and criticising the BBC (there's a surprise), so you'll probably see a happier side of me after the past year of calling the writers of every news article a retard because they believe that 0.4% of the greenhouse gasses (and not even a very strong greenhouse gas) can create warming when there's 95% of the greenhouse gasses (which is a lot more radiative than CO2) being emitted, in huge quantities, naturally every day.
Enjoy.
My comments will mainly be backing him us with what I know and criticising the BBC (there's a surprise), so you'll probably see a happier side of me after the past year of calling the writers of every news article a retard because they believe that 0.4% of the greenhouse gasses (and not even a very strong greenhouse gas) can create warming when there's 95% of the greenhouse gasses (which is a lot more radiative than CO2) being emitted, in huge quantities, naturally every day.
Enjoy.
The final nail in the global warming coffin.
Wednesday, 25. February 2009, 21:48:29
Before I tell you about the attached peer review paper I will tell you about the UN IPCC. The mainstream media often say that the IPCC is made up of 2,500 of the worlds top scientists. That's simply not true. The fact of the matter is, the IPCC is made up of 600 scientists, and 1,900 policy makers (politicians of the member states that make up the UN). Many of the 600 scientists do NOT have sufficient degrees in the relevant fields that the UN places them in. The ones that do have relevant qualifications, in most ocasions do not agree with the findings and resign. And when you get into the Lead Authors, it gets worse. I found this article that tells you more:
“The paucity of information was hardly surprising: Not one of the lead authors had ever written a research paper on the subject! Moreover, two of the authors, both physicians, had spent their entire career as environmental activists. One of these activists has published "professional" articles as an "expert" on 32 different subjects, ranging from mercury poisoning to land mines, globalization to allergies and West Nile virus to AIDS.
"Among the contributing authors there was one professional entomologist, and a person who had written an obscure article on dengue and El Nino, but whose principal interest was the effectiveness of motorcycle crash helmets (plus one paper on the health effects of cellphones).”
Now, does this sound like the organisation to trust in the matter of global warming?
But this is the best we can get, right? I mean, according to ALL the mainstream media outlets, these are the worlds top scientists. The science is settled. To deny global warming is to deny the holocaust. There isn't another side in the global warming debate. The debate is over. Only a few scientists don't believe in man-made global warming. And those that don't believe in it are being paid by the oil companies. Well, according to the aforementioned peer review paper, all this is wrong.
This peer review paper has been read by at LEAST 31,072 scientists. We don't know the full number because only American scientists, with a minimum of a Bachelor of Science degree in relevant fields of science were aloud to sign the petition that accompanied the paper. I'm sure there are thousands of other scientists with Associates of Science degrees who agree with this paper, as well as many more BS, MS & PhD scientists throughout the world.
To put that into perspective, the IPCC has 2,500 people (it's wrong to call them scientists because the majority are politicians). The petition that accompanied this paper was signed by 9,021 PhDs (the highest degree one can get). Now, remember, that's PhD scientists in the US alone. The full numbers for other degrees are as followed; 6,961 MS; 2,240 MD and DVM; and 12,850 BS or equivalent academic degrees.
The IPCC has restricted access to the names and degrees of their researchers. Only a few have leaked out. This is not science. Science is open and free for all to see. The people who wrote this paper and circulated the accompanying petition put it all on their website, which is free, open, and written in a simplified English so us non scientists can read it. They even have the list of all 31,072 scientists (as well as their degrees) who have signed the petition. If that's not science, I don't know what is. You can find it all here.
Now, Al Gore calls scientists who don't agree with him "Flat Earthers". If you remember, the Church denied the science that proved the Earth was round. Does this representation of "Flat Earthers" sound like people like me and the 31,072 scientists that use real data instead of overbloated computer models?? Or the people, like Al Gore, who are denying that 31,072 scientists disagree with them.
The IPCC is clearly not a scientific organisation. They do not abide by the structure of established science. They abide more with the ways of politics (more fascist that democratic), not science. But then, the clue is really in the name, the InterGOVERNMENTAL Panel on Climate Change.
The BBC have not as yet published an article on this peer review paper (trust me, I looked for it). Fox News had one article about it. And few other mainstream media outlets dared touch it. But it is out there. If you simply Google “30,000 scientists”, the first page will be nothing but this paper.
So please, now that you've read the background of this peer review paper, have a read of the actual paper (which you only need a basic knowledge of science to understand). And remember, 31,072 scientists with a Bachelor of Science degree or above in the US agree with it.
This is just the tip of the iceberg. Once you look beyond the science, you start to see that it's not about saving the Earth, it's about enslaving the Earth. Al Gore has called for, in the United States Congress, a global tax on carbon. When asked which forms of carbon, he replied, “All forms.” (that's on record, you can Google it, watch the videos). One would naturally assume that “all forms” of carbon would include the carbon dioxide that all animals, including humans, breathe out. If they tax that, it means they are putting a price on your life. Turning your RIGHT to breathe into a privilege.
It's not just Al Gore who's calling for it, Barack Obama, just a few days ago, called for a global tax on carbon. The science has gone out the window in favour of pseudoscience and political policies designed to enslave you.
Spread this information around before the UN (which is clearly a fascist regime, if they do politics in the same way they do “science”) are forcing you to pay to breathe. Because just imagine what they'll do to you if you can't pay their tax on life. It's not a very nice picture, is it?
~Christopher Toms.
Click here to read the full peer reviewed paper as a PDF.
“The paucity of information was hardly surprising: Not one of the lead authors had ever written a research paper on the subject! Moreover, two of the authors, both physicians, had spent their entire career as environmental activists. One of these activists has published "professional" articles as an "expert" on 32 different subjects, ranging from mercury poisoning to land mines, globalization to allergies and West Nile virus to AIDS.
"Among the contributing authors there was one professional entomologist, and a person who had written an obscure article on dengue and El Nino, but whose principal interest was the effectiveness of motorcycle crash helmets (plus one paper on the health effects of cellphones).”
Now, does this sound like the organisation to trust in the matter of global warming?
But this is the best we can get, right? I mean, according to ALL the mainstream media outlets, these are the worlds top scientists. The science is settled. To deny global warming is to deny the holocaust. There isn't another side in the global warming debate. The debate is over. Only a few scientists don't believe in man-made global warming. And those that don't believe in it are being paid by the oil companies. Well, according to the aforementioned peer review paper, all this is wrong.
This peer review paper has been read by at LEAST 31,072 scientists. We don't know the full number because only American scientists, with a minimum of a Bachelor of Science degree in relevant fields of science were aloud to sign the petition that accompanied the paper. I'm sure there are thousands of other scientists with Associates of Science degrees who agree with this paper, as well as many more BS, MS & PhD scientists throughout the world.
To put that into perspective, the IPCC has 2,500 people (it's wrong to call them scientists because the majority are politicians). The petition that accompanied this paper was signed by 9,021 PhDs (the highest degree one can get). Now, remember, that's PhD scientists in the US alone. The full numbers for other degrees are as followed; 6,961 MS; 2,240 MD and DVM; and 12,850 BS or equivalent academic degrees.
The IPCC has restricted access to the names and degrees of their researchers. Only a few have leaked out. This is not science. Science is open and free for all to see. The people who wrote this paper and circulated the accompanying petition put it all on their website, which is free, open, and written in a simplified English so us non scientists can read it. They even have the list of all 31,072 scientists (as well as their degrees) who have signed the petition. If that's not science, I don't know what is. You can find it all here.
Now, Al Gore calls scientists who don't agree with him "Flat Earthers". If you remember, the Church denied the science that proved the Earth was round. Does this representation of "Flat Earthers" sound like people like me and the 31,072 scientists that use real data instead of overbloated computer models?? Or the people, like Al Gore, who are denying that 31,072 scientists disagree with them.
The IPCC is clearly not a scientific organisation. They do not abide by the structure of established science. They abide more with the ways of politics (more fascist that democratic), not science. But then, the clue is really in the name, the InterGOVERNMENTAL Panel on Climate Change.
The BBC have not as yet published an article on this peer review paper (trust me, I looked for it). Fox News had one article about it. And few other mainstream media outlets dared touch it. But it is out there. If you simply Google “30,000 scientists”, the first page will be nothing but this paper.
So please, now that you've read the background of this peer review paper, have a read of the actual paper (which you only need a basic knowledge of science to understand). And remember, 31,072 scientists with a Bachelor of Science degree or above in the US agree with it.
This is just the tip of the iceberg. Once you look beyond the science, you start to see that it's not about saving the Earth, it's about enslaving the Earth. Al Gore has called for, in the United States Congress, a global tax on carbon. When asked which forms of carbon, he replied, “All forms.” (that's on record, you can Google it, watch the videos). One would naturally assume that “all forms” of carbon would include the carbon dioxide that all animals, including humans, breathe out. If they tax that, it means they are putting a price on your life. Turning your RIGHT to breathe into a privilege.
It's not just Al Gore who's calling for it, Barack Obama, just a few days ago, called for a global tax on carbon. The science has gone out the window in favour of pseudoscience and political policies designed to enslave you.
Spread this information around before the UN (which is clearly a fascist regime, if they do politics in the same way they do “science”) are forcing you to pay to breathe. Because just imagine what they'll do to you if you can't pay their tax on life. It's not a very nice picture, is it?
~Christopher Toms.
Click here to read the full peer reviewed paper as a PDF.
Failure hits Nasa's 'CO2 hunter'
Wednesday, 25. February 2009, 17:56:26
Nasa's first dedicated mission to measure carbon dioxide from space has failed following a rocket malfunction.
Officials said the fairing - the part of the rocket which covers the satellite on top of the launcher - did not separate properly.
Data indicates the spacecraft crashed into the ocean near Antarctica.
The Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO) was intended to help pinpoint the key locations on our planet's surface where CO2 is being emitted and absorbed.
You mean the oceans and volcanoes??
Nasa officials confirmed the loss of the satellite at a press conference held at 1300 GMT.
Sciences Corporation, the rocket's manufacturer, told journalists: "Our whole team, at a very personal level, is very disappointed in the events of this morning."
He added: "The fairing has considerable weight relative to the portion of the vehicle that's flying. So when it separates off, you get a jump in acceleration. We did not have that jump in acceleration.
"As a direct result of carrying that extra weight, we could not make orbit."
'Mishap' board
The $270m (£190m) mission was launched on a Taurus XL - the smallest ground-launched rocket currently in use by the US space agency.
Since its debut in 1994, this type of rocket has flown eight times, with six successes and two failures including this launch. But this is the first time Nasa has used the Taurus XL.
The US space agency will now put together a "Mishap Investigation Board" to determine the root cause of the nose cone's failure to come off three minutes into the launch.
Onlookers watched the launcher soar into the sky from the Vandenberg Air Force Base in California at 0955 GMT on Tuesday.
The first indication of a problem came in an announcement made by the Nasa launch commentator, George Diller.
"This is Taurus launch control. We have declared a launch contingency, meaning that we did not have a successful launch tonight," he said.
Separation of the fairing was one of the last technical hurdles faced by the satellite as it flew into orbit. Orbital said there had been no changes to the design of the fairing since previous launches.
Mr Brunschwyler, programme manager for the Taurus rockets, cast doubt on any suggestion of a link between the failure and a power glitch which occurred to the vehicle just prior to launch.
"That was on a separate system, so I do not believe there was any connection," Mr Brunschwyler told journalists at the Nasa press conference.
Dr Paul Palmer, a scientist from the University of Edinburgh, UK, who was collaborating on the mission, told BBC News: "I am bitterly disappointed about the loss of OCO. My thoughts go out to the science team that have dedicated the past seven years to building and testing the instrument."
Professor John Burrows, from the UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, who is also collaborating on the mission, commented: "The UK and European science community is a major partner in OCO and the loss of this instrument is a serious setback."
Scientists had hoped OCO would improve models of the Earth's climate and help researchers determine where the greenhouse gas is coming from and how much is being absorbed by forests and oceans.
I thought the climate models were as good as you can get?? We've spent billions on the environment because of these models accuracy.
This would have helped scientists make more accurate predictions of future climate change.
A nut on the right rear wheel. Look, it's been proven, to get more accurate predictions of future climate change, all you have to do is look at the Sun.
Rebuild question
Only about 50% of the carbon emitted from human sources - principally, from fossil fuel combustion - stays there. The remainder is mopped up by the land and oceans, which act as "sinks".
What about the plants that BREATHE it??
However, scientists are unsure of the precise detail, with perhaps 20% of our CO2 going into a hitherto unrecognised sink.
"All eyes are now on the Japanese Gosat instrument to search for the missing carbon sink," said Dr Palmer.
Gosat was launched in January from Tanegashima in Japan. It is also designed to monitor atmospheric greenhouse gases.
No, it's designed to monitor only CO2, not greenhouse gases. The number one, in both abundance and radiative, is water vapour.
Nasa's Glory satellite, which is designed to measure carbon soot and other aerosols in the Earth's atmosphere, is due to launch on a Taurus XL from California in June.
"Our goal will be to find a root cause for the problem. And we won't fly Glory until we have that data known to us," said Nasa's launch director Chuck Dovale.
Taurus is based on Orbital's air-launched Pegasus rockets which have a long, proud history. The fairing is essentially the same as is used on that rocket. Mr Brunschwyler said: "We have not had any issues with this fairing design in the past."
Why a problem now?? Because this would put the plan (not my predictions, it's being planned) of carbon taxes in jeopardy.
When the European Space Agency's Cryosat spacecraft was destroyed on launch in 2006, officials decided to re-build it; the launch is scheduled for later in the year. However, the future of the OCO mission remains unclear at this stage.
Wow, I haven't researched this spacecraft. Anyway, wow, two satellites that would dismiss all off the IPCC's findings have failed to launch. That means a success rate of 33%. Is anyone suspicious about this??
Responding to a question about spare parts for the US satellite, Michael Freilich, director of Nasa's Earth science division, said: "At this time, we don't have a complete inventory of flight spares, or what we should need, should we make a decision to re-build an OCO."
The only other failure to hit the Taurus rocket occurred in September 2001, when the rocket dropped off its payload of two satellites at a lower altitude than had been intended.
CO2 in the atmosphere has seen a steady rise in recent years
Why don't they put this up against the temperature records?? Because they would show the post-war economic boom cooling doesn't match up with the CO2?? I wash my mouth out.
This was blatantly planned to fail. If it had succeeded, it would show that 1: Water vapour makes up 95% of the greenhouse gases compared to only 4% of CO2. 2: That every time a medium sized volcano erupts, it emits more CO2 than humans have in the past 200 years. 3: Most of the CO2 comes from the oceans.
If it hadn't failed, and it had come back saying what I said it would, the green freaks would have come out about, "oh, you can't trust the satellite data because it would jeopardies NASA's space flights". . .well, no, coming out with the truth would jeopardies NASA more than it saying CO2 is the main cause of warming, due to the FACT that NASA's rockets don't emit CO2, they emit water vapour. Don't believe me?? They use liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen as rocket fuel, which fuse together during launch. Ergo, water vapour.
Now, don't come at me about how I'm only saying this because Alex Jones said it. After my dad told me about the satellite, I told him that it was planned to blow up, for reasons stated above, 5 minutes before The Alex Jones Show last night, in which he said more or less the same thing, and over 20 hours before I actually listened to the podcast because I was so busy last night that I couldn't catch his show live.
This is me saying this through common sense and what I've learnt from doing my own research on it.
I'm gonna upload the PDF for Pertition Project (the 31,072 scientists) tonight because it's a must read for everyone who either believes me or believes the official story.
Officials said the fairing - the part of the rocket which covers the satellite on top of the launcher - did not separate properly.
Data indicates the spacecraft crashed into the ocean near Antarctica.
The Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO) was intended to help pinpoint the key locations on our planet's surface where CO2 is being emitted and absorbed.
You mean the oceans and volcanoes??
Nasa officials confirmed the loss of the satellite at a press conference held at 1300 GMT.
Sciences Corporation, the rocket's manufacturer, told journalists: "Our whole team, at a very personal level, is very disappointed in the events of this morning."
He added: "The fairing has considerable weight relative to the portion of the vehicle that's flying. So when it separates off, you get a jump in acceleration. We did not have that jump in acceleration.
"As a direct result of carrying that extra weight, we could not make orbit."
'Mishap' board
The $270m (£190m) mission was launched on a Taurus XL - the smallest ground-launched rocket currently in use by the US space agency.
Since its debut in 1994, this type of rocket has flown eight times, with six successes and two failures including this launch. But this is the first time Nasa has used the Taurus XL.
The US space agency will now put together a "Mishap Investigation Board" to determine the root cause of the nose cone's failure to come off three minutes into the launch.
Onlookers watched the launcher soar into the sky from the Vandenberg Air Force Base in California at 0955 GMT on Tuesday.
The first indication of a problem came in an announcement made by the Nasa launch commentator, George Diller.
"This is Taurus launch control. We have declared a launch contingency, meaning that we did not have a successful launch tonight," he said.
Separation of the fairing was one of the last technical hurdles faced by the satellite as it flew into orbit. Orbital said there had been no changes to the design of the fairing since previous launches.
Mr Brunschwyler, programme manager for the Taurus rockets, cast doubt on any suggestion of a link between the failure and a power glitch which occurred to the vehicle just prior to launch.
"That was on a separate system, so I do not believe there was any connection," Mr Brunschwyler told journalists at the Nasa press conference.
Dr Paul Palmer, a scientist from the University of Edinburgh, UK, who was collaborating on the mission, told BBC News: "I am bitterly disappointed about the loss of OCO. My thoughts go out to the science team that have dedicated the past seven years to building and testing the instrument."
Professor John Burrows, from the UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, who is also collaborating on the mission, commented: "The UK and European science community is a major partner in OCO and the loss of this instrument is a serious setback."
Scientists had hoped OCO would improve models of the Earth's climate and help researchers determine where the greenhouse gas is coming from and how much is being absorbed by forests and oceans.
I thought the climate models were as good as you can get?? We've spent billions on the environment because of these models accuracy.
This would have helped scientists make more accurate predictions of future climate change.
A nut on the right rear wheel. Look, it's been proven, to get more accurate predictions of future climate change, all you have to do is look at the Sun.
Rebuild question
Only about 50% of the carbon emitted from human sources - principally, from fossil fuel combustion - stays there. The remainder is mopped up by the land and oceans, which act as "sinks".
What about the plants that BREATHE it??
However, scientists are unsure of the precise detail, with perhaps 20% of our CO2 going into a hitherto unrecognised sink.
"All eyes are now on the Japanese Gosat instrument to search for the missing carbon sink," said Dr Palmer.
Gosat was launched in January from Tanegashima in Japan. It is also designed to monitor atmospheric greenhouse gases.
No, it's designed to monitor only CO2, not greenhouse gases. The number one, in both abundance and radiative, is water vapour.
Nasa's Glory satellite, which is designed to measure carbon soot and other aerosols in the Earth's atmosphere, is due to launch on a Taurus XL from California in June.
"Our goal will be to find a root cause for the problem. And we won't fly Glory until we have that data known to us," said Nasa's launch director Chuck Dovale.
Taurus is based on Orbital's air-launched Pegasus rockets which have a long, proud history. The fairing is essentially the same as is used on that rocket. Mr Brunschwyler said: "We have not had any issues with this fairing design in the past."
Why a problem now?? Because this would put the plan (not my predictions, it's being planned) of carbon taxes in jeopardy.
When the European Space Agency's Cryosat spacecraft was destroyed on launch in 2006, officials decided to re-build it; the launch is scheduled for later in the year. However, the future of the OCO mission remains unclear at this stage.
Wow, I haven't researched this spacecraft. Anyway, wow, two satellites that would dismiss all off the IPCC's findings have failed to launch. That means a success rate of 33%. Is anyone suspicious about this??
Responding to a question about spare parts for the US satellite, Michael Freilich, director of Nasa's Earth science division, said: "At this time, we don't have a complete inventory of flight spares, or what we should need, should we make a decision to re-build an OCO."
The only other failure to hit the Taurus rocket occurred in September 2001, when the rocket dropped off its payload of two satellites at a lower altitude than had been intended.
CO2 in the atmosphere has seen a steady rise in recent years
Why don't they put this up against the temperature records?? Because they would show the post-war economic boom cooling doesn't match up with the CO2?? I wash my mouth out.
This was blatantly planned to fail. If it had succeeded, it would show that 1: Water vapour makes up 95% of the greenhouse gases compared to only 4% of CO2. 2: That every time a medium sized volcano erupts, it emits more CO2 than humans have in the past 200 years. 3: Most of the CO2 comes from the oceans.
If it hadn't failed, and it had come back saying what I said it would, the green freaks would have come out about, "oh, you can't trust the satellite data because it would jeopardies NASA's space flights". . .well, no, coming out with the truth would jeopardies NASA more than it saying CO2 is the main cause of warming, due to the FACT that NASA's rockets don't emit CO2, they emit water vapour. Don't believe me?? They use liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen as rocket fuel, which fuse together during launch. Ergo, water vapour.
Now, don't come at me about how I'm only saying this because Alex Jones said it. After my dad told me about the satellite, I told him that it was planned to blow up, for reasons stated above, 5 minutes before The Alex Jones Show last night, in which he said more or less the same thing, and over 20 hours before I actually listened to the podcast because I was so busy last night that I couldn't catch his show live.
This is me saying this through common sense and what I've learnt from doing my own research on it.
I'm gonna upload the PDF for Pertition Project (the 31,072 scientists) tonight because it's a must read for everyone who either believes me or believes the official story.
This is so amazing that I can't even put it into words.
Wednesday, 11. February 2009, 22:23:12
Just click this link and then pretty much all the links on that site, because all the pages on that site, more or less, have Al Gore's name on them.
This, I believe, is the company that Al Gore uses to offset his carbon. If I'm wrong, let me know, but I can't stand reading people preaching shyt that's been proved to be wrong by 31,072 scientists in the US alone. I was up all night, last night, reading the paper they put out with the petition, and I had an early start today, so I'm not feeling up to reading their money making propaganda.
I still can't believe that.
31,072 in the 50 United States ALONE!
And the IPCC have 900 or so from around the world. . .many of which don't even have a degree in the field that the IPCC put them in.
Fuck, even the PhDs (9,021) are more than all the IPCC politicians and scientists put together.
It's funny. That link I just posted you to, that says Al Gore is a member of the Board of Directors of Apple Computer, Inc. Well I've had my iPod since late October and the USB cable (which I haven't used much because the battery life on my iPod is amazing, like 30 something hours) is starting to fray.
I've never trusted Apple or iPods. Always thought they were over-priced pieces of crap. I only bought one because I was going into the business of servicing iPods (much like PodHungry or what ever they're called), so I figured it be best if I knew what I was doing. But then the bank fucked me over. Sorry, I'm digressing.
BTW, linking Al Gore to Apple is pretty amazing because I've actually been looking into building a Hackintosh. I selectet equivilent, or better, parts from Dabs.com, as well as Windows Vista Ult 64-bit (to dual-boot it with), and you can build a Hackintosh with a 1.5TB HDD, 8GB RAM, 2.8GHz Intel Quad Core processor (because the patch only works with Intel processors) and Windows Vista Ult 64-bit for less that half the price of the equivelent Mac Pro (the main difference being the Mac has a 1TB HDD). Over £3,000 that Mac would cost (just look it up), but my Hackintosh would cost under £1,500.
That's another business venture I want to get into. . .building cheap PCs. But I'm digressing again. I do this when I'm tired.
This, I believe, is the company that Al Gore uses to offset his carbon. If I'm wrong, let me know, but I can't stand reading people preaching shyt that's been proved to be wrong by 31,072 scientists in the US alone. I was up all night, last night, reading the paper they put out with the petition, and I had an early start today, so I'm not feeling up to reading their money making propaganda.
I still can't believe that.
31,072 in the 50 United States ALONE!
And the IPCC have 900 or so from around the world. . .many of which don't even have a degree in the field that the IPCC put them in.
Fuck, even the PhDs (9,021) are more than all the IPCC politicians and scientists put together.
It's funny. That link I just posted you to, that says Al Gore is a member of the Board of Directors of Apple Computer, Inc. Well I've had my iPod since late October and the USB cable (which I haven't used much because the battery life on my iPod is amazing, like 30 something hours) is starting to fray.
I've never trusted Apple or iPods. Always thought they were over-priced pieces of crap. I only bought one because I was going into the business of servicing iPods (much like PodHungry or what ever they're called), so I figured it be best if I knew what I was doing. But then the bank fucked me over. Sorry, I'm digressing.
BTW, linking Al Gore to Apple is pretty amazing because I've actually been looking into building a Hackintosh. I selectet equivilent, or better, parts from Dabs.com, as well as Windows Vista Ult 64-bit (to dual-boot it with), and you can build a Hackintosh with a 1.5TB HDD, 8GB RAM, 2.8GHz Intel Quad Core processor (because the patch only works with Intel processors) and Windows Vista Ult 64-bit for less that half the price of the equivelent Mac Pro (the main difference being the Mac has a 1TB HDD). Over £3,000 that Mac would cost (just look it up), but my Hackintosh would cost under £1,500.
That's another business venture I want to get into. . .building cheap PCs. But I'm digressing again. I do this when I'm tired.
Quit call over blocked green ad
Tuesday, 10. February 2009, 23:46:09
This is how one sided the global warming scam has become. People are calling for this politician to hand in his resignation for having an opinion.
It sickens me.
We're meant to be living in a free society. Not some fascist dictatorship where you get no freedom of choice, of speech, of individualism.
This is sick on so many levels.
Just read it.
It sickens me.
We're meant to be living in a free society. Not some fascist dictatorship where you get no freedom of choice, of speech, of individualism.
This is sick on so many levels.
Just read it.
The cost on the Earth of flying from London to Miami, and a little bit of news.
Tuesday, 10. February 2009, 22:15:38
I was looking into flights to Miami, and according to British Airways, each passenger burns 0.746 tonnes of CO2. Now, a fully loaded 747-400(ER (Extended Range)) (the type of plane used) carries around 350 passenger, so if you multiply 350 (the amount of passenger) by 0.746 (how many tonnes of CO2 per passenger) you get 261.1 tonnes.
Ok, so, a fully loaded 747-400(ER) weighs 412,775 KG, so nearly 413 tonnes. Now, I know air crafts use up a lot of fuel, but I don't some how think they use over half their maximum take off weight in fuel, not to get from Heathrow to Miami (4,425 miles (according to American Airlines)), specially since the 747-400(ER)'s range is 8,000 miles. I mean, naturally, one would assume, to double the range, you need to double the fuel. So, you start to understand that the take off weight of a 747-400(ER), travelling 8,000 miles, according to British Airways calculation, would need to be at LEAST 472 tonnes before passengers and luggage. . .if you're going on just the weight of the CO2 in the fuel and not the actual weight of the fuel.
And then, when you factor in how the same volume of CO2 weighs a lot less than the same volume of kerosene (jet fuel), you understand that the minimum take off weight of a 747-400(ER), travelling 8,000 miles, would actually be a LOT more than the 472 tonnes I worked it out to be (going on just CO2).
Some how, I think British Airways are fiddling the books a little. Specially when you look at the price of their offsetting scam. £20.70 for a return. Wow, you can buy a whole forest of seeds for £20.70. Where does the money go??
“Your money will go towards UN certified emission reduction projects.”
Yeah, but who'll get my £20.70 if I buy into this scam??
“The cost of the certified emission reduction price of the offset is based on the market price, which may change from time to time due to supply and demand and also currency exchange rates.
“Morgan Stanley, who are experts in sourcing certified emission reductions, will use your payment to fund a portfolio of projects selected for our customers to support. The cost of these projects is £ 13.90 per tonne”
So, Morgan Stanley will get my £20.70 (which should really be 6p (according to my calculations)). What will they do with my money?? Well, I can't tell you what they'll do with my money because British Airways won't tell me. But personally, I don't trust Morgan Stanley.
Please, people, global warming is a scam. Carbon offsetting is a scam. I mean, Al Gore OWNS a carbon offsetting company. And you thought An Inconsistent Lie. . .sorry, Inconvenient Truth, was him doing something from his heart?? Well I'm sorry to tell you this, but he was doing from his pocket. Simple 'problem, reaction, solution'. They create the problem by brainwash us with a pathetic bullshit story, the reaction is, we're scared, but we don't want to stop flying, so they give us the solution, they tell us that everything will be ok if we pay them every time we fly.
It really doesn't take a climatologist to work it out, people.
On a side note (I might as well put this in this blog instead of starting another one); I'm trying to raise money to make a film on global warming, covering all the things Martin Durkin's excellent film, The Great Global Warming Swindle, didn't dare cover. Exposing Al Gore as not only a liar, but a con man. As well as showing the squaller that the people of Kenya are living in because of action on climate change, much like Martin Durkin did, but also how planned action on climate change under Barack Obama will surely kill the people of his family home, Kenya.
But I need at least £10,000 for it. I'm in talks with one production company at the moment. Will be in talks with another, as well as trying to get help from Nigel Lawson, Christopher Booker and Richard North.
That be all for the moment.
PS. Don't offset, it's a scam that really doesn't do anything.
Ok, so, a fully loaded 747-400(ER) weighs 412,775 KG, so nearly 413 tonnes. Now, I know air crafts use up a lot of fuel, but I don't some how think they use over half their maximum take off weight in fuel, not to get from Heathrow to Miami (4,425 miles (according to American Airlines)), specially since the 747-400(ER)'s range is 8,000 miles. I mean, naturally, one would assume, to double the range, you need to double the fuel. So, you start to understand that the take off weight of a 747-400(ER), travelling 8,000 miles, according to British Airways calculation, would need to be at LEAST 472 tonnes before passengers and luggage. . .if you're going on just the weight of the CO2 in the fuel and not the actual weight of the fuel.
And then, when you factor in how the same volume of CO2 weighs a lot less than the same volume of kerosene (jet fuel), you understand that the minimum take off weight of a 747-400(ER), travelling 8,000 miles, would actually be a LOT more than the 472 tonnes I worked it out to be (going on just CO2).
Some how, I think British Airways are fiddling the books a little. Specially when you look at the price of their offsetting scam. £20.70 for a return. Wow, you can buy a whole forest of seeds for £20.70. Where does the money go??
“Your money will go towards UN certified emission reduction projects.”
Yeah, but who'll get my £20.70 if I buy into this scam??
“The cost of the certified emission reduction price of the offset is based on the market price, which may change from time to time due to supply and demand and also currency exchange rates.
“Morgan Stanley, who are experts in sourcing certified emission reductions, will use your payment to fund a portfolio of projects selected for our customers to support. The cost of these projects is £ 13.90 per tonne”
So, Morgan Stanley will get my £20.70 (which should really be 6p (according to my calculations)). What will they do with my money?? Well, I can't tell you what they'll do with my money because British Airways won't tell me. But personally, I don't trust Morgan Stanley.
Please, people, global warming is a scam. Carbon offsetting is a scam. I mean, Al Gore OWNS a carbon offsetting company. And you thought An Inconsistent Lie. . .sorry, Inconvenient Truth, was him doing something from his heart?? Well I'm sorry to tell you this, but he was doing from his pocket. Simple 'problem, reaction, solution'. They create the problem by brainwash us with a pathetic bullshit story, the reaction is, we're scared, but we don't want to stop flying, so they give us the solution, they tell us that everything will be ok if we pay them every time we fly.
It really doesn't take a climatologist to work it out, people.
On a side note (I might as well put this in this blog instead of starting another one); I'm trying to raise money to make a film on global warming, covering all the things Martin Durkin's excellent film, The Great Global Warming Swindle, didn't dare cover. Exposing Al Gore as not only a liar, but a con man. As well as showing the squaller that the people of Kenya are living in because of action on climate change, much like Martin Durkin did, but also how planned action on climate change under Barack Obama will surely kill the people of his family home, Kenya.
But I need at least £10,000 for it. I'm in talks with one production company at the moment. Will be in talks with another, as well as trying to get help from Nigel Lawson, Christopher Booker and Richard North.
That be all for the moment.
PS. Don't offset, it's a scam that really doesn't do anything.
We Are Winning
Wednesday, 14. January 2009, 17:44:51
While looking for a picture of Al Gore spewing bullshit from his mouth (which I never found), I came across a survey asking people if they believe in global warming.
I HAD to take part in this and give them my views, so I clicked 'no' and said, "I believe in global warming, just not human-made global warming. Well the Earth isn't warming any more. Thanks to a total lack of sunspots. The only time it's happened in the 300 years of recording. And you can see why we're getting reports of the coldest winter in years all around the world at the moment.
"One number says it all. "0.0038%" That's how much of out atmosphere is man-mad CO2. But if you want another number. "95%" That's the percentage of greenhouse gasses that are water vapour (H2O) (oh, and you thought hydrogen powered cars that only emit water vapour were good for the environment, didn't you??).
"You have to remember that CO2 is a natural gas. Humans, and all animals, breathe it out. It helps plants grow. It is to plants what oxygen is to animals. Now Al Gore wants to tax all forms of CO2, that means he wants you to PAY to be able to live. Turning a right into a privilege.
"The question have to ask is, what will they do to you once you can no longer afford to breathe??"
Then I got the redults and this is what it said:
68%
When will the mainstream media learn that we can see through their lie??
PS. I'm wating on the view results for yestersday on that video. I'm sure Google will change the results from the 12th to 1.5k. They don't want people in the UK and the US to see this video. Even though it's clearly in demand. I mean, 8,000 views on less than 24 hours with no promotion. Then 15,000 the next day. Then 21,000 the day after. 44,000 in under three days. But Google have removed it from the most viewed list. They clearly don't want you to see it.
I HAD to take part in this and give them my views, so I clicked 'no' and said, "I believe in global warming, just not human-made global warming. Well the Earth isn't warming any more. Thanks to a total lack of sunspots. The only time it's happened in the 300 years of recording. And you can see why we're getting reports of the coldest winter in years all around the world at the moment.
"One number says it all. "0.0038%" That's how much of out atmosphere is man-mad CO2. But if you want another number. "95%" That's the percentage of greenhouse gasses that are water vapour (H2O) (oh, and you thought hydrogen powered cars that only emit water vapour were good for the environment, didn't you??).
"You have to remember that CO2 is a natural gas. Humans, and all animals, breathe it out. It helps plants grow. It is to plants what oxygen is to animals. Now Al Gore wants to tax all forms of CO2, that means he wants you to PAY to be able to live. Turning a right into a privilege.
"The question have to ask is, what will they do to you once you can no longer afford to breathe??"
Then I got the redults and this is what it said:
68%
When will the mainstream media learn that we can see through their lie??
PS. I'm wating on the view results for yestersday on that video. I'm sure Google will change the results from the 12th to 1.5k. They don't want people in the UK and the US to see this video. Even though it's clearly in demand. I mean, 8,000 views on less than 24 hours with no promotion. Then 15,000 the next day. Then 21,000 the day after. 44,000 in under three days. But Google have removed it from the most viewed list. They clearly don't want you to see it.
I've just worked something out
Wednesday, 14. January 2009, 17:30:46
The DWP (Department for Work and Pensions) keep sending me cold weather payments. . .I say keep sending me them, but I've had two.
Now, the way it works is, if you are on benefits, and the temperature drops below zero C in your area for seven consecutive nights, they give you a gyro for £25.
Well I got my second gyro from them today. My first one says from the 31 Dec 2008 - 06 Jan 2009, the second one says 07 Jan 2009 - 14 Jan 2009.
That means that here in Basingstoke, we haven't had a single day this year that hasn't dropped below zero.
And they say we're in a warming trend??
BULL!!! SHIT!!!
Now, the way it works is, if you are on benefits, and the temperature drops below zero C in your area for seven consecutive nights, they give you a gyro for £25.
Well I got my second gyro from them today. My first one says from the 31 Dec 2008 - 06 Jan 2009, the second one says 07 Jan 2009 - 14 Jan 2009.
That means that here in Basingstoke, we haven't had a single day this year that hasn't dropped below zero.
And they say we're in a warming trend??
BULL!!! SHIT!!!
Google are censoring me
Wednesday, 14. January 2009, 00:38:52
They've removed any views on the hit counter from the UK and US for the first two days.
As you can see, there's about 1.1k on Saturday, yet no views in the UK or US:
There were around 8k views originally world wide.
Sunday is much the same with none of the 1.3k views being in the UK or US:
I'm syked that there's so many views in China and other places -- China mostly -- but this doesn't show the whole picture of how many people have viewed this video. There were originally 15k on this day alone. With the US and UK being a much darker shade of green.
This picture showing Monday is what Saturday and Sunday were looking like before Google removed the views from the UK and US:
The only difference being that the UK WAS a darker colour of green on the the first two days.
This shows that Google have taken notice of this and doesn't want you to see it. So they alter the view counter so it doesn't show up on the front page in the UK and US.
Here's what they don't want you to see:
David Icke and Alex Jones on the front page of Google video.
Show them that the voice of the people will not be censored.
This video HAS had over 44,000 views in just three days without any promotion from me, not the 23,300 they are now telling me it's had.
I'm promoting this video now because I can tell that the public want it. And I can tell that Google doesn't want the public to see it.
Now this isn't just a case of getting David and Alex's message out, it's also a case to show Google that we won't be suppressed.
Give this video to everyone you know. Make Google come to terms with the popularity of David and Alex's message and get it back onto the front page of Google video.
Link for the embed.
~Chris.
As you can see, there's about 1.1k on Saturday, yet no views in the UK or US:
There were around 8k views originally world wide.
Sunday is much the same with none of the 1.3k views being in the UK or US:
I'm syked that there's so many views in China and other places -- China mostly -- but this doesn't show the whole picture of how many people have viewed this video. There were originally 15k on this day alone. With the US and UK being a much darker shade of green.
This picture showing Monday is what Saturday and Sunday were looking like before Google removed the views from the UK and US:
The only difference being that the UK WAS a darker colour of green on the the first two days.
This shows that Google have taken notice of this and doesn't want you to see it. So they alter the view counter so it doesn't show up on the front page in the UK and US.
Here's what they don't want you to see:
David Icke and Alex Jones on the front page of Google video.
Show them that the voice of the people will not be censored.
This video HAS had over 44,000 views in just three days without any promotion from me, not the 23,300 they are now telling me it's had.
I'm promoting this video now because I can tell that the public want it. And I can tell that Google doesn't want the public to see it.
Now this isn't just a case of getting David and Alex's message out, it's also a case to show Google that we won't be suppressed.
Give this video to everyone you know. Make Google come to terms with the popularity of David and Alex's message and get it back onto the front page of Google video.
Link for the embed.
~Chris.
The most watched video on Google at the moment
Tuesday, 13. January 2009, 19:04:52
I uploaded this video on the 10th January 2008. I embedded it to a MySpace bulletin and that was about it. On that day it had over 8,000 views (and I only have 93 friends on MySpace, none of who re-posted it). The day after, it had over 15,000 views. That's over 23,000 views in two days with little to no premotion. Google haven't given me the number of views for the 12th yet, but no doubt it'll be more than 15,000.
It is currently the only Google video, not including YouTube videos, on the Google video front page as you would be able to see here if PhotoBucket.com hadn't compressed the image:
Now it's time to really premote it. I've emailed David Icke to get him to push it, I've sent it to all my friends and family.
This is really important information. Spread it around.
Feel free to download it as normal by clicking here, burn it to disc, spread it around as best you can.
It is currently the only Google video, not including YouTube videos, on the Google video front page as you would be able to see here if PhotoBucket.com hadn't compressed the image:
Now it's time to really premote it. I've emailed David Icke to get him to push it, I've sent it to all my friends and family.
This is really important information. Spread it around.
Feel free to download it as normal by clicking here, burn it to disc, spread it around as best you can.
Exxon supports carbon tax
Monday, 12. January 2009, 22:44:15
Exxon supports carbon tax
Herald News Services
Friday, January 09, 2009
Exxonmobil corp., the world's largest crude oil refiner, supports taxing carbon dioxide as the most efficient way of curbing greenhouse gas emissions, its chief executive said.
I thought Al Gore said that anyone with the backing of Big Oil has to be lying to you.
"As a businessman, it's hard to speak favourably about any new tax, but a carbon tax strikes me as a more direct, more transparent and more effective approach," Rex Tillerson, CEO of the Irving, Texas based company, said Thursday at the Woodrow Wilson international center for scholars in Washington.
This is just a scam. To make you thing, "well if Big Oil are getting behind it it must be true." Well they've been behind it the whole time. Make you believe you have a freedom of choice. Like there's two options. Just like John McCain. The Republican party put out the worst candidate that they could have to make Obama winning the election seem like it was the people who wanted him in.
At a Dec. 11 event in Chicago, Tillerson, 56, said he preferred a carbon tax to carbon trading programs such as the type used in Europe.
I know what, why don't we keep breathing out carbon dioxide and tell the establishment to stick their carbon tax up their arse. I've been over it time and time again, but the figures we're talking about are so small that it's insignificant. 0.0036~8% of the entire atmosphere. 0.4% of the greenhouse gasses. What's the number one greenhouse gas?? WATER VAPOUR!! 95 percent. Where does this water vapour come from?? The oceans.
A trading program, known as 'cap and trade,' "inevitably introduces unnecessary cost and complexity" that reduces effectiveness, said Tillerson. They require a vast expansion of regulation, he said. a carbon tax "can be more easily implemented" and is the "most efficient means of reflecting the cost of carbon," said Tillerson.
This is someone with Big Oil! A member of the dark side according to Al Gore and the IPCC. Well this is FACT that they're two sides of the same coin.
"Such a tax should be made revenue neutral," he said, which requires other taxes to be lowered so that the overall tax burden isn't increased.
Yeah, make us all fall into the same catogory. The poorer companies that can't afford to comply won't be able to pay the same rates of taxes as the bigger companies. Then the bigger companies will buy up all the small companies. This is all just to limmit your choice. Get you into the mindset of 'this or that' and out of the one of 'this, that, that, that, that or this other one'. So they can enforce a globalised fascist dictatorship and you will willingly submit to it. Make you pay for your right to live. Turn it from a right to a privilege.
But the real question is, WHERE will this tax go?? The UN?? The corporations running the UN?? And what will they do with this tax?? They can't pay to make the Earth cooler. Well how's this, maybe they'll put in into produce to sell back to their minions (you and me), making these global rulers even richer, and even more powerful. Like recycling, make you pay for something you GAVE them.
Wake up and smell the fascism, people. When you have oil companies openly calling for a tax that'll put a price on your life, you know, you KNOW that there's something wrong going on.
I'm calling for each and every one of you to go out there, do your own research, make up your own mind on this subject. And not just take my word or the BBC's word or the IPCC's word for it. Because you're life really does depend on it.
Herald News Services
Friday, January 09, 2009
Exxonmobil corp., the world's largest crude oil refiner, supports taxing carbon dioxide as the most efficient way of curbing greenhouse gas emissions, its chief executive said.
I thought Al Gore said that anyone with the backing of Big Oil has to be lying to you.
"As a businessman, it's hard to speak favourably about any new tax, but a carbon tax strikes me as a more direct, more transparent and more effective approach," Rex Tillerson, CEO of the Irving, Texas based company, said Thursday at the Woodrow Wilson international center for scholars in Washington.
This is just a scam. To make you thing, "well if Big Oil are getting behind it it must be true." Well they've been behind it the whole time. Make you believe you have a freedom of choice. Like there's two options. Just like John McCain. The Republican party put out the worst candidate that they could have to make Obama winning the election seem like it was the people who wanted him in.
At a Dec. 11 event in Chicago, Tillerson, 56, said he preferred a carbon tax to carbon trading programs such as the type used in Europe.
I know what, why don't we keep breathing out carbon dioxide and tell the establishment to stick their carbon tax up their arse. I've been over it time and time again, but the figures we're talking about are so small that it's insignificant. 0.0036~8% of the entire atmosphere. 0.4% of the greenhouse gasses. What's the number one greenhouse gas?? WATER VAPOUR!! 95 percent. Where does this water vapour come from?? The oceans.
A trading program, known as 'cap and trade,' "inevitably introduces unnecessary cost and complexity" that reduces effectiveness, said Tillerson. They require a vast expansion of regulation, he said. a carbon tax "can be more easily implemented" and is the "most efficient means of reflecting the cost of carbon," said Tillerson.
This is someone with Big Oil! A member of the dark side according to Al Gore and the IPCC. Well this is FACT that they're two sides of the same coin.
"Such a tax should be made revenue neutral," he said, which requires other taxes to be lowered so that the overall tax burden isn't increased.
Yeah, make us all fall into the same catogory. The poorer companies that can't afford to comply won't be able to pay the same rates of taxes as the bigger companies. Then the bigger companies will buy up all the small companies. This is all just to limmit your choice. Get you into the mindset of 'this or that' and out of the one of 'this, that, that, that, that or this other one'. So they can enforce a globalised fascist dictatorship and you will willingly submit to it. Make you pay for your right to live. Turn it from a right to a privilege.
But the real question is, WHERE will this tax go?? The UN?? The corporations running the UN?? And what will they do with this tax?? They can't pay to make the Earth cooler. Well how's this, maybe they'll put in into produce to sell back to their minions (you and me), making these global rulers even richer, and even more powerful. Like recycling, make you pay for something you GAVE them.
Wake up and smell the fascism, people. When you have oil companies openly calling for a tax that'll put a price on your life, you know, you KNOW that there's something wrong going on.
I'm calling for each and every one of you to go out there, do your own research, make up your own mind on this subject. And not just take my word or the BBC's word or the IPCC's word for it. Because you're life really does depend on it.
Fux News tell the truth for once
Monday, 12. January 2009, 12:30:48
I found this video on Texe Marrs' website. This was the first time I'd been there and I noticed a picture of Al Gore turning into a Goregoil. Makes you laugh. So I had to click on it. And it was basically a link to one of his films called "The Green Barbarians—The Environmentalist Plot to Destroy the Earth and Launch a New Age Holocaust". $20. 60 minutes long. I'm sure it is worth it, but I don't have £15 to spend on a DVD as short as that right now. I'll probably look for it online sometime.
So anyway, once I had clicked on Al Gorgoil's ugly face there was a short YouTube video with a little explination of how many scientists really don't agree with this pseudoscience. Which is really what it is.
Sorry, you should know me by now, I digress. (I'm just reading this over, to make sure it reads ok, and boy, if you think that's digressing, you ain't seen nothing yet. Just wait til you get closer to the video.)
ANYWAY. So this video is the only video to my knowledge that has shown the mainstream media covering the FACT that 30,000 scientists have come out saying that the global warming scam is really just pseudoscience. I believe the man being interviewed (sorry I can't remember his name) says that something like 9,000 of them are PhD. I mean, if you take JUST their PhDs that's still more than all the scientists the IPCC have saying "oh it's the warmest it's been for seven million years". In FACT, half the people on the IPCC, their 1500-2500 or so 'scientists' aren't even scentists. They're people of government. People like Al Goregoil. Like the man being interviewed said, he took one course in CO2 and all of a sudden he's an expert.
Now, to me, he don't sound like no expert, you know what I'm saying?? I mean, let's look over the turm pseudoscience again. "A body of knowledge, methodology, belief, or practice (knowledge, yeah, that's him) that is claimed to be scientific or made to appear scientific (that sounds like him again), but does not adhere to the scientific method ('the debate is over', yeah, got that), lacks supporting evidence (The Mann's 'Hockey Stick' Graph) or plausibility (0.0036~8% making a difference), or otherwise lacks scientific status (one course in CO2 by the man who created the theory of CO2 warming who in the months before he died came out and said he was all wrong)". THAT IS AL GOREGOIL TO A 'T'.
And another thing in the video, right at the end. I mentioned the Mann's 'Hockey Stick' graph just now because they did in the video. I've mentioned it a bit in recent blogs without giving it its name. This is the 23 IPCC computer climate models. The Mann's 'Hockey Stick' graph is what came out of them. Well until their last report when so many of the writers (real scientists) said that it was just a bunch of bull and so the IPCC dumped it. Anyway, the man being interviewed said, right at the end, "you can put anything into it and it'll come out the same". Just what I told you two blogs back. The one called Heat may spark world food crisis. You see, I look into the science of it. I read up on all the facts. The BBC don't count on you doing that. They just say, "the top 1500 scentists say it's happening, a corporation that's taking the tax payers' money say it's happening, well, it must be happening. Now over to Jenny for the weather." "Thanks, Huge, well, it's gonna be 10 below zero for most of the UK for the next week." At most they will go, "Here's a lump of ice in the Antarctic, it's melting." So what it's melting?? It melts every year. Like leaves falling in Autumn. And they'll flip the story from one end of the Earth to the other every six months. They don't count on you realising that when the southern ice cap is melting the northern one is freezing back and vice versa. Which is why they only show the Antarctic in October to March and only show the Arctic in April to September. I've correcly predicted the media's change from north to south to north again three times in the year and a half that I've been studying this. It's so simple that winthin a week of starting to study it I had said that it was gonna happen in September to October 2007 and sure enough, two months later they had done it (I started my studying in July 2007 BTW. The 22nd to be exact).
Once you get out of the mindset that the media has got you in, one of "oh, it's all the same, Arctic, Antarctic, same thing. It's going on all year round. There's some ice and it's melting" you can start to predict their moves before they do them. It's like a game of chess. They're one step ahead of the general population. Well I'm one step ahead of them and I've proved that in my blogs. Typing out what the BBC are gonna say before I'd even read it. The mainstream media are more predicable than some porely written soap opera. You just have to understand their mindset. How they minipulate the truth. Cover the stories about the household names like Al Goregoil and the UN and their 1500 scientists, and leave out the real stories about how 2000% more scientists (do the math) are saying that the IPCC are blowing this whole thing out of preportion.
It's pseudoscience, and the media are miming from the same songsheet as every other establishment. Well I'm stoping the music and exposing them.
My little rant has gone on enough. I'm sure ya'll get where I'm coming from now. And if you don't, you ain't been listening.
Here's the video from Fux News.
BTW, if you were wondering what Al Goregoil looked like in the picture. Here it is.
I'm sure Texe Marrs doesn't mind me hot-linking it. All in the name of exposing the lies.
As always, spread this info far and wide.
So anyway, once I had clicked on Al Gorgoil's ugly face there was a short YouTube video with a little explination of how many scientists really don't agree with this pseudoscience. Which is really what it is.
A body of knowledge, methodology, belief, or practice that is claimed to be scientific or made to appear scientific, but does not adhere to the scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, or otherwise lacks scientific status.
Sorry, you should know me by now, I digress. (I'm just reading this over, to make sure it reads ok, and boy, if you think that's digressing, you ain't seen nothing yet. Just wait til you get closer to the video.)
ANYWAY. So this video is the only video to my knowledge that has shown the mainstream media covering the FACT that 30,000 scientists have come out saying that the global warming scam is really just pseudoscience. I believe the man being interviewed (sorry I can't remember his name) says that something like 9,000 of them are PhD. I mean, if you take JUST their PhDs that's still more than all the scientists the IPCC have saying "oh it's the warmest it's been for seven million years". In FACT, half the people on the IPCC, their 1500-2500 or so 'scientists' aren't even scentists. They're people of government. People like Al Goregoil. Like the man being interviewed said, he took one course in CO2 and all of a sudden he's an expert.
Now, to me, he don't sound like no expert, you know what I'm saying?? I mean, let's look over the turm pseudoscience again. "A body of knowledge, methodology, belief, or practice (knowledge, yeah, that's him) that is claimed to be scientific or made to appear scientific (that sounds like him again), but does not adhere to the scientific method ('the debate is over', yeah, got that), lacks supporting evidence (The Mann's 'Hockey Stick' Graph) or plausibility (0.0036~8% making a difference), or otherwise lacks scientific status (one course in CO2 by the man who created the theory of CO2 warming who in the months before he died came out and said he was all wrong)". THAT IS AL GOREGOIL TO A 'T'.
And another thing in the video, right at the end. I mentioned the Mann's 'Hockey Stick' graph just now because they did in the video. I've mentioned it a bit in recent blogs without giving it its name. This is the 23 IPCC computer climate models. The Mann's 'Hockey Stick' graph is what came out of them. Well until their last report when so many of the writers (real scientists) said that it was just a bunch of bull and so the IPCC dumped it. Anyway, the man being interviewed said, right at the end, "you can put anything into it and it'll come out the same". Just what I told you two blogs back. The one called Heat may spark world food crisis. You see, I look into the science of it. I read up on all the facts. The BBC don't count on you doing that. They just say, "the top 1500 scentists say it's happening, a corporation that's taking the tax payers' money say it's happening, well, it must be happening. Now over to Jenny for the weather." "Thanks, Huge, well, it's gonna be 10 below zero for most of the UK for the next week." At most they will go, "Here's a lump of ice in the Antarctic, it's melting." So what it's melting?? It melts every year. Like leaves falling in Autumn. And they'll flip the story from one end of the Earth to the other every six months. They don't count on you realising that when the southern ice cap is melting the northern one is freezing back and vice versa. Which is why they only show the Antarctic in October to March and only show the Arctic in April to September. I've correcly predicted the media's change from north to south to north again three times in the year and a half that I've been studying this. It's so simple that winthin a week of starting to study it I had said that it was gonna happen in September to October 2007 and sure enough, two months later they had done it (I started my studying in July 2007 BTW. The 22nd to be exact).
Once you get out of the mindset that the media has got you in, one of "oh, it's all the same, Arctic, Antarctic, same thing. It's going on all year round. There's some ice and it's melting" you can start to predict their moves before they do them. It's like a game of chess. They're one step ahead of the general population. Well I'm one step ahead of them and I've proved that in my blogs. Typing out what the BBC are gonna say before I'd even read it. The mainstream media are more predicable than some porely written soap opera. You just have to understand their mindset. How they minipulate the truth. Cover the stories about the household names like Al Goregoil and the UN and their 1500 scientists, and leave out the real stories about how 2000% more scientists (do the math) are saying that the IPCC are blowing this whole thing out of preportion.
It's pseudoscience, and the media are miming from the same songsheet as every other establishment. Well I'm stoping the music and exposing them.
My little rant has gone on enough. I'm sure ya'll get where I'm coming from now. And if you don't, you ain't been listening.
Here's the video from Fux News.
BTW, if you were wondering what Al Goregoil looked like in the picture. Here it is.
I'm sure Texe Marrs doesn't mind me hot-linking it. All in the name of exposing the lies.
As always, spread this info far and wide.
The Great Global Warming Swindle (complete with bonus features)
Sunday, 11. January 2009, 18:24:04
This is the full Great Global Warming Swindle along with bonas features from the DVD.
As normal, click the link to embed elsewhere or download for iPod or PSP, or to watch on your PC in your own time.
Enjoy.
As normal, click the link to embed elsewhere or download for iPod or PSP, or to watch on your PC in your own time.
Enjoy.
Heat may spark world food crisis
Sunday, 11. January 2009, 18:04:06
After a couple of lines you can see why I don't post articles from the BBC much anymore, but this one was too important not to.
I will upload some more videos to my Google video account today and post them once they're all uploaded. I have uploaded a complete version of The Great Global Warming Swindle (along with bonus features from the DVD) and will post that to replace the version I already have up.
I will upload some more videos to my Google video account today and post them once they're all uploaded. I have uploaded a complete version of The Great Global Warming Swindle (along with bonus features from the DVD) and will post that to replace the version I already have up.
Global Cooling is really Global Warming
Friday, 9. January 2009, 22:06:07
Make sure you open the PDF file or else this whole thing won't make any sense because the figures are missing from this article. You can read the whole thing in the PDF, but there's a couple of links to articles (some of which I've posted) at the bottom of the post.
Later on I will post a short article (from the 1st Jan 2009) about how the ice levels at the end of 2008 were the same as they were in 1979.
There's just so much going on in the global warming / cooling scene at the moment what with all the record lows, record snow, and record areas of ice over Antarctica. And over all these facts the establishment are fighting to blame it on global warming caused by carbon dioxide. Pushing for their carbon tax. Pushing for their tax on your life. Trying to convince you that carbon dioxide is a bad thing even though you breathe it out. They want to tax you for every breath you take. And if you can't afford to pay for it they will kill you. All in the name of saving the planet from a mythical, evil force that's really a key part of the ecosystem.
The real things we need to save the planet from is people like Al Gore, Barack Obama and the people dictating this lie to them.
Connect the dots to know the truth.
Research Martin Durkin's work.
Research Nigel Lawson's work.
Research Timothy Ball's work.
Research Alex Jones' work.
Research David Icke's work.
Read Orwell's 1984 and Animal Farm.
Get the truth out.
We can defeat this tyrannical world government that the establishment is pushing for.
Side note: Orwell was in the Spanish military and secret Indian police force. David Icke has been researching this information for 20 years. They both worked for the BBC before they came to realise the truth. The underlining truth being that just because the mainstream media tell you something is happening it doesn't mean that it is, and equally that just because they're telling you something is not happening it doesn't mean that it isn't.
I've read literally hundreds of global warming articles, both the official story and articles against the official story and I can see the lies in the official story. I can see that global warming isn't caused by carbon dioxide or any other man-made substance. I can see that it's the sun that caused it. I can see that it's no longer happening. I can see the doublethink in the mainstream news articles. All it takes is a little common sense.
The mainstream media has brainwashed you into believing that carbon creates warming. Then when a news channel features two contradicting stories back to back about the coldest winter in 30 years and then one about a submarine that measures the thickness of the Arctic ice cap to help them know how much the sea levels are going to rise[1][2][3] (like the BBC in the south of England did yesterday (story to come)), you instantly take the global warming story as FACT, and not question it despite the previous story about how we're having winters as cold as they were in the 1970's (when the official line was global cooling).
Orwell didn't create doublethink. It had been going on for centuries before he was even born. He was taught it at the BBC. He just made it public and gave it a name.
[1] The Arctic is getting thicker (see figure 4 in the PDF).
[2] Claim That Sea Level Is Rising Is a Total Fraud [PDF]
[3] "H2O expands as it freezes and contracts when it mels, dispacing the same amount in either state. So if the ice caps did melt the sea levels wouldn't rise what so ever." (The Book of Useless Information)
Later on I will post a short article (from the 1st Jan 2009) about how the ice levels at the end of 2008 were the same as they were in 1979.
There's just so much going on in the global warming / cooling scene at the moment what with all the record lows, record snow, and record areas of ice over Antarctica. And over all these facts the establishment are fighting to blame it on global warming caused by carbon dioxide. Pushing for their carbon tax. Pushing for their tax on your life. Trying to convince you that carbon dioxide is a bad thing even though you breathe it out. They want to tax you for every breath you take. And if you can't afford to pay for it they will kill you. All in the name of saving the planet from a mythical, evil force that's really a key part of the ecosystem.
The real things we need to save the planet from is people like Al Gore, Barack Obama and the people dictating this lie to them.
Connect the dots to know the truth.
Research Martin Durkin's work.
Research Nigel Lawson's work.
Research Timothy Ball's work.
Research Alex Jones' work.
Research David Icke's work.
Read Orwell's 1984 and Animal Farm.
Get the truth out.
We can defeat this tyrannical world government that the establishment is pushing for.
Side note: Orwell was in the Spanish military and secret Indian police force. David Icke has been researching this information for 20 years. They both worked for the BBC before they came to realise the truth. The underlining truth being that just because the mainstream media tell you something is happening it doesn't mean that it is, and equally that just because they're telling you something is not happening it doesn't mean that it isn't.
I've read literally hundreds of global warming articles, both the official story and articles against the official story and I can see the lies in the official story. I can see that global warming isn't caused by carbon dioxide or any other man-made substance. I can see that it's the sun that caused it. I can see that it's no longer happening. I can see the doublethink in the mainstream news articles. All it takes is a little common sense.
The mainstream media has brainwashed you into believing that carbon creates warming. Then when a news channel features two contradicting stories back to back about the coldest winter in 30 years and then one about a submarine that measures the thickness of the Arctic ice cap to help them know how much the sea levels are going to rise[1][2][3] (like the BBC in the south of England did yesterday (story to come)), you instantly take the global warming story as FACT, and not question it despite the previous story about how we're having winters as cold as they were in the 1970's (when the official line was global cooling).
Orwell didn't create doublethink. It had been going on for centuries before he was even born. He was taught it at the BBC. He just made it public and gave it a name.
[1] The Arctic is getting thicker (see figure 4 in the PDF).
[2] Claim That Sea Level Is Rising Is a Total Fraud [PDF]
[3] "H2O expands as it freezes and contracts when it mels, dispacing the same amount in either state. So if the ice caps did melt the sea levels wouldn't rise what so ever." (The Book of Useless Information)
The Paper Trail.
Wednesday, 7. January 2009, 23:07:40
Unlike Oil and metal, wood, or rather trees, are a natural living thing. So you can't talk about deforestation in the same way as you talk about peek oil (if there is such a thing).
Like all living things, trees reproduce. It happens. It's nature. Like how they show monkeys humping on Animal Planet. All living things ever do is reproduce. No matter which of the three lifeforms one talks about (plant, animal or bacteria). All we ever do is reproduce to gain dominance for the future and then die. Humans are probably the one exception to this law of living.
We try to make something of this thing we call life. And for the most parts we have. We're totally different from the rest of the animal kingdom. But we still hold the same basic laws and rules. And when we look at life, wild life, we only see the differences, and overlook the similarities. There are two theories why this is:
The first being that we are so much more advanced and superior than other animals that we cannot possibly have anything in common with them.
The second being that we've advanced so much that we've gone beyond nature and are doing everything we do naturally in the wrong way. And feel that animals can't do what we do.
Both of these theories are wrong.
The differences we see in the plant world go far beyond this. We see plant life as a thing, an object, something that'll disappear if we use it too much like oil or gold. We don't see any of the similarities we as humans hold with plants.
All lifeforms on Earth do the same five basic things. We eat, drink, breathe, reproduce, and die.
Humans and domesticated animals do have one slight exception to this. Some humans and domesticated animals don't reproduce because of personal choices (or choices of their owners in the case of domesticated animals).
Plant life, wild plant life, don't have a choice when it comes reproduction. They just do it. Domestically, if you plant two plants of the same species next to each other they will reproduce. That's how 'sexed up' plants are.
Another thing plants tend to do is that they can grow from a cutting. If you cut a branch off your plant at an angle, cultivate it (leave it on a damp cloth until a shoot sprouts), then plant that, it will be able to grow into a full sized plant like the one it was cut from. It's called 'topping', I believe. With this, you can grow many plants from just one seed. In fact most people who grow marijuana do this to increase profit from one seed.
Plants can't help but grow. There for, they can't die out. And thus, deforestation is not a problem.
The matter of Carbon Dioxide.
As carbon dioxide is a natural gas, exhaled by all animals, humans included, there is no chance of it running out any time soon. Plants breathe carbon dioxide in much the same way animals breathe oxygen. There is far less carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than oxygen, but plants will make do with that 0.038% and turn it into more oxygen. But as long as animals are breathing, there's no chance of plants not growing.
Recycling is pointless. The plants aren't going to die out on a mass scale any time soon. Paper is so biodegradable that within a few years it can be turned to mush. And that process speeds up if you reduce the size of the paper (by shredding it). The carbon dioxide emitted from it is no more than it would be if the plant had died and decomposed naturally and far less than recycling it.
The only thing recycling is good for is making money. But not you. What you give to be recycled is sold on to be processed, once processed it's sold on again as new paper, which is then sold back to you in form of a book, toilet paper, printer paper, packaging, all ready for you to give away once again for it to be sold back to you. It's literally a licence to print money. Or as the Narrator in Fight Club said, 'it was beautiful, we were selling rich women their fat asses back to them'. He said it about soap made from fat stolen from a liposuction clinic, but the theory is the same, if not more repetitive with recycling. You see, in Fight Club the process ended with the soap being bought. With recycling the process carries on until the consumer (you) realises that you're being conned.
What I have written I've written with a basic education in science and something that's taught to all children between the ages of 11 and 16 in the UK (well apart from the bits about marijuana, Fight Club and recycling which I have learnt from growing marijuana myself, watching the mainstream media and picking up on bits people tend to skip and a little common sense). I don't claim to have a PhD. I don't even have anything on paper. What I do have is basic knowledge – something everyone should have – and common sense – something no one seems to use any more.
Like all living things, trees reproduce. It happens. It's nature. Like how they show monkeys humping on Animal Planet. All living things ever do is reproduce. No matter which of the three lifeforms one talks about (plant, animal or bacteria). All we ever do is reproduce to gain dominance for the future and then die. Humans are probably the one exception to this law of living.
We try to make something of this thing we call life. And for the most parts we have. We're totally different from the rest of the animal kingdom. But we still hold the same basic laws and rules. And when we look at life, wild life, we only see the differences, and overlook the similarities. There are two theories why this is:
The first being that we are so much more advanced and superior than other animals that we cannot possibly have anything in common with them.
The second being that we've advanced so much that we've gone beyond nature and are doing everything we do naturally in the wrong way. And feel that animals can't do what we do.
Both of these theories are wrong.
The differences we see in the plant world go far beyond this. We see plant life as a thing, an object, something that'll disappear if we use it too much like oil or gold. We don't see any of the similarities we as humans hold with plants.
All lifeforms on Earth do the same five basic things. We eat, drink, breathe, reproduce, and die.
Humans and domesticated animals do have one slight exception to this. Some humans and domesticated animals don't reproduce because of personal choices (or choices of their owners in the case of domesticated animals).
Plant life, wild plant life, don't have a choice when it comes reproduction. They just do it. Domestically, if you plant two plants of the same species next to each other they will reproduce. That's how 'sexed up' plants are.
Another thing plants tend to do is that they can grow from a cutting. If you cut a branch off your plant at an angle, cultivate it (leave it on a damp cloth until a shoot sprouts), then plant that, it will be able to grow into a full sized plant like the one it was cut from. It's called 'topping', I believe. With this, you can grow many plants from just one seed. In fact most people who grow marijuana do this to increase profit from one seed.
Plants can't help but grow. There for, they can't die out. And thus, deforestation is not a problem.
The matter of Carbon Dioxide.
As carbon dioxide is a natural gas, exhaled by all animals, humans included, there is no chance of it running out any time soon. Plants breathe carbon dioxide in much the same way animals breathe oxygen. There is far less carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than oxygen, but plants will make do with that 0.038% and turn it into more oxygen. But as long as animals are breathing, there's no chance of plants not growing.
Recycling is pointless. The plants aren't going to die out on a mass scale any time soon. Paper is so biodegradable that within a few years it can be turned to mush. And that process speeds up if you reduce the size of the paper (by shredding it). The carbon dioxide emitted from it is no more than it would be if the plant had died and decomposed naturally and far less than recycling it.
The only thing recycling is good for is making money. But not you. What you give to be recycled is sold on to be processed, once processed it's sold on again as new paper, which is then sold back to you in form of a book, toilet paper, printer paper, packaging, all ready for you to give away once again for it to be sold back to you. It's literally a licence to print money. Or as the Narrator in Fight Club said, 'it was beautiful, we were selling rich women their fat asses back to them'. He said it about soap made from fat stolen from a liposuction clinic, but the theory is the same, if not more repetitive with recycling. You see, in Fight Club the process ended with the soap being bought. With recycling the process carries on until the consumer (you) realises that you're being conned.
What I have written I've written with a basic education in science and something that's taught to all children between the ages of 11 and 16 in the UK (well apart from the bits about marijuana, Fight Club and recycling which I have learnt from growing marijuana myself, watching the mainstream media and picking up on bits people tend to skip and a little common sense). I don't claim to have a PhD. I don't even have anything on paper. What I do have is basic knowledge – something everyone should have – and common sense – something no one seems to use any more.
More Arctic temperatures to come
Tuesday, 6. January 2009, 22:49:53
More Arctic temperatures to come
Page last updated at 23:20 GMT, Monday, 5 January 2009
The New Year Arctic weather has brought sub-zero temperatures and disruption to many parts of the UK, and more freezing conditions are expected overnight.
Roads and schools have been affected, and some flights were hit at Birmingham and Luton airports.
Temperatures in some areas plummeted as low as -8C (17.6F) and were expected to hit -10C (14F) overnight, BBC weather forecaster Peter Gibbs said.
Pensioners have been warned to take extra precautions to stay warm.
Parts of northern Scotland experienced the lowest temperatures on Sunday night at -8C, parts of Oxfordshire saw -7C (19.4F), and Wales and south-east England recorded -5C (23F).
"It felt particularly cold across England and Wales because of the strong wind from the North East - Arctic air originating from Russia and Scandinavia," said Mr Gibbs.
School closures
Flights were suspended for 90 minutes at Birmingham International Airport early on Monday, but the runway has reopened.
Snow meant the runway had to be closed at Luton Airport for a similar length of time, leading to some flights being diverted.
In Wales, a number of roads and schools were affected and the drop in temperatures saw a rise in the number of people treated in hospitals for falls on ice.
The start of the new term was delayed for some pupils in Gloucestershire where 15 schools were closed. Some schools in Kent were also shut.
Meanwhile, in Lincolnshire a 30-year-old woman was killed when her car ended up in the path of a train at a level crossing during the icy conditions.
The AA expected to be called to more than 20,000 motoring breakdowns by the end of Monday.
"The cold weather has combined with the return to work and schools making it a very busy day - most of the extra workload is home starts with flat batteries being the most common call-out," an AA spokesman said.
On Monday, motoring organisations reported a 100% increase in the number of call-outs they had to go to.
Gritters are out on roads across the UK spreading thousands of tonnes of salt overnight.
Forecasters say it is expected to get even colder on Monday night, with temperatures hitting -10C in some places.
But that is still a long way off the record low of -27C (-16.6F) in northern Scotland 14 years ago.
The Met Office has issued an advance weather warning for parts of south-east England, with icy conditions expected.
The Welsh Valleys, the West Midlands and north-west England will also be badly affected, the BBC Weather Centre said.
Vulnerable people
Pensioners have been advised to take extra precautions to stay warm during the icy spell.
Age Concern's director general Gordon Lishman said: "With predictions of more snow and freezing temperatures this week we are urging vulnerable older people, who are more susceptible to the cold, to take extra precautions to stay warm and keep active."
Some £5bn of benefits were still going unclaimed despite some of the poorest pensioners struggling to afford essentials such as food and heating, he added.
The government said 2.5 million cold weather payments had already been made.
The current cold period is expected to ease later in the week.
The BBC Weather Centre said Scotland would experience a milder day on Tuesday, with the cloudier weather then spreading to the rest of the UK.
"It will get less cold," said Mr Gibbs. "By the end of the week we will reach 4C (39.2F) to 6C (42.8) - but still below average for most of us."
It's the coldest winter for 30 years according to my local news. I don't know how Al Gore can come back at weather like this. Just think, when we last had a winter this cold the media were threating of a new ice age.
I think I might blog that page on Wiki that I just linked you to because it's a mirror image of what is happening with the "global warming" scam.
Page last updated at 23:20 GMT, Monday, 5 January 2009
The New Year Arctic weather has brought sub-zero temperatures and disruption to many parts of the UK, and more freezing conditions are expected overnight.
Roads and schools have been affected, and some flights were hit at Birmingham and Luton airports.
Temperatures in some areas plummeted as low as -8C (17.6F) and were expected to hit -10C (14F) overnight, BBC weather forecaster Peter Gibbs said.
Pensioners have been warned to take extra precautions to stay warm.
Parts of northern Scotland experienced the lowest temperatures on Sunday night at -8C, parts of Oxfordshire saw -7C (19.4F), and Wales and south-east England recorded -5C (23F).
"It felt particularly cold across England and Wales because of the strong wind from the North East - Arctic air originating from Russia and Scandinavia," said Mr Gibbs.
School closures
Flights were suspended for 90 minutes at Birmingham International Airport early on Monday, but the runway has reopened.
Snow meant the runway had to be closed at Luton Airport for a similar length of time, leading to some flights being diverted.
In Wales, a number of roads and schools were affected and the drop in temperatures saw a rise in the number of people treated in hospitals for falls on ice.
The start of the new term was delayed for some pupils in Gloucestershire where 15 schools were closed. Some schools in Kent were also shut.
Meanwhile, in Lincolnshire a 30-year-old woman was killed when her car ended up in the path of a train at a level crossing during the icy conditions.
The AA expected to be called to more than 20,000 motoring breakdowns by the end of Monday.
"The cold weather has combined with the return to work and schools making it a very busy day - most of the extra workload is home starts with flat batteries being the most common call-out," an AA spokesman said.
On Monday, motoring organisations reported a 100% increase in the number of call-outs they had to go to.
Gritters are out on roads across the UK spreading thousands of tonnes of salt overnight.
Forecasters say it is expected to get even colder on Monday night, with temperatures hitting -10C in some places.
But that is still a long way off the record low of -27C (-16.6F) in northern Scotland 14 years ago.
The Met Office has issued an advance weather warning for parts of south-east England, with icy conditions expected.
The Welsh Valleys, the West Midlands and north-west England will also be badly affected, the BBC Weather Centre said.
Vulnerable people
Pensioners have been advised to take extra precautions to stay warm during the icy spell.
Age Concern's director general Gordon Lishman said: "With predictions of more snow and freezing temperatures this week we are urging vulnerable older people, who are more susceptible to the cold, to take extra precautions to stay warm and keep active."
Some £5bn of benefits were still going unclaimed despite some of the poorest pensioners struggling to afford essentials such as food and heating, he added.
The government said 2.5 million cold weather payments had already been made.
The current cold period is expected to ease later in the week.
The BBC Weather Centre said Scotland would experience a milder day on Tuesday, with the cloudier weather then spreading to the rest of the UK.
"It will get less cold," said Mr Gibbs. "By the end of the week we will reach 4C (39.2F) to 6C (42.8) - but still below average for most of us."
It's the coldest winter for 30 years according to my local news. I don't know how Al Gore can come back at weather like this. Just think, when we last had a winter this cold the media were threating of a new ice age.
I think I might blog that page on Wiki that I just linked you to because it's a mirror image of what is happening with the "global warming" scam.
More Real Inconvenient Truths for Al Gore
Thursday, 1. January 2009, 20:38:09
31,072 American scientists have signed this petition,
including 9,021 with PhDs
http://www.petitionproject.org/
Showing posts 1 - 20 of 70.
Latest comments
-
anonymous
-
Ok, I've done my own comparison on the site that's linked to the ...
-
Oh, I've been calling for a week long boycott of Google products ...
-
anonymous
Anonymous writes: As you know Google has removed all their best ...
-
anonymous
Anonymous writes: As you know Google has removed all their best ...
-
Fuck, you don't even have to Google what I told you to, you can ...
Poll
Do you believe in anthropogenic (man-made) global warming??
- Yes, I believe every word Al Gore and the BBC say about it.
(0%)
- I don't really have a view on it. (25%)
- No, it just doesn't add up to me. (75%)
Total: 4 votes
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 June 2009August 2009
| ||||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | ||
Latest blog posts
- Antarctic Sea Ice Up Over 43% Since 1980, Where Is The Media?
- Truly we are governed these days by stark, raving lunacy. . .
- BBC abandons 'impartiality' on warming
- The final nail in the global warming coffin.
- Failure hits Nasa's 'CO2 hunter'
- This is so amazing that I can't even put it into words.
- Quit call over blocked green ad
- The cost on the Earth of flying from London to Miami, and a little bit of news.
- We Are Winning
- I've just worked something out
Tags
Recent visitors
WIDGETIZE
A proud member of the My Opera community. | Help | Disclaimer
| Terms of service
Web analytics powered by HitsLink