| Author |
Topic |
|
Drafters
USA
0 Posts |
 Posted - 03/01/2007 : 09:53:30 AM
|
| Ghost, I first read about it week or so ago. They are storing seeds in a vault in Alaska (I think) so when another mass extinction occurs they can revegitate the planet. Of course that plan only works if mankind doesn't become extinct also. |
 |
|
|
Drafters
USA
0 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2007 : 11:04:48 AM
|
Here is a global temp chart covering the past 2000 years and you can scroll you mouse across it to see what the temps were at various times in the past. Keep in mind the predicted temps for 2010 and beyond are based on computer models that to date have never accurately predicted anything. Also, if this chart went back farther in time you would find temps higher then what they are today.
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2007-02-27-scientists-un_x.htm?csp=24 |
Edited by - Drafters on 03/01/2007 11:08:52 AM |
|
|
|
Axis Of Evil
USA
0 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2007 : 3:08:25 PM
|
So based on this view I should have not replaced the grey smoke producing engine in my truck, that I rarely drive, with a more modern and efficient one? I should not be concerned with the emissions and our carbon footprint? Global warming is all nonsense and I should feel free to pollute as much as I see fit?
You can pick and choose the science you like but I can't help but think that those so opposed to even entertaining the idea of climate change have the attitude of "I'll do what I want and stick with my old habits and if you don't like it then tough sh!t!"
It is safe to say that back before the Industrial Revolution the Earth was "in balance." Then add the huge amount of emmissions from humans. How does that not have an effect? If I hear Rush Limbaugh say one more time "the Earth is so enormous, how naive of us to think we can affect it" then I am going to lose it. Our atmosphere is paper thin compared to the mass of the Earth, if you think about it. There is nothing wrong with being concerned over what is an unnatural state for the Earth, namely being de-forested and having global burning continuously for hundreds of years.
Nobody wants to sacrifice anything. Even if our impact was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be negatively affecting the climate, human nature is greedy. Let someone else change their habits and lifestyle, not me. If I can afford to turn my heat up high enough to wear shorts in my house when it is ten degrees outside then I have that right.
|
|
|
|
Drafters
USA
0 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2007 : 4:47:10 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Axis Of Evil
So based on this view I should have not replaced the grey smoke producing engine in my truck, that I rarely drive, with a more modern and efficient one? I should not be concerned with the emissions and our carbon footprint? Global warming is all nonsense and I should feel free to pollute as much as I see fit? No,and, it's still an evil, earth kiling truck
You can pick and choose the science you like but I can't help but think that those so opposed to even entertaining the idea of climate change have the attitude of "I'll do what I want and stick with my old habits and if you don't like it then tough sh!t!" There is no real science supporting manmade caused global warming theory. The amount of polution we are emitting has been greatly reduced in the past 40 year and step are in place to further reduce those emission without causing hardship on billions of people.
It is safe to say that back before the Industrial Revolution the Earth was "in balance." Then add the huge amount of emmissions from humans. How does that not have an effect? If I hear Rush Limbaugh say one more time "the Earth is so enormous, how naive of us to think we can affect it" then I am going to lose it. Our atmosphere is paper thin compared to the mass of the Earth, if you think about it. There is nothing wrong with being concerned over what is an unnatural state for the Earth, namely being de-forested and having global burning continuously for hundreds of years. Before the Industrial age life was not real good for the majority of people, especially that 500 year period know as the Little Ice Age when tens of millions died from the Black Death and starvation. Nuclear power is the most environmentaly friendly soure of large scale electrical generation but the eco-extremists killed it.
Nobody wants to sacrifice anything. Even if our impact was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be negatively affecting the climate, human nature is greedy. Let someone else change their habits and lifestyle, not me. If I can afford to turn my heat up high enough to wear shorts in my house when it is ten degrees outside then I have that right. I don't turn the thermostat on my gas furnace over 66 degress and I drive daily a 4 cyclinder car that meets the government highest emission standards.
|
Edited by - Drafters on 03/01/2007 4:50:10 PM |
|
|
|
Drafters
USA
0 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2007 : 4:58:35 PM
|
When you act on fear and emotion the results can be deadly. Even though DDT has been proven safe to humans and animals it is still banned. Malaria, which had almost been eradicated because of DDT, is now causing millions of people to suffer or die each year and mostly in the 3rd world countries. Every 15 seconds a child dies from malaria. This is the leagacy of the eco-extremists and their junk science. Rachel Carson and the scientest who conducted what we now know was a bogus study of DDT deserves to be found guilty of crimes against humanity.
How many people will die from heat or cold because of the manmade caused global warming hysteria??? |
Edited by - Drafters on 03/01/2007 5:00:17 PM |
|
|
|
bruskiracing
US
0 Posts |
Posted - 03/02/2007 : 12:53:09 AM
|
| All his fuss about global warming when we have the switch that can reverse it available at moments notice. Just how many warheads does it take to induce nuclear winter? |
|
|
|
Drafters
USA
0 Posts |
|
|
Drafters
USA
0 Posts |
Posted - 03/02/2007 : 09:23:33 AM
|
Legacy Of The Eco-Extremists
Intoduction To Silent Spring (1994 Edition) by Vice President Al Gore
"Writing about Silent Spring is a humbling experience for an elected official, because Rachel Carson's landmark book offers undeniable proof that the power of an idea can be far greater than the power of politicians......except for a few scattered entries in largely inaccessible scientific journals, there was virtually no public dialogue about the growing, invisible dangers of DDT and other pesticides and chemicals. Silent Spring came as a cry in the wilderness, a deeply felt, thoroughly researched, and brilliantly written argument that changed the course of history.".....
http://clinton2.nara.gov/WH/EOP/OVP/24hours/carson.html
"In 1962, when Rachel Carson published her book Silent Spring, I was delighted. I belonged to several environmental-type organizations, had no feelings of respect for industry or big business, had one of my own books published by the Sierra Club, and I had written articles for The Indiana Waltonian, Audubon Magazine, and other environmental magazines.......As I neared the middle of the book, the feeling grew in my mind that Rachel Carson was really playing loose with the facts and was also deliberately wording many sentences in such a way as to make them imply certain things without actually saying them. She was carefully omitting everything that failed to support her thesis that pesticides were bad, that industry was bad, and that any scientists who did not support her views were bad.
I then took notice of her bibliography and realized that it was filled with references from very unscientific sources. Also, each reference was cited separately each time it appeared in the book, thus producing an impressive array of “references” even though not many different sources were actually cited. I began to lose confidence in Rachel Carson, even though I thought that as an environmentalist I really should continue to support her.
I next looked up some of the references that Carson cited and quickly found that they did not support her contentions about the harm caused by pesticides. When leading scientists began to publish harsh criticisms of her methods and her allegations, it slowly dawned on me that Rachel Carson was not interested in the truth about those topics, and that I really was being duped, along with millions of other Americans."........
Carson says arsenic is a carcinogen (identified from chimney soot) and mentions a great many horrible ways in which it is violently poisonous to vertebrates. She then says (page 18): “Modern insecticides are still more deadly,” and she makes a special mention of DDT as an example.
This implication that DDT is horribly deadly is completely false. Human volunteers have ingested as much as 35 milligrams of it a day for nearly two years and suffered no adverse affects. Millions of people have lived with DDT intimately during the mosquito spray programs and nobody even got sick as a result. The National Academy of Sciences concluded in 1965 that “in a little more than two decades, DDT has prevented 500 million [human] deaths that would otherwise have been inevitable.” The World Health Organization stated that DDT had “killed more insects and saved more people than any other substance.” A leading British scientist pointed out that “If the pressure groups had succeeded, if there had been a world ban on DDT, then Rachel Carson and Silent Spring would now be killing more people in a single year than Hitler killed in his whole holocaust.”
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/summ02/Carson.html
|
Edited by - Drafters on 03/02/2007 09:30:18 AM |
|
|
|
Drafters
USA
0 Posts |
Posted - 03/02/2007 : 09:46:46 AM
|
News The Mainstream Media Doesn't Report
"For many years, each morning I have been watching the satellite imagery of the Ross ice sheet, this morning I noted what appears to be a large undersea volcano, melting the ice of the Antarctic ice sheet. Note the flows on either side of Ross island have in one day, washed away the pack ice!
A web search this morning indicates no mention of this anomaly in the news........
For an undetermined length of time following this event Telemetry from McMurdo was "unavailable"
An over view map show what is where is HERE
NOVA - Warning in the ICE - Excerpt - original from 1998HERE
NARRATOR: But where is the water coming from? Why is the base of the ice melting? While flying over the ice sheet, Don Blankenship's sensors picked up evidence of magnetic rock, and a cone-shaped mountain beneath the ice. At the surface, there was a round depression—four miles wide.
NARRATOR: It was an active volcano, melting the bottom of the ice. Even a volcano isn't enough to destroy an entire ice sheet, but it is evidence of some major geological activity. Don made his discovery just west of the Transantarctic Mountains. Here, two continental plates have moved apart. In the middle, the earth's crust is very thin, allowing heat to flow up from below. This could be contributing water to the base of the ice streams. But scientists worry there could be an additional source of heat."
http://www.lermanet.com/antarcticmelt/
...."RICHARD B. ALLEY: In the last million years, the glaciers have grown and shrunk about 10 times. And they typically spend about 90,000 years growing and 10,000 years melting, and 90,000 years growing and 10,00 years melting, and so on.
NARRATOR: Ice Ages, each lasting 100,000 years, have come and gone, again and again. At the height of the last Ice Age, 21,000 years ago, much of North America was frozen under a giant ice sheet, and temperatures were about 20 degrees colder than they are now. Today, we are in one of the shorter, warm periods between the Ice Ages, called interglacials, when much of the ice melts. As it melts, more and more water flows into the oceans, and sea level goes up.
RICHARD B. ALLEY: Sea level is ultimately controlled by how much water is in the ocean and by how hot that water is. If we take water out of the ocean and put it in an ice sheet, then the ocean gets lower. If we take water out of the ice sheet and put it back in the ocean, sea level comes up.
NARRATOR: During the Ice Ages, water accumulated in the expanding ice sheets, and global sea level went down. But for the last 20,000 years, the ice has been melting, and the oceans are getting bigger.
ROBERT BINDSCHADLER: Over the last 20,000 years, sea level has been rising. Over the last 4,000 years, it's been rising at about two millimeters a year. And so, the concern is whether that rate is going to continue or whether it's going to accelerate or whether it might even decelerate.
NARRATOR: So far, the collapsing ice shelves haven't raised sea level at all, because they were already floating, and displacing water, long before they broke up. For sea level to rise significantly, ice from a grounded ice sheet has to flow rapidly into the sea. And that's most likely to happen in West Antarctica, where the ice sits on bedrock below sea level. To find out how vulnerable this ice sheet is, scientists like Bob Bindschadler are heading out into the Antarctic wilderness.".....
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2508warnings.html
"Iceland’s Grimsvotn Volcano began erupting on November 2, 2004, forcing officials to divert air traffic from the region to prevent ash from damaging aircraft engines. The volcano sits beneath the Vatnajokull Ice Cap, Europe’s largest glacier, and is Iceland’s most frequently active volcano."....
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/NaturalHazards/natural_hazards_v2.php3?img_id=12565
...."Jun Jaegyu volcano, an Antarctic submarine volcano, was dredged in May 2004 during cruise 04-04 of the RV Laurence M. Gould to determine rock, sediment composition and marine macroinvertebrate diversity. The objectives of this study are to examine the benthic assemblages and biodiversity present on a young volcano. The volcano is located on the continental shelf of the northeastern Antarctic Peninsula, where recent changes in surface temperature and ice shelf stability have been observed. This volcano was originally swath-mapped during cruise 01-07 of the Research Vessel-Ice Breaker Nathaniel B. Palmer. During LMG04-04 we also studied the volcano using a SCUD video camera, and performed temperature surveys along the flanks and crest. Both the video and the dredge indicate a seafloor surface heavily colonized by benthic organisms. Indications of fairly recent lava flows are given by the absence of marine life on regions of the volcano......
I have looking at recent images of Antarctic sea ice.There seems to be a strip that is anomalously warmer east of the Antarctictic peninsula. This could indicate undersea volcanic action close to where the Larsen Ice shelf disintegrated.".....
http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=43
|
Edited by - Drafters on 03/02/2007 1:01:21 PM |
|
|
|
Drafters
USA
0 Posts |
Posted - 03/02/2007 : 3:51:14 PM
|
"In 1991, the volcanic eruption at Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines put more carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere than did the whole human race during the most recent century of the industrial era............So far in history, people and their institutions have had a negligible physical effect on the planet as a whole, strip-mining and clear-cutting to the contrary notwithstanding. Compared to the volcanic activity from within and the solar activity from without, mans' surface shenanigans have had but a puny influence on global climate if any at all. Volcanic and solar activities dominate the natural outcome we call global climate. All we mere humans can do about this result is to prepare for and adapt to the consequences as best we can understand them.".......
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/lowi5.html
...."Horner depicts enviro efforts to control temps as requiring lying about what actual temps are and have been. According to Horner, enviros have "eliminated" the global cooling from 1940–1970, tried to hide the warming from 1900–1940 and the "Little Ice Age" from 1450–1850, and especially the "Medieval Climate Optimum" from 1000–1450 AD, when temps were warmer than now. The most extreme fraud was said to be that of Michael E. Mann in his "hockey stick" graph of temps from 1000–1998, published in 1999. Two Canadians, Steven McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, found data selection and computer massaging of the data series used, and persuaded the Editor of Nature to demand a "correction of error," which was done with ill grace. Yet the "hockey stick" graph is still presented as the temp record of 1000 years by alarmists. Many other details are given of disappearing ground stations for temps, no correction for urban heat island effects, general cooling in the southern hemisphere for 50 years, and the total non-correlation of temps with carbon dioxide concentrations. Like old Communist re-writing of history, the Medieval Climate Optimum during low carbon dioxide concentrations had to be written out of history so the innocents would think there is unprecedented warming NOW.
Part III shines light on the complicity of most mainstream media in the climate hoaxes, the willingness of corporations to find ways to get fatter on some of that wealth transfer, and Al Gore’s "Inconvenient Ruse." In this, Horner lists 15 specific omissions in the prize-winning docuganda An Inconvenient Truth, and 19 errors of commission. Meaning that if AIT were used as evidence in a court trial, there would be at least 34 counts of perjury possible."......
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/kauffman1.html
"A 2003 poll of 530 climatologists in 27 countries showed 34.7 percent of interviewees endorsed the notion that a substantial part of the current global warming trend – which might see temperatures rise by a degree or two, on average, by century’s end – is caused by man’s industrial activities: driving cars and the like.
More than a fifth – 20.5 percent – rejected this "anthropogenic hypothesis." The rest (two-thirds) were undecided.
The skeptics now include the 85 climate experts who signed the 1995 Leipzig Declaration; the 4,000 scientists from around the world (including 70 Nobel laureates) who signed the Heidelberg Appeal, and the 17,000 American scientists who signed the Oregon Petition. (Find these all through Sepp.org or Globalwarminghysteria.com.)
Danish statistician Bjørn Lomborg, who bought the sky-is-falling scenario until he bothered to check some of the numbers, which led him to do his own research, at which point he wrote the book "The Skeptical Environmentalist" and became the Man The Greens Love to Hate, reminded the folks at Techcentralstation.com last Nov. 30 that most economists believe the projected level of warming would either have no effect or be beneficial. .......
What’s more, scientists at Ohio State University announced Feb. 12 that Antarctic "temperatures during the late 20th century did not climb as had been predicted by many global climate models." In fact, they went down.
So why would one get the sense from the daily barrage of electronic news that "all experts now agree" the earth is heating catastrophically, and that mankind’s use of fossil fuels is at fault?.......
the second reason a casual viewer could conclude the skeptics have disappeared is that "Spreading the global warming gospel with unified voice are 12,000 environmental groups controlling about $20 billion in assets," the Tucson-based Doctors for Disaster Preparedness reported last month. In comparison, "Truth seekers have at most a few million, lack the support of the press or Hollywood, and are generally shut out of government-funded schools and universities."
Which is where the foulest and most inexcusable abuses occur, of course."......
http://www.lewrockwell.com/suprynowicz/suprynowicz60.html
|
Edited by - Drafters on 03/02/2007 3:52:49 PM |
|
|
|
Grey Ghost
USA
0 Posts |
Posted - 03/02/2007 : 7:31:35 PM
|
Looks like CO2 release in large ammounts is a causation for golbal cooling, not warming, or is it the particulant matter that reflect the sun's rays that causes the decline in world tempertures. Volcanoes make shade, in the shade things get cooler. I'm thinking just knowing the fact that we revolve around the sun is a good clue as to what is causing what and why. Giving the fact that water is the dominate surface (70%) area on this planet,and the sun is king daddy, you put them two together and I think you will understand that as the Sun goes so do we here on earth. When the sun's radiant temperture increases, ours on earth will do the same, unless there is shade. Does man cause some shade, yes we do, but it is the planet itself that's causes rapid cooling(Volcanoes, naturally burning underground coal fires that sort of thing)Now when it comes to warming look to your heat source.
 Spook Inc. ®
Ghost3of4
RenegadeSOUTH
Objects in your mirror may be closer than they appear
2005 Fall Busch Series
World Champion Pitbox
2005 Kelly Cup Championship Pitbox(Cutie Pie)
2005 Spring Championship Pitbox Winner(Spook Inc)
2005 Fall Chamionship Pitbox (Spook Inc)
|
|
|
|
Drafters
USA
0 Posts |
Posted - 03/03/2007 : 11:17:30 AM
|
I pretty sure it was the particulant matter that caused cooling. Here's something else that eruption did.
From the book Ecoscam by Ronald Bailey, c1993, pages 134,
& 135:
"...In August 1991, Guy Brasseur predicted 'a substantial
ozone decrease especially in the mid- and high-latitudes,
and especially in winter.' He predicted wintertime ozone
losses due to the volcano (Mt. Pinatubo) of up to 15
percent...So when NASA created a Northern Hemisphere ozone
hole scare, it wasn't exactly a secret that the ozone layer
might become a bit frayed in 1992...University of Virginia
environmental scientist Fred Singer points out that Sir. M.
B. Dobson, the inventor of the machine that measures ozone,
reported very low ozone values-only 150 Dobson units-over
Halley Bay, Antarctica, in 1956 and 1957. (By contrast, in
the 1960s and 1970s the level was over 300 Dobson units.)
Two French scientists recently republished data showing
pronounced ozone decreases, down to 120 Dobson units, during
the Antarctic spring in 1958. These measurements were taken
years before CFCs could have caused any such decline."
end quote
I've been thinking about the Arctic Ice sheet and all this stuff about it melting and the consequences and had the following thoughts. I haven't had a chance to really dig into this so I could come up with a science backed statement but here's what I'm thinking.
1. The Arctic ice sheet does not sit on a continent. It floats in the ocean.
2. When ice floats in water the vast majority of the ice mass is underwater. Only a small percentage of the ice mass floats above the surface.
3. When water freezes it's volume increases.
My conclusion: The Arctic ice that is currently underwater is already displacing water. If it melts it should decrease the amount of displacement the ice that was underwater was causing.
|
|
|
|
Axis Of Evil
USA
0 Posts |
Posted - 03/03/2007 : 8:02:58 PM
|
But Antarctica is ice that sits on land. When the seas ice that holds back the land ice dissipates, then the land ice quickly heads for the sea and increases sea level.
Hey, I understand there is a lot of contradictory science, but we certainly shouldn't immediately chalk it up to political motives and environmental extremism. We really are all on the same side after it's all said and done.
It certainly makes sense to seek alternative energies and make less of an impact on the environment, regardless of what that impact truly is. There is no doubt that man has fouled the planet to a certain degree. Eventually human kind needs to face their mortality and begin to place long term survival over short-term profits. If you Google [Great Lakes pollution] it is enough to make you crazy.
I don't advocate abandoning cars or burning coal or anything so extreme, but it certainly is time to take a serious look at our use of limited resources. Drafters, you surely would agree that humans could better manage our usage of resources and our output of pollution. The argument is always based on cost-effectiveness, but the parameters are set by those with the most to gain from sacrificing our surroundings for "progress." Sure I want a job at the factory down the street, but if I have to seek employment elsewhere because they spent that money on emmission controls then I very well may be better off in the long run.
Certainly I don't want the science of climate change to be true, but I also don't want the Wizard of Oz telling me to "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" when that man is behind it all. Our long-term impact on the planet is worth considering and is worth intensive study, regardless of the debatable conclusions produced. The environmentalists say we are having an enormous impact. The right-wingers say we are having no impact. Surely the truth lies somewhere in between.
|
|
|
|
D.D.D.D.C.
us
0 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2007 : 06:26:06 AM
|
 
After all of this I've got to agree with Axis!!! Global warming is an issue pretty much made up by the Govt. to get peoples mind off the subject at hand and on to something else... Its very unfortunate that in todays world everything and i mean everything is controlled by the Retarted news media... We'd all be better of just to turn off the tv!!! |
|
|
|
Drafters
USA
0 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2007 : 10:58:15 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Axis Of Evil
But Antarctica is ice that sits on land. When the seas ice that holds back the land ice dissipates, then the land ice quickly heads for the sea and increases sea level. It's acutally been getting colder down their, they've had record snowfalls lately and the two ice shelfs having problems have or had volcanoes under them. Ice shelfs in Antarctica have collapsed into the ocean in the past so if it happens again it's not something unique to our era.
Hey, I understand there is a lot of contradictory science, but we certainly shouldn't immediately chalk it up to political motives and environmental extremism. We really are all on the same side after it's all said and done. There is no real science saying mankind is causing global warming and the environmental extremists are motivated by things other then saving the environment. They know what the real truth is and they no it's not on their side.
It certainly makes sense to seek alternative energies and make less of an impact on the environment, regardless of what that impact truly is. There is no doubt that man has fouled the planet to a certain degree. Eventually human kind needs to face their mortality and begin to place long term survival over short-term profits. If you Google [Great Lakes pollution] it is enough to make you crazy.
Citizens using common law and state governments where getting industries to clean up their act but then federal government unconstitutionaly stepped in and took control.
I don't advocate abandoning cars or burning coal or anything so extreme, but it certainly is time to take a serious look at our use of limited resources. Drafters, you surely would agree that humans could better manage our usage of resources and our output of pollution. The argument is always based on cost-effectiveness, but the parameters are set by those with the most to gain from sacrificing our surroundings for "progress." Sure I want a job at the factory down the street, but if I have to seek employment elsewhere because they spent that money on emmission controls then I very well may be better off in the long run. I agree Axis, we should do what we can to preserve our environment but using reason and logic instead of scary scenarios and questionable science. Yesterday was a busy day at the hair salon next to my business and our parking lot looked like a used SUV car lot. Half the cars in the lot were SUV's and I'm not talking about those little one. I'm talking about battle tank looking SUV all coming and going with single occupants.
Certainly I don't want the science of climate change to be true, but I also don't want the Wizard of Oz telling me to "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" when that man is behind it all. Our long-term impact on the planet is worth considering and is worth intensive study, regardless of the debatable conclusions produced. The environmentalists say we are having an enormous impact. The right-wingers say we are having no impact. Surely the truth lies somewhere in between.
While most of the environmental extremists are left-wing I don't see it as a left-wing versus right-wing issue and there are thousands and thousands of scientests who dispute the manmade global warming theory who don't come from America or Europe. Here's what an environmenalist has to say about some of his fellow environmentalists.
Ooops, that note is on my computer at work. I'll have to post that Monday.
|
Edited by - Drafters on 03/04/2007 10:58:45 AM |
|
|
|
Axis Of Evil
USA
0 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2007 : 12:24:13 PM
|
Something tells me Drafters is even posting from the bus-stop and the supermarket....LOL!
|
|
|
|
Grey Ghost
USA
0 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2007 : 12:36:52 PM
|
http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
Water Rules
Spook Inc. ®
Ghost3of4
RenegadeSOUTH
Objects in your mirror may be closer than they appear
2005 Fall Busch Series
World Champion Pitbox
2005 Kelly Cup Championship Pitbox(Cutie Pie)
2005 Spring Championship Pitbox Winner(Spook Inc)
2005 Fall Chamionship Pitbox (Spook Inc)
|
|
|
|
Drafters
USA
0 Posts |
Posted - 03/05/2007 : 10:40:38 AM
|
"Jan Michael Jacobson, an environmentalist and Everglades expert who is part of a battle against the government's habitat policies in South Florida, claims the leadership of the environmental movement has betrayed both its core constituency and the U.S. Constitution.
In an exclusive interview with WND, Jacobson, the founder and director of the Everglades Institute, described himself as "something of a constitutionalist."
He was asked his views on the environmentalist movement and its impact on America and the Constitution.
"Unfortunately, the environmental leaders are what could be described as hard-core socialist psychotics. They are the lunatic fringes of socialism, and they are killing the American dream."
"Enviros play a very dirty game. Theirs is the politics of personal destruction on a major scale. Do I think the members of most 'environmental' groups support this? No. I think that if the average citizens who belong to one of these organizations understood the group's true agenda, they would be outraged. But they haven't watched their leaders. Where you don't have checks and balances you have abuses. There is no question that the environmental movement has discredited itself and in so doing has done a grave disservice to the country."".....
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=28251
"We already have too much economic growth in the United States. Economic growth in rich countries like ours is the disease, not the cure." -Paul Elrich, Stanford University biologist and Advisor to Vice President Albert Gore
"Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental." - Dave Forman, founder of Earth First, and presently a member of the Board of Directors for the Sierra Club
"If radical environmentalists were to invent a disease to bring human populations back to sanity, it would probably be something like AIDS. It [AIDS] has the potential to end industrialism, which is the main force behind the environmental crises." - Earth First! newsletter
"We in the Green movement, aspire to a cultural model in which the killing of a forest will be considered more contemptible and more criminal than the sale of 6-year-old children to Asian brothels." - Carl Amery, Green Party of West Germany
"I got the impression that instead of going out to shoot birds, I should go out and shoot the kids who shoot birds." - Paul Watson, founder of Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd |
|
|
|
Drafters
USA
0 Posts |
Posted - 03/05/2007 : 10:52:21 AM
|
"Claude Allegre, one of France's leading socialists and among her most celebrated scientists, was among the first to sound the alarm about the dangers of global warming.......With a wealth of data now in, Dr. Allegre has recanted his views. To his surprise, the many climate models and studies failed dismally in establishing a man-made cause of catastrophic global warming. Meanwhile, increasing evidence indicates that most of the warming comes of natural phenomena. Dr. Allegre now sees global warming as over-hyped and an environmental concern of second rank."......
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=2f4cc62e-5b0d-4b59-8705-fc28f14da388
"Accepted theories about man causing global warming are "lies" claims a controversial new TV documentary.
‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’ - backed by eminent scientists - is set to rock the accepted consensus that climate change is being driven by humans.
The programme, to be screened on Channel 4 on Thursday March 8, will see a series of respected scientists attack the "propaganda" that they claim is killing the world’s poor.
Even the co-founder of Greenpeace, Patrick Moore, is shown, claiming African countries should be encouraged to burn more CO2........
The programme claims there appears to be a consensus across science that CO2 is responsible for global warming, but Professor Paul Reiter is shown to disagree.
He said the influential United Nations report on Climate change, that claimed humans were responsible, was a sham.
It claimed to be the opinion of 2,500 leading scientists, but Prof Reiter said it included names of scientists who disagreed with the findings and resigned from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and said the report was finalised by government appointees.
The CO2 theory is further undermined by claims that billions of pounds is being provided by governments to fund greenhouse effect research, so thousands of scientists know their job depends on the theory continuing to be seen as fact.
The programme claims efforts to reduce CO2 are killing Africans, who have to burn fires inside their home, causing cancer and lung damage, because their governments are being encouraged to use wind and solar panels that are not capable of supplying the continent with electricity, instead of coal and oil-burning power stations that could.
Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore is shown saying: "Environmentalists have romanticised peasant life, but this is anti-human.
"They are saying the world’s poorest people should have the world’s most expensive form of form of energy – really saying they can’t have electricity."
Gary Calder, a former editor of New Scientist, is featured in the programme, and has just released a book claiming that clouds are the real reason behind climate change. "........
http://www.lse.co.uk/ShowStory.asp?story=CZ434669U&news_headline=global_warming_is_lies_claims_documentary
|
|
|
|
redsoxracer
US
0 Posts |
Posted - 03/05/2007 : 3:01:08 PM
|
| FILTER |
|
|
|
Axis Of Evil
USA
0 Posts |
Posted - 03/05/2007 : 6:11:11 PM
|
Suddenly Drafters is English, talking about Pounds and programmes. Cut and paste babe! There are still undiscovered conservative blogs out there.
Maybe someday every household can have their own personal coal-fired power plant in their backyard...lol. (kidding, my friend...)
|
|
|
|
Drafters
USA
0 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2007 : 10:12:47 AM
|
I wouldn't advocate coal fired power plants in every backyard but I could go with nuclear reactors in every back yard.
Here is a book first published over 30 years ago that will give insight into the minds of the left-wing and eco extremists.
The New Left: The Anti-Industrial Revolution by Ayn Rand
Reviewer: Joburgpete "irridium" (Johannesburg) - See all my reviews
In these essays from the 1960s and early 1970s, Ayn Rand identifies the underlying nihilism of the Left and the student movement of the time. Already back then, she warned of the toxic influence of the left and pointed out that the intellectual battle does not consist of opposing, denouncing or evading, but of exposing and disproving evil ideas and proclaiming a consistent alternative to the left's bankrupt philosophy........
In the essay The Left: Old And New, Rand predicted that the issue of the environment would be the next big crusade of the Leftists, after Vietnam. In this, as on so many other issues, she was correct and we still have the EnviroNuts with us and they are shriller than ever before with their self-serving tooth fairy tales of global warming........
The Age Of Envy is one of the very best in this collection. In it, Rand claims that the Age of Reason and the Age of Enlightenment had been followed by ours, the Age of Envy. She takes envy to mean: The hatred of the good for being the good. Here too, she nails down the left, old and new, with keen insight and prescience. She demonstrates how the appeasement of evil has been an undertow of mankind's cultural stream down the ages.
The Comprachicos is the disturbing essay that concludes the collection. It warns against the hijacking of the minds of children and students by the leftist, collectivist educational establishment. This even more true now than it was then: the modern seats of leftism are the universities and the Old Media which Rand exposes throughout the book.........
http://www.amazon.com/New-Left-Anti-Industrial-Revolution/dp/0452011256/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-7857746-3195943?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1173203255&sr=1-1
...."As the Washington Times noted, according to the Digest of Education Statistics, spending for public education, in constant (inflation-adjusted) dollars, rose from $6,256 a year per student before "A Nation at Risk" to $10,464 in the 2002-2003 school year. Taxpayers have thus raised their annual contribution to education by a full two-thirds in real dollars in a quarter century. More than generous.
Under George W. Bush, U.S. Department of Education funding has risen 92 percent in six years, from $35.5 billion in 2001 to $68 billion in 2007. Sinking test scores are what we have to show for it.
Taxpayers are being lied to and swindled by the education industry, which has failed them, failed America and flunked its assignment – and should be expelled for cheating."
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54565
|
Edited by - Drafters on 03/06/2007 3:41:41 PM |
|
|
|
redsoxracer
US
0 Posts |
Posted - 03/07/2007 : 5:59:49 PM
|
| FILTER |
|
|
|
Axis Of Evil
USA
0 Posts |
Posted - 04/17/2007 : 01:11:49 AM
|
Drafters,
Have you yet seen the documentary 9/11 Mysteries? You can google it and watch it. My GOD man! I'm speechless... |
|
|
|
Drafters
USA
0 Posts |
Posted - 04/17/2007 : 09:46:27 AM
|
I have not seen that documentary but I can imagine what's in it. I have yet to see or read anything that convinces me the government was responsible for staging the 9-11 attacks.
One "mystery" of 9-11 I have seen mentioned many times is the failure of the military to intercept the hijacked planes but if we look back before 9-11 to the golfer who died in the plane crash we find nothing unusual in that regard. In the golfer case even though the plane was on radar and flying a straight line it took the military over 50 minutes to intercept it after they were requested to do so. |
|
|
|
Axis Of Evil
USA
0 Posts |
Posted - 04/17/2007 : 10:10:39 AM
|
Well if you haven't seen anything yet that makes you think the government was behind 9/11 then watch this documentary. All of the evidence that has been supressed comes out, from demolition explosions on the seismic records, to expert testimony, to connections so obvious they have been overlooked.
There is absolute proof that the world trade center was demolished with explosives. It is a classic controlled demolition and those behind it had everything to gain. Watch this documentary and tell me I am wrong. I am almost afraid to start researching this further using my own computer. |
Edited by - Axis Of Evil on 04/17/2007 12:15:40 PM |
|
|
|
Drafters
USA
0 Posts |
Posted - 04/17/2007 : 1:05:17 PM
|
1. How were they able to place all those explosives inside the buildings without anyone noticing?
2. Why didn't the explosives start exploding in the fire?
3. Why do they coat structual steel with a flame and heat retardant?
4. Why about 20 minutes before the first tower collapsed did I tell a friend and his daughter who were staying with me "if they don't get those fires out soon the buildings will collapse?"
5. Have you ever known the government to be so efficent that they could pull something like this off?
6. Are you famliar with the Spanish high rise that collapsed from fire?
7. What happens to steel when you heat it? |
|
|
|
Drafters
USA
0 Posts |
Posted - 04/17/2007 : 2:03:29 PM
|
Axis, I did not blindly accept the offical explanation for what happened on 9-11 and have done some research on the subject but like I said before I'm not convinced the offical explanation is false.
....."The towers were designed and built in the mid-1960s through the early 1970s. They represented a new approach to skyscrapers in that they were to be very lightweight and involved modular construction methods in order to accelerate the schedule and to reduce the costs.........
The egg-crate construction made a redundant structure (i.e., if one or two columns were lost, the loads would shift into adjacent columns and the building would remain standing). Prior to the World Trade Center with its lightweight perimeter tube design, most tall buildings contained huge columns on 5 m centers and contained massive amounts of masonry carrying some of the structural load. The WTC was primarily a lightweight steel structure; however, its 244 perimeter columns made it “one of the most redundant and one of the most resilient” skyscrapers.1............
Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650°C fire.
The additional problem was distortion of the steel in the fire. The temperature of the fire was not uniform everywhere, and the temperature on the outside of the box columns was clearly lower than on the side facing the fire. The temperature along the 18 m long joists was certainly not uniform. Given the thermal expansion of steel, a 150°C temperature difference from one location to another will produce yield-level residual stresses. This produced distortions in the slender structural steel, which resulted in buckling failures. Thus, the failure of the steel was due to two factors: loss of strength due to the temperature of the fire, and loss of structural integrity due to distortion of the steel from the non-uniform temperatures in the fire.........
It has been suggested that it was fortunate that the WTC did not tip over onto other buildings surrounding the area. There are several points that should be made. First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and, hence, can implode onto itself. Second, there is no lateral load, even the impact of a speeding aircraft, which is sufficient to move the center of gravity one hundred feet to the side such that it is not within the base footprint of the structure. Third, given the near free-fall collapse, there was insufficient time for portions to attain significant lateral velocity. To summarize all of these points, a 500,000 t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down."..........
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html
The Madrid Windsor Building is situated in the heart of the Spanish capital's financial district and was a distinct and familiar landmark on the city's skyline. Built between 1974 and 1978 by architects Alas Casariego, its occupants included high profile corporate clients including accountants Deloitte and Spanish legal firm Garrigues.
The building totalled 32 storeys, with 29 floors above ground and three below. A concrete core and concrete frame supported the first 16 floors. Above that was a central support system of concrete columns, supporting concrete floors with steel perimeter columns. An additional feature was the presence of two 'technical floors' - concrete floors designed to give the building more strength. One was just above the ground level and the other at the 17th floor.........
Because of the height of the structure and the extent of the blaze, firefighters could only mount a containment operation and ensure that neighbouring buildings were protected. The fire eventually finished 26 hours later, leaving a complete burn-out above the fifth floor. The steel-glass façade was completely destroyed, exposing the concrete perimeter columns. The steel columns above the 17th floor suffered complete collapse, partially coming to rest on the upper technical floor.....
The fire is significant in terms of its potential similarities between the collapse of the building's steel frame above the 17th floor and the experience seen at the World Trade Center. Notably, one of the recommendations of NIST's interim report on the World Trade Center disaster is for tall building design to incorporate 'strong points' within the frame.
http://www.concretecentre.com/main.asp?page=1095
http://www.911myths.com/index.html
On the other side of this issue..........
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/index.html
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/ |
|
|
|
Axis Of Evil
USA
0 Posts |
Posted - 04/17/2007 : 9:07:05 PM
|
I wonder why WTC building 7 was demolished using explosives when there was little damage to the structure? Why wasn't it being used as designed, as a command center for emergencies such as this? In it must have been evidence, as well as the insurance value. Lost in the demolition was also all of the records of corporate fraud, including everything pertaining to the $70 billion Enron heist.
There is little doubt that this building was imploded, yet even when reported as such during that fateful day, and workers on film advising people to leave because the building would be comming down, officials still refuse to admit anything but fire brought down the massive steel structure from the bottom up, and in a classic demolition manner. There was no evidence of fire on the bottom floors.
Something doesn't sit right with me here. So many people in high places had so much to gain and plenty to lose if 9/11 didn't happen as it did. |
|
|
|
Axis Of Evil
USA
0 Posts |
Posted - 04/17/2007 : 9:20:26 PM
|
1. How were they able to place all those explosives inside the buildings without anyone noticing?
-People did notice. Who would ever suspect such activity anyway?-
2. Why didn't the explosives start exploding in the fire?
-I'm not sure explosives work that way. The fire was relatively contained anyway and wouldn't affect ground-based explosives or those away from the fire.-
3. Why do they coat structual steel with a flame and heat retardant?
-They do this to protect the steel from corrosion also.-
4. Why about 20 minutes before the first tower collapsed did I tell a friend and his daughter who were staying with me "if they don't get those fires out soon the buildings will collapse?"
-I don't know? You must be a structural engineer.-
5. Have you ever known the government to be so efficent that they could pull something like this off?
-Sure they can. We have a highly efficient military aparatus doing all sorts of covert activities around the world.-
6. Are you famliar with the Spanish high rise that collapsed from fire?
-That building didn't collapse, to the best of my knowledge. It burned for quite a while and retained it's strength.-
7. What happens to steel when you heat it?
-Steel warms to the temperature applied to it. It only begins weakening significantly at temperatures much higher than any "dirty" fire can produce, and at much higher temperature that the WTC fire. People were standing in the broken windows of the WTC with the fire at their backs, and were not being burned up. Steel only melts at blast furnance temperatures which are only attainable in a controlled environment or with chemicals used for such temperature extremes, yet molten metal was found throughout the WTC site.-
Now what about the squibs which were seen much lower than the happening collapse? Squibs are the tell-tale sign of demolition explosions. These squibs were conveniently seen shooting out of the strongest floors of the towers well in advance of the advancing collapse, a collapse that defies physics. The buildings fell at the rate an object would freefall from the same height. Do you mean to tell me that the collapse faced no resistance from the floors below? I find that highly unlikely without assistance. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Thunder Gazette
