An Inconvenient Truth (metal, rock, effects, member, quote)

IamAlejo · 03-02-2007, 10:29 AM

continued

Quote:

The Pattern is Lunar.
As far as Earth's climate is concerned, the lunar movement is a major influence. To understand it better, imagine a settling pot-lid as it is spun on its flat side on a table top. It wobbles around and around. Imagine a point on the rim. As the lid settles, the point will wobble around in an ever-flattening sine curve. That's what the Moon does around the Earth's ecliptic (plane of orbit around the Sun). As it moves it drags more or less of the atmosphere with it, spreading the atmosphere further over the Earth's surface at the high end of the cycle and confining the atmosphere to a narrow band within the tropics at the lower end. The warming effect is that of milder summers and warmer winters, and at the moment we are well past the midpoint. Global-warmingists will point to the higher temperatures and claim that they were right all along. But up till now they haven't wanted to look to the Moon. After the last high end in 1987, temperatures did start descending especially around 1991/2, but most failed to notice.

Through its considerable gravitational force the Moon moves the atmosphere two and a half times more than does the Sun. Scientists agree that the Moon's gravity is greater on us than is that coming from the Sun, to the extent that the Moon moves seatides with very small contribution from the Sun, but a dwindling few still claim that the Sun causes the weather. Whatever the Sun does, the Moon does two and a half times as much.

Our Atmosphere
The atmosphere is both our protection from the searing heat of the sun and the freezing cold of space. Without this protection we would all die under 180degF heat or freeze under -222deg cold.

If it wasn't mixed and distributed by the Moon daily, more of the atmosphere would end up on the Sun's side because the Sun would be the only body in space with any gravitational pull. There would probably be one giant cloud always on the Sun's side, just as there is on Venus, which is why Venus always looks so bright. We would therefore never see the Sun for the constant cloud. Moreover, trees, which need direct sun's rays, would not photosynthesize, therefore not produce oxygen which is so essential to life and our existence. So without the Moon there could be no life as we know it on Earth. When we are looking in space for evidence of life on other planets, scientists sometimes miss the fact that we should be looking for a planet our size and speed around its sun; that has a Moon just like ours in size and distance and orbital speed, and a Sun just like ours exactly the same distance away and size. Otherwise we are not looking for life as we know it. And if we're not, then it's not life, it's something else, because life is life as we know it.

With good reason then, in lunar cultures the Moon has always been the symbol of life itself. Strong reason for it to have been universally revered as the god of fertility and growth. In their all-out zeal to rewrite our universe so history would be more palatable, 17th century theologians made as much distance as they could between Christian society and that symbol of everything pagan; the Moon. There was no room for the Christian god in the old Moon-oriented science, which dictated that climate and weather were cyclically predictable. The 'hand of God' was a non-issue. Now, only God was allowed to know what was going to happen. All predictions and prophecies were heresy.

It is this legacy that has led to one of the most appalling gaffs of modern day science: to factor the Moon out of every weather computer-model. Yet the atmosphere has a high and a low tide, which causes weather, and which, just like the sea-tide, is pulled around by the gravitational force of the Moon. Not only is the atmosphere our protection; it is also our blanket. By retaining the heat of the sun it redistributes this heat wherever it moves to. By shifting the atmosphere, the Moon is directly responsible for Earth's climate.

But Why Invent Global Warming?
Answer: to get research funds that have been made available. The Australian government recently granted $7.8 million to the CSIRO to investigate Greenhouse Gases. Some gases are sure to be found. In the 1960s geophysicists believed that with enough resources they could predict earthquakes, lobbied hard, and in 1966 the Japanese government funded a $270million per year program. In 1997, after wasting $2.7 billion dollars on no results, the program was axed. A research team is presently in Antarctica to study ice depth. They envisage this to be a 10 year project. In 2004 $4.3 billion was earned by the global warming industry. Most was invested in research and development, but media fed at the trough too, while various governments instituted new bureacracies and taxed emissions industries. Fear is bankable. If a population can be convinced that global warming is occurring, there is money to be made. What started off as a small group now has thousands of employees drawing wages.

In the 1980s the term "Greenhouse Effect" came into our vocabulary to try to explain the high temperatures the world was experiencing. The fact that in the following early 1990s we were in a below average period which saw cooler temperatures, particularly during the winter months in both hemispheres, went unreported and unnoticed by those now firmly entrenched on the GW bandwagon. By now other 'problems' found research funds that were being willingly provided. Ozone-depletion, first written up in 1974 and immediately laughed at by the world of science, suddenly became an area of serious study, as did CO2, El Nino/La Nina and just recently, methane, as funds again started to flow into researchers' pockets.

Methane
Do we seriously believe that the farts of cows can alter the world's climate? NZ was once teeming with farting birdlife. They're nearly all gone. The US was covered with farting buffalo, Canada with farting caribou. Europe had the farting mammoth and mastoden. All now gone. In India and Africa wildlife has been hunted almost to extinction. There are LESS animals and so less farters, honkers, snorters and burpers now than there have EVER been on this planet, which is why we have the notion of endangered species. One only has to walk behind one duck for 10 minutes to see what emerges from the blunt end of a walking methane factory. Also, methane is inflammable which means it will be destroyed by the next wiff of lightning. There are over 2000 electrical storms happening around the globe every second. What is not broken down in this way is attacked by hydroxyls(called "nature's detergents") in upper air layers. Methane has actually been decreasing for the last 17 years.

So what about the land-based ice?
Land-based ice only represents 1.5% of the Earth's surface at the South Pole. (Roughly 3% of the total Earth's surface is polar. So 1.5% is Southern polar. Roughly half of that is landbased making it around 0.7%) A recent report from the University of Tasmania Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre states "The Antarctic ice-sheet's effective volume is equivalent to 55 meters of global sea level. It is NOT expected that it would melt as a result of a warming of two or three degrees. This is because temperatures in most of Antarctica are well below the melting point of ice.." Down at the South Pole, temperatures cool to under -80deg in winter, so 2 or 3 deg won't even dent it. Even in midsummer the warmest the South Pole ever gets is between -5 to -20C.

In fact, Antartcica has been recorded at -90degC in winter. So for the poles to melt and stay melted all year around, they have to go up in temperature by at least 90deg. And even that only gets them up to zero. If the poles rise by 90deg you can barely imagine what the temperature of the middle latitudes will become. Let's assume the poles might one day reach this horrendous temperature. So what will happen to the oceans? Well, 90deg is nearly the boiling point of water. The oceans will not rise. They will all have evaporated.

IamAlejo · 03-02-2007, 10:29 AM

and still continued

Quote:

Rising Sea Levels
When you pin a global warmingist down, he'll say the oceans are expected to rise between 10cms and 1m over the next century due to them being warmed. 10cms is only four and a half inches..a century? That's nothing to an incoming and outgoing tide. 1m's a bit more, to be sure, but why do they always quote the upper end? So, depending on who you listen to, they seem to have an error of between 10cms and 55m, or roughly 5000%. And if they're so unsure, then how are they so certain the sealevels are rising at all?? And what is making the seas warmer? To warm a pot of water you have to have heat from below. Has anyone found a big heater yet under the sea that wasn't there before?

Then there's the question of the 2 or 3 degrees supposed rise over the last century. In most places on Earth 10 degreeC variation occurs during every day, but no one seems too put out. In actual fact, the sealevels are decreasing around the top half of the North Island, increasing around the bottom half of the South is, falling in the top half of the UK and rising in the south of the UK. It is the land which is rising or falling, giving only a virtual sealevel change. So how can we tell which is rising - land or sea when both are measured against each other?

Another thing that is a bit weird is that the Pacific atolls are supposed to be submerging, while the highwater mark on most NZ's beaches remains the same. Sealevel is supposed to be the same everywhere. That's why it's used so much as a iniversal standard. No one is bothering to point out that Pacific atolls are very volcanic and are rising and falling all the time. Just by the way, NZ is also extremely tectonically active.

A Sydney University study commissioned by the late Prime Minister of Tuvalu two years ago reported back that sealevels around that news-grabbing atoll were actually reducing, but this report did not make sensational headlines and not surprisingly went largely unreported.

In comparing sealevel-days, when do they make their comparisons? It's not good just looking at the tide high water mark and saying it looks higher than when I was a boy. Different lunar factors make for a higher or lower tide level - New or full moons, perigees, the 18.613 cycle, declination, the Moon crossing the equator twice a month going in opposite directions, wind forces, wind direction and high pressure zones which lower the sealevel or low pressure zones which tend to raise it. All of these factors are on the move all of the time and there is no one date which brings them all together so that they can be safely compared to another date.

Inaccurate Predictions
Some scientists are sometimes outrageously wrong. In March 1998 they declared that a 2km wide asteroid called 1997 XF11 was on a near collision course with Earth. It was later discovered that the asteroid would miss the earth by at least a million kilometres.

Halley's Comet was another fizzer. After all the hype, you needed high powered binoculars to even see it. There has been a recent call to look at the possibility of future meteor strikes and what to do if they presented a threat to mankind. Then there's volcanoes, earthquakes, comets, gamma rays - someone only has to suggest something no one else has thought of to worry over for a while for it to hit the big headlines.

During the Gulf War there was the fear of a permanent oil shortage, and everyone installed LPG in their vehicles. Before that, the threat of nuclear war, and lots of people had bunkers built in their gardens. Then in Auckland, the water scare, and everyone put in their own water tanks. Then there was Y2K, which had those with a PC panicking for a while. But these pass and things return to normal.

Perhaps another threat is surely coming to a neighborhood near you. Someone will be asking for research grants, paid for by you, the taxpayer. Recently the then NZ Associate Minister for the Environment said global warming is "inextricably related to climate instability and poses one of the biggest threats to our economy". NZ's current Energy Minister has said the science of global warming is undeniable. But perhaps there is a bigger and more direct economic threat to every country's economy; the creaming off of massive funds to study non-existent dangers.

There are other arguments against any possibility that runaway global warming could be occurring. Let us for one moment assume that the world IS heating up. Firstly, the evaporation cycle would increase due to the heat. This would also happen if the sealevels rose, because of the greater surface of water available for that evaporation. A greater evaporation cycle means more rain will form and fall back on Earth and, as rain is not selective, there be more to fall on the poles too, creating more ice and snow there.

The clouds are white which makes them efficient heat-reflectors. That is why a cloudy day is mild in temperature - clouds hold the heat in. But they also hold heat out, because the top of the clouds reflect 50% of the sun's heat back into space. Clouds are second only to snow(85%) in heat reflection. With less heat coming in due to reflection off the top surface of the clouds and back into space, the result should be less heat getting to earth so the Earth should cool. Because clouds hold heat in, any measuring equipment set up to measure global warming would give wrong results every time clouds were overhead. Measuring apparati don't have eyes to see clouds. Actually scientists know this and build in an error called 'average cloudiness'. The trouble is, 'average cloudiness' is not an annual constant. Clouds are never stationary, so can't be pinned to a measuring location. Average Cloudiness has NOT been proven.

As a long range weather forecast organisation, we calculate lunar orbits to plot weather for many years ahead. ALL of our calculations would be awry if there was global warming because we are basing our predictions on weather that occurred three and four moon cycles ago, from several virtual moon-positions in differing time-zones, that all occurred well before industrialisation, pollutants and global warming were ever thought of. If you find there is some truth in the forecasts put out on this website a month or more ahead then a reasonable conclusion could be that there can be no global warming, other than what the Moon causes - which is embedded automatically into all the calculations.

It seems we have forgotten the moral of the Emperor's Clothes.

~~[MERIT]~~ · 03-02-2007, 10:49 AM

Is everyone aware that back in the 1970's, scientists were concerned with global cooling? Now it's global warming. Just wait 30 years and it will all even out.

And Alejo..... that made my head hurt

~~TheUsedToolguy~~ · 03-02-2007, 04:50 PM

As far as that goes, there should be global cooling.

Alejo, those were interesting posts, and I learned a few things in there. I definitely won't dismiss you as a wacko, bcuz I know the gov. is capable of concocting a scheme like that.

One thing that should be factored in to the argument is that most people probably think the ICE AGE was an isolated incident, when in fact it occurs on this planet every 10,000 years. I believe the last ICE AGE was approximately 8-9k years ago, so that should tell us that in about a thousand years we should be in another ICE AGE, and you would believe the Earth would be in a cooling process leading up the next one, I'm sure that's what troubles some scientists, the fact that the temperature even staying the same over the last 100 years would be cause for concern, let alone having the temperature rising.

tdoc210 · 03-02-2007, 06:35 PM

global flatening is the real issue at hand

Laces Out Dan! · 05-16-2007, 08:20 PM

The Documentary Al Gore made about Global Warming...i watched this movie today and it was amazing. The facts i heard when watching that movie were shocking..i just wanna know if anyone else has had a chance to see the movie.

tdoc210 · 05-16-2007, 08:21 PM

lol besides promoting himself shamelessly it was pretty good

Laces Out Dan! · 05-16-2007, 08:21 PM

I only saw that he did that 2 or 3 times..and it was fine with me because i'd love to see him in the whitehouse right now.

Sparky · 05-16-2007, 08:28 PM

its weird, on all the graphs he has on his presentations he doesn't have any statistics like on the side,

makes it kinda hard to compare.

i felt bad for the polar bears

Alexander the Grape · 05-16-2007, 09:00 PM

I watched it in my Humanities class earlier this year, and then again when my sister rented it.

In Humanities we researched both sides of global warming, and we read an article that provided a lot of evidence against Gore's claims. Most of the closeminded Republicans in the class automatically dismissed Gore's movie and clung to the few scraps of evidence against global warming. After researching the evidence on both sides I can confidently say that I believe in global warming as a product of man. People on both sides of the issue, however, just believe what they are told without doing any research themselves.

What do you guys think about that kid suing because he had to watch An Inconvenient Truth in his college class? I find it rediculous that the kid thinks watching a video that presents evidence for a view he disagrees with in any way harmed him. The only way to accurately make a decision on any subject is to expose yourself to the arguments of both sides.

03-02-2007, 06:35 PM	#15 (permalink)
tdoc210 ashes against the grain Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: new hampsha Posts: 2,617	global flatening is the real issue at hand __________________ We went back there and they had come and hacked off every inoculated arm. There they were in a pile. A pile of little arms. And I remember... I... I... I cried. I wept like some grandmother. I wanted to tear my teeth out. I didn't know what I wanted to do. And I want to remember it. I never want to forget it. I never want to forget. And then I realized... like I was shot... like I was shot with a diamond... a diamond bullet right through my forehead. And I thought: My God... the genius of that.

05-16-2007, 08:20 PM	#16 (permalink)
Laces Out Dan! I love Puck Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: British Columbia Posts: 4,614	An Inconvenient Truth The Documentary Al Gore made about Global Warming...i watched this movie today and it was amazing. The facts i heard when watching that movie were shocking..i just wanna know if anyone else has had a chance to see the movie. __________________ We are entirely smooth, We admit to the truth, We are the best at what we do.

05-16-2007, 08:21 PM	#17 (permalink)
tdoc210 ashes against the grain Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: new hampsha Posts: 2,617	lol besides promoting himself shamelessly it was pretty good __________________ We went back there and they had come and hacked off every inoculated arm. There they were in a pile. A pile of little arms. And I remember... I... I... I cried. I wept like some grandmother. I wanted to tear my teeth out. I didn't know what I wanted to do. And I want to remember it. I never want to forget it. I never want to forget. And then I realized... like I was shot... like I was shot with a diamond... a diamond bullet right through my forehead. And I thought: My God... the genius of that.

05-16-2007, 08:21 PM	#18 (permalink)
Laces Out Dan! I love Puck Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: British Columbia Posts: 4,614	I only saw that he did that 2 or 3 times..and it was fine with me because i'd love to see him in the whitehouse right now. __________________ We are entirely smooth, We admit to the truth, We are the best at what we do.

05-16-2007, 09:00 PM	#20 (permalink)
Alexander the Grape Un****withable Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Wyoming Posts: 196	I watched it in my Humanities class earlier this year, and then again when my sister rented it. In Humanities we researched both sides of global warming, and we read an article that provided a lot of evidence against Gore's claims. Most of the closeminded Republicans in the class automatically dismissed Gore's movie and clung to the few scraps of evidence against global warming. After researching the evidence on both sides I can confidently say that I believe in global warming as a product of man. People on both sides of the issue, however, just believe what they are told without doing any research themselves. What do you guys think about that kid suing because he had to watch An Inconvenient Truth in his college class? I find it rediculous that the kid thinks watching a video that presents evidence for a view he disagrees with in any way harmed him. The only way to accurately make a decision on any subject is to expose yourself to the arguments of both sides. __________________ I'm back like JC lol.

03-02-2007, 10:49 AM	#13 (permalink)
~~[MERIT]~~ Account Disabled Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Missouri, USA Posts: 4,814	Is everyone aware that back in the 1970's, scientists were concerned with global cooling? Now it's global warming. Just wait 30 years and it will all even out. And Alejo..... that made my head hurt

03-02-2007, 04:50 PM	#14 (permalink)
~~TheUsedToolguy~~ Account Disabled Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Joplin, MO Posts: 468	As far as that goes, there should be global cooling. Alejo, those were interesting posts, and I learned a few things in there. I definitely won't dismiss you as a wacko, bcuz I know the gov. is capable of concocting a scheme like that. One thing that should be factored in to the argument is that most people probably think the ICE AGE was an isolated incident, when in fact it occurs on this planet every 10,000 years. I believe the last ICE AGE was approximately 8-9k years ago, so that should tell us that in about a thousand years we should be in another ICE AGE, and you would believe the Earth would be in a cooling process leading up the next one, I'm sure that's what troubles some scientists, the fact that the temperature even staying the same over the last 100 years would be cause for concern, let alone having the temperature rising.

05-16-2007, 08:28 PM	#19 (permalink)
Sparky not really Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 5,223	its weird, on all the graphs he has on his presentations he doesn't have any statistics like on the side, makes it kinda hard to compare. i felt bad for the polar bears