Take Me Back Tuesday: GLOBAL WARMING CORRAL
-
pntailhntr
- Duck South Addict
- Posts: 1037
- Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2003 1:59 pm
- Location: Leland, MS via Madison, MS
-
rjohnson
- Duck South Addict
- Posts: 4895
- Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 11:28 am
- Location: Brandon, MS
- Contact:
Are we sure this isn't really Benny on some valum???
Seriously so now the Pope is a friggin' climatologist too???? What about the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus??? What is their academic knowledge on this GW hoax???
Seriously so now the Pope is a friggin' climatologist too???? What about the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus??? What is their academic knowledge on this GW hoax???
http://www.lithicIT.com My biz
If the Pope doesnt get your attention, who does? Incidentally, if you take the time to read them, you may find that the Pope's comments are much farther reaching than just GW.
Simply put, mankind has lost its way....Satan is leading us down the path to oblivion and desctruciton fo the environment is another symptom or Satan's rule...The Pope's hope- and I share it with him- is that by rediscovery of natural law through environmentalism- mankind will become obedient to God. The Pope's comments are that simple- and that profound.
As hunters, we play God everytime we pull the trigger. Have you ever thought about what gives you the moral authority to take an innocent animal's life? I believe God gives us that right as a predator under Natural Law but I also believe we need to be "right" with God to deserve that right....I believe that being a hunter- a taker- on the one hand and not giving back on the other is the height of hypocrisy.
In my opinion, this is a give and take situation. God give us the right to take the life of an innocent animal. Our end of the bargain is to give back and give back and give back until it hurts....Denial of the biggest environmental issue in human history is not consistent with our end of the bargain.....Hunters should be the most radical environmentalists in the world...This is our heritage and we have been chosen and annointed to be the defenders of it.
So many hunters have a choice to make:
Continue to scoff at environmentalism and environmentalists, continue to believe that first the Ozone Hole and now Global Warming are hoaxes, ignore the obvious Age of Extinction where another species goes extinct everyday somewhere in teh world as a result of human activities, watch as 5000 acres per day of open space in the US is developed, etc, etc and do so out of a pig headed allegiance to a political philosophy that has created the largest concentration of wealth in US history (1% of Americans control 33% of our wealth) OR get off the sidelines and get in the game. For real, not the Mississippi two step of words, words and more words and no action. But the real deal. Down in the trenches where you fight. Down in the trenches where you lose friends over your beliefs and your allegiance to those beliefs. Down in the trenches where you spend money and time fighting to protect the Lord's Creation.
There is a moral component to Man's relationship with Nature that hunting is a part of but most of you are seemingly completely oblivious to it. I have been called to bring this message to you. What you do with it is of your own free will.
Simply put, mankind has lost its way....Satan is leading us down the path to oblivion and desctruciton fo the environment is another symptom or Satan's rule...The Pope's hope- and I share it with him- is that by rediscovery of natural law through environmentalism- mankind will become obedient to God. The Pope's comments are that simple- and that profound.
As hunters, we play God everytime we pull the trigger. Have you ever thought about what gives you the moral authority to take an innocent animal's life? I believe God gives us that right as a predator under Natural Law but I also believe we need to be "right" with God to deserve that right....I believe that being a hunter- a taker- on the one hand and not giving back on the other is the height of hypocrisy.
In my opinion, this is a give and take situation. God give us the right to take the life of an innocent animal. Our end of the bargain is to give back and give back and give back until it hurts....Denial of the biggest environmental issue in human history is not consistent with our end of the bargain.....Hunters should be the most radical environmentalists in the world...This is our heritage and we have been chosen and annointed to be the defenders of it.
So many hunters have a choice to make:
Continue to scoff at environmentalism and environmentalists, continue to believe that first the Ozone Hole and now Global Warming are hoaxes, ignore the obvious Age of Extinction where another species goes extinct everyday somewhere in teh world as a result of human activities, watch as 5000 acres per day of open space in the US is developed, etc, etc and do so out of a pig headed allegiance to a political philosophy that has created the largest concentration of wealth in US history (1% of Americans control 33% of our wealth) OR get off the sidelines and get in the game. For real, not the Mississippi two step of words, words and more words and no action. But the real deal. Down in the trenches where you fight. Down in the trenches where you lose friends over your beliefs and your allegiance to those beliefs. Down in the trenches where you spend money and time fighting to protect the Lord's Creation.
There is a moral component to Man's relationship with Nature that hunting is a part of but most of you are seemingly completely oblivious to it. I have been called to bring this message to you. What you do with it is of your own free will.
MEMO TO RJOHNSON:
315 INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS THAT CONTROL $41 TRILLION DONT THINK GLOBAL WARMING IS A HOAX
Clinton sees economic ‘boom’ in fighting climate change
New York, 27 September: Fighting climate change can stimulate an economic “boom†for advanced and developing economies, said former US President Bill Clinton at the New York launch of the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP).
On Monday, the CDP released its fifth annual report on greenhouse gas emissions and mitigation efforts by major corporations. The CDP is a collaboration of 315 institutional investors with $41 trillion under management, that sends a questionnaire on climate-related issues to the world’s largest companies.
In the 2007 survey, 383 companies, or 77% of the FT500 index, responded, compared with 72% in 2006. Separately, 282 members, or 56%, of the S&P 500 index responded, up from 47% in 2006.
Only 69% of US firms see commercial opportunities in climate change, while 82% of the FT500 see opportunities.
The latter view is endorsed by Clinton, who heads the William J. Clinton Foundation in New York. He said: “Addressing the problem of climate change will provide for wealthy countries the biggest economic boom since we mobilised for World War II.â€
For developing countries, the effort provides “a way to develop even more rapidly, in a way that will spread the benefits of economic growth more widely than... through the ordinary expansion of trade and investmentâ€.
Clinton said commitments in the climate change area “are actually good for businessâ€. He mentioned retailer Wal-Mart, which has reduced packaging by 5%, which will save $3.5 billion in its supply chain by 2013 and remove 210,000 trucks from the road.
Advanced economies require “a source of good new jobs every five to eight yearsâ€, Clinton stated. In the 1990s, the computer industry provided that growth when “information technology broke out of the dot-com companies in Silicon Valley and... swept through every aspect of the US economy. You can’t run a dry cleaning operation the way you did 10 years ago,†he commented.
Climate change “is this decade’s source of new jobs for rich countries, and foolishly [the US] has passed it upâ€, he told the conference. In the UK, which has aggressively pursued climate goals, median wages have risen, despite high immigration.
Much of the work is “labour-intensive, oriented toward small business and evenly distributedâ€, he added. “It is a phenomenal opportunity to more rapidly develop poor countries, not to slow them down.â€
315 INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS THAT CONTROL $41 TRILLION DONT THINK GLOBAL WARMING IS A HOAX
Clinton sees economic ‘boom’ in fighting climate change
New York, 27 September: Fighting climate change can stimulate an economic “boom†for advanced and developing economies, said former US President Bill Clinton at the New York launch of the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP).
On Monday, the CDP released its fifth annual report on greenhouse gas emissions and mitigation efforts by major corporations. The CDP is a collaboration of 315 institutional investors with $41 trillion under management, that sends a questionnaire on climate-related issues to the world’s largest companies.
In the 2007 survey, 383 companies, or 77% of the FT500 index, responded, compared with 72% in 2006. Separately, 282 members, or 56%, of the S&P 500 index responded, up from 47% in 2006.
Only 69% of US firms see commercial opportunities in climate change, while 82% of the FT500 see opportunities.
The latter view is endorsed by Clinton, who heads the William J. Clinton Foundation in New York. He said: “Addressing the problem of climate change will provide for wealthy countries the biggest economic boom since we mobilised for World War II.â€
For developing countries, the effort provides “a way to develop even more rapidly, in a way that will spread the benefits of economic growth more widely than... through the ordinary expansion of trade and investmentâ€.
Clinton said commitments in the climate change area “are actually good for businessâ€. He mentioned retailer Wal-Mart, which has reduced packaging by 5%, which will save $3.5 billion in its supply chain by 2013 and remove 210,000 trucks from the road.
Advanced economies require “a source of good new jobs every five to eight yearsâ€, Clinton stated. In the 1990s, the computer industry provided that growth when “information technology broke out of the dot-com companies in Silicon Valley and... swept through every aspect of the US economy. You can’t run a dry cleaning operation the way you did 10 years ago,†he commented.
Climate change “is this decade’s source of new jobs for rich countries, and foolishly [the US] has passed it upâ€, he told the conference. In the UK, which has aggressively pursued climate goals, median wages have risen, despite high immigration.
Much of the work is “labour-intensive, oriented toward small business and evenly distributedâ€, he added. “It is a phenomenal opportunity to more rapidly develop poor countries, not to slow them down.â€
-
Po Monkey Lounger
- Duck South Addict
- Posts: 5975
- Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2001 12:01 am
- Location: Sharby Creek
"A month later, the Vatican became the first state in Europe to go completely carbon-neutral, signing an agreement with a Hungarian firm to reforest a sufficiently large swath of Hungary's Bükk National Park to offset its annual CO2 emissions. "
No, the only true way to go "carbon neutral" is to actually reduce your own CO2 emissions, not pay others to take actions that could not possibly impact the level of carbon in the atmosphere for at least a century. (Of course, I think Hammer had previously said we don't have but another 5 years to live if we don't reduce the carbon in the earth's atmosphere).
So, if one truly believes that reducing man's carbon emissions within the near future is the key to saving the planet, then these types of token, feel-good, do-nothing actions will not cut it.
I don't have a problem with the Vatican planting trees. I think its a great thing. I plant trees as well, to the extent I can afford it. But, to suggest that such will have any discernable impact on carbon levels in the earth's atmosphere within the next several decades or so, is pure folly.
Even if we assumed, for argument's sake only, the validity of the link between carbon levels and our climate, the carbon credit scheme will not work to significantly reduce carbon emissions within the immediate future. Any perceived benefits would only materialize, at best, after 100 or so years. Only by changing one's own lifestyle, in a dramatic way, would immediately actually reduce the carbon emissions being put into the earth's atmosphere daily by man. And the doomsday whackoos have told us we don't have that long. So, if the doomsday crowd is right, then what is the point? The reality is that even the doomsday crowd does not actually believe the bullschit they are selling. IF they did, they would put their money where their mouths are. And they don't. They tell others what we should do, but don't practice what they preach.
One can be a good steward of the land, a conservationist, and an environmentalist, without drinking this doomsday koolaid and buying into this hoax. It is a perversion of religion to cloak this GW doomsday nonsense with the veil of religion. Shame on those who do.
No, the only true way to go "carbon neutral" is to actually reduce your own CO2 emissions, not pay others to take actions that could not possibly impact the level of carbon in the atmosphere for at least a century. (Of course, I think Hammer had previously said we don't have but another 5 years to live if we don't reduce the carbon in the earth's atmosphere).
So, if one truly believes that reducing man's carbon emissions within the near future is the key to saving the planet, then these types of token, feel-good, do-nothing actions will not cut it.
I don't have a problem with the Vatican planting trees. I think its a great thing. I plant trees as well, to the extent I can afford it. But, to suggest that such will have any discernable impact on carbon levels in the earth's atmosphere within the next several decades or so, is pure folly.
Even if we assumed, for argument's sake only, the validity of the link between carbon levels and our climate, the carbon credit scheme will not work to significantly reduce carbon emissions within the immediate future. Any perceived benefits would only materialize, at best, after 100 or so years. Only by changing one's own lifestyle, in a dramatic way, would immediately actually reduce the carbon emissions being put into the earth's atmosphere daily by man. And the doomsday whackoos have told us we don't have that long. So, if the doomsday crowd is right, then what is the point? The reality is that even the doomsday crowd does not actually believe the bullschit they are selling. IF they did, they would put their money where their mouths are. And they don't. They tell others what we should do, but don't practice what they preach.
One can be a good steward of the land, a conservationist, and an environmentalist, without drinking this doomsday koolaid and buying into this hoax. It is a perversion of religion to cloak this GW doomsday nonsense with the veil of religion. Shame on those who do.
You can't drink all day if you don't start in the morning.
Po Monkey Lounger wrote:"A month later, the Vatican became the first state in Europe to go completely carbon-neutral, signing an agreement with a Hungarian firm to reforest a sufficiently large swath of Hungary's Bükk National Park to offset its annual CO2 emissions. "
No, the only true way to go "carbon neutral" is to actually reduce your own CO2 emissions, not pay others to take actions that could not possibly impact the level of carbon in the atmosphere for at least a century. (Of course, I think Hammer had previously said we don't have but another 5 years to live if we don't reduce the carbon in the earth's atmosphere).
So, if one truly believes that reducing man's carbon emissions within the near future is the key to saving the planet, then these types of token, feel-good, do-nothing actions will not cut it.
I don't have a problem with the Vatican planting trees. I think its a great thing. I plant trees as well, to the extent I can afford it. But, to suggest that such will have any discernable impact on carbon levels in the earth's atmosphere within the next several decades or so, is pure folly.
Even if we assumed, for argument's sake only, the validity of the link between carbon levels and our climate, the carbon credit scheme will not work to significantly reduce carbon emissions within the immediate future. Any perceived benefits would only materialize, at best, after 100 or so years. Only by changing one's own lifestyle, in a dramatic way, would immediately actually reduce the carbon emissions being put into the earth's atmosphere daily by man. And the doomsday whackoos have told us we don't have that long. So, if the doomsday crowd is right, then what is the point? The reality is that even the doomsday crowd does not actually believe the bullschit they are selling. IF they did, they would put their money where their mouths are. And they don't. They tell others what we should do, but don't practice what they preach.
One can be a good steward of the land, a conservationist, and an environmentalist, without drinking this doomsday koolaid and buying into this hoax. It is a perversion of religion to cloak this GW doomsday nonsense with the veil of religion. Shame on those who do.
And all the people said, AMEN!
-
JJ McGuire
- Veteran
- Posts: 282
- Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2004 5:26 am
- Location: Chester Springs, PA
- Contact:
Is Global Warming Alarmist James Hansen a Shill for George Soros?
By Jake Gontesky | September 26, 2007 - 09:58 ET
The claims against anthropogenic global warming skeptics are often the same: they're all shills for big oil or other industry wishing to poke holes in the 'consensus theory' of global warming (which isn't a consensus at all). Under the so-called "politicization of science" program, George Soros' (the favorite fundraiser of many democrats) has reportedly given as much as $720,000 to Hansen to help package his alarmist claims and get them pushed by the mainstream media (The Soros Threat to Democracy):
How many people, for instance, know that James Hansen, a man billed as a lonely "NASA whistleblower" standing up to the mighty U.S. government, was really funded by Soros' Open Society Institute , which gave him "legal and media advice"?
That's right, Hansen was packaged for the media by Soros' flagship "philanthropy," by as much as $720,000, most likely under the OSI's "politicization of science" program.
So he got some big paychecks from Soros - but was there a quid pro quo? The evidence certainly indicates as much:
That may have meant that Hansen had media flacks help him get on the evening news to push his agenda and lawyers pressuring officials to let him spout his supposedly "censored" spiel for weeks in the name of advancing the global warming agenda.
Hansen even succeeded, with public pressure from his nightly news performances, in forcing NASA to change its media policies to his advantage. Had Hansen's OSI-funding been known, the public might have viewed the whole production differently. The outcome could have been different.
Did Soros' funding pay off? You be the judge. Do a quick google search on James Hansen to read any of the thousands of mainstream media stories touting Hansen's claims of censorship by the Bush administration. This wouldn't be the first time credibility questions have been raised regarding Hansen and his alarmist claims [see "When does 1,400 Media Interviews = Muzzled" (03/20/07)].
But the alarmist's favorite poster-boy James Hansen is hardly the only benefactor of Soros' funding designed to get more media play for politicized topics important to the left - check out the full article for more on the non-disclosure disclosures regarding immigration and other big topics of the day.
By Jake Gontesky | September 26, 2007 - 09:58 ET
The claims against anthropogenic global warming skeptics are often the same: they're all shills for big oil or other industry wishing to poke holes in the 'consensus theory' of global warming (which isn't a consensus at all). Under the so-called "politicization of science" program, George Soros' (the favorite fundraiser of many democrats) has reportedly given as much as $720,000 to Hansen to help package his alarmist claims and get them pushed by the mainstream media (The Soros Threat to Democracy):
How many people, for instance, know that James Hansen, a man billed as a lonely "NASA whistleblower" standing up to the mighty U.S. government, was really funded by Soros' Open Society Institute , which gave him "legal and media advice"?
That's right, Hansen was packaged for the media by Soros' flagship "philanthropy," by as much as $720,000, most likely under the OSI's "politicization of science" program.
So he got some big paychecks from Soros - but was there a quid pro quo? The evidence certainly indicates as much:
That may have meant that Hansen had media flacks help him get on the evening news to push his agenda and lawyers pressuring officials to let him spout his supposedly "censored" spiel for weeks in the name of advancing the global warming agenda.
Hansen even succeeded, with public pressure from his nightly news performances, in forcing NASA to change its media policies to his advantage. Had Hansen's OSI-funding been known, the public might have viewed the whole production differently. The outcome could have been different.
Did Soros' funding pay off? You be the judge. Do a quick google search on James Hansen to read any of the thousands of mainstream media stories touting Hansen's claims of censorship by the Bush administration. This wouldn't be the first time credibility questions have been raised regarding Hansen and his alarmist claims [see "When does 1,400 Media Interviews = Muzzled" (03/20/07)].
But the alarmist's favorite poster-boy James Hansen is hardly the only benefactor of Soros' funding designed to get more media play for politicized topics important to the left - check out the full article for more on the non-disclosure disclosures regarding immigration and other big topics of the day.
JJ
Never ask a man what kind of dog he has. If he has a Lab he'll tell you, if he does not you don't want to shame him by asking.
Never ask a man what kind of dog he has. If he has a Lab he'll tell you, if he does not you don't want to shame him by asking.
Welp, it won't matter in another 650,000 years, or so. One day the Earth's molten core will run out of energy and cool to the point that it no longer creates the forces that hold the Earth together, and the whole shebang will implode with a shudder until a critical mass is built up and the planet blasts into simple pieces of cosmic dust!
So, will the Earth end in fire or ice? Won't really matter when God's last "put out the light" is spoken.
Pessimistically yours,
crow
So, will the Earth end in fire or ice? Won't really matter when God's last "put out the light" is spoken.
Pessimistically yours,
crow
TO QUOTE PML:
"No, the only true way to go "carbon neutral" is to actually reduce your own CO2 emissions, not pay others to take actions that could not possibly impact the level of carbon in the atmosphere for at least a century. (Of course, I think Hammer had previously said we don't have but another 5 years to live if we don't reduce the carbon in the earth's atmosphere)."
MY REPLY:
WRONG. I NEVER SAID ANY SUCH THING.WHAT I SAID WAS THAT THE LONGER WE WAIT TO ADDRESS GW, THE WORSE THE CONSEQUENCES.
WRONG AGAIN. WHEN YOU PLANT TREES ON FARMLAND, YOU REAP CARBON OFFSET BENEFITS ALMOST IMMEDIATELY DUE TO REDUCED CARBON EMISSIONS FROM FARM EQUIPMENT AND CHEMICALS AND ELIMINATION OF SOIL TILLAGE AND SEQUESTRATION FROM LEAVES DECOMPOSING IN THE SOIL WHICH HOLDS THE CARBON.
As for religion getting on the environmental bandwagon, it is about time. Scripture is very clear about Man's duty to Nature. GW just happens to be the issue that has finally brought a lot of mainline Protestant denominations to the table.
"No, the only true way to go "carbon neutral" is to actually reduce your own CO2 emissions, not pay others to take actions that could not possibly impact the level of carbon in the atmosphere for at least a century. (Of course, I think Hammer had previously said we don't have but another 5 years to live if we don't reduce the carbon in the earth's atmosphere)."
MY REPLY:
WRONG. I NEVER SAID ANY SUCH THING.WHAT I SAID WAS THAT THE LONGER WE WAIT TO ADDRESS GW, THE WORSE THE CONSEQUENCES.
WRONG AGAIN. WHEN YOU PLANT TREES ON FARMLAND, YOU REAP CARBON OFFSET BENEFITS ALMOST IMMEDIATELY DUE TO REDUCED CARBON EMISSIONS FROM FARM EQUIPMENT AND CHEMICALS AND ELIMINATION OF SOIL TILLAGE AND SEQUESTRATION FROM LEAVES DECOMPOSING IN THE SOIL WHICH HOLDS THE CARBON.
As for religion getting on the environmental bandwagon, it is about time. Scripture is very clear about Man's duty to Nature. GW just happens to be the issue that has finally brought a lot of mainline Protestant denominations to the table.
-
Po Monkey Lounger
- Duck South Addict
- Posts: 5975
- Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2001 12:01 am
- Location: Sharby Creek
"WHEN YOU PLANT TREES ON FARMLAND, YOU REAP CARBON OFFSET BENEFITS ALMOST IMMEDIATELY DUE TO REDUCED CARBON EMISSIONS FROM FARM EQUIPMENT AND CHEMICALS AND ELIMINATION OF SOIL TILLAGE AND SEQUESTRATION FROM LEAVES DECOMPOSING IN THE SOIL WHICH HOLDS THE CARBON. "
I think you could pretty much accomplish all of what you just said without actually planting the trees. Just stop the farming.
I must have missed that part of the article. Was that National Forest in Hungary being farmed?
I think you could pretty much accomplish all of what you just said without actually planting the trees. Just stop the farming.
I must have missed that part of the article. Was that National Forest in Hungary being farmed?
You can't drink all day if you don't start in the morning.
HELL FIRE? It causes GW you know! 
-
Po Monkey Lounger
- Duck South Addict
- Posts: 5975
- Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2001 12:01 am
- Location: Sharby Creek
Yes, if all you folks concerned about GW and the coming doomsday would just STAY HOME this hunting season, just think of how much less carbon would be emitted into the atmosphere. And if you folks could just hold your breath for long periods of time, you might emit less carbon dioxide when breathing.
You can't drink all day if you don't start in the morning.
-
yukonpete2
- Newbie
- Posts: 15
- Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2005 3:15 pm
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Ahrefs [Bot], Bing [Bot] and 4 guests