Silkroad Online Forums

Pollutant is the carbon, and we get extra carbon from the lakes underground. Usually they're locked underneath in the earth, but we're extracting it, using it and spreading it out in the atsmosphere in the form of carbon dioxide.

Not that i care, i believe in global warming but i'm still polluting like a selfish prick

This topic really is about Scientists caught faking data to fit into there *A global warming* scam,

So these talking points A global warming has used to defend itself are getting less and less credible, links to the files are available in the 1st post also the abc news link documents some of the letters with examples of how carbon emissions have been manipulated,
None of the institutions hacked have denied this data infact they have confirmed the points of leakage,
This is going to be a very interesting story to follow as the Whole Global warming debate could dissolve overnight,

As seen earlier in this Thread please dont confuse anti Global warming people as Pro Pollution,
A green sustainable earth is what both sides are chasing for Except for those who wish to controll the Carbon credits and want to exploit humanity's desire for a green planet with deception and Faked Science, I would love to see them Jailed.

reminds me of the thread about global warming i had the little discussion in lol.

its about time this global warming "issue" is being solved

so youre saying that this self sustaining ecosystem is where the pollutants are coming from??

global warming is just a media thing.. ofcourse polluting is an awful thing and we should reduce it, I really believe so, but from that to THIS, my opinion is that they're bringing it too far. I've seen it in a documentary a while ago, and I was not surprised to see same title in a local newspaper not long ago.. so yeah oooh stop the global warming, stop having children and most important, stop breathing!

so not surprised to see that the whole thing was a hoax really.

Cell is right, taking natural minerals, bio-chemicals, and other things and then putting it back out is completely ok, disregarding the fact when we burn coal; it emits sulfur, carbon dioxide, radioactive dust, dioxins, all things that are proven to be hazardous to the nearby communities and ecosystems, which completely do NOT cause acid rain to formulate in regions that have copulated emissions from coal fired plants rain down these pollutants, thus why many coal stack plants in China and elsewhere are built so high; to avoid those consequences. And sure, coal mining by stripping mountains and land is completely ok, we’re' just pulling out carbon, RIGHT GUYS? It's perfectly find to mine it, destroy the surrounding life and stability, create huge polls of coal-slurry that would never ever have a chance of breaking, pollution local aquifers that supply water to people, destabilize plant and animal life, or leak into rivers, oh heavens no, it's all natural and from the earth. /SARCASM/ Jesus, are you Farking kidding me?

CelL, every single post I ever see you make is full of inaccuracies and idiotic, uneducated statements that I am completely sure come from your ass, or out of Glenn Becks, I’m not sure. Not only that, but your grammar is shot, you use no proper sentence structure and your ideas a flavorless and at most composed by the mind of a 13 year old prepubescent boy. This thread is full of Farking morons who are jumping on these leaked emails, and I’m sick of it. Even 4Chan has more intelligent and rational posts than this Farking topic; I swear this is completely being discussed by boys.

I’ll be back after class in 8 hours, and I’ll give you more information about pollutants, PCB’s, Dioxins, energy production, inefficiencies in how we dispose and create waste, and the consequences of the things we do than you’ll ever find on Farking Wikipedia, and that you surely won’t find on IMAFUCKINGMORONWHOCANTSEETHECONNECTIONBETWEENUNHEALTHYPRACTICES.foxnews.HEILHITLER.usa =/

Angry SnowShael is Angry.

Global warming is like the swine flu, not really that harmfull at its present stage but might be later on.

Way to spew false facts. It makes your ignorance even more obvious. Seriously, I and many others will NEVER take what you say seriously ever again. To say that our climate is changing is a hoax is silly. Are you really that uneducated? Go look around at the physical change that you can SEE with your own eyes. I doubt scientists have the technology to create illusions. Need proof? Look at the ice caps. Last time I checked they're melting, and species are threatened by this change.

I can tell you just want to show off your ignorant ideas by posting something that has no basis of intelligence. Go back to playing SRO kid. You are better of there than here.

LOL this is Insanity
Here are some snippets from some emails that are linked from the original post of this thread,
Feel free to cross reference the names of these people with google, These are all the HIGHEST level scientists / Researchers for a global warming SCAM



Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@ucar.edu>

I seem to be getting an email a week from skeptics saying where’s the warming gone. I know the warming is on the decadal scale, but it would be nice to wear their smug grins away.


Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>

In any case, if the sulfate hypothesis is right, then your prediction of warming might end up being wrong. I think we have been too readily explaining the slow changes over past decade as a result of variability–that explanation is wearing thin. I would just suggest, as a backup to your prediction, that you also do some checking on the sulfate issue, just so you might have a quantified explanation in case the prediction is wrong. Otherwise, the Skeptics will be all over us–the world is really cooling, the models are no good, etc. And all this just as the US is about ready to get serious on the issue.



Mike MacCracken <mmaccrac@comcast.net>

Ironically, the E1-IMAGE scenario runs, although much cooler in the long term of course, are considerably warmer than A1B-AR4 for several decades! Also – relevant to your statement – A1B-AR4 runs show potential for a distinct lack of warming in the early 21st C, which I’m sure skeptics would love to see replicated in the real world… (See the attached plot for illustration but please don’t circulate this any further as these are results in progress, not yet shared with other ENSEMBLES partners let alone published).


Tim Johns <tim.johns@metoffice.gov.uk>

Your final sentence though about improvements in reviewing and traceability is a bit of a hostage to fortune. The skeptics will try to hang on to something, but I don’t want to give them something clearly tangible.


Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>

Looks pretty good to me. Only one issue. In our discussion of possible participants in Bern, I think (someone correct me if I’m wrong) we concluded that the last two on the list (w/ question marks) would be unwise choices because they are likely to cause conflict than to contribute to concensus [sic] and progress.


Christoph Kull <christoph.kull@pages.unibe.ch>

Mike, I agree very much with the above sentiment. My concern was motivated by the possibility of expressing an impression of more concensus than might actually exist . I suppose the earlier talk implying that we should not ‘muddy the waters’ by including contradictory evidence worried me. IPCC is supposed to represent concensus but also areas of uncertainty in the evidence. Of course where there are good reasons for the differences in series (such as different seasonal responses or geographic bias) it is equally important not to overstress the discrepancies or suggest contradiction where it does not exist.


Keith Briffa <k.briffa@uea.ac.uk>

The key thing is making sure the series are vertically aligned in a reasonable way. I had been using the entire 20th century, but in the case of Keith’s, we need to align the first half of the 20th century w/ the corresponding mean values of the other series, due to the late 20th century decline. So, if we show Keith’s series in this plot, we have to comment that "something else" is responsible for the discrepancies in this case. Otherwise, the skeptics have an field day casting doubt on our ability to understand the factors that influence these estimates and, thus, can undermine faith in the paleoestimates.

From: Michael Mann. To: Phil Jones and Gabi Hegerl (University of Edinburgh). Date: Aug 10, 2004
“Phil and I are likely to have to respond to more crap criticisms from the [global warming-denying] idiots in the near future.”

From: Phil Jones. To: Many. March 11, 2003
“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome [global warming-denying] editor.”

From Phil Jones To: Michael Mann (Pennsylvania State University). July 8, 2004
“I can’t see either of these [global warming-denying] papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

lemme ask you another question. Do we return these pollutants (and their wastes) to where they are found naturally?

Grow some balls, in most academic societies you wont even get a 'D' grade for just quoting. You need to atleast add your oppinion and build it into a good arguement, thus far your relying on what someone has told you and right now its been said over and over the arguement is not with global warming but with the scientist, global warming itself is a fact it is undenialble.

But what they are doing isnt evil in my oppinion, i rather this over hype as it pushs us to make a real difference. If they said global warming will take 2000 years to effect us, (just a random number by the way) none of us would really care, i would just assume by that point we have the technology to avoid it. But although global warming wont directly effect us it will effect our offspring in a more noticeable fashion.

So back to the global warming arguement, we all need to do something, we cant exploit the earth and create deadly bi-products, teachnology needs to be updated, energy sources need to change and our general way of living needs to be more conservative.

Thank you, I agree with you 100%

Wong This Thread is about Climate researchers manipulating data to create the illusion of Global Warming,
You have bought 0 information to lay any doubt that these documents are false,

Ive said before NO ONE is saying Pollution does not exist, and pollution has Nothing to do with the documents i presented in this thread,
The US Senate has called for investigation into these files so it looks like it very well could be game over for these Pathetic scientists,

All the Emails have been put online and into a searchable database here
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/index.php

so please take your brainwashed crapiola out of here, im not interested at all in debating a global warming with you when its borderline Cult mentalitly and all scientific evidence of it seems to be all made up.
If these documents are a hoax than sure i would be more than happy to consider that, bring the proof of it and we can talk about it.

for fucks sake you brain dead retard anyone here is brainwashed its you.

Now i said only once that the documents COULD be false i never said they where, your the one bring nothing to the debate only linking to emails and documents.

now pollution is doing what to the enviroment?

also you need global warming to have the data manipulated, without it there would be nothing to manipulate, global warming is happening you brain dead mother Farking cock riding retard how else can i spell it out?

no no what proof do you need it exists nothing absolutelly nothing in your 'proof' suggests global warming dont exist only that data has been manipulated and that its not happening as fast as first made out. im not a geologist so i cant bring any scientific proof with explanations to why it exists only that changes are happening and you can see them, in the past 10 years the rate glaciers have been melting has doubled from 1m a year to 1.75-2m a year, im only saying that as its easier to measure then the icecaps so its easiest to show the world is warming up.

now to explain why an iceage comes after the warming, the gulf stream that supplys the uk with its warmish climate relys on the salt water add lots of fresh water you sink the stream and eventually stop it thus england turns to ice.

these are little things but my god son you have **** idea whats going on.

finally il say it again these scientist are fraudulant global warming DOES exist

I read absolutely none of that because even if some of the global warming scientists were satanists sacrificing babies by throwing them onto highways and then writing fake global warming evidence with their blood it doesnt hold any relevance to anything related to global warming. Global warming is scientific fact and anybody who denies it is someone who is horribly biased towards sensationalist media.

oh by the way i think you forgot to respond to one of my earlier posts




QFT
and with that i am done with this thread.
There are potentially lethal doses of stupid floating around here and it seems that, once infected with it, one can not return to thinking with anything other than their feet.
For those affected: i wish you luck with the stupid if i am able to find i cure i will relay the news immediately until then...try to get educated.

[/quote]

k wong regardless of how you feel or what you beleive, The reality is this Global warming debate has information put out last week against it that can poteintally destroy your side of the debate If these emails are proven as true,
i dont care what big bad words you throw at me it changes nothing,
The investigation has to run its course now and thats really all there is to it,

You cant even be on topic in regards to what this thread is about, And that is Nasa + united nations scientists caught manipulating information, Thats the story here,
your emotional outbursts are just sad to watch
thats it from me don't expect any responce's from me to you, your way to immature and keep trying to turn this thread in a direction it wasnt intended to go in,
If you dont care for what are in the letters and documents i linked than just leave the thread

dbbl post >_<

ok so answer this simple question depending on the answer i can explain why im getting enraged also can disprove your entire arguement

does global warming exist in any form?

Shit. That happened to you too?

fun night, got drunk and all E.T. is one crazy mother fucker when you get him on the shots, got this one story where he got with this SHE.T that ended up been a HE.T proper laugh anyways long story short he aint that nice fucker stole my baby and drove off

Strange evil scientist agendas aside, you can't deny that the rate of ice cap recession is abnormally accelerated recently. But that's of course just one entry on the list of evidence.

Picking out vague personal emails that hackers acquired illegally is nothing more than a direct insult and undermining of their work.

The global warming situation is not dead, it's chugging right along as it has been. Personally I believe it's more a part of the earth's natural cycle but I'm sure like many other skeptics here, I really have no f*cking idea what I'm talking about when it comes to the details.

I suppose the biggest problem I have with this is instead of having someone of significant intelligence and repute taking the time to deny and falsify all this research, we have a group of internet alarmists peddling their views on the subjective masses of the web.

i had completley forgot to change the alarmist text in the oringal post

Did you try to do the weird finger thing when you were alone in the car too?

Chill out a little wong, not worth it arguing with internet.

dont care bout the nets i pick a tard and argue til i get bored im happy nd when i get bored they are happy as they feel they won til i start it again you know me by now

Yeah, but some get all butthurt and spam report after they start something and it spins out of control. Then I gotta read all posts, even the unfunnies :\ Should try to limit yourself to one 'you're a Farking retard' per thread

It's nearly 2 am here, but lemme give it a shot.

Think of the global warming issue this way, preemptively acting to stop global warming is like buying insurance. Yes it's expensive as we will have to do much research to find an alternative way to get around oil dependence and control our output of environmentally dangerous materials, but we're doing it to prevent it. Many people buy insurance why? Is it because they enjoy throwing money down the pipe? No.

People buy insurance as a way to safeguard. What's more valuable, 100 bucks a month, or paying thousands all of a sudden. Global warming just has bigger consequences. We know that CO2, and other pollutants that are emitted at large volumes can have negative effects on our environment. Whether we are speeding up the destruction of the ozone, or increasing the amount of heat-absorbing materials, there is proof that if this increases to higher lvl, than the earth's climate will change. We do not know if and how the earth will compensate.

Now's here's how global warming is similar to insurance. We can spend money now and try to halt the influx of pollutants to nature, or we can let it go and see what happens.

From what I remember (I'll ask my gf in the morning since she works at the US Weather Center), It could:
A) End up with a slightly more tropical climate extending northward.
B) End up with an increase in temperature, than a global cooling caused by some other source, such as volcanic eruption.
C) The buildup of greenhouse or other gases and pollutants cause a permanent change in the environment with the polar and equatorial areas experiencing a completely extreme climate change.
D) Earth heats up and truly becomes venus's twin. (Yes venus is closer to the sun, but it's mostly due to it's intense atmosphere that all the heat is trapped. Even when the planet is not facing the sun temperatures would soar well into hundreds of degrees Celsius. (Earth being slightly further away, would be a lovely 300 or so degree Celsius, or around 500+ degrees Fahrenheit. Either way we're toast.

But it will basically boil down to politics and economics. Which will get me more votes, and which is worth more. Paying now for a set price or paying later with the price ranging from 0- all life on earth.

a. my grammar isnt important to me, im not wrighting a gawd damn essay or trying to impress a 16 year old. im at work, i dont have time to giv-a-......
b. yes the pollutants are bad, and were should learn to clean up after ourselves better. but our planet that has existed long before us and probably will long after us. is fully capable of recycling the pollutants back and sustaining itself. Its been doing it for thousands upon thousands upon thousands of years. You guys are just as bad as far as the conspiracy bullshit goes, literally. Considering im betting you believe that cow farts are detrimental to our world too...

I'm going to have to disagree with you CeLL. Never before have humans put out such large quantities of pollutants or at such type. We are creating things that can't normally degrade for thousands of years. "Past Pollutants" only amount to a few destroyed forests or trashed cities. They never put out radioactive materials, massive amounts of CO2 being released daily, or chemicals that last forever while degrading our atmosphere. It's not that humans have suddenly started polluting the earth; the issue is that we're doing it on a much larger scale since we are a global race now and are putting out much more dangerous pollutants.

The earth can recover from most things, even a possible asteroid impact has healed, ice ages have ended, but we see that each time, a major part of the earth's species goes bye-bye. Even than, the earth could recover since those damaging events started and stopped. What would've happened if they kept going?