 |
 |
The ‘consensus’ on climate change is a catastrophe in itself
Christopher Booker
London Telegraph
Sunday, Aug 31, 2008
As the estimated cost of measures proposed by politicians to “combat global warming” soars ever higher – such as the International Energy Council’s $45 trillion – “fighting climate change” has become the single most expensive item on the world’s political agenda.
As Senators Obama and McCain vie with the leaders of the European Union to promise 50, 60, even 80 per cent cuts in “carbon emissions”, it is clear that to realise even half their imaginary targets would necessitate a dramatic change in how we all live, and a drastic reduction in living standards.
All this makes it rather important to know just why our politicians have come to believe that global warming is the most serious challenge confronting mankind, and just how reliable is the evidence for the theory on which their policies are based.
(Article continues below)
By far the most influential player in putting climate change at the top of the global agenda has been the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Chan ge (IPCC), set up in 1988, not least on the initiative of the Thatcher government. (This was why the first chairman of its scientific working group was Sir John Houghton, then the head of the UK’s Meteorological Office.)
Through a succession of reports and international conferences, it was the IPCC which led to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, soon to have an even more ambitious successor, to be agreed in Copenhagen next year.
The common view of the IPCC is that it consists of 2,500 of the world’s leading scientists who, after carefully weighing all the evidence, have arrived at a “consensus” that world temperatures are rising disastrously, and that the only plausible cause has been rising levels of CO2 and other man-made greenhouse gases.
In fact, as has become ever more apparent over the past 20 years –not least thanks to the evidence of a succession of scientists who have participated in the IPCC itself – the reality of this curious body could scarcely be more different.
Prison
Planet.tv Members Can Watch
Fall Of The Republic
Right Now Online -
Don't Miss Out! Get
Your Subscription Today!
CANCER CONSPIRACY? Are
"they" suppressing the cure? Will YOU
be the next victim? Learn
the Secret Truth! - READ FULL STORY
-
- Social bookmarks
- Email this article
-
- Print this page
11 Responses to “The ‘consensus’ on climate change is a catastrophe in itself”
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | |||||||
| By N2H | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
August 31st, 2008 at 5:23 am
@Article
Ah good old Booker! We can always count on him to tell us the latest lies.
“As the estimated cost of measures proposed by politicians to “combat global warming” soars ever higher – such as the International Energy Council’s $45 trillion – “fighting climate change” has become the single most expensive item on the world’s political agenda.”
What a load of rubbish. That may be the LOSS to the ELITES that would come about from removing our dependence on fossil fuel, but you can be DAMN sure that the system MIT has developed wouldn’t cost that much to implement. The loss of revenue to the fossil fuel and electricity generation corporations however very easily could.
Even if true, consider this: 45 Trillion is a drop in the bucket compared to the actual money involved:
“According to the International Energy Council, the international electricity market volume is expected to reach $889,200 billion by the year 2020 and, accordingly, investment in power supply is expected to reach $10,000 billion worldwide over the coming 30 years.”
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2004/714/fe1.htm
That’s right, that same council that says fighting global warming will cost $45 trillion, says that market volume will reach $889 trillion! Thus, the cost of fighting global warming would be around 5% of market volume, and would therefore likely be LESS than the PROFIT made on the sale of electricity!
Also, just out of interest, have a look at this excerpt from that article:
“Nor does anyone notice that underneath the street is a new Egyptian technology, named the Egyptian Electric Pedal (EEP), which coverts the energy of traffic flow into electric power.”
“Engineer Ihab Abdel-Karim, director of 3T and founder of Tomouh, says the EEP is “a purely-Egyptian international breakthrough in the field of renewable energy which, for the first time ever, turns the disadvantage of traffic congestion into a huge advantage for the country.” Installing a pedal on a 100- kilometre-long road with a traffic density of 5,000-7,000 vehicles per day, for instance, would generate enough cheap clean energy to supply around 5,000 households and create 250 sustainable job opportunities, according to Abdel-Karim. If implemented on a macro- level, the EEP team says Egypt should install 30,000 pedals on roads and highways nationwide, which could reduce national oil consumption by 20 per cent ($900 million).”
This is just one of MANY ideas out there that can reduce fossil fuel consumption without forcing us to change our lifestyles. There are more, including the Solar/Hydrogen system that would give a home unlimited free electricity, and Lithium Titanium batteries that can power a car for 150 miles and then be recharged in under ten minutes.
“As Senators Obama and McCain vie with the leaders of the European Union to promise 50, 60, even 80 per cent cuts in “carbon emissions”, it is clear that to realise even half their imaginary targets would necessitate a dramatic change in how we all live, and a drastic reduction in living standards.”
The technologies I listed above WILL come, simply because the market for such technologies is HUGE. Wouldn’t YOU like to never have to pay for electricity again? What about third world nations that can’t afford to set up huge, costly and inefficient electricity grids? The MIT solution could put electricity into every home on the planet with out a single powerline. In fact, once installed, it doesn’t need anything but sunlight to meet all a house’s power needs.
How is THAT for raising global living standards? Of course the elites who earn their money from selling you fossil fuels and electricity will lose, but who give a SHIT about them? They are already rich beyond most people’s imagining!
“The idea that the IPCC represents any kind of genuine scientific “consensus” is a complete fiction. Again and again there have been examples of how evidence has been manipulated to promote the official line, the most glaring instance being the notorious “hockey stick”.”
Utter bullshit! Not only was the criticism of the “hockey stick” graph created by Mann proven to be false, but further reconstructions made by different teams using different data and different methods all show the same thing. The fact is that McIntyre (the man behind the “debunking” of the “hockey stick”) had to remove nearly TWO THIRDS of the DATA in order to create a graph that DIDN’T show what Mann et al. showed. McIntyre was the one who manipulated the data, not Mann! Not a surprise really, considering McIntyre is NOT a climate scientist. He simply massaged the data until he got what he wanted.
“By the time of its latest report, last year, the IPCC had an even greater problem. Far from continuing to rise in line with rising CO2, as its computer models predicted they should, global temperatures since the abnormally hot year of 1998 had flattened out at a lower level and were even falling – a trend confirmed by Nasa’s satellite readings over the past 18 months.”
Another blatant lie. The fact is that temperatures have continued to rise on a decadal average of 0.1 Degrees Celsius, EXCEPT for the last 18 months, which has flattened out (dropping by 0.03 Degrees Celsius from the 2006 global mean temperature) thanks toy La Nina. When La Nina is over, the temperatures will once again rise.
“So pronounced has this been that even scientists supporting the warmist thesis now concede that, due to changes in ocean currents, we can expect a decade or more of “cooling”, before the “underlying warming trend” reappears.”
Which “scientists”? This is another blatant lie. La Nina doesn’t last a decade, it lasts a year or two. In fact there was another La Nina just after 1998, which was an El Nino, itself expected to return soon.
A trend is by necessity a decadal creature though. In fact in climate, natural annual variability is enough that a true trend can only really show up in at least 30 years of data. Still, we CAN project trend lines into the future and see where we’ll be, and it is clear in another decade, we will have had yet again the hottest decade on record, just like the last one has been.
“Among the ever-growing mountain of informed criticism of the IPCC’s methods, a detailed study by an Australian analyst John McLean (to find it, Google “Prejudiced authors, prejudiced findings”) shows just how incestuously linked are most of the core group of academics whose models underpin everything the IPCC wishes us to believe about global warming.”
This of course is a ridiculous claim. Of COURSE the world’s top climate scientists are linked! They don’t operate in a vacuum (nor does ANY science for that matter), and as such the top people often work together in different studies. That does NOT change the meaning of the work any more than the fact that in the 40’s the worlds top nuclear physicists all worked at Los Alamos! Science is science, and you have to use SCIENCE to disprove it, not bullshit about who knows who!
“The significance of the past year is not just that the vaunted “consensus” on the forces driving our climate has been blown apart as never before, but that a new “counter-consensus” has been emerging among thousands of scientists across the world, given expression in last March’s Manhattan Declaration by the so-called Non-Governmental Panel on Climate Change.”
Another blatant lie. Here is the truth about NIPCC:
“Several hundred people sat in a fifth-floor ballroom at the Marriott Marquis Hotel in Times Square on Monday eating pasta and trying hard to prove that they had unraveled the established science showing that humans are warming the world in potentially disruptive ways.”
“The meeting was largely framed around science, but after the luncheon, when an organizer made an announcement asking all of the scientists in the large hall to move to the front for a group picture, 19 men did so.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03.....imate.html
THAT is the “thousands of scientists”! 19 men being paid by fossil fuel companies and other elite “astroturf” organisations.
Such as:
“As it was put by Roger Cohen, a senior US physicist formerly involved with the IPCC process, who long accepted its orthodoxy: “I was appalled at how flimsy the case is. I was also appalled at the behaviour of many of those who helped produce the IPCC reports and by many of those who promote it.”
Who is Roger Cohen?
“Cohen, who has a doctorate in physics and who retired from Exxon Mobil as manager of strategic planning, has been in the thick of exchanges on the Herald’s op-ed pages since he wrote an opinion piece Dec. 23 saying global-warming concerns are overblown.”
And who was behind the NIPCC? The Heartland Institute:
“Summary for Policymakers of the Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change
Written By: Edited by S. Fred Singer, Ph.D.
Published In: Summary for Policymakers
Publication Date: March 2, 2008
Publisher: Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change / The Heartland Insstitute”
http://www.heartland.org/article.cfm?artId=22835
And who fund The Heartland Institute?
“Greenpeace’s ExxonSecrets website lists Heartland as having received $791,500 (unadjusted for inflation) from ExxonMobil between 1998 and 2006.[27]
Contributions include:
* $30,000 in 1998;
* $115,000 in 2000;
* $90,000 in 2001;
* $15,000 in 2002;
* $85,000 for General Operating Support and $7,500 for their 19th Anniversary Benefit Dinner in 2003;
* 85,000 for General Operating Support and $15,000 for Climate Change Efforts in 2004; and
* $109,000 in 2005; and
* $230,000 in 2006.”
http://www.sourcewatch.org/ind.....on_Funding
That’s right, Exxon! Well, isn’t THAT a surprise!
Christopher Booker is just another bullshit artist in the employ of the elite to LIE to you! If you believe a word he says, you are a retard.
August 31st, 2008 at 9:54 am
Kamakase wrote..Utter bullshit! Not only was the criticism of the “hockey stick” graph created by Mann proven to be false, but further reconstructions made by different teams using different data and different methods all show the same thing. The fact is that McIntyre (the man behind the “debunking” of the “hockey stick”) had to remove nearly TWO THIRDS of the DATA in order to create a graph that DIDN’T show what Mann et al. showed. McIntyre was the one who manipulated the data, not Mann! Not a surprise really, considering McIntyre is NOT a climate scientist. He simply massaged the data until he got what he wanted
———————–
LIAR!!!
Kamakase wrote..Another blatant lie. The fact is that temperatures have continued to rise on a decadal average of 0.1 Degrees Celsius, EXCEPT for the last 18 months, which has flattened out (dropping by 0.03 Degrees Celsius from the 2006 global mean temperature) thanks toy La Nina. When La Nina is over, the temperatures will once again rise.
———————–
LIAR!!!
Kamakase wrote..A trend is by necessity a decadal creature though. In fact in climate, natural annual variability is enough that a true trend can only really show up in at least 30 years of data. Still, we CAN project trend lines into the future and see where we’ll be, and it is clear in another decade, we will have had yet again the hottest decade on record, just like the last one has been.
———————-
LIAR!!!
August 31st, 2008 at 4:17 pm
Still trouncing out the same old regurgitated bullshit eh krazykarma. How’s the temperature in Rotorua then? HOT??? Ha frickin ha. Reeeeeeeeetaaaaaaard!
August 31st, 2008 at 6:41 pm
@TheTruthIsOutThere
“LIAR!!!”
“MBH98 calculated PCs of proxy sub-networks separately for each interval in their stepwise reconstruction. This is the only sensible approach, as it allows all data available over each sub-interval to be used (i.e., first for 1400-1980, then separately for 1450-1980, 1500-1980, and so on). This requires 159 independent time series to represent all indicators required for reconstructions of all possible sub-intervals, even though the maximum number ever used for a particular sub-interval is 112. By not following this protocol, MM appear to have eliminated in the range of 100 proxy series used by MBH98 over the interval 1400-1600.”
http://holocene.meteo.psu.edu/.....roblem.pdf
McIntyre (a mathematician who has worked for fossil fuel comapnies) and McKitrick (a free-market exconomist) intentionally deleted a significant proportion of the data in order to change the outcome. Other studies, some showing greater variability, do NOT contradict MBH98, simply because they do not cherry pick the data.
“Based on the analyses presented in the original papers by Mann et al. and this newer supporting evidence, the committee finds it plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium.”
http://books.nap.edu/openbook......amp;page=4
NOT a LIE!!!
“LIAR!!!”
“A simple mathematical calculation of the temperature change over the latest decade (1998-2007) alone shows a continued warming of 0.1 °C per decade. The warming trend can be seen in the graph of observed global temperatures. The red bars show the global annual surface temperature, which exhibit year-to-year variability. The blue line clearly shows the upward trend, far greater than the uncertainties, which are shown as thin black bars. The recent slight slowing of the warming is due to a shift towards more-frequent La Niña conditions in the Pacific since 1998. These bring cool water up from the depths of the Pacific Ocean, cooling global temperatures.”
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/co.....ths/2.html
NOT a LIE!!!
“LIAR!!!”
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/co.....yth6_1.gif
NOT a LIE!!!
—-
@Paul T
“Still trouncing out the same old regurgitated bullshit eh krazykarma. How’s the temperature in Rotorua then? HOT??? Ha frickin ha. Reeeeeeeeetaaaaaaard!”
A creationist calling ME a retard? AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Maybe god created AGW to test your faith, retard!
August 31st, 2008 at 9:22 pm
It’s all about using GW (Global Warming) for more control.
I will agree that we should work towards less waste and emissions of all types, however lets not make life unlivable and destroy prosperity.
August 31st, 2008 at 11:46 pm
Although I would not mind cleaner air, this can be accomplished with nuclear power producing hydrogen which can be used to fuel automobiles. Additionally, an expansion of technologies, such as high speed rail would take most of the freight off the roads.
Do Al Gore and Prince Phillip support nuclear power? No. Because the propaganda for this has been spread since Chernobyl. Modern nuclear reactors are a passively safe, efficient and (over time) cost worth solution for our energy needs. Additionally, they can desalinate large amounts of ocean water as well as create hydrogen for many uses, not the least of which is for use in cars.
So why don’t they want to support nuclear power if the situation is so DESPERATE???
Because Global warming is just another geo-political circus, created to trick incompetent scientists and of course, “Joe sixpack”. Global warming is about halting nation state DEVELOPMENT.
But why would they not want nation states to develop? Don’t they WANT Africa to develop? Don’t they WANT China to develop? Well, no, and if you think they do, you simply are ignorant of world history and the history of economics.
If nations states develop, populations RISE. I shouldn’t have to explain why.
Don’t they WANT populations to rise? What??? WTF? No. Price Phillip (founder of the World Wildlife Fund) has spoken out about population for the last 30 years. Many other Malthusians and racists support his claims.
You see, I hate to break this to you, but some people in this world are… racist. Wow. I know, BIG shocker.
And some people in the world actually want to have MORE power. WOW, really?
People want POWER???
Yep, they do. Believe it or not. In fact, if you bother to ever read a history book, you’ll find this is the case quite often.
The elites think this is their world, a lot of them are racist, and they don’t like the idea of African’s and others growing their countries. In fact they don’t give a rat’s ass if YOU live or die. Yes YOU.
Why don’t they just ASK people to kill themselves? Or ASK the governments to force people to stop having babies?
Well, first of all, they think there are too many people right NOW; irregardless of population growth.
Second, I don’t think governments would be able to force people to do that. Of course, they could force people IF, they had more control.
But how do they get more control?
First, you control the creation of money and you make the nation state a debt slave to you. You do this in as many countries as you can and set up central banks.
Then you have to get MORE control of this part of the world. You do this by giving them a common enemy, real or imagined. A PERFECT enemy is one that is ALL around. Around every corner; in fact you never know WHO it could be. The enemy could be ANYBODY. Obviously, if the “enemy” could be anybody, there must be some form of “protection” from everybody. Its a rather clever tactic.
Are you saying Al Qaeda doesn’t exist you conspiracy nut?
Of course Al Qaeda exists. Fortunately for us, they are a bunch of people in caves with guns, that’s IT. They don’t have a vast network in multiple countries, not a SINGLE SHRED of evidence has ever existed that says they COULD or that they DO.
And besides, people like Saddam Hussein HATE them and… oh, wait a minute.
The next step up is getting control of the world. If you don’t have control of the world, any and all countries who are NOT yet controlled will form up alliances with each other to defend their sovereignty. And that makes it more difficult.
So you play a cat and mouse game with these countries, this involves many things.
To top it all off, you do the MOST important thing. You wreak the economy.
Why the hell do you do that?
It IS a risky move, true. But it is necessary to achieve RAPID population reduction and RAPID desperation from the population. For example, who CARES to protest a war if you are looking for something to eat, or a place to sleep? Also, if a leader comes along promising food etc, who cares if he is also a fascist pig?
Germany is a good example. Their economy was destroyed purposefully by the Treaty of Versaille. This caused fascism to become easily accepted in a very small amount of time.
Basically, the more chaos and confusion the easier it is to do what you want. The MORE stability, peace and prosperity the more DIFFICULT it is to take control and do what you want.
Once you destroy China, Russia, India with guns or butter, you can now put your central banks into their countries, once you have your central banks in their countries, you essentially OWN them just like the rest.
Obviously, once you own all of the major countries of the world, you can make your little utopia, where you enjoy your unearned wealth, and the rest of the workers stay out of your way. At that point, whether they know terrorism, global warming is real or not. It doesn’t matter, you have them.
The United States was founded by FIGHTING these oligarchs, and separating from them.
People don’t realize that most wars these days are not fought with guns, but rather, they are fought with butter.
September 1st, 2008 at 4:09 am
@Paulson is an idiot
“Modern nuclear reactors are a passively safe, efficient and (over time) cost worth solution for our energy needs. Additionally, they can desalinate large amounts of ocean water as well as create hydrogen for many uses, not the least of which is for use in cars.”
Actually, nuclear power is one of the most expensive if not THE most expensive options, and is far from efficient. Like all centralised electricity generation, a very large proportion of the power generated is lost in transmission due to the resistance of power lines. The MIT concept is much better – generation at the home via solar/hydrogen hybrid. No power is lost in transmission that way, no messy waste to get rid of, and no more paying for electricity.
Hell, if we REALLY didn’t care about potential misuse, we could use thermoelectric generators – full contained units that use radioactive fuel sources that generate electricity via heat. Such units can run for 25 or more years providing plenty of electricity and when they are done, can be taken away as a unit. Similar units are used in satellites. Of course, you could make a dirty bomb out of the fuel so I doubt that will ever happen. I believe Scott Base in Antarctica uses one of these units. They simply buried it in the ice for safety and free power for decades. You could even power a car with one, but well, like I said it’s unlikely as long as someone might want to make a dirty bomb out of it. These units are safer than nuclear reactors, because they can not melt down.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R....._generator
“Because Global warming is just another geo-political circus, created to trick incompetent scientists and of course, “Joe sixpack”. Global warming is about halting nation state DEVELOPMENT.”
BULLSHIT. Only a retard would think THEY are smarter than TENS OF THOUSANDS OF SCIENTISTS. Seriously, YOU are the one being tricked by the fossil fuel companies, NOT the scientists.
“If nations states develop, populations RISE. I shouldn’t have to explain why.”
BULLSHIT! Developed nations have VERY LOW birth rates, and some of the worlds most developed nations would have negative population growth if it wasn’t for immigration!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L.....birth_rate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L.....rowth_rate
Have a look where the US is on those lists. Then have a look at the countries above it. Notice anything?
“The elites think this is their world, a lot of them are racist, and they don’t like the idea of African’s and others growing their countries. In fact they don’t give a rat’s ass if YOU live or die. Yes YOU.”
This is true, which is why they DON’T want development! As I have shown, development leads to lower birth rate AND lower (if not negative) population growth. Think about it, the undeveloped nations have remained undeveloped for decades while the world has supposedly been helping to develop them via the IMF and World Bank etc. The truth is, development is the LAST thing the elites want!
I won’t bother with the rest of your post, as it is basically true except you seem to think that is NOT what they already have, and HAVE had for CENTURIES. If we were to cast off their number one control mechanism, electricity generation, then they would be nearly powerless. If we cast off fossil fuels altogether, they would be truly fucked.
The truth is, their power literally comes from their power! It is our energy requirements that make us slaves. Everything we do, eat, make etc requires power, and THEY own it all. In many countries it is actually illegal to go off the grid and generate your own power! THAT is why they are fighting AGW so hard, because the way to solve THAT also destroys their control over us.
Remember Tesla? Remember how he claimed to have figured out how to transmit power wirelessly to anyone who wanted it, but it could not be metered or controlled (can’t turn off the power if you don’t pay their bill) so it never happened. This has been their control mechanism for a very long time, and they will do anything to protect it, including tricking people like YOU into believing that THEY want a Carbon Tax, when the reality is, if THEY wanted it, it would be everywhere already!
In fact, the number one thing required to become a “developed nation” is abundant electricity. The rest comes from that. If you control the electricity generation in a country, you control that country. Have a look at California to see what the elites can do if you don’t play ball. The easiest way to destroy America for example would be to black it out. Everything grinds to a halt without power. They know it, and that is why they will do anything to keep control of it.
September 1st, 2008 at 4:16 am
@walt
“It’s all about using GW (Global Warming) for more control.
I will agree that we should work towards less waste and emissions of all types, however lets not make life unlivable and destroy prosperity.”
Actually, it is about IGNORING AGW for fear of them LOSING control as I explained to “Paulson is an idiot”.
Secondly, how does not using fossil fuels make life unlivable? Right now we have the technology to make cars that are just as fast, just as long range, and just as convenient (quick “refuel”) as petrol cars, using for example Lithium Titanium batteries, or hydrogen. In fact there is NOTHING you would lose by NOT using petrol. So where is the HARM? Unless you are talking about the harm to the elites wallets as they lose their number one income source, that is.
September 1st, 2008 at 6:48 am
Kamakase wrote…“MBH98 calculated PCs of proxy sub-networks separately for each interval in their stepwise reconstruction. This is the only sensible approach, as it allows all data available over each sub-interval to be used (i.e., first for 1400-1980, then separately for 1450-1980, 1500-1980, and so on). This requires 159 independent time series to represent all indicators required for reconstructions of all possible sub-intervals, even though the maximum number ever used for a particular sub-interval is 112. By not following this protocol, MM appear to have eliminated in the range of 100 proxy series used by MBH98 over the interval 1400-1600.”
http://holocene.meteo.psu.edu/…..roblem.pdf
McIntyre (a mathematician who has worked for fossil fuel comapnies) and McKitrick (a free-market exconomist) intentionally deleted a significant proportion of the data in order to change the outcome. Other studies, some showing greater variability, do NOT contradict MBH98, simply because they do not cherry pick the data.
“Based on the analyses presented in the original papers by Mann et al. and this newer supporting evidence, the committee finds it plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium.”
http://books.nap.edu/openbook&.....amp;page=4
———————————————–
BULLSHIT AND LIES FROM PATHALOGICAL LIAR..GETS SOME THEREPY
Kamakase wrote…“A simple mathematical calculation of the temperature change over the latest decade (1998-2007) alone shows a continued warming of 0.1 °C per decade. The warming trend can be seen in the graph of observed global temperatures. The red bars show the global annual surface temperature, which exhibit year-to-year variability. The blue line clearly shows the upward trend, far greater than the uncertainties, which are shown as thin black bars. The recent slight slowing of the warming is due to a shift towards more-frequent La Niña conditions in the Pacific since 1998. These bring cool water up from the depths of the Pacific Ocean, cooling global temperatures.”
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/co…..ths/2.html
——————————————————
BULLSHIT AND LIES FROM PATHALOGICAL LIAR..GETS SOME THEREPY
September 1st, 2008 at 7:05 am
TO ALL…I’ve got a feeling that BILLY NO MATES..aka Kamakase as got a vested interest in the BULLSHIT GLOBAL WARMING RELIGION..he reckons he runs his own Business..now if you think of it logically are the items he’s “FLOGGING” got any thing to do with this con ..like Solar Panels,Wind Generators….MAKES YOU WONDER HEY?????
September 1st, 2008 at 8:31 am
Karmakaze you are wrong on AGW. I agree with you on the CERN LHC but I’m positive you are wrong on this. Don’t have time to go into this right now.