SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - Still believe in Global Warming? This should fix that.

SUBSIM Radio Room Forums (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/index.php)

- General Topics (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=175)

- - Still believe in Global Warming? This should fix that. (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=137740)

Quote:

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Only an idiot would buy that.

-S

So says a supporter of a nutritionist. Someone who thinks we are out to kill the third world. Reality check!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robinson

The result would be vast human suffering and the loss of hundreds of millions of human lives.

I put it as simple as I can. Every scientific organization agrees with the facts. Not one organization disagrees. Spike in Co2 and temperature change is just a coincidence? No number of scientists as in not one scientist anywhere on the planet came out to support his "theory". Not one! Hello!! Robinson hasn't been catapulted into the limelight with his IPCC shattering theory. Oil isn't promoting his theory. No one is supporting his theory. That should be telling you something. Who's the idiot?

Quote:

Originally Posted by bradclark1

Quote:

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Only an idiot would buy that.

-S

So says a supporter of a nutritionist. Someone who thinks we are out to kill the third world. Reality check!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robinson

The result would be vast human suffering and the loss of hundreds of millions of human lives.

Um... NOOOO! Try 600 IPCC paid scientists that rely on money from the IPCC say so. 31,000+ other scientist disagree.

So yes, who is the idiot?

-S

Quote:

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Um... NOOOO! Try 600 IPCC paid scientists that rely on money from the IPCC say so. 31,000+ other scientist disagree.

So yes, who is the idiot?

-S

We all know the 31,000 um scientists is a joke. Might be 31,000 names on the list but certainly not 31,000 "scientists" which was supposed to be the criteria for signing. Nobody yet has been able to get the scientists sorted from the Mickey Mouse's. The petition also was not to support Robinson's data. Where are the 600 IPCC scientists who agree with Robinson's data?
The second sentence in the petition below always makes me fall on the floor. Well hell, all of it actually. In fact I'd sign it to the way it's worded. It's like no I do not believe I'm going to open the door one day and turn to ash. I don't think anyone has gotten that hysteric.

Quote:

“ We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.
”
The text of the petition is often misrepresented: for example, until recently the petition's website stated that the petition's signatories "declare that global warming is a lie with no scientific basis whatsoever." The two-paragraph petition used the terms catastrophic heating and disruption, not "global warming." The original article associated with the petition (see below) defined "global warming" as "severe increases in Earth's atmospheric and surface temperatures, with disastrous environmental consequences". This differs from both scientific usage and dictionary definitions, in which "global warming" is an increase in the global mean atmospheric temperature without implying that the increase is "severe" or will have "disastrous environmental consequences."

Quote:

Originally Posted by bradclark1

Quote:

First off, the 600 IPCC scientists aren't paid wo agree with Robinson. They are paid for the job they have, and if you notice in this world, if you speak up against the grain, no matter how much the truth, you lose your funding since you would put the IPCC out of a job.

How touching.

They should all be out of a job.

#2 - over 9,000 of those signatures are Phd's. How many Phd's on the IPCC board? A few? Nice.

And yes, everyone has gotten hysteric - they want to cap growth! Thats hysteria that is out the window! This world can't exist with that kind of cap! Half of us die! Get a clue already and quit being a baby murderer since that is what you are advocating.

At least here in the US we are starting to take a clue - Liebermans bill for Carbon caps caught squashed faster last week than an ant on a summer boardwalk! We will have non of you lies here thank you very much!

-S

Some information on Mr. Robinson for you, and he is not the sole person to put together the presentation you saw either. So wake up already!

-S

Quote:

Interview of Dr. Arthur Robinson by William F. Jasper

Dr. Arthur Robinson is a professor of chemistry and is cofounder of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, which was created in 1980 to conduct basic and applied research in subjects applicable to increasing the quality, quantity, and length of human life. As part of his work, he edits the newsletter Access to Energy.

http://www.jbs.org/files/u_uploads/TNAArtRobinson.jpg

Dr. Robinson, in collaboration with other scientists, was one of the early critics of doomsday global-warming theories. He has authored articles and created video presentations demonstrating that the hypothesis of human-caused global warming is wrong, showing that the hypothesis is not supported by the observable evidence. To come to this conclusion, Professor Robinson and his colleagues brought together the findings of hundreds of peer-reviewed studies about all aspects of the global-warming hypothesis.

THE NEW AMERICAN: Flip on any channel, open any newspaper or magazine, and it’s clear we are being bombarded with the message that the Earth is warming. Is there any merit to this claim?

Dr. Arthur Robinson: Yes, but the temperature is only going up 0.5° C per century. Moreover, this increase is not being caused by human activity.

TNA: Those who blame mankind for causing global warming would respond to that point by saying that the Earth is the warmest it’s been in 400 years, and that’s significant.

Dr. Robinson: They’re right, but they only show you the data from the last 400 years. If the data for a longer time interval is considered, temperatures today are seen to be not especially warm. The current temperature is about average for the past 3,000 years. It was much warmer during the Medieval Climate Optimum 1,000 years ago (see Figure 1). The climate, as we know from historical records, was just fine during that warm period. In fact, it was a little better. So, yes, it is the warmest in 400 years

http://www.jbs.org/files/2404-F1.jpg

Moreover, the temperature, which is going up very slowly, is correlated with the sun’s activity, not hydrocarbon use (see Figure 3).

TNA: Those same people would say that science has spoken, that CO2 is the cause. What do you say?

Dr. Robinson: Gore, et al., tell us that CO2 is a pollutant, and that humans have caused this terrible problem. But actually the atmosphere contains lots of carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide, water, and oxygen are required for life. Without these substances in the atmosphere, life would not be possible. All of the carbon in our bodies originates as atmospheric carbon dioxide. Plus, we’re only adding moderately and temporarily to CO2 levels. Carbon dioxide moves through the atmosphere on its way to the oceans and biosphere. Human use has caused a transient increase during the past century — from about 0.03 percent to 0.04 percent of atmospheric molecules. Man is producing about 8 gigatons per year, and yet there are 40,000 gigatons in the biosphere and oceans.

TNA: Which come from?

Dr. Robinson: Which are just there — created as part of nature. Between 1880 and 1890, the level of CO2 in the atmosphere was about 295 ppm [parts per million]. For comparison, this office right now is rising toward 1,000 ppm because we’re all exhaling carbon dioxide.
The human-caused increase in the atmosphere is not permanent, but temporary. This increase is only being maintained by our production and, as soon as we stop producing at some later time when our technology advances, it will go back to its naturally controlled level.
When we use hydrocarbons, the resulting carbon dioxide goes through the atmosphere on its way to the oceans and biosphere, so there is a rise in the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide has a very short half-time of about seven years in the atmosphere. However, while it is in higher concentration, it is wonderful for us because it makes our plants grow faster, which markedly increases the amounts and diversity of plant and animal life.

TNA: Al Gore also says that the UN’s IPCC has spoken, and the debate is over, because there is a consensus. What do you say to that?

Dr. Robinson: Right now the UN claims that they have about 2,500 people involved in this and about 600 scientists seriously involved. This is what Al Gore would point to today.

We have more than 22,000 scientist signers of our global-warming petition who’ve looked at the issue and concluded essentially the opposite of these United Nations people. This says nothing about the science. Science does not depend on polling. Just because we have 22,000, and the UN may have 600, does not matter. The only thing our petition demonstrates is that there is no consensus among scientists in support of the UN claims.
Scientific questions are never settled in this way. Science is about natural truth. The truth doesn’t require any advocate. It stands by itself.
In science, a scientist may discover the truth about something. Then he develops a hypothesis, and the hypothesis is tested by various means. So long as the hypothesis passes experimental tests, it becomes stronger and is further relied upon — unless it fails an experimental test. If it is a very fine hypothesis with wide utility, it may spread throughout the entire scientific community and become part of the basis of scientific knowledge. The process by which this is done is not what is important. The truth is important. Scientific truth is not determined by polling or by convening meetings.

TNA: But when looking at the pronouncements of the United Nations — IPCC and the media, the average viewer would be led to believe that they’ve figured global warming out.

Dr. Robinson: Climate science is a very primitive science. The atmosphere is a complicated system, somewhat similar to human biochemistry. We know some things, but we don’t know most of the needed facts. As you know, climatologists have trouble predicting the weather a week or two in advance. They surely cannot predict climate many years in the future.
There are some very fine scientists, like Richard Lindzen at MIT, who work on the details of climate theory and attempt to understand the atmosphere in detail. They are inching forward toward the eventual solution of this very complex system. Today, this system can only be evaluated empirically because it is not yet understood.

We can show that the hypothesis of human-caused global warming is false, however, because we have enough empirical data to falsify this hypothesis. Human-caused global warming is a hypothesis that has failed so many experimental tests that it is clearly without merit.

TNA: To the average person, those IPCC reports look very authoritative, very intimidating. It looks to us like a battle between two sides of experts. How do we know whom to believe?

Dr. Robinson: First, just because the UN has spent an enormous amount of money to convene meetings of 600 mostly self-interested people — many of whom are receiving research grants and other perks for participating — to try to determine something that isn’t knowable with current data and techniques, and produce a report, proves nothing.

Moreover, many of these 600 disagree with the conclusions that the UN-IPCC advertises. The scientists are never allowed to approve or disapprove the final report, and many of the comments that they submit for publication in the report are rejected by UN bureaucrats.

First, the report that is initially released to the public by the UN-IPCC is an executive summary put together by a handful of people including bureaucrats, politicians, UN operatives, and a few scientists. They issue a summary report with UN propaganda in it. They then go back to the reports of the 600 scientists and insert sentences into those reports so that they will conform to the summary.

At no time in this process do the 600 ever vote approval or disapproval of their own report or of the summary report. So this report is not even approved by the people who are claimed to have authored it. This is a fraudulent process.

TNA: Don’t they use the same set of data as you do?

Dr. Robinson: Yes, for the most part. Except that they often unethically omit that part of the data that does not agree with their hypothesis. They pick the parts of the data that favor their conclusion and discard the rest.
If you play with the data, you can falsify with it. So the UN is picking parts of the data. We are considering it all.

TNA: Scientists who are not intimidated to speak out about this are typically charged by the enviros as being paid by the oil companies.

Dr. Robinson: Well, we’ve never been fortunate enough to receive any money from them, and I mean in any way, personally, professionally in our laboratory, or anything. We have never received a dime from anybody who has a specific economic interest in this issue. However, UN power to control and ration world energy — the real goal of their activities — would have a terrible, negative impact on the lives of all Americans. In that sense, all of our supporters have an economic interest.

TNA: Al Gore also makes a big deal about glacier recession.

Dr. Robinson: But he only shows the data for the limited time intervals that seem to support his claims. Here is the world glacier curve (see Figure 2) based on an average of all the world’s glaciers for which there are good records. Some glaciers are actually increasing, but on average the glaciers are decreasing — toward the more normal lengths that are typical of long-term average world temperatures. This curve is offset by 20 years because there is about a 20-year lag between the temperature increase and the shortening of the glaciers.

http://www.jbs.org/files/2404-F2.jpg

So the temperature increase reflected in the glacier lengths begins in about 1800. The glaciers have been shortening for 200 years. They started shortening a century before significant amounts of CO2 were produced by human activity. Notice also that the shortening is linear. Hydrocarbon use increased six-fold and the glacier melting rate did not change at all.
The glaciers started shortening long before we were using significant amounts of hydrocarbons, and, when we increased our use by six-fold, the shortening rate did not change. Therefore, human hydrocarbon use is evidently not the cause of glacier shortening or the mild natural temperature increase that is causing that shortening.

TNA: So what is causing the Earth to warm?

Dr. Robinson: A good clue is contained in data showing arctic air temperature vs. solar activity (see Figure 3). There is a good correlation. Surface temperature vs. solar activity data also correlates well (see Figure 4).

http://www.jbs.org/files/2404-F3.jpg

TNA: What about Gore’s demonstration in his movie, with those very large graphs, that CO2 tracks right along with temperature and is, therefore, the cause of that warming?
Dr. Robinson: In those curves, the temperature goes up before the CO2 and goes down before the CO2. The CO2 lags the temperature. And the reason it does is that the CO2 rise is caused by the temperature rise rather than vice versa. As temperatures rise, carbon dioxide is released from the oceans, just as the carbon dioxide is released from soft drinks when their temperature rises. Gore shows the curves with poor resolution, so that this cannot be seen by the viewer. His film is filled with dozens of other deliberate errors and misrepresentations.

My favorite is the part where Gore says that “the scientists who specialize in global warming have computer models that long ago predicted this range of temperature increase.” He then displays a graph of their alleged “predictions” and the claimed actual temperatures.

This graph is bogus in several ways, but the most striking is that the computer-predicted curve begins in 1938 — before either Al Gore or the computer had been invented. Unless Al Gore invented the computer before he was born, and didn’t show it to anybody but climate modelers until after WWII, this is impossible, because there were no computers in 1938!

TNA: Speaking of computers, allowing the UN to take over the world’s energy would have a big effect on our higher standard of living, would it not?

Dr. Robinson: An estimated nine percent of the energy of the United States is now used to power computers and the Internet. This technology cannot exist without energy. Automobiles require energy. You cannot warm your home without energy.

http://www.jbs.org/files/2404-F4.jpg

If the UN controls, rations, and taxes energy, they will have the power to determine whether you can run a wood stove, whether you can run an automobile, or can use any of the technology that makes our modern life possible.

When you say this to people, their eyes glaze over. They don’t believe it’s going to happen.

The power to tax and ration energy is the power to control the world — to have life and death control over every human being on the planet. No government should ever have this power. The United Nations-IPCC process is not about the climate or saving the environment. It is about power and money — lots of it.

Should Gore and the UN succeed, the effect will not only be diminished prosperity in the United States. In underdeveloped countries, billions of people are lifting themselves from poverty by means of hydrocarbon energy. If their energy supplies are rationed and taxed, they will slip backwards into poverty, misery, and death. This fits the population control agenda of the United Nations.

If the misuse and falsification of the scientific method that drives the human-caused global-warming mania succeeds, it will cause the greatest acts of human genocide the world has ever known. It must be stopped.

http://www.jbs.org/node/7009#SlideFrame_1

I hope Bradclark that you took note of this one especially important part:

Quote:

We can show that the hypothesis of human-caused global warming is false, however, because we have enough empirical data to falsify this hypothesis. Human-caused global warming is a hypothesis that has failed so many experimental tests that it is clearly without merit.

-S

If the climate change aka global warming theory changes peoples minds to think about the planet and the effects people have on it then i am all for it . Its the same for the price of petrol/gasoline going up in price . If it takes cars off the raod then good . Theres too many anyway .

Quote:

Originally Posted by sober

No cars / trucks = no product in your stores and you starve + if you don't starve, your quality of life just hit the toilet - such as your computer that you are using will no longer be functional. Cars bring people to work which brings products and services into your life. Like it or go live on another planet.

-S

Since I don't like to repeat myself I just quote what I wrote about this in the earlier thread.:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schroeder

It's not about reducing technology, just the opposite. We shall use better technology that needs less energy. That's the plan. Kyoto doesn't want us to go back to the stone age. We shall reduce our output of CO2 (and other stuff) by ADVANCING in technology.

And:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schroeder

Besides, it actually doesn't matter whether there is a man made climate change or not.
We have increasing costs and a limited supply of fossil energy. Therefore it is only logical to lower the consumption of it and finally replace it with other forms of energy.
Whether you do it to save the planet or just to save your purse and stay competitive for the time after oil, what difference does it make?

Continuing like we do is definitely stupid since we will run out of fossil energy sooner or later. So why not starting to change things NOW while we still can? When we start with it when the price for a barrel of oil hits the 300$ mark it's surely a bit late, isn't it?

You are 100% right Schroeder but the difference would be in the speed the technology is emphasized. For some reason the other side always seems to think cracking down means going back to oil lamps and horses and buggy right now.

Quote:

Some information on Mr. Robinson for you, and he is not the sole person to put together the presentation you saw either. So wake up already!

Sorry. His boy and one other guy.
From his site:
"The global warming hypothesis has failed every relevant experimental test. It lives on only in the dreams of anti-technologists and population reduction advocates."
What experimental tests failed? In fact what experiments have his "theory" passed? who are the anti-technologists and population reduction advocates? I haven't heard of either. I've heard a lot about advancing technology and I have not heard anything about downing the population. The problem with this guy is he can only think in extremes as evidenced by that comment and his paragraphs on the petition. Trust me, the GW crowd is not out to kill off the third world and make everyone drive donkey's.

Quote:

Then how do you know there are 600 scientists?

Quote:

And yes, everyone has gotten hysteric - they want to cap growth! Thats hysteria that is out the window! Get a clue already and quit being a baby murderer since that is what you are advocating.

Who are "they" and what growth? Half will die of what? Who's hysterical? I think you need a Valium.

Quote:

Lieberman's bill for Carbon caps caught squashed faster last week than an ant on a summer boardwalk!

Warner's and Lieberman's bill was a little over the top I agree. It should be done sensibly. They tried using the same program that was worked with acid rain.
The bills goal in case you didn't know what it was for:
"The bill would impose new regulations on industry to lower overall emissions to the 2005 level by the year 2020. By the middle of this century, the bill would require greenhouse gases to be cut by 66 percent.[/quote]
I believe thats a little too enthusiastic. It should be at a slower pace to stand a realistic chance to work.

Here's a semi list of notables rejecting GW by humans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...ng#cite_note-9

Further down in the "See also" is some other information.

Shocking me showing this huh? I read both sides.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stealth Hunter

Quote:

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Your forgetting the technology advance. In the 1990's, you simply started to see them all. And they have been holding consistant with off years marked with on years. Seems to be random, but overall, its in decline. How do you explain the fewest tornadoes in 30 years last year? This year, it needs to 1550 to offset last year to even simply maintain the average - Good Luck! Not gonna happen.

Now maybe that this is cleared up, we can talk about human caused global warming since the number of tornadoes doesn't touch on that subject. It's simply something the pro global warming crowd likes to bring simply to scare people. Too bad if you analyze the data, its doing the opposite of what the GW crowd wants - probably why its been dropped by them lately.

-S

Well, I mean we all know that we should trust an adult in his 20's or 30's over the Internet that has no scientific background or qualifications whatsoever to tell us what is right or wrong and how something works or doesn't work.:roll:

As PD pointed out, you're not going to convert anyone to your side over the Internet. Also, I'll place my bets on the scientists, not an Internet forum user.:up:

And why do you trust Wikipedia, anyway? I mean, anybody with hands and a keyboard can edit an article, go to the discussion section and post the changes made to it, which ensures that 90% of the time it won't be removed (unless it is absolutely preposterous, like saying the sky is purple; make it sound official and 9/10, they'll leave it be). I used to, but I'm losing faith in it. They get some things right, but many times they've got errors in their work (however, the stuff on Kent Hovind seems pretty accurate).

:-? You're aware of:

http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/Sci...dex%29#Biology

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schroeder

Since I don't like to repeat myself I just quote what I wrote about this in the earlier thread.:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schroeder

And:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schroeder

I agree with you 100%, but the problem is they are trying to cap our energy 'today'!!! Not after the technology has been built. I'm all for clean energy (I don't like to breath crap into my lungs more than anyone else) but we need to build things first before you can use it.

-S

Bradclark and Fish - what part of only showing you 400 years of data by the IPCC don't you understand? Yeah, warmest period in 400 years, but that is because we are climbing out of a mini Ice Age!! Hello??? Anybody home? Are the lights on in there?

Now how about this crap (or did you fail to miss it?):

Quote:

TNA: To the average person, those IPCC reports look very authoritative, very intimidating. It looks to us like a battle between two sides of experts. How do we know whom to believe?

Dr. Robinson: First, just because the UN has spent an enormous amount of money to convene meetings of 600 mostly self-interested people — many of whom are receiving research grants and other perks for participating — to try to determine something that isn’t knowable with current data and techniques, and produce a report, proves nothing.

Moreover, many of these 600 disagree with the conclusions that the UN-IPCC advertises. The scientists are never allowed to approve or disapprove the final report, and many of the comments that they submit for publication in the report are rejected by UN bureaucrats.

First, the report that is initially released to the public by the UN-IPCC is an executive summary put together by a handful of people including bureaucrats, politicians, UN operatives, and a few scientists. They issue a summary report with UN propaganda in it. They then go back to the reports of the 600 scientists and insert sentences into those reports so that they will conform to the summary.

At no time in this process do the 600 ever vote approval or disapproval of their own report or of the summary report. So this report is not even approved by the people who are claimed to have authored it. This is a fraudulent process.

TNA: Don’t they use the same set of data as you do?

Dr. Robinson: Yes, for the most part. Except that they often unethically omit that part of the data that does not agree with their hypothesis. They pick the parts of the data that favor their conclusion and discard the rest.
If you play with the data, you can falsify with it. So the UN is picking parts of the data. We are considering it all.

This is the data you guys are advocating. Bad propaganda, not real data. This ticks me off more than anything. I do find it funny that you guys are believing it in a way though. Short sighted with blinders on. Must be young - both of you I'm guessing.

Be a little more subjective and post information - not skeptics websites. The web is full of skeptics, though most don't have any credentials. Same of posts I see through this entire thread - nothing of substance from either one of you - simply garbage links! :D Typical when you don't have an argument. Face it, you lost already. :yep::yep:

-S

Subman,

What you need to remember is that these same people who are waving the alarmist banner on global warming, are the same people who back in the '70s waved the banner of global cooling, and another iceage was looming in the future.

I understand your frustration with the topic, as it's used to manipulate economies, and prices. Plus the "enviornmental tax" that would be levied would be done by the UN. If the rest of the world wants to participate in a global lunacy, they can, but I would prefer to have the U.S. of A. stay out of it.

All one has to do, is study the information that has been accumulated by geologists, that have studied the core samples from the earth, and one can put together a graph that shows like the same info as you posted how the world goes through times of warming, and cooling all on it's own.

Man has only affected the earth in that it is becoming overpopulated, and not much is being done to explore the last frontier for habital planets, that we can abuse like we do our own.

Quote:

Dr. Robinson: Yes, for the most part. Except that they often unethically omit that part of the data that does not agree with their hypothesis. They pick the parts of the data that favor their conclusion and discard the rest.
If you play with the data, you can falsify with it. So the UN is picking parts of the data. We are considering it all.

First thought on that that you seemed to overlook but I didn't and stopped reading.
Your boy claimed hurricanes are level. Why would he claim land fall hurricanes are level when a hurricane is a hurricane and hurricanes have risen regardless of where they are at. If he's manipulating simple hurricane data what else is he manipulating. Still not one scientist has backed his data . Hello! Switch pulled yet? Out of all the skeptics out there and there are some notables, not one even makes any references his data. On your holy list of phd's not one is identified. Now, can this be that he has zero respect of any community or scientist. If his information were credible wouldn't at least a few notable skeptics have been part of that presentation or at least applauded or aclaimed such a fine piece of scientific accomplishment? No because he's a nut job who thinks IPCC is out to kill hundreds of millions of third worlders and knock the technology tree back a couple of hundred years. Hello!! Nut job!
Why would I waste time on a nut job. His own peers don't even support him. That should be something that at the least should make you wonder why. He's only a hero in your mind. That article you are so proud of on Robinson, The New American is a magazine of the John Birch Society which is about as far zany right as you can get. So a nut job magazine interviews a nut job scientist.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bradclark1

Quote:

You are a bit hard headed aren't you? You claim no one supports him - only 31K scientists do.

He doesn't claim the IPCC is out to kill hundreds of millions. That will simply be the side effect. If you bothered to read anything instead of posting crap from your *ss, then you would know that it's not about killing people but gaining control, specifically America. Its a way to stop AMerican domination and put the world into the hands of the elitists. Scary? it is.

-S

PS. Quite frankly, Mr. Robinson is quite sane. you however seem to be the nutjob because you can't analyze the data as presented and operate off pure belief. Sounds like some kind of cult.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hylander_1314

Pretty much sums it up right there.

-S

Quote:

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

I still don't get it. I've no idea what they are telling you in the US, but here in Europe no one wants to cap power.:doh:

Here our industry simply shall produce (and of course use) equipment that needs less energy. The technology is available (sometimes for decades) but was to costly because it was only build in small numbers and sometimes not advertised like conventional products were (for example the VW Lupo 3l which needed only 3 litres of Diesel/60miles).
Another step is to replace fossil energy with regenerative (is that the English term for it?) energy (Solar cells, wind, tides etc...).
So actually we Europeans are talking about reducing the energy consumption without giving up anything from our way of life:rock:. I've never heard anyone say that the we shall cap power.:hmm: