Global Warming? are humans to blame?

Better drop the hook or the current will drag you off.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...n-reveals-doubts-global-warming.html?ITO=1490

"Cameron's green guru reveals his doubts over global warming"

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...eals-doubts-global-warming.html#ixzz1g4ECIM3Y

 

Dude your completely confused, There is no agenda. There is no dark force, no boogy man trying to get you. Your snowed by the constructs of agnotology. The only sites you seem to quote are driven and funded by either oil and gas or corporate interests, IE Kotch brothers.

You seem to think that CO2 is merely plant food when in fact its just another component of the system, but in this case its "the" component who's rate of change governs the mass extinctions of our past. And its changing about 4000 times faster than ever recorded before. Yet you insist that its not a problem, in a world were 97% of the folks who study the issue say it is a problem. And a big one.

Sorry Hoyt, but your so completely confused its painful, the very definition of denial. Actually a great example for the readers who must be able to see threw the blind insistence and the blatant ignoring of even the most basic of the science.

CO2
Is a greenhouse gas, its a simple mater of the size and shape of the molecule. You prefer to argue its just plant food.

It is the predominant greenhouse gas, its a simple mater of what other greenhouse gasses are in the atmosphere and in what concentrations. At which point you like to confuse water vapor ( a feedback ) and CO2 ( a forcing agent ) and insist Boils gas laws must be wrong somehow and at some point in the future science will realize the errors of there ways and Hoyts law will become the predominant theory.

Its increasing dramatically, ~1/3 increase over just the last few years, according to numerous data collection methods. You insist that the hockey stick is somehow flawed simply because its a polynomial fit and ramble on about volcano's

The excess CO2 is caused by the burning of fossil fuels, a no brainer. 90 million barrels a day and how many coal trains, each produce about 3lbs of CO2 for each one of fossil fuels produced ( oxygen is heavy ) buy you insist its coming from somewhere else,,,, riiiiiiiiiiight.

And when you loose one argument you just cycle around to one you lost a few pages back. Its a great example for the readers of what denial is and why its called that, but it also makes you look really confused.

I wouldn't care in the least except for that future depends on this particular issue. I raised my kids, hell I raised a few other peoples kids. There out of the house now, ( thank all he Gods for that eh ) and there's just one more thing I should do for them. Try and preserve a habitable place for them to live. I think we owe it to the following generations to fix this while we still can. Otherwise we're just pirates, steeling whats not ours and burning everything in our path.

cheers
B

 

Speaking of denial, how's that search for deaths attributable to GM foods going?

I suspect that the number of suicides by farmers forced out of business by filthy
business tactics is greater than the number of deaths due to GM foods.
How about you? Still in denial?

 

Your Warmnologic Church teachings do not sway me.

 

Farmers swindled by that MF'er Corzine will suffer over the 1.2 billion dollars that went missing. He knows not where, he swears.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/exclusive_fifth_house_hearing_thursday_fnyYVnzW0F2i3LL6MqEhGN

 

And the eco-scandals just go on and on.

http://biggovernment.com/tfitton/20...es-obama-administration-for-solyndra-records/

 

Deaths caused by GMO foods might be a bit difficult to track since the corporations who produce them have managed to buy enough votes in congress to prohibit even labeling there poison as GMO in the first place. Until that little bit of injustice is reversed its going to be somewhat difficult to track GMO foods based health issues. Don't you think?

I think we both know that "NO" double blind series were run on GMO foods at all by the FDA. Or any related tests for that mater. They were fast tracked once Monsanto released the starlink frankengene into the environment. The FDA, thoroughly infiltrated by Monsanto gave its stamp of approval without qualification. After Monsanto acted without approval to "test" its product. So you tell me how we are supposed to know what the death toll is when the poison isn't allowed by act of congress, to be labeled.

So whats this about denial.

Looks like your insisting on an answer to a question that can't be answered under the present political constraints. How many people die of x when its illegal to label products which contain x. Might be kinda hard to track wouldn't you say.

might want to read up on what Monsanto's own scientists say about there products or why only pure organics are offered in Monsanto's cafeteria's

 

There's no church of warmology, AGW is not a religious point of view.
There are no eco scandals, just a bunch of scared corporations trying to protect there own selfish interests.

But yes the farmers are the first ones to pay for Monsanto's destruction of the environment. There deliberately releasing frankengenes into the food crops, and there clandestine and mob like business tactics.

 

I see, it's all a grand conspiracy.

I would have thought that the many groups around the world opposed
to GM foods would have ferretted out cases where GM foods were
implicated in actual deaths. But none have been reported anywhere.

Where are the disgruntled former employees whistle-blowing about actual deaths?

Sure, Monsanto employees might not want to eat the stuff their company
serves in a cafeteria, but that's not scientific proof they cause early death.

 

its not a conspiracy at all, the facts speak for themselves and what I did was stick to the known facts

Monsanto, did back legislation prohibiting the labeling of GMO foods, not much arguing that one.

Monsanto's influence at the FDA is legendary. Many former and future exec's trade back and forth over the years, another no brainer.

Monsanto's introduction of starlink corn, well known as well as what happened after which led to the no testing fast tract approval of one of the first GMO foods.

your simply not paying much attention if you think its possible to track a drugs or GMO's effect in the population when the product itself is shielded from tracking.

 

No, you jumped to the conclusion that GM foods cause death and must be avoided at all costs.

Yes, they use filthy corporate practices.

Yes, they use very dodgy practices.

Yes, they corrupt certain established protocols and use their influence in a very heavy-handed manner.

Persoanlly, I find their business practices morally repugnant.

If their products were as harmful as you suggest, there would be increased death rates in whatever countries their products have been used.
There is an audit trail back to them if there were as many deaths as you
imagine they have caused.

Therefore, there is no scientific evidence their products cause early deaths.
On your own admission there can be no such evidence (in the USA, at least).
It is ridiculous then, to claim their products cause early death as you seem
to do so stridently.

Big claims require big proof and you, many thousands of activists, and
thousands of scientists looking for that proof have not found it.

I think you are making the same mistake as climate deniers who use one
cold day as proof that there is no climate change, and as foolish as
climate change fanatics who attribute one unseasonably warm day to
man-made global warming.
That's liberal arts, not science

 

I didn't jump to the conclusion, I read numerous articles most based off what there own scientists are now saying about the GMO foods.

you might try reading up on the issue a bit. Although I don't see the particular article I was referring to that was written by a guy who worked for Monsanto developing bovine growth hormone.

http://gmo.mercola.com/sites/gmo/scientific-studies.aspx

 

Ahh, yes an article by one guy, now lost in the mists of time.

One cafeteria out of many that Monsanto operates, but no
mention of the others that do serve GM foods.
(They obviously don't fit your theory and so they must be ignored).

I have read papers, claims and counter-claims by both sides.
I'd prefer that you gave us some graphs and hard data like you
do with your climate change arguments, and not anecdotes
masquerading as scientific data.

 

When I think of gene-splicing, I think of Vincent Price's head on a fly body crying "Help me! Help me"

 

wrong again Leo, but at least you consistent.