FRANCE 24 Environment – Invading space to take control of our climate and environment
ENVIRONMENT visits the Astrium space laboratory, to look at high tech satellites that are designed to observe and report specifically on the environment, part of a new fleet that it is hoped will help man predict and react to changes taking place on earth.
Tags: space, high, help, Astrium, 24, designedRelated posts:
- Yacht Club Cove on Staten Island: an “Environmental” Community of Cluster Housing Around a Central Open Space Designed to Preserve Land Values 05/1973
- FRANCE 24 Environment – Focus on the hydro power: La Verna dam in France
- Dennis Kucinich, Afghanistan, the Environment, Control of the Political Process
- Pt 1 – Symposium: Energy, Climate and the Environment
- Climate Change, Migration and Environmental Refugees
its true cus i capitalized PROVEN. SEE CAPS MAKE IT TRUE!
I capitalize proven so it is not overlooked, not to emulate yelling or shouting it.
Your statement is the only childish one here.
How about we stop cutting down trees and plant new forrest… that seems to be a better answer… CO2 is plant food UGH! foolery
@picklestickle: What’s wrong with cutting down trees? That just makes room to plant new ones and unless you are using all the trees for firewood it’s still taking carbon out of the atmosphere.
@ptangboy : Where exactly is the PROOF of this fraud? Also, an even better question, what would be anyones motivation for making global warming up?
The IPCC itself admits to falsifying data.
There is so much proof of this fraud it is is staggering. You probably think I am lying if you watch main stream media – because they do not cover any of the results of the investigations.
Try “Russia Today” It brodcasts out of the U.S. but is russian owned.
If you do not understand the motives for making such a thing up, then I wont even begin to explain it. What is the motivation for making anything up?
Wow… that is a truly pathetic response. Instead of answering my questions you just trying to weasel out of them or flip them on me.
Tell me SPECIFICALLY WHERE IS THIS PROOF and save the main stream media bullshit I don’t even own a TV.
Also, I’m saying there are no logical motives for making such a thing up. Apparently you can’t come up with any either.
There are many in the fossil fuel industry with a vested financial interest in denying it though.
Why would I discuss this with someone that outright is opposed to the very idea of it?
The proof is everywhere if YOU look for it, but why would you look for it if you think its nonsense? You wouldnt and I am fine with that
You are taking your limited understanding and claiming it as absolute understanding. Again, that is fine with me, I have no interest in trying to change you
What is the harm in looking into “Russia Today”? You wont even do that and yet you expect me to answer to you?
Your anger and hatred is a clear sign that you will not listen to anything besides what you currently think.
So why would I waist my time debating with you when you come out attacking in such an irrational way?
I have not documented and written down sources of things I have read, seen and listened to. I am not a lawyer here to try and prove you wrong. If you dont agree with me I am fine with that.
Why would you think I am here to prove myself to you?
Why?
I’m sure you much more comfortable only talking to people who already agree with you so you don’t ever have to actually back up any of your claims.
However, it should be obvious to everyone that you are full of shit when you claim you have proof but can’t tell me where or exactly what it is other than “YOU look for it” and you can’t even present a reason why scientists would fabricate global warming even though you seem to imply it’s somehow simple and obvious. If it’s so simple WHAT IS IT?
I’m already familiar with Russia Today. You should probably know that it’s basically just the new pravda for the Russian state though, and that Russia has the world’s largest natural gas reserves, 2nd largest coal reserves, and 8th largest oil reserves, so…
This is not a matter of comfort for me at all. Like I already said, I have no interest or reason to debate with someone whos mind is closed on the subject.
You responded to me making demands – and you think I am going to follow your lead here?
I do not answer to you, do whatever you like, think whatever you like, I dont care. I know what I know and I have no interest in even sharing it with someone as arrogant as yourself.
Right… This is exactly what I am talking about.
Why would I engage in any conversation about this subject when you will do and say whatever it takes to discredit the information I present.
I am totaly unbiased. I used to believe in global warming myself until I looked deeper into the subject.
If your looking for a fight or argument, you have the wrong person.
I’m perfectly willing to listen, if you would only say something. Any anger I have towards you is only due to that fact that you attempted to sidestep my simple and direct questions when you couldn’t come up with an answer.
Perhaps this “proof” that global warming is a lie that you think you heard about somewhere doesn’t really exist and since you don’t even know what it is you shouldn’t run around telling others about it like it’s a fact.
What you call a sidestep is actually a lack of interest in your approach. There is a big difference.
If you think that no matter how you act people should do what you ask, your wrong.
Perhaps you should not accuse people of doing the very thing that you are doing.
I know your intentions – be agressive and push all disenting views away. Why do you want to do this?
Do you pigeon hole every person that doesnt agree with you as a liar that has no clue what there talking about?
Clearly you are just interested in talking about anything besides backing up your original statements because you have nothing to back them up. That’s that.
Don’t try to justify not answering my question because didn’t like my tone when I called you out for not answering my question. You can’t explain your actions with things that happened after you took them.
In response to your last question, no, I think you did that all by yourself.
Your not as clever as you think you are – you are transparent to me.
The topic of Global Warming is one thing, but you present a much more pressing issue with your attitude. That attitude is something I do not relate to and have no interest in.
You yourself claim to “Know” and thus accuse others of not knowing. You are guilty of the very thing you try to accuse me of.
Your lack of integrity is the real problem here, not Global Warming. It is you that wants to twist things around, not me
You had the original claim of knowledge, you said it was “PROVEN” that the IPCC was guilty of “fraud” and “racketeering” and that global warming had been “completely debunked”.
I simply asked you where the evidence for any of this was and if you could think of a reason why anyone would fabricate global warming. You clearly have no answer to either question. Simple as that.
Ben Santor admits to discarding 5 areas of the IPCC report that did not align with the threat of AGW.
Puchari admits that the reports of the himalayan glaciers is unfounded – only after the investigations revealed it.
There have been scientist (such as John Cristy) that have rejected the IPCC reports or which they were not even asked to endorse. When these scientists asked to have their names removed from the reports they were told that it would not happen.
Temperature recording methods have been shown by investigations that many sites located in mountain and country settings (where it is generaly cooler) were not used in the reports assesments yet they were used in the base record that the recent temperature recordings are compared to.
Like I already said, you can simply say none of this is true and that I have no proof. If you say that then it is clear you have no idea what your talking about.
I actually didnt say that Global Warming had been debunked – you twisted and actually made that up.
I said that:
It has been completely debunked that our co2 emissions have any significant effect on climate.
There is a big difference there. Of coarse co2 is a greenhouse gas and of coarse greenhouse gases lead to temperature increase. Co2 is such a miniscule trace gas though compared to water vapour and other ghg’s – its effects are minute at best.
Scientists that did not agree with the AGW threat or that simply were sceptical have now come out and said that they were personaly persecuted and threatened.
Tim Ball, John Cristy, Ron Spencer, Paul Reiter are world renowned scientists that speak out against the fraud of the IPCC. John Cristy and Paul Reiter were working for IPCC before their conscience lead them to leave and reject the ways of the IPCC
Roy Spencer is a head NASA scientist that has won awards for exceptional achievement.
There is no study or proof of any kind showing that storms or earthquakes are worse then 100 years ago or that they have a link to our co2 emissions.
Global Warming – now called Climate Change because it actually isnt warming anymore – blames all natural disasters on human co2 emissions.
Whatever we are experiencing now is nowhere out of the range of natural phenomenon that has occured for Billions of years.
Fear and corruption is the only thing that is on the rise.
thats not quit true the plantains are a part of the food chain , and would increases food for ever larger spices ,
I think that if all the trees are taken and then the whole ecosystem of that forest is destroyed and will take a long time.. to become the same balanced life sustaining health piece of earth it once was and will not do the same amount of sucking up of carbons as a new little replanted forest will do… if that made sense… think of whats being stripped it not a little bit of plant life its alot and then they will stick some trees there do they replace the rest of the ecosystem?? no