Moving from fossil-based fuel is an entirely different argument, Jozef, and deception should form no part of it.

I’m glad you agree over Piazza Fontana, etc., etc., hopefully you understand the implications, as well as the fact that things have not only NOT improved but have more recently taken a much more sinister trend.

What’s wrong with moving away from fossil fuels, which require a global system of distribution and control, to a network of renewables operated on a microlevel? Isn’t that something which lowers collective dependence on the few?

Isn’t being lightweight in consumption a freedom in itself?

I’m sorry Kev, but somehow I couldn’t not point out this contradiction in your reasoning.

As for the relation between CO2 and warming, the hypothesis IS based on what you say, that if one follows the other, the cycle could be closed leading to a reciprocal repetition, and human generated CO2 is simply accelerating the process.

Not to mention the PMI’s present in urban areas, directly related to CO2 emissions and localised climate degeneration, or better, smog.

As for Piazza Fontana, agreed.

You might like to watch this documentary:
The Great Global Warming Swindle: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaTJJCPYhlk

And while you’re at it, why not hop over to the other world of illusion? – NATO’s Secret Armies: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Zrc7RHC1A0 (as you watch this, pause to think about Breivik and the Norwegian massacre)

It is very rare that the mainstream media go so far (although I can assure you that there’s much, much more to both these stories).

Too many to list, Lino. It’s a paradigm change you and many others need – nothing to tackle in a short comment. I can assure you, however, that I’m a St Thomas who investigates meticulously before deciding on what to believe, reject or place on the back-burner. Evidence is evidence – it could be scientific, documentary, photographic, even anecdotal if sufficiently corroborated – and this does not only relate to climate change but more broadly to politics at large.

The real world is nothing like what’s been presented to us. But as I said, applying logic without the necessary facts is a useless task.

Here are just two sites (of several hundreds) that deal with the global warming hoax: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org and http://wattsupwiththat.com Start digging.

We seem to have diverging arguments.Yours seem to be philosophical and mine scientific.

I cannot quite follow your term “fraudulent lies”. Do you mean twisted data, twisted or wrong conclusions from correct data or what?

I agree that contempt prior to investigation breeds ignorance but how am I showing contempt in my line of thinking?

What are you questioning the IPCC reports about? Scientific data? The interpretation of data? Extrapolation on factual data?

Which are the well-packaged web of lies sold gradually to the masses over generations? Scientific principles? Physical laws?

I can assure that deceptive non-facts won’t make it through my filter while I’m not astonished why it is only you who knows the unknown facts.

U mela, Lino! You can go back to sleep, now – it’s just a ‘conspiracy theory’ after all. And that’s the proof, hux.

But:

1. You cannot be logical without the facts, or worse, deceptive non-facts. You are being rational and logical only within the constraints allowed by the non-facts overpowering the unknown facts.

2. I am putting emphasis on the volumes written by others (don’t be a silly child) and on the indisputable evidence that other rational and logical people, experts in the fields, have painstakingly unearthed.

If this is all so very strange to you, well here’s some news: we’re hardly scratching the surface – it gets weirder and weirder the deeper you dig.

Now before sending you back to sleep, Lino, here are two good quotes for you to chew on:

“There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance – that principle is contempt prior to investigation.” (attributed to Herbert Spencer)

“When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic.” (Dresden James)

Highlight it and voila’ !

Kevin, I made it a point in my life to read more than I write and what more, to believe only that which subscribes to my logical and scientific understanding.

Any source of information which I read will not go down unfiltered, but even if I don’t agree, I do not necessarily account it in my conspiracies ledger, in fact I only keep factual scientific ledgers in my books.

You seem to put too much emphasis on the volumes one can write, yet your ‘conspiracy’ attitude indicates that you are inclined only to believe what YOU write and that others should believe what YOU believe or write,otherwise they are believing lies.

Science and scientific data acquisition is what it is. If you don’t believe in certain data, you can always says that the instruments to collect it were not properly calibrated or any other excuse to discard it.

I think you’ve been believing too many lies for far too long. I have tried to avoid details – there are many – and I also avoided linking, because one can write volumes on this matter, starting from how it all begin, who the actors are, what’s the hierarchy involved, what the many-faceted agenda consists of, to what aims and how it connects to other global events.

Just one thing, the planet is very resourceful in self-replenishment. Man is an inconsequential blip.