FungalFractoids

Chris Monckton AND Alex Jones!? You really would believe any old shit you were fed if it tasted like NWO global conspiracy, wouldn't you? Anyone who actua;lly takes Alex Jones seriously should probably be involuntarily euthanasied for the greater good of the species. He's like a poor mans Glenn Beck. Probably raped and killed a girl in the early ninties too. You peado apologist!

... Feels kinda like a vagina when i poke my tongue into it. I'm going to go and have a flog!

It gives me a reason to berate PD endlessly with my superiority, which was always my primary motivating factor. You should se how that lazy prick spends his days. He is a blight on society. Believe me, i know him better than you do.

Stopped smoking a bit over a fortnight ago - I only vaporize now

Yes And go fuck yourself, I don't do it to look informed, I do it so I can berate morons like you. I'm much better than you, I don' pollute my lungs with tobacco smoke and am starting an apprenticeship in Feb. So go suck a nut faggot boy, go do your shitty tattoos, I'm almost a bona fide respectable citizen again

I'm just sooo happy to be footing the bill for Fielding to cavort around Copenhagen waving his cooked graph in a one-man mission to convince the world that GW is all teh liez. Just so, so happy

The two terms are interchangeable, champ! Wally Broecker coined GW back in 1975 in his paper “Climate Change: Are we on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?”. You should stick to things you know about, like cactus and shitty indian tattoos

Yeah, enjoy your death heat summers there buddy! You'll never be able to grow mullies ever again!

Already do. Dutch police for one have a presence here. As would the DEA, one would imagine.

Nope. It's the "P" for "Pure", bro

You miss the point entirely! Watch video 5 from those posted above (if you actually give a shit, which, knowing you so well I highly doubt)

See, this is where the FUD campaigns are so goddamned effective. You hear in the media that "scientists" doubt global warming so you think there is "debate". There is about as much "debate" surrounding whether GW is a real, man made phenomenon as there is whether AIDS is real, or whether tobacco is harmless etc etc etc. You've been astroturfed. Watch those vids I kindly linked to on your behalf. The "debate" ended over a decade ago. Here, read this:

The way you see it, eh? And screw the sattelite data of solar radiance over the past 130 years! PD has spoken And you wnder why we mock you poor, backward country folk?

Please, oh, please let this result in a flood of coke into this country! I've been waiting for years for the cartels to get their shit together and start flooding the Oz market!

So do you buy into his 'myth of heterosexual AIDS'? If not, why buy into his One World Government conspiracy? If he can so blatantly lie about AIDS why would you accept him at his word when he talks about this drivel? You've been astroturfed. How does it feel to do the unwitting bidding of the worlds largest corporations? I assume it would be a similar feeling o not having showered for a month.' The science behind climate change has never been stronger or more alarming, and in turn, the shrill cries of desperation from the denier lobby have never been louder.

I love how people deferentially refer to Monckton as 'Lord', as if his peerage gives added weight to his opinions. The man is the very personification of a dribbling idiot. Here's a taste of what I mean:

Drug money saved banks in global crisis, claims UN advisor Drugs and crime chief says $352bn in criminal proceeds was effectively laundered by financial institutions Drugs money worth billions of dollars kept the financial system afloat at the height of the global crisis, the United Nations' drugs and crime tsar has told the Observer. Antonio Maria Costa, head of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, said he has seen evidence that the proceeds of organised crime were "the only liquid investment capital" available to some banks on the brink of collapse last year. He said that a majority of the $352bn (£216bn) of drugs profits was absorbed into the economic system as a result. This will raise questions about crime's influence on the economic system at times of crisis. It will also prompt further examination of the banking sector as world leaders, including Barack Obama and Gordon Brown, call for new International Monetary Fund regulations. Speaking from his office in Vienna, Costa said evidence that illegal money was being absorbed into the financial system was first drawn to his attention by intelligence agencies and prosecutors around 18 months ago. "In many instances, the money from drugs was the only liquid investment capital. In the second half of 2008, liquidity was the banking system's main problem and hence liquid capital became an important factor," he said. Some of the evidence put before his office indicated that gang money was used to save some banks from collapse when lending seized up, he said. "Inter-bank loans were funded by money that originated from the drugs trade and other illegal activities... There were signs that some banks were rescued that way." Costa declined to identify countries or banks that may have received any drugs money, saying that would be inappropriate because his office is supposed to address the problem, not apportion blame. But he said the money is now a part of the official system and had been effectively laundered. "That was the moment [last year] when the system was basically paralysed because of the unwillingness of banks to lend money to one another. The progressive liquidisation to the system and the progressive improvement by some banks of their share values [has meant that] the problem [of illegal money] has become much less serious than it was," he said. The IMF estimated that large US and European banks lost more than $1tn on toxic assets and from bad loans from January 2007 to September 2009 and more than 200 mortgage lenders went bankrupt. Many major institutions either failed, were acquired under duress, or were subject to government takeover. Gangs are now believed to make most of their profits from the drugs trade and are estimated to be worth £352bn, the UN says. They have traditionally kept proceeds in cash or moved it offshore to hide it from the authorities. It is understood that evidence that drug money has flowed into banks came from officials in Britain, Switzerland, Italy and the US. British bankers would want to see any evidence that Costa has to back his claims. A British Bankers' Association spokesman said: "We have not been party to any regulatory dialogue that would support a theory of this kind. There was clearly a lack of liquidity in the system and to a large degree this was filled by the intervention of central banks." http://www.guardian.co.uk/global/2009/dec/13/drug-money-banks-saved-un-cfief-claims

And the paper in question

There are many different things that can cause climate to change, and just because something caused a change in the past doesn't mean that something else entirely won't make it change today. There is no "natural" state of climate. For temperatures to change something has to cause them to change, these are referred to as forcings. There are four major forcings that govern our climate: 1. Insolation - this is input from the sun, it can change due to changes in the sun's energy output, or our orbital wobble around the sun - this is what causes the major glacial periods over 30,000 year cycles, as we ge closer to the sun, it warms, as we move away it cools. 2. Greenhouse gasses - UV passes through the atmosphere at a wavelength that makes GHG's almost transparent, the UV hits the earth where a percentage is re-radiated as infrared and it's higher frequency causes it to interact with the molecular bonds of certain molecules, as it is emitted from these greenhouse gasses it scatters, causing a percentage to bounce back to earth. This is the greenhouse effect, it's what keeps us from having a climate like Mars. 3. Particulates and aerosols - these tend to be emitted from volcanic activity, they are reflective particles that reflect a % of the energy hitting the earth back into space, the effect can be seen clearly whenever a large volcano goes off and global temperatures fall for a number of years. Have look at the temperature record, you can clearly see the 1991 eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in the dip in temps over 92/93. 4. Amplification - this is feedback mechanisms. For example, a slight warming can cause sea ice to melt, then due to the loss of albedo (large areas of ice reflect heat into space) more dark areas of ocean are now absorbing the heat causing an exacerbation in warming. It becomes a vicious cycle. Now, change any one or more of these factors in a significant way then you change the earths climate. For example, the so-called Little Ice Age during the 19th century was a result of low solar activity combined with high volcanic activity, the combined cooling from these two forcings caused the earth to plunge into a mini ice age. Before that was the so-called Medieval Warm Period, this was largely due to a period of high solar activity, as activity fell it lead into the LIA. If you look at the temperature record from 1850 there has been a steady increase in temperature over the 20th century, and up until 1975 there was a neat correlation between solar activity and global temps, as the world "recovered" from the Little Ice Age. But, in 1975 solar activity dropped sharply but temps took a sharp and dramatic spike upwards. So something has to be causing the warming, and the only significant change in forcing was the 20% rise in CO2 since the industrial revolution (it's up to about 40% now) So you can see that just because different forcings caused cliamte to change in the past doesn't mean that a different forcing could cause a warming in the present, indeed, anyone doubting climate change needs to explain why increasing GHG concentrations by 40% in little over a century wouldn't cause exactly the sort of warming we are seeing now. The observed changes in the environment are exactly what are to be expected according to the physical properties of CO2 and which were calculated well over 100 years ago.

You really need to either change the colour scheme to match the banner or get a new banner. The earthy brown tones really clash with the overall blue feel of the rest of the forum In my humble opinion of course

You'd have to be a dribbling idiot not to believe in climate change http://www.skepticalscience.com/Empirical-evidence-that-humans-are-causing-global-warming.html

I thought you guys might enjoy this. I certainly did. http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/begin/cells/scale/