# Global Warming



## goldsilverpro

9" of snow on my patio. Going down to -7 tonight here in southern Missouri. Nationwide, supposedly the coldest in decades. Don't you just love global warming?


----------



## Palladium

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/01/05/coast-guard-ship-to-attempt-to-rescue-2-icebreakers-in-antarctica/

The funny part is they are on a mission to study global warming, but i've noticed in all the news they don't want to say what the ship was doing there because it would make them look real stupid!


----------



## g_axelsson

That's funny, here we have rain and no snow, usually the snow stays from late October until April - May.

At least where I live, northern Europe, we have a local warming trend. This is the annual mean temperature from 1860 to 2013 for Sweden.






Göran


----------



## 9kuuby9

The magnetic poles of the sun has switched this year, This might be one of the many causes for the irregularities of temperature and weather everyone is experiencing on this brief moment.

http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/the-suns-magnetic-field-is-about-to-flip/


----------



## sharkhook

Calling for 17*F here in North Alabama tonight, with a 10*F for wind chill. The wind is just starting to get rough here. Hmmm......There goes working on my building in the morning.


----------



## Smack

Heading out right now (11:20pm) to fire up the snow blower and then again in the am. to clean up after the plow goes through and then off to my shop for more of the same. Looks like we only got about 6 inches or 15cm for you metric guys.


----------



## Palladium

http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/nasa-usgs-landsat-8-satellite-pinpoints-coldest-spots-on-earth/#.UscQrbQk8xG


----------



## g_axelsson

Palladium, that's extremely cold! :shock: 
It is so cold that it should start to snow carbon dioxide snow!

Göran


----------



## Palladium

g_axelsson said:


> It is so cold that it should start to snow carbon dioxide snow!
> 
> Göran



For the love of god don't give them any ideas! Here comes the next tax! :mrgreen:


----------



## Harold_V

The phenomenon of "sinks" isn't all that new. I was born and raised in Utah----and quite relieved to no longer live there. 
Considering Antarctica is the bottom of the earth, well away from the equator, it shouldn't surprise anyone that it gets cold there--but what about Peter Sinks, in Utah? Not nearly as cold, but plenty cold enough, especially considering its proximity to the equator. Follow this link for a report on temperatures that get very close to -70°F in the continental US. 

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/116318/PETER-SINKS-UTAHS-COLDEST-SPOT.html?pg=all

On the subject of global warming---don't disclose that you're a moron by suggesting it isn't happening. It's happening--the question is--why? Is man responsible? Could be---or not--but it is widely accepted that in warming trends, we're going to experience all manner of variations, some of which may defy the fact that it's getting warmer---but what else can explain the fact that ice is being lost pretty much all over the planet?

Harold


----------



## butcher

I kinda like the warmer winters, I am just glad were are not having another Ice age yet.


----------



## macfixer01

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mike-c...gnore-ice-bound-ship-was-global-warming-missi

How ironic, that ship stuck in Antarctic ice was on yet another money wasting mission to "prove" global warming. Strange that most media outlets never mentioned that fact? Calling them Scientists seems dubious also, since they seem more like cultists, trying to prove a pre-determined conclusion despite what the evidence shows?


----------



## glondor

My street and backyard on Dec 23... ice


----------



## ericrm

here in quebec -25 2 day ago ,and now its raining hard..."sa va faire de la glace partout (insert church word here)" glocal warming is kind of loosing its romantic perception


----------



## Palladium

I hate ice storms! They destroy the natural beauty of the landscape and it takes years for it to look normal again. In Bama we have weather trends that seem to occur over the same terrain or paths and patterns. I can still ride through certain areas where their was tornadoes and the damage to the natural environment is evident even 20 years later. I'm a nature kind of person.


----------



## james122964

don't forget the globe has been warming for 14000 years, since the last ice age ended...Also the carbonaious period the earth was very much warmer and the most productive period ever.


----------



## AndyWilliams

How many years must the globe not warm, before we stop calling it global warming? Even a pendulum goes in two directions while remaining to one side of equilibrium.

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/09/09/arctic-sea-ice-up-60-percent-in-2013/


----------



## solar_plasma

As long as the gulf stream doesn't slow down and there isn't happening a magnetic pole shift, I have other bigger concerns respectively the environment, namely polution and unnecessary systematic worldwide agricultural genetic experiments, if not to call it a cold gene war.


----------



## ericrm

AndyWilliams said:


> How many years must the globe not warm, before we stop calling it global warming? Even a pendulum goes in two directions while remaining to one side of equilibrium.
> 
> http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/09/09/arctic-sea-ice-up-60-percent-in-2013/



let see in 50 years how the poeple will call it but for now polar bear must be happy they were drowning from exaustion lately


----------



## ericrm

solar_plasma said:


> As long as the gulf stream doesn't slow down and there isn't happening a magnetic pole shift, I have other bigger concerns respectively the environment, namely polution and unnecessary systematic worldwide agricultural genetic experiments, if not to call it a cold gene war.



what is wrong with the pole shift? the sun shift every 11 years and no one is to much affected...


----------



## solar_plasma

I meant the earth's pole shift, which would have consequences for satelites and energy supply and electronics for some periods.


----------



## ericrm

solar_plasma said:


> I meant the earth's pole shift, which would have consequences for satelites and energy supply and electronics for some periods.


its ok i miss understand you myself... it just because when poeple talk about the magnetic shift i think of my dad who think that the earth will spin 180deg on itself :lol:


----------



## solar_plasma

> my dad who think that the earth will spin 180deg on itself :lol:



...this would be really bad :lol:


----------



## Anonymous

solar_plasma said:


> my dad who think that the earth will spin 180deg on itself :lol:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...this would be really bad :lol:
Click to expand...


Aye but look on the bright side- it would be warm for Christmas


----------



## butcher

My compass still points the same general direction, you guy's keep me informed when I need a new compass, I sure would hate to get lost in the woods while coming back home.


----------



## rickbb

The question is not whether it is warming or cooling, the earth does both naturally. 

The question is the speed at which it's proven to be occurring. Worldwide avg. temps are rising at a rate that has never been recorded in our geologic or fossil record.

Changes that naturally take thousands and thousands of years are now happening in mere hundreds.

The current cold snap in North America is not a sign of anything other than it's currently cold, and neither is any single hot, dry spell. 

You have to look at the 100 year averages to even start to see the picture in it's true form.


----------



## butcher

As far as I am concerned the weather is natural, man cannot change the weather.

Well maybe we can we just all need to do a rain dance.


----------



## AndyWilliams

What I don't understand is how people who understand the rigors of science, can bring themselves to accept anthropogenic global warming in the absence of such rigor. There is little in the temperature record that should hold our faith; that is, if we are to extrapolate such record towards a global mean temperature at any given time in the past. Imagine, it's 1800 and you are tasked with determining the global temperature of the time. How do you do it, comprehensively? Let's make it easier then. 1900. I imagine all of us can name someone we knew that was born near the turn of the nineteenth to the twentieth century. That's not so long ago. Looking at the temperature record of the time, did the measurements occur at all the right places? What are those right places? Is the equipment dependable? The people? Was it recorded correctly? Taken at the right time of day? Did somebody also record ocean temperatures? What about an accurate estimate of the polar caps, without an aerial view? I submit that it is highly likely that our temperature records, even into the second half of the twentieth century, are corrupted by not just bad data, but data that has no business being relied upon. 

The rigors of science do not require perfect data, but it does require that there be some level of confidence in said data. That level of confidence cannot be reached, on a planetary level, until well into the twentieth century. Having said that, I don't expect the cult of global warming to go away. No, rather they will continue extolling the evils of whichever target is their fancy, ignoring how wrong their dire predictions are, and explaining away any "new" (read as "up until recently, not a considered aspect of man-made global warming, but we're willing to try and incorporate it into our models now.") items that might tend to disprove that the planet goes through these cycles naturally. For heaven's sake, we're talking about a planet that had an almost zero chance of inhabiting life when it formed! Why do we expect it to stay in the exact range, that we need, for eternity????


----------



## ericrm

well the ocean is rising ... clearly not a sign of colder temperature http://ocean.nationalgeographic.com/ocean/critical-issues-sea-level-rise/

but nobody is arguing with you on the fact that earth get hotter and colder many time , but saying that the earth isnt geting warmer right now ,is like saying that the economy isnt getting worse... of course economy come and go but now we are in a hoter position than before ...


----------



## Smack

I echo your post Andy.


----------



## CBentre

Harold_V said:


> The phenomenon of "sinks" isn't all that new. I was born and raised in Utah----and quite relieved to no longer live there.
> Considering Antarctica is the bottom of the earth, well away from the equator, it shouldn't surprise anyone that it gets cold there--but what about Peter Sinks, in Utah? Not nearly as cold, but plenty cold enough, especially considering its proximity to the equator. Follow this link for a report on temperatures that get very close to -70°F in the continental US.
> 
> http://www.deseretnews.com/article/116318/PETER-SINKS-UTAHS-COLDEST-SPOT.html?pg=all
> 
> On the subject of global warming---don't disclose that you're a moron by suggesting it isn't happening. It's happening--the question is--why? Is man responsible? Could be---or not--but it is widely accepted that in warming trends, we're going to experience all manner of variations, some of which may defy the fact that it's getting warmer---but what else can explain the fact that ice is being lost pretty much all over the planet?
> 
> Harold



The industrial revolution comes to mind for a short and brief answer pertaining to your second paragraph. The world as we know it has never had to endure a beating that we have been putting it through over the last century. The population of this planet is devouring every resource available at a record pace. As more people come into this world they will require more resources to fulfill their thirst of equality. More people means more land being absorbed and less natural resources like trees that help keep our air quality in check. More people also means more business and more industrialized nations who will contribute to what has already begun. There are many other factors that may have effects on our climate, Solar activity is one and asteroids that are big enough and come close enough to earth tend to have slight gravitational pulls that may not be noticeable to the human eye but do change things. These are just my personal thoughts on some of the things I've picked up on over the last decade. i'm not asking anyone to believe me but rather give you something to think about that you can research yourself if your interested.


----------



## Smack

Having grown up on a farm and owning a landscape business for 18+ yrs along with plenty of other life experiences and just plain being observant to my surroundings has brought me to realize (for me) what I think are the two main contributors to rising temperatures (if it's caused by man). 1: By cutting down forests we have exposed the soil to direct sunlight and as we all know the sun heats things up fast. Just walk into a corn field at the end of August when it's 90 degrees out and feel the difference the shade from just the corn gives. Even if it's a lawn it's still hotter than under the canopy in the woods or forest. 2: Of those areas we have exposed to direct sunlight by way of cutting down the forest we have also colored it black so to speak by paving it, building upon it and roofing with asphalt shingles, parking lots full of cars that get hot enough not only on the outside that you can fry an egg but 130 degrees on the inside on a sunny summer day, no plant surface provided by nature has ever had an egg cooked on it using sunlight, that I know of. Just think of how many square miles all the roof tops and paved surfaces cover let alone all the ground we till. And The Industrial Revolution has allowed us to do it much faster than we could have with the horse and buggy.


----------



## rickbb

Interpreting the avg. mean temperature of the past in the fossil and geologic record is a well established science. The methods do stand up very well to all established standards for scientific scrutiny. (Double blind, peer reviewed, repeatable, etc..)

Ice core samples in various glaciers from many places around the world can pinpoint temps and rain fall by each year going back over 150,000 years. Tree ring data from fossilized trees and sediment cores from oceans and large lakes can do the same for millions of years.

You don't need to rely on having known someone who was alive at the time.

Arguing that global warming is not real because it's not based on sound science will not hold water. The science is sound, the data does add up. 

You can decide to just not believe it, that's ok, that's your right. But you don't get to justify your belief by saying the facts aren't real, because they are. There's a whole lot I don't want to believe in, but provable, measurable facts prevent me from doing so.


----------



## Anonymous

I'm also with Andywilliams on this one. He put it really well.

Jon


----------



## CBentre

Well, the hole in the ozone layer is not a myth whether you want to believe it or not. Over the last few decades there have been tons of refrigerant released into the atmosphere. You know that r12 stuff that they use to use in your ac units or your refrigerator? Yeah that's the stuff that when reaches a certain altitude is broken down by the suns uv rays and actually eats away at the ozone layer and in return allows the planet to get hotter in certain areas. I'll have to get my text book out for this one a bit later but even fire extinguishers, those red cans that we use to save lives with are even worse because they release halocarbons into the atmosphere. This is one of the reasons why it's become illegal for fire chiefs to use them in training here in Canada. I'll try to follow up on this discussion later......


----------



## AndyWilliams

rickbb said:


> Interpreting the avg. mean temperature of the past in the fossil and geologic record is a well established science. The methods do stand up very well to all established standards for scientific scrutiny. (Double blind, peer reviewed, repeatable, etc..)
> 
> Ice core samples in various glaciers from many places around the world can pinpoint temps and rain fall by each year going back over 150,000 years. Tree ring data from fossilized trees and sediment cores from oceans and large lakes can do the same for millions of years.
> 
> You don't need to rely on having known someone who was alive at the time.
> 
> Arguing that global warming is not real because it's not based on sound science will not hold water. The science is sound, the data does add up.
> 
> You can decide to just not believe it, that's ok, that's your right. But you don't get to justify your belief by saying the facts aren't real, because they are. There's a whole lot I don't want to believe in, but provable, measurable facts prevent me from doing so.



Interpreting the avg. mean temperature of the past in the fossil and geologic record is a well established science only to the point that we don't know if our selected variables are correctly accounting for relevant variables and to what extent each variable has on the overall calculation. This is a scientific "guesstimate." Are those guesses within 1 degree? 5 degrees? 10 degrees? You tell me, how certain is the calculation, from the fossil record?

The following article is an example of just how imprecise temperatures can be derived from the fossil record. http://www.amjbot.org/content/88/6/1096.full

And just to illustrate why the science of determining temperatures from the fossil record is anything but precise, I've pulled this bit from the article: 

"Only recently has a system emerged for estimating the error in the reconstruction of temperature using this method (Mosbrugger and Utescher, 1997⇓). The closest-living-relative method relies on correct identification of the fossil, correct choice of the nearest living relative, complete knowledge of the modern distribution, and an *assumption* that climatic tolerances have not changed over time between the modern relative and the fossil in question."

Highlights are my own.

This study estimates that fossil records can distort actual mean temperatures by up to 5 degrees Celsius! Is that the type of certainty that we expect of science? I hope all of us can agree that if something can be off by just 5 degrees Celsius, that more work needs to be done to achieve a level of confidence worth our consideration. That's *9* degrees Fahrenheit! I would capitalize the "9" if I could. But do read the article, it really does a great job of illustrating what is done to just calculate, effectively, current mean temperatures. Having an understanding of what is done now, really educates one to the perils of past temperature collection.

Extrapolating temperature records from the fossil record is equivalent to determining the sides of a rectangle with an assumed area (provided by me). If you can understand that ten people will come up with ten different answers, all of them correct in their calculation, and repeatable, then you can begin to understand why believing that the fossil record provides any definitive proof is, at best, an exercise in futility


----------



## niteliteone

AndyWilliams said:


> (snip)
> This study estimates that fossil records can distort actual mean temperatures by up to 5 degrees Celsius! Is that the type of certainty that we expect of science? I hope all of us can agree that if something can be off by just 5 degrees Celsius, that more work needs to be done to achieve a level of confidence worth our consideration. That's *9* degrees Fahrenheit! I would capitalize the "9" if I could. But do read the article, it really does a great job of illustrating what is done to just calculate, effectively, current mean temperatures. Having an understanding of what is done now, really educates one to the perils of past temperature collection.
> 
> Extrapolating temperature records from the fossil record is equivalent to determining the sides of a rectangle with an assumed area (provided by me). If you can understand that ten people will come up with ten different answers, all of them correct in their calculation, and repeatable, then you can begin to understand why believing that the fossil record provides any definitive proof is, at best, an exercise in futility


Well stated, with a good example to boot 8)


----------



## AndyWilliams

CBentre said:


> Well, the hole in the ozone layer is not a myth whether you want to believe it or not. Over the last few decades there have been tons of refrigerant released into the atmosphere. You know that r12 stuff that they use to use in your ac units or your refrigerator? Yeah that's the stuff that when reaches a certain altitude is broken down by the suns uv rays and actually eats away at the ozone layer and in return allows the planet to get hotter in certain areas. I'll have to get my text book out for this one a bit later but even fire extinguishers, those red cans that we use to save lives with are even worse because they release halocarbons into the atmosphere. This is one of the reasons why it's become illegal for fire chiefs to use them in training here in Canada. I'll try to follow up on this discussion later......



I don't have to deny facts to maintain my beliefs. The hole in the ozone is a seasonal phenomena that allows warming, in Antarctica, during the spring, which in turn supports the closing of the hole. It is not dependent on man to exist or occur. More often than not, the hole closes after December. The hole in 2013 was 9% smaller than the average for the past few decades, and it has been 13 years since the single day, largest hole was recorded. But I'm guessing that the global warming alarmists won't see a smaller hole in the ozone as a good sign.

http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html


----------



## butcher

I think the earth has taken care of itself for about 4.5 billion years, I really doubt man will destroy it in the speck of time he has been here, I seriously doubt man could change the weather even if he wanted to, and I doubt we have very much effect on it at all, the earth and its cycles also has a way of repairing itself, no doubt man can put a few scars on its surface but these will heal over with time, man can pollute his environment, and could harm himself, but the earth will repair itself just fine.

No one knows if this global warming thing, even global cooling thing has anything to do with man, or with what man does. No more than the ancient peoples who done a rain dance and then it rained, they danced it rained, They must have caused it to rain, and if it did not they must have just displeased the gods, their facts of their day, are just as valid as our "scientific facts" today.

What I do see is people using this argument as a way to make money or for control and power, I see no fact I would hang my hat on either way, data collected really does not mean much when those who look at the data interpret it with either an agenda or looking to prove what they want to prove, or to disprove what they wish to, either knowingly, or unconsciously. Ancient man proved rain dances worked. our modern science and medicine one day will be looked back on by future man as medieval nonsense some advancement on man before him but a lot of just theory, or speculation of man in his history of evolution towards more understanding, just as we look back on the science of early man, in their day the world really was flat, and giving blood to the gods did make their crops grow they proved it, why do we debunk the science of early man, Oh because we are modern man and our heads got a lot bigger, (I do not think our brains have really grown that much).

Beside if we can change the weather all we have to do is just do another rain dance (science has proved it).


----------



## Harold_V

It should be noted that man can't ruin the world---he can just ruin it in regards to it being habitable. We're well on our way, what with the contamination we're introducing to the oceans as well as the atmosphere. 

Sure, in time, it will heal itself---that's been going on for a long time--and evidence at hand indicates that species go extinct as a result. It's certainly not beyond reason that man can do the same thing, especially with the bloated population of the world. It would be obtuse to think we're exempt. We're nearing a tipping point, where the planet simply won't be able to recover the resources consumed by man. When this happens, assuming disease doesn't control our swelling masses, it's not going to be a pretty picture. 

Harold


----------



## butcher

I agree and nature has a way to deal with that also, death and disease, a natural way of lowing population, and those that destroy their habitat.


----------



## nickvc

I have no doubt that mother nature will have the final word if we don't clean our act up, we aren't gods so we are all at her mercy if we over plunder or ruin the planet as we now know it. I'm not blaming mankind for all the worlds ills but we do have a responsibility to care for our beautiful world for our children and grandchildren to enjoy and marvel in.


----------



## butcher

I totally agree.
I was an environmentalist before they made it into a dirty word.


----------



## Anonymous

It's extreme arrogance to suggest that we could destroy the planet. We may be able to make it uninhabitable by humans but the planet will adapt, evolve and move on with a whole new master lifeform.


----------



## CBentre

Removed comments because I felt I was being extremely arrogant with my comments towards spaceships.


----------



## Palladium

:shock: 

http://video.foxnews.com/v/3037071505001/west-virginia-water-crisis/?playlist_id=938973798001#sp=show-clips


----------



## niteliteone

More people might take this "Global Warming" situation more seriously if the worlds governments weren't "Only" using this GW as a taxation device and actually ban some of the activities that are suspect of causing this GW.

I also find it surprising that the "Only" Scientists that support this version of Global Warming are dependent on government funding to live their daily lives. Where as Scientists that work for the private sector disagree with the findings of the government "Paid" Scientists, even though they use the same data.

Sounds to me that the governments have found a way to TAX us, with the natural processes of Mother Nature.
Just my opinion.


----------



## 9kuuby9

This is actually natural, mostly due to the sun.

The problem is that they redirect the _cause_ to the population and so have a so called "reason" to tax their loyal citizens. And now some scientists grow a long nose and get a good funding by telling the population.

An extreme example would be 9/11 they redirected the cause to the middle east, so they have a "reason" to invade and take hold of the black gold. (oil)

The government always uses the problem-solution method, it first creates the problem (which most of the time doesn't even exist) and then proposes the solution.

The worst thing about taxation is the attitude-like of owning the planet. _Don't exhale CO2 it's bad for the planet_! Let's rid this problem by taxing you so we can buy some trees somewhere that already exist, how backwards is that? :lol:


----------



## Harold_V

9kuuby9 said:


> An extreme example would be 9/11 they redirected the cause to the middle east, so they have a "reason" to invade and take hold of the black gold. (oil)



That's an interesting accusation. Please tell me in words I can understand how it wasn't at the hands of the middle east?
*
This is not rhetorical. I expect a reply.*

Harold


----------



## 9kuuby9

The only Truthful way to answer your question is to provide sound and legitimate evidence. Since it's controversial the evidence has to be provided from various points of view.

If you expect evidence then please let me know, so I can provide some.


----------



## solar_plasma

Though this is worth a discussion, it should not be discussed here, since this is getting very political and it is my conviction, this thread should be closed and deleted for the sake of peace.


----------



## denim

9kuuby9 said:


> The only Truthful way to answer your question is to provide sound and legitimate evidence. Since it's controversial the evidence has to be provided from various points of view.
> 
> If you expect evidence then please let me know, so I can provide some.



Hey 9kuuby9-

Try reading a book called Fixing Climate by Wallace S. Broecker then get back to us with your thoughts on this current, and expeditious climate change we are experiencing. To me it was very eye opening to say the least. I hope I have not misinterpreted your post. As far our government finding another way to tax us to death- they don't need global warming/climate change scare tactics to do that, but it is a mighty convenient opportunity for them to do so I agree. Please read the book. Cheers mate-


----------



## Captobvious

The whole Global Warming debate has turned into a Pseudo-cult-religion imho. You will not convince the non-believers that it exists and you will never be able to convince the believers that it doesn't.


----------



## 9kuuby9

Everyone is free to believe anything he wants to, as long as that individual does not _force_ his views or ideologies upon others.

No need to turn hostile towards others if they have different beliefs regarding many things? Shouldn't we respect each other and try to live in a manner which we all get along with?

Regarding controversial subjects one should defend his standpoint with well established facts or sound thinking, think twice and read your posts for a second time before posting as not to cause yourself problems and regret.


----------



## butcher

One problem with beliefs is that there are not always "sound facts to support them", as sound facts can be subject to interpretation, just like this global warming controversy, most of us know the earth goes through cycles of warming and cooling, but we can get two scientists with beliefs of two polar opposite points of view on this subject, who can both find "sound proof" to support what they wish to believe or prove.

Global warming like other beliefs can get controversial, or political, seldom will discussing them change other peoples belief, and many times just end up in heated discussions, and as we know it has little to do with gold recovery or refining, (unless it helps our chlorine leave solution faster), so it is best for us to stay away from this subject.

Because subject's like this can get controversial, and as we know on the forum we work to get along, and to keep on the subject of gold recovery and refining, and steer clear of controversial subjects. 


I will post no more of my thoughts (or beliefs), here on global warming, I will just enjoy the warm weather when it gets here.


----------



## Harold_V

9kuuby9 said:


> The only Truthful way to answer your question is to provide sound and legitimate evidence. Since it's controversial the evidence has to be provided from various points of view.
> 
> If you expect evidence then please let me know, so I can provide some.


Get on with providing your evidence. Do it publicly, just as you made your accusation publicly. 

I don't take too kindly to the idea that you're suggesting that those who have been found responsible are not responsible, as if to imply that they were victims. Far too many people died at the hands of these less than honorable individuals for me to accept what you said as anything less than you being supportive of those deaths. 

Harold


----------



## 9kuuby9

Dear Harold,

I know there was done the killing of innocent people on both sides of the US and Middle east. Yet those in the middle east are living what the Americans lived on 9/11 for years and decades and still do until this very day. This statement is in no way to justify the 9/11 or the invasion of the middle east.

The next time I will not resort to anything that is too controversial in the future, I will try to resolve this one in the most possible friendly way I can.
It is not my intention to hurt or do injustice to anyone in any possible way.



Harold_V said:


> what you said as anything less than you being supportive of those deaths.
> 
> Harold



Please do not _assume_ that I support the killing of any people on the face of the earth, be it on 9/11 or in the middle east.

We can put a full stop on this issue, but since you insist I will post the evidence.



Harold_V said:


> I don't take too kindly to the idea that you're suggesting that those who have been found responsible are not responsible,
> 
> Harold



There has been no trial nor evidence provided by the Whitehouse nor a trial by the supreme court.



Harold_V said:


> Far too many people died at the hands of these less than honorable individuals for me to accept
> 
> Harold



There is absolutely no justice in supporting any death of any human being,

This article is about casualties for the war beginning in 2003. 

White and red flags, representing Iraqi and American deaths, sit in the grass quadrangle of The Valley Library on the Corvallis, Oregon, campus of Oregon State University. As part of the traveling Iraq Body Count exhibit from 2008 to 2009 (not related to Iraq Body Count project), the flags aim to "raise awareness of the human cost of the Iraq War." (May 2008)
Casualties of the conflict in Iraq since 2003 (beginning with the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and continuing with the ensuing occupation and insurgency) have come in many forms, and the accuracy of the information available on different types of Iraq War casualties varies greatly.
The table below summarizes various estimates of the Iraqi casualty figures.

Source Casualties Time period

Associated Press 110,600 violent deaths March 2003 to April 2009
Costs of War Project  176,000–189,000 violent deaths including 134,000 civilians  March 2003 to February 2013
Iraq Body Count project 112,667–123,284 civilian deaths from violence. 174,000 civilian and combatant deaths March 2003 to March 2013
Iraq Family Health Survey 151,000 violent deaths  March 2003 to June 2006
Lancet survey 601,027 violent deaths out of 654,965 excess deaths  March 2003 to June 2006
Opinion Research Business survey	1,033,000 deaths as a result of the conflict March 2003 to August 2007
PLOS Medicine Survey Approximately 500,000 deaths in Iraq as direct or indirect result of the war.	 March 2003 to June, 2011
Classified Iraq War Logs 109,032 deaths including 66,081 civilian deaths. January 2004 to December 2009


For troops in the U.S.-led multinational coalition, the death toll is carefully tracked and updated daily, and the names and photographs of those killed in action as well as in accidents have been published widely. A total of 4,486 U.S. soldiers were killed in Iraq between 2003 and 2012. Regarding the Iraqis, however, information on both military and civilian casualties is both less precise and less consistent. Estimates of casualty levels are available from reporters on the scene, from officials of involved organizations, and from groups that summarize information on incidents reported in the news media.

9/11 numbers;

Deaths	2,996 (2,977 victims + 19 hijackers)
Injured (non-fatal)	6,000+
Perpetrators	Al-Qaeda

A minimum over 150.000 civilian deaths had to account for the 9/11 incident? I don't Think any of those people had anything to do with it. This is only one county, what if I were to give you the Afghan and Pakistani civilian casualties numbers? Where is the justice here?

Who supports Al-Qaeda and brought it into existence?

No body less than the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton admitted that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z97JapLe5nw

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dqn0bm4E9yw[/youtube]

I can give you countless evidences from people that work for or with the government that said otherwise than what you claimed.

Aside from that I have also plenty of evidences regarding the scientific facts.

A controlled demolition comparison; [youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_x4Jq9FTli8[/youtube]

The core of the building is made out of steel, how can it fall in a way called "free fall" upon impact? This defies physics itself.

If you have seen on discovery how they wire up buildings that they have to bring down, then how can a group of 30 terrorists who don't even speak English accomplish that ? they adherently lived in a cave too. This is such on a large scale, that it is impossible to accomplish besides a government.

NYC WTC 'designed to withstand multiple airliner impacts' Frank De Martini construction boss

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYSV2OxAvZE[/youtube]

Then the Whitehouse says it was the jet fuel that melted the steel structure and brought it down.

jet fuel is what? Kerosene. Open air burning temperatures of Kerosene is, 260–315 °C (notice open air, this is almost the maximum burning temperature due to the oxygen.)

The structure was made out of? Steel. Steel melts at? depending upon the type, 1425 - 1540°C

Can you melt gold with Kerosene? NO you cannot! Much less steel.

The US has a multi-billion dollar air defense system and also NORAD, any flight that is off course will be intercepted in 10 minutes. The 9/11 Flights where off course for over hours.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOCugL8Fpog[/youtube]

They had a strangle hold of that too? Then aren't they controlling the US government?

To believe cave-men did it preposterous.

Don't we have the ability to critically think? Or you don't question authority even if it’s not correct?

If you need Any more evidence I still can provide some more. I've already provided some evidence from 3 different standpoints namely;

If al-Qaida did it who sewn it into existence?

Scientifically 

Military

Kind regards,

Ben


----------



## Harold_V

In my many years, I've been exposed to all manner of morons who simply can't sort truth from fantasy. Many of these individuals are more than willing to accept as evidence that which is, to rational people, obviously not the truth. I won't delve in to the many claims you proposed, and will totally ignore anything referenced in the way of a youtube presentation. You may just as well have listed something in a comic book as your evidence. Surely, you understand that anyone can post anything of their choosing on youtube, and that it is filled with misinformation, typically targeted at those who some hope to enflame, in support of theories that have yet to be proven. Armed with that thought, your complaint of no trial (for who? The dead?), you feel an injustice, yet you have no problem making accusations that can't be proven?

I'm shocked at the level of stupidity you have posted. To insinuate that steel in the twin towers was melted is going to the extreme. No one, aside from idiots, have made that claim, nor is there any evidence to support the notion that steel was melted. That, alone, is enough for me to understand your mindset, which is not welcome on this board. 

You might understand that I'm not the least bit thrilled with you, nor your presence on this forum. You have bolstered my thoughts by providing so much misinformation that I am now going to do what needs to be done. This I promise you. Both of us will not be contributing members of this board. Had you not posted your inflammatory comments, I'd have not known your position in this matter. It comes as no surprise to me how many in countries outside the US have contempt for our nation---although not enough contempt to resist accepting the aid that was provided for them in time of need. 

We have a strong policy on this board of not promoting religion or politics. You, sir, have crossed that line. To think that you'd take advantage of the advice given so freely on this board, then attack those who provide the guidance is beyond my understanding. You, sir, are truly the enemy. 

I have no alternative but to ban you. If you return, you will be banned again. And again. That won't change unless I am dismissed as a moderator, or you find a clever way to register with this board and I can't detect your presence. Trust me, I will make you my top priority from this moment forward. 

Harold


----------



## nickvc

I'm sure there are many members here who have shown considerable restraint over this particular turn in the direction of this topic. May I now commend you all for your forbearance.
Now back to refining and science 8)


----------



## eastky

nickvc said:


> I'm sure there are many members here who have shown considerable restraint over this particular turn in the direction of this topic. May I now commend you all for your forbearance.
> Now back to refining and science 8)



Thanks nickvc I didn't want to be the first to post after Harold. I also commend Harold for his decisions on this forum.
He is appreciated more than he knows. Thank you Harold.


----------



## moose7802

Thank you Harold for taking a stand! I have lost a few friends and acquaintances to this war and don't like seeing people put the blame for it else where other than where it is due. Like stated earlier this post should probably be locked so everyone can get back to what this forum is about. 

Tyler


----------



## Geo

there were many nationals represented in the deaths from the attacks on the world trade center and each country has its own coping mechanism. im sure that we have members that live in the the countries that condone such attacks and feel that they were justified. what makes this particular community operable is that we hold our personal opinions to ourselves to keep from offending someone not out of fear of retribution but out of respect for each other. 

personally, i feel America held great restraint after the attacks on our own soil considering what happened to the last country that attacked America at home. i believe that views would be much different if America were in the business of conquest by attrition. if the U.S. had kept all of the real-estate that it has taken in all the past wars, the global map would look very different. can you imagine the middle and far east populated by Americans instead of giving the countries its defeated back to its inhabitants?


----------



## Captobvious

Harold, with all the misinformation, disinformation, and outright propaganda of the last several administrations, can you blame him for not believing everything the government says as being fact?

*Disclaimer* I am NOT saying he is right, nor am I saying you're right, I'm merely pointing out that this is how the "Truthers" and Alex Jones fans see the world is all.


----------



## nickvc

As I said earlier back to science and refining, this is heading back into territory that isn't part of the remit of the forum.
If we don't follow our own rules how can we expect newbies to.


----------



## Harold_V

Captobvious said:


> Harold, with all the misinformation, disinformation, and outright propaganda of the last several administrations, can you blame him for not believing everything the government says as being fact?
> 
> *Disclaimer* I am NOT saying he is right, nor am I saying you're right, I'm merely pointing out that this is how the "Truthers" and Alex Jones fans see the world is all.


You're missing the point, and will quickly become amongst those who are no longer welcome here if you don't wise up. 

This board is not intended for use by readers to air their political views. Whether you approve of the politics in the US, or not, or the politics and religions of others, or not, isn't to be discussed here. This board is about the recovery and refining of precious metals. Any topic that leads the board astray isn't generally welcome, but one thing is certain; a topic which is highly controversial and presents the opportunity to divide the board is NOT welcome. If a reader doesn't have enough wisdom or sensitivity to avoid such conversations, he/she will be banned. Simple as that. 

Keep your political and religious convictions to yourself. * DO NOT POST THEM ON THIS BOARD*. 

Harold


----------



## shaftsinkerawc

4 pages of posts and not locked yet?


----------



## Harold_V

> if the U.S. had kept all of the real-estate that it has taken in all the past wars, the global map would look very different.


If any comments were to be allowed, this one, in particular, has merit, and is the very thing that has been overlooked by those who simply can't resist the temptation to find fault with the US. 

I am not locking this thread, but I will start banning those who persist. I want the thread to remain, as an example of what is not acceptable, and by leaving it open displaying the fact that readers are willingly complying with the board rules. 

No politics.
No religion.
No bad language. 

Harold


----------

