₦airaland Forum

Ipledge:
olapade is my name

cool.. Ts nice meeting you bro.. What's keeping u up?

Ability to see through ladies clothes

Got tired of ffucking her. Had to port to else where

kika23:
You could use your birth name

That's a lifeline

Adeoluwa
- Hard day Oluwar
- Erdayoluwer

Peter
-Pita
-Petar
-Peeter
-Peather

I give up

Padeolu
-pardeyolu
-perdayouhluy
-kpadeyolu

Not cool

crazyawesome911:
he's awesome

how ur armpit come black like that? U sure say u dey bath daily?

Ipledge: the person wey i won yab n padeolu,he steal my
name,he comot the ola in front put olu for back and
he stil thief the gal i dey eye

The other tread has been brought down.

Good to know we answer almost thesame name. You are "Adeola" right? Its a cool feminine name.

About the girl, no vex bro. "Stealing" her wasn't an easy task. I actually fasted for 7 days (white fast), carried sacrifice to 7 junctions, danced unclad in 5 shoprites && visited 54 alfas just to have her. Need I mention that I made several enemies here on NL just because of her. Only my very good friend hungryboy can testify to that.

Ehm, u guys can be friends though. JUST FRIENDS. Lol..

NB.. Hungryboy, sorry I mentioned you. I actually wanna be friends with you.

B ofcourse, Dangote's daughter

I change my mind.. OyA follow back . @MrsBreezy

oluwalfa:
padeolu, great work.
See how truth, proof and facts shut them up.

Thanks for the compliment.

I actually think its cool they have a different opinion about the issue. We all can't believe in an hypothesis no matter how evident it may be. Someone has to find faults in it. That's science, it leads to discovery of other stuffs.

As someone once said, you don't win a Nobel prize by following the crowd..

[quote=wiegraf]And the way some of you speak with such authority against what the very vast majority of the scientific community concurs on frankly baffles me. Not to say the cannot be wrong, but 'preposterous', really?[/quote]For several years the earth was believed to flat. Am aswell sure vast majority of philosophers/scientists/Astrologers would have churned out "evidences" to back this claim. It took but one man to prove it wrong. Science isn't about what the majority thinks or choose to think, rather, its about observable evidences and facts.

Anthropogenic Climate Change Fraud
Those of us keeping abreast of the climate literature have known for quite some time that the explanation for Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) relating to climate change, was far from the entire story, with almost all dissenting opinion having been actively suppressed. But the full extent of the problem was not made clear until November 19, 2009, when approximately 160 megabytes of data files and email correspondence was leaked from Britain's government-funded University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit (CRU).
An initial review of this material revealed four
damning facts:

1. Current global temperature data was being actively manipulated in order to conceal real-world temperature declines that did not support the computerized climate models that were being used to predict runaway global warming. Additionally, historical data showing that during the Medieval Warm Period (900-1300 AD), the earth had been warmer than what was seen today, thereby shattering any causal connection between man made CO 2 and temperature rise.

2. For quite some time, as is a normal part of any scientific peer-review process, independent scientists && organizations had been requesting the release of the raw temperature data used by the CRU in determining its results. Nevertheless, the CRU had continually refused to make their data available. (&& now we understand why!) Additional requests for the data were made under the UK's Freedom of Information laws, and the scientists at the CRU are seen discussing how to circumvent these laws, including destroying correspondence and the temperature data itself, rather than allow it to be seen by others.

3. A review of the source code for the computerized models used to predict the significant global temperature gains being reported, showed that much of it was completely unintelligible to the programmers charged with maintain it, and in some cases, these programs could not be made to reproduce similar results previously obtained by others using the same code base and data sets. This code was in a constant state of manipulation in order to produce predetermined results.

4. The correspondence shows a small group of
scientists frequently discussing ways to subvert the normal scientific peer-review process. This included having climate papers only be "reviewed" by one another, or by people already fully committed to the belief in AGW, stopping publication of any papers that were skeptical of AGW, and working to remove editors from scientific journals that were willing to publish any dissenting opinions.


Facts

1. All AGW computer models predicted a steady
increase in global temperatures. However, for the past 11+ years, the global temperatures have not increased, and in fact, decreased, despite a continuing rise in CO 2, countering the theory of a causal connection between increasing carbon dioxide and rising temperatures. (10-13-09) [url=news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8299079.stm]REF1[/url]

2. The IPCC governmental advisory report's claimed that the Himalayan glaciers were receding faster than anywhere else in the world and would be gone by 2035. Whoops, that estimate came from a report that predicted their demise by the year 2350. Sorry, for the alarm, it was just a typo! Additionally, the Himalayan glaciers were reported to currently cover
500,000 square kilometers when, in fact, the actual glaciers span roughly 33,000 square kilometers. Missed it by just over 1,500%!
It was also revealed that Syed Hasnain, who made the original prediction, realized this and other errors in the IPCC report back in 2008, but did not inform the head of the IPCC, saying:
"My job is not to point out mistakes."
Of course, it was also later determined by Michael Zemp from the World Glacier Monitoring Service, that:
"There are simply no observations available to make these sorts of statements."
[url=pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-imminent-demise-of-glaciers-due-to-a-typo/?singlepage=true]REF2[/url]
REF3
REF4
REF5

3. Data concerning the warming of other planets in the solar system, indicating the sun as a major influence of earth's temperature rise, has been ignored by the AGW supporters.

"But how do we square the fact that almost every planet in our solar system is simultaneously undergoing temperature change and volatile weather patterns. Does this not suggest that global warming is a natural cycle as a result of the evolving nature of the sun?"

"Scientists from Nasa say that Mars has warmed by about 0.5C since the 1970s. This is similar to the warming experienced on Earth over approximately the same period. Since there is no known life on Mars it suggests rapid changes in planetary climates could be natural phenomena."
REF6

4. Mike Hulme and Martin Mahony, from the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia, write in a paper entitled, Climate Change: what do we know about the IPCC?, that the consensus claims made by the IPCC in support of manmade global warming are fabrications. They state (pages 10-11):

"Claims such as '2,500 of the world's leading
scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate' are disingenuous. That particular consensus judgement, as are many others in the IPCC reports, is reached by only a few dozen experts in the specific
field of detection and attribution studies; other IPCC authors are experts in other fields."
[url=www.probeinternational.org/Hulme-Mahony-PiPG%5B1%5D.pdf]PDF REF 7[/url]

This May Interest You

The Climategate scandal caused independent
scientists and laymen around the globe to take a much closer look at the information that was being presented in support of Anthropogenic (i.e., man-made) Global Warming (AGW), and the overwhelming conclusion was that the there was no credible && conclusive evidence to support the hypothesis. And it was further shown that the scenarios predicting that the planet was nearing the tipping point for a series of catastrophic climate disasters, was totally invalidated by an examination of the facts, as well as a review of the earth's climate history. What came to light during this investigation was the following:

1. Climate science research is almost exclusively funded by governments around the world. Between 1989-2009, the U.S. government alone spent $79 billion. To keep the money flowing, it was necessary to have a compelling "story" of a pending apocalypse
to justify that sort of investment. The narrative of global Armageddon became the researchers' only fixed "fact", with all scientific data being freely manipulated as necessary in order to fit that predetermined scenario.

3. Politicians with a totalitarian bent saw the regulation of carbon as a potent tool for generating massive new tax revenues and for redistributing the world's wealth, while at the same time, justifying the expansion of regulatory control over businesses && the personal activities of all citizens. Consequently, a symbiotic relationship was established between the politicians who handsomely funded the research, && the climate scientists, who fabricated a useful justification for government intervention.

3. People well connected to the government, such as Al Gore, saw an opportunity to make a financial killing by manipulating the environmental legislation in a
favorable way. Gore and others invested heavily in carbon trading schemes which would generate millions in profits once the pending cap-and-trade laws were passed. These people then engaged in their own propaganda campaigns in order to influence a favorable outcome. Gore's film, An Inconvenient Truth was one notable example.

[url=go-galt.org/climategate.html]Read More[/url]

[quote author=PECULIARGEN][/quote]Ordinary Mathematics sire.. Just the 4 basic science subjects && English (physics, chemistry, Biology, Mathematics && English)

wiegraf: You'll have to excuse for now abeg. Too much, not enough time, and I'll be repeating myself. Obviously I still find your stance untenable, but I'll just add to this

Ok sir.

wiegraf: that you state the above while acknowledging that we can and do indeed change the climate, eg Dubai? Not just that, you also accept that the impact of their efforts will be felt elsewhere?

By climate change, we are talking of global climate. The case of dubai, is quite different, its just a portion of the global climate && any changes or alteration in it maybe be good for the ambient, but the consequence will be felt else where. Its live having 10 balls in a closed box, you can tilt the box to whichever angle you won't, that won't reduce the numbers of balls in the box. What will change is the numbers in a particular location. (substitute balls for heat)

wiegraf: Also, NASA is not a joke. And do you really believe the moon landings were staged....

Anyhoo

TBH, I believe the moon landing was staged. Maybe am wrong.

davien: Correct me if i'm wrong but what i understand you saying from all you've said so far is....lets all relax.....drink koolade and not worry about our careless use of essential eco-system dependent resources.... it'll all balance out

No, we have to worry about our activities that are affecting life on earth. What we shouldn't worry about is the changing climate. Its a natural event that would've taken place even if man didn't exist.

davien: Doesn't matter if we cut more trees than we grow...

Trees purify the atmosphere, they give us O2 (just as other green flora). They are aswell useful for remediation && other things.

davien: Doesn't matter that we mine the earth for coal deposited by millennia of plant fauna...

Doesn't matter that in china where coal is most often mined has high toxicity levels and is among the top polluted countries....

Doesn't matter that the polar ice caps are melting... Nature is a cycle.....it'll heal

The arctic ice cap is shrinking slowly but the Antarctic is gaining more sea ice. I think this is due to some shift in polar inclination.

What proceeds an ice age(glacial period) if not a warm period (global warming).

wiegraf: Now, long after humanity has left the earth, supposing another species attained intelligence, how exactly would they attain industrialization without these fossil fuels?

they won't be needing it. The fossil fuels became important to us because it exist. If we hadn't discovered it (or it wasn't available), we would have found an alternative way.

GooseBaba: Bros, adapt how..? Grow furs or thicker skin...

Lol.. If we have to grow furs we will. That's natural adaptation, I guess. The theory of evolution has it that we once were apes.

GooseBaba: I like Practical solutions, solutions that can be measured. You see how africans die of common farmine, we constantly fail to plan for the future ... All our data on climate change comes from external research or reports.

Rather than plan for an uncertain future, why not concentrate on the problems we've at hand...famine, food security(hunger), desertification, drought, loss of biodiversity, water quality...etc. We can't talk of future when we are dying at present.

GooseBaba: At the end of the day, we start looking for help from US or China.. With the earth's population growing rapidly. I think if we as Africans fail to put measures in place

If I have 4 kids && you tell me this, I'd have seen you as a threat && thus slit your throat without hesitation...lol..(just kidding).
Over population is indeed a problem that may/will incur a great consequence. This problem is not just peculiar to Africa(ns), Its a global issue, especially in Asia. We all are to be blamed.

GooseBaba: we will involuntarily become the factors that allows others to adapt...

They will run to us for help. Naturally, we(Africans) are special being, we will adapt.

wiegraf: Let's say I agreed with you (and I can't say, as I don't have the time to check the numbers etc, and it's obviously not my field), I think the bolded is very important, and not something that should be glossed over.

And you would seem to agree, to a degree, as you state the bolded below:

"for now" in that context meant this climate century, as it is difficult to assume/predict what could possibly happen thereafter.

Its a known fact that an increase in Planetary Boundary Layer's (PBL) concentration of GHG can lead to increased surface temperature as a result of the GHGs ability to trap && re-emit long wave radiation (heat). But in this context, what we are bothered about is the effect of the difference between the amount/quantity of GHGs we emit && the amount that is naturally available in the atmosphere.

The truth is, data from the last decade shows "global cooling" as against "warming" that is widely published.
Note that, these GHGs are naturally available in the atmosphere, they help in maintaining energy(heat) balance in the atmosphere.

wiegraf: However, as a whole, this statements are sort of contradictory.

No, its not contradictory. I've a skeptical view on Anthropologenic climate change/Global warming doesn't mean am a skeptic of other human induced environmental issue.

wiegraf: If what you're trying to say is even if we have to pollute, we must do so responsibly, that would seem to be exactly what environmentalists are saying as well, no?

Yes, that's correct. But our CO2 is not the cause of climate change.

wiegraf: So, the main question I suppose would remain; are we doing enough?

as for climate change, we need not to do anything. Its natural. We can't stop it. We can only adapt.

wiegraf: There is water on mars, and various moons as well. On mars its simply frozen. I forget the details of the others. Most plans for terraforming mars involve heating it up.

Yes there is solid water on Mars, but, how abundant is it? Can life survive in such solid water?

Heat up Mars? How? With what? NASA is a joke.

wiegraf: But that's besides the point, mostly. Main point is these are clear examples of how drastic human activity can be to an ecosystem.

Yes, human activities can && has indeed affected the ecosystem, but not to the extent of climate change.

wiegraf: And we can achieve this, short term, simple weather changes. We continue to achieve this short term changes then it eventually becomes long term, rather than weather changes they become climate changes.

No, that's not the logic. Please see the first youtube video I posted. Eg, if you have a weather temp of 100degC today && prolly a -100degC tomorrow. The average which is 0degC is the climate (I just used that as an example, a climate is 30yrs or more). Plus, climate isn't just about temperature.

wiegraf: And that likely would be their ultimate aim, despite their culture built around the desert. They would aim to change their climate, and this is very possible.

I think they are already working on their climate. Its feasible && thank God they are rich enough to foot the bill. But the impact of this action will be felt else where.

wiegraf: Various governments have all manner of plans aimed at changing their climates, they even haggle with their neighbors. I forget the exact case but I remember some European governments quarreling over plans that would affect their neighbors. I remember I will post it.

My point exactly, leave the climate && let it do its thing.

I

wiegraf: don't, but to their credit they've put people on the moon, amongst other things, so I don't think they would be out of their depth here. And they aren't the only ones who seem to think terraforming, etc is possible.

am also skeptic of man ever leaving earth. We've sent robots, but not man.

wiegraf: Ah, but I think this study is the minority, and by some distance.

truly it is. But that is science. You don't have to go with the general believe.

Please view this link...
http://go-galt.org/climategate.html

wiegraf: Wiki,

"Most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human activities."

"They" are not sure. Please see the link I posted above. The climate is changing and we are not the cause.

wiegraf: So, again, I haven't seen the numbers myself, but it doesn't seem to be something we should just brush off.

IIRC not a consensus that it was an asteroid, though likely.

I think they found the crater somewhere in Mexico. (Chicxulub crater).

wiegraf: Regardless, the bolded is the point, or the ideal. Yet we seem to be interfering, and negatively as far as we are concerned. You've already stated that we must pollute in order to develop, no? So leaving nature completely to its devices seems to be off the table.

Yes, in order to develop, we must pollute. But then, we should pollute wisely. Not necessary because of the environment, but because of us.

wiegraf: Dunno. But it seems rather than sending Bruce Willis, we're helping the asteroid attain light speed. Not so sensible.

lol..


In short, the climate is changing, but we are not to be blame for it. The environment (land, air && water) are getting degraded, blame that on human.

OAU was 14th in Africa last year, now 19th.

GooseBaba: One thing I understand is the simple fact that climate is always changing. My bargaining chip in this matter is how can one manage the negative impact when it finally comes knocking.

you mean the 1-2degC/century rise in air temperature? We will adapt. Species that can't adapt and/cope with the increase will go extent && some other species will evolve.

FACT: It was far hotter in the medieval period.
Fact: CO2 levels have been multiples higher than they are now.
Fact: The globe is getting warmer, IF you only SELECTIVELY look at the warming trend chart which is extremely manipulative and unscientific. If you look at all recorded historical temperature charts,the globe is not warming.
Fact: There is zero evidence that humans are causing the current warming trend.
In fact most of the data shows it's part of Earths natural cycle.
Fact: For all the northern polar ice that has melted there has been an increase in Antarctic ice.
Conclusion: Man made global warming / climate change is the biggest scam ever.

One of the comments i saw on youtube


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDuUmmvj50Q
An interview of a climate skeptic


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=potLQR7-_Tg

you may find this climate change debate video interesting.


Climate change fraud (#Climategate)
http://go-galt.org/climategate.html

wiegraf: ^^^

Don't know about global warming, or at least the details, but humans clearly can have dramatic impacts on an ecosystem. Why is climate exempt?

Climate isn't exempted. Humans activities indeed has an influence on the atmospheric pattern. But this impact (for now) is not enough to instigate a complete change in climate pattern, rather, variation.

wiegraf: Eg, wiping out large swathes of forests, other species (whilst aiding others, true, we've likely gotten rid of billions, and most of the time for no good reason other than perhaps getting a better view), burning through energy reserves that have taken billions of years to accumulate, etc etc. General wikki

this is a sorry case. But, if we must develop, we must pollute. That is why we all must imbibe the culture of sustainable development.

wiegraf: You could also try visiting Chernobyl and various parts of Japan to study just how drastic our actions can be on an environment (you might even get to meet godzilla). We even 'terraform', more or else, on fairly large scales. See Dubai (or one of those emirates, I forget which). I wouldn't be surprised if some of the scientists that claim humans play no role in global warming etc are the same ones drawing up plans to terraform Mars or some of Neptune's/Jupiter's moons etc.

for life to exist in those planets, what they need is abundance of water. Life on earth started in water.

The case of Dubai is quite interesting, it simply shows we humans can cope/adapt && maybe mitigate the consequence of thermal stress or cold stress.

wiegraf: We've never observed a species with our technological nous storming through a planet's resources before, we maybe are still working through the details (dunno). But to suggest we're incapable of, at the very least, inadvertently or no, accelerating a natural process, I would say is the (very) far-fetched notion.

don't believe everything NASA says, wait till they do it. NASA is a home of propaganda.

wiegraf: And, just generally speaking, if we have the means of reverting a natural process which we deem harmful, exactly why shouldn't we do it?

if we cut on our emission of CO2 && other GHGs, the impact it will have on the environment will be quite minute && the cost will be so huge. A study (can't remember the author) concluded that if the atmospheric C02 concenteration were to be doubled, the resultant global average temperature won't be more than 1degC increase. That we can cope it.

wiegraf: A meteor is heading for earth, do we

a- send over rockets to help boost its velocity
b- go all Armageddon on it?

an asteroid once hit the earth wiping out the dinosaur population. That activity shaped the earth. If not for the extinction of those species, mammals && humanoid won't have had a place on earth. Let's just leave nature to take its course.

jideomowunmi: Looking at d way politics is in dis our part of d country...tell me aw possibly one can successfully partake in it and still be sane...and for example, there is a saying da if there is no smoke..there won't be fire...9.3 million naira...the president of CAN....pls d case really needs to be scrutinise....

There are hundreds of Christians who have in one time or the other taken up the challenge to govern, be it at the local, regional and/or national level. Although vast majority of them became popular as a result of corruption cases. We just can't judge the whole lots based on the numerous cases we've seen. Definitely there are good ones, maybe I don't know any for now. But definitely, they are out there.

jksxxxx: i hv black screen for sale 10k with casing call me on 08105018476

please where are you? Is it new?

bobo65: Is the screen completely broken?
Brand new screen in ikeja is 13k
Hook me up on whatsapp let's talk well, might need your phone 07032443577

yes, the screen is completely broken. Is 13k the last price? Do u have used one?

1094 likes :-/

Happy Birthday

tonytony208: what do you mean by "christian standard varies" and "it depends on individual belief"? Should there be any other Christian standard or belief aside the ones laid out in the scriptures? Or are you saying there are now different compositions of the scriptures? If the scriptures do not vary and scriptural understanding is given by the same Holy Spirit, should there be any difference or variation in christian standards? Should there be varying beliefs? Pls let us be careful so that we dont propagate blasphemy.

Let's not shy away from the truth. We all have a different interpretation to what we perceive to be the "Christian standard", same way we have different interpretation to the verses or lessons in the bible. That exactly is what led to creation of new faiths && doctrines. You can't tell me what a Jehova witness see as the ideal Christian standard is thesame as that of a Protestant or orthodox...

Pls, who have an idea of how much a Samsung Galaxy S2 i9100 screen costs, new &&/or used. Mine got broken && looking at a possibility of getting it replaced.


Thanks.

moyes5757: sir pls I did not gain admission. Into goegraphy oo

lol.. I know. && am not sir.

The second part is for anyone that gained admission into geography

[quote author=PECULIARGEN][/quote]am neither of the two. Am just here to have fun . Hope you guys are cool with that