For the global warming crackpots...

[Boo]

maybe crackpot is a little strong, lets just say for all those who were dupped into believing man made global warming check this out if you are not up on the latest revelations in the news!

CLIC THE PIC


Al Gore, called the "eco-prophet"
and
"the Moses of this generation"

For those not familiar with Climategate, essentially what happened is that hacked emails and documents from the University of East Anglia’s Hadley Climate Research Unit were posted on the Internet which prove that many of the key scientists involved in the theory of global warming conspired to falsify climate data in order to prop up the premise that mankind is causing climate change. A great summary of this unfolding scandal can be found here.

AND NOW AFTER READING THAT, IS IT SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND HOW "SCIENTISTS" PERPETRATE LIES ABOUT THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION BEING FACT!? If you ask me what they have done with evolution was their inspiration to do the same with the theory of manmade global warming.

Footnote

If these things don't make you hoppin mad at the gall of so called scientists then y'all must be computers, with no emotions.

[Reptile_Dude]

Haha, I saw this.

I had no idea that these "scientists" were tweaking the data to their liking! Oh, wait...

[Boo]

Wait for what?

[Reptile_Dude]

Haha, come on Boo. I was refering to the fact that it was rather obvious that they were tweaking the data, and it came as no great surprise when I first saw this.

Of course, you would have had to do your own research to discover the truth behind all of this global warming garabage, which alot of people don't do. They simply go with whatever Discovery Channel or their favorite politician says...

Anywho, I thought I would post this video. Its some pretty scary stuff...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMe5dOgbu40

Also I thought I would mention that Copenhagen, what he is talking about in this video, is currently less than 4 days away. Brace yourselves.

[Boo]

Originally Posted by Reptile_Dude

Of course, you would have had to do your own research to discover the truth behind all of this global warming garabage, Also I thought I would mention that Copenhagen, what he is talking about in this video, is currently less than 4 days away. Brace yourselves.

No research was ever necessary - just common sense - if the earth has sustained life for millions of years as scientists insist who could ever believe that mankind could be the cause of a devastating global warming when volcanoes. sun activity and other catastrophic events that occurr regularly with much more impact than anything man could do haven't destroyed us.

Just common sense is all that is needed on this one. Chicken little, The sky is not falling ! But let's research that first?

And they weren't just tweaking the data - this was out and out criminal fraud and deception - read the emails it is unbelievable. Messages were from some of the world's most influential climatologists showing these scientists feel the public doesn't have a right to know the basis for their climate-change predictions, even as their governments prepare staggeringly expensive legislation in response to them. We do now have hundreds of emails that give every appearance of testifying to concerted and coordinated efforts by leading climatologists to fit the data to their conclusions while attempting to silence and discredit their critics. And some of these emails included the code these scientists used for their computer models of global warming - experts in writing code have examined the code and it is rigged to produce the results they want no matter what data is fed into the model. THE CODE IS RIGGED - that is way beyond tweaking data!! These scientists are CRIMINALS!!!

Any "scientist" who tries to fit the data to their conclusions is no scientist at all, and then to conspire to cheat, lie and coverup contrary research ... these guys deserve the worst possible humiliation and incarceration in my opinion - I'll never accept another leading scientists conclusions on anything that has an economic or public agenda to it (and neither should you) as long as I live - I expect first and foremost it is all lies.

[Boo]

Not to be the master of the obvious here, but it is going to be hard to convince people that the earth is warming . . . when it is not.

[Boo]

Here is the famous Global Cooling article from Newsweek in 1975. (CLICK FOR THE ANALYSIS)
It was repeated by the NY Times and other major media all through the 1970s.
As the order of the day in the 1970s was we needed to destroy our industries to save us from Global Cooling.
(A prime example of why studying history is important, but if you have a short attention span see video below article)



Oh!! and here is a video inteview of the scientist who influenced that article in the "70s,
now Al Gore's best buddy and preaching guess what, yep...you guessed it Global Warming!

Professor Stephen Schneider: Not Evil Just Wrong

[Dee]

Thanks Boo! This could not be more true!! Tends to get scary thinking about how society has lost their own common sense and relys on being told what is true and not true. We do need to get back to taking responsiblity for our selves and not expect others to do it for us!!
Wonderful insight!!

[Boo]

Well that makes two that agree with me! Thanks Dee but I expected a lot more comments - just shows how disconnected or unengaged people are on PC topics, I guess.

[urofan]

According to some of the programs that i've seen on TV, there are huge pockets of methane gas underneath the oceans and also in certain lakes. The warming weather could cause these gases to come to the surface and ignite. I've also heard that the last 5+ years have been the warmest on record. Is all of this information incorrect?

I also have another question. I've read articles that say that some of the governments have the capability to alter the weather. Do you think that's true, and could that be the reason for the warmer weather? I've also read that we have the scientific ability to repair the ozone hole. Do you believe that we do?

Have a great day.

[Dee]

Originally Posted by urofan

According to some of the programs that i've seen on TV, there are huge pockets of methane gas underneath the oceans and also in certain lakes. The warming weather could cause these gases to come to the surface and ignite. I've also heard that the last 5+ years have been the warmest on record. Is all of this information incorrect?

I think what we are discussing here would involve those same shows that you are listening to. And I would like to know where this warmer weather for the last 5+ years has been for our area!!

We live on Earth for crying outloud and nothing is ever going to be or stay the same!! So when you see changes, don't stress yourself out by thinking the end is soon to come if we don't do something about it. Because in my opinion, if you do then a person will be a total wreak for the rest of their life.

[Boo]

Originally Posted by urofan

According to some of the programs that i've seen on TV, there are huge pockets of methane gas underneath the oceans and also in certain lakes. The warming weather could cause these gases to come to the surface and ignite. I've also heard that the last 5+ years have been the warmest on record. Is all of this information incorrect?

I also have another question. I've read articles that say that some of the governments have the capability to alter the weather. Do you think that's true, and could that be the reason for the warmer weather? I've also read that we have the scientific ability to repair the ozone hole. Do you believe that we do?

Have a great day.

"Is all of this information incorrect?" Absolutely - didn't you read all the stuff I posted on this thread - for the last ten years the world has been cooling and you can't believe anything you read about global warming cause the writers, the producers of shows all have a political agenda and only report what supports their agenda and if it doesn't they even lie about it. It is called "PROPAGANDA"

Governments cannot alter the global climate and the ozone hole repairs itself, has forever gotten larger and then shrinks - their is no pending global catastrophe like Al Gore and other charlatans would have you believe!! They all have schemes to make money from making us believe their crap and then taxing the hell out of businesses and us to pay for their money making schemes!

Have a great day!

[urofan]

I have read eveything that you posted. So much is happening in the world right now that it's scary, and the news media is not talking about it enough. Children are starving, and I'm deeply disturbed that we are focusing too much on stories like Tiger Woods.

I'm wanting to know what's really going on in the world. There is a lot of classified information that peaks my curiosity. People have told us that diet colas are healtier than regular colas, and there hasn't been enough study to prove which one is worse.

I'm not a conspiracy nut, but I wonder what is going to happen in the future.

I'm sorry if I came across as though I was ignoring what eveyone else was saying, but I felt that the methane gas issue is a potential disaster, and that it isn't discussed enough.


Thank you and have a good week.

[Boo]

Yeah, it is hard nowadays to know the truth about anything - they used to say egg yolks were bad for you cause of cholesterol, now they say they are good for you. Most of the problem is the media - they don't report the truth and often never even research their sources if what they hear agrees with their viewpoint. For example you'll see an article with pictures of a planet scientists "discovered" in another far off galaxy but you have to read the whole article or small print caption to realize no one sees a planet, it's only an artist's conception based on the fact that scientific readings of the wobble in that stars rotation would correlate to a planet orbiting it, theoretically, but to glance at the headline and pictures in the article you get the impression that these are pictures of a planet they discovered. This is how the media filters everything you read telling us 30 years ago we were headed for an ice age and today we are going to burn up...they do it to sell papers, magazines or get viewers and make money but the last consideration they have is delivering us the whole truth. How many times have you read "this study shows that blah blah blah only to hear scientists later say well that is not what the study indicates or a cure is light years away, etc.

So when you hear stories like what you mentioned about methane igniting due to global warming and that the last 5 years were the warmest on record (when actually the opposite is true) you know it's propaganda of fear to make people believe they have to do something to stop companies from poluting the atmosphere with greenhouse gases. Al Gore was recently interviewed saying that the Artic is 40% smaller since records have been kept due to the ice melting - a total lie proven by satelite pictures and every other measurement that show today it is the same as when measurements were started to be recorded. This crackpot also said in an interview that just a few kilometers below the surface of the earth it is millions of degrees hot - yeah Al, like the surface of the sun is only 5 - 6000 degrees. And the media loves this guy!!

Bottom line is don't believe anything you see or hear in the media and TV until you have researched opposing views and the facts yourself - it is sad but they won't do it for you, and you can't trust the media to present the truthful opposing view, cause when they say here is the opposing view they slant it or just present strawmen do divert from the truth. The minute they say "scientists say" run the other way, cause after the email scandal we now know even scientists don't say the truth.

[twiztidfaces]

To start it off, I do agree with you on global warming. I think the term climate change would be more accurate, but yes, I agree that we are not the cause of whats going on. With that said I do think that we are altering the climate in if even the slightest with our pollution. We ARE emmiting tons of "extra" greenhouse gasses that would otherwise not be present in the atmosphere. This is fact and I doubt you would disagree there. The question at hand is is it enough to cause changes. I think slight changes are very likely but don't buy into the thinking that the worlds coming to an end yada yada yada.

Now to address the thing about the post that does bug me. You seem to be completely convinced that evolution is nothing more then a fairy tale. If this is the case then what exactly do you propose is the case? Where did life come from in your beliefs? I think I know your answer, but as the saying goes when you assume you make an.....Remember, science is an ongoing and evolving subject full of wrong and right "ideas". It is not perfect and many times we find out that our thinking and understanding of the world around us was incorrect and many times this propels us forward. Your distrust in scientists is understandable. I have this same distrust in another community that offers answers to the masses. The difference is that science involves "thinking", not just following...

[Boo]

To start off with - if you agree that global warming is not man made you are not agreeing with me on global warming, you are agreeing with the facts, not with me...I only point out that the scientists and people with agendas lie and distort the facts.

And this is the same thing I do with evolution, I point out that the scientists and people with agendas lie and distort the facts about evolution.

"Fairy tale"? That is your words not mine.

My point is that the theory of evolution as accepted by the mainstream science and mainstream media as fact, is far from proven, is not fact by any stretch of the imagination and should not be presented as such.

Just because you can't come up with another explanation is no reason to claim a theory is fact, which sounds like what you wish to do. But I won't put words in your mouth if you don't put them in mine.

And have you ever considered the gases and pollutants put out by volcanoes each year - those figures dwarf anything man produces and of the four predominant green house gases, probably water vapor, which contributes 36–72% (carbon dioxide contributes 9–26%, methane contributes 4–9%, ozone contributes 3–7% ) is by far the largest contributer so what would you propose, we get rid of water vapor?

Again my point is you can't trust these scientists and what they say - plain and simple, and if you wish to, be my guest, but I for one never will because they have agendas and THEY LIE!

By the way at Copenhagen this week Al Gore admitted the ice caps are not shrinking because the scientist whose data he based that on said publically that he had no idea how anyone could come to Al Gore's conclusions from his data!

"Where did life come from in your beliefs?" What in this whole discussion would prompt a question like that? Do you want to turn this into a discussion of beliefs? Or stick to the topic which is that your beliefs (eg. manmade global warrming) should never affect the observ ations of the facts. It doesn't matter what your beliefs are, science should be an objective analysis of the facts, not an exclusion of facts or twisting of facts to fit your agenda, so I have no idea why you present such a question other than to get personal - that was never my intent. If anyone claims evolution is fact without considering, or ignoring science that disproves it as fact or raises unanswerable questions then they are not seeking the truth, but see if they are forced to keep it a theory, an unproven theory it really becomes nothing more than their beliefs then, doesn't it and beliefs don't carry weight like facts, so they make it a fact - convenient isn't it. Exactly like they did with manmade global warming - how many times have you heard the science is settled, there is no more debate on man made global warming...it is fact!? And now we all know it was never true...I whole heartedly believe the theory of evolution will wind up in the same boat with the theory of manmade global warming if it hasn't already, but the undeniable truth about it is it is at best a theory and far from an acceptable fact. Too bad we can't go back in time and witness what actually happened, but until we can in some way I submit noone will ever be able to prove how life began so that discussion is mute to me.

[twiztidfaces]

I never said that evolution was fact. The point is that at this point in time it makes sense with the facts and evidence behind it. Should something come up that disproves it then that would change the playing field. What I meant was if you seem to be so against it and do not believe it then what has come to light to you to make this leap? I asked about where life came from because evolution is key in this thinking. Life started small and grew to many different shapes and sizes over millions of years. I think you may have taken the word beliefs out of context. I for one do not believe everything I read and look at evidence and make up my own mind. Just because others have come to the same conclusion doesn't mean I am not being objective.

On global warming...As I said, I agree with you. The point about volcanos is 100% correct, BUT us adding more is still more no matter how you look at it. Do I think we should halt society as it is because of it? Of course not, but taking measures to lessen our pollution is not a bad thing. It should just be done in an economical way. Not out of fear of bringing the world to an end so at any cost. The sky is not falling...LOL

[Boo]

Well on global warming, if you agree volcanic activity dwarfs anything produced by man, what is the point of worrying what man does when one volcano erupting can obliterate any miniscule effect (and honest scientists agree it is miniscule) man has even over vast amnmounts of time. That is like saying let's not dump a gallon of water in the pond because when the flood comes it will be one gallon less water we'll be under!

And I never said you said evolution was fact....I said mainstream science says it is fact, the media says it is fact just like they did manmade global warming and that is what I say is wrong...I'm fine with evolution as a hypothesis, I believe it has many many flaws and is far from fact and many lies and frauds have been used to support it and even though the frauds were revealed decades ago they still appear today in children's text books. These are what I object to but I don't condem anyone believing in it - just don't say it is fact when there is no undisputable proof to support it and there is much science that refutes it not to mention probability studies. I am afraid you are falling prey to the indoctrination yourself ... it appears to me that although you may not say it is fact you want to believe that it is. And that is your perogative - I don't have any answer or theory that is scientifically provable myself nor should I (like is there something wrong with saying "we don't know what the truth is"?) but that in no way makes evolution any more likely - however evolution actually is in the same realm as any belief anyone may have about life - evolution requires as much faith to believe as any other hypothesis, some would say more. Unless someone was there to observe or can reproduce the method no one can ever "know" how life started and that is the plain truth.

But hey this was a great discussion. I think the whole thread will really make people think about these things and I appreciate your comments. But if you think evolution makes sense and has facts and evidence behind it you have not done your homework and that is why I say you have been indoctrinated.

Here is what science has become...



...exagerated? I think not.

[Boo]

Al Gore sued by over 30.000 Scientists for Global Warming fraud (Interview with the founder of the weather channel) I found in this article THE ANTI GLOBAL WARMING SCIENTISTS where you can read about the carbon TAX!! It's all about power and money - nothing to do with actual science. "Anti global warming scientists are definitely right when they say the public should be educated on the matter and become aware of the truth" which is all I'm trying to do here.

[seahag]

LOL Finally! I made a comment quite a while back on another forum that global warming was a boogey man story for this generation. That if anyone would bother to look at geological eras that there are periods of warming and cooling. I also pointed out the fact that cavemen and dinosaurs did not have cars or aerosol cans to pollute the air and yet drastic climate change occurred. OMG one would have thought I had just abused an animal right in front of them. Ever get the silent treatment on a forum? lol I feel a little better knowing that there are some other people out there who see the truth too.

[Boo]

You have come to the right place! Stick around here - we need members with common sense like you. Wonder what those other forum members are saying now - guarantee they won't admit they were dupped.

[frogs&brit]

Originally Posted by urofan

According to some of the programs that i've seen on TV, there are huge pockets of methane gas underneath the oceans and also in certain lakes. The warming weather could cause these gases to come to the surface and ignite. I've also heard that the last 5+ years have been the warmest on record. Is all of this information incorrect?

I also have another question. I've read articles that say that some of the governments have the capability to alter the weather. Do you think that's true, and could that be the reason for the warmer weather? I've also read that we have the scientific ability to repair the ozone hole. Do you believe that we do?

Have a great day.

if you want info about making changes to the weather google haarp they can move the jet stream which changes the weather they can also change yours and my very own thoughts using electricity whether you believe it or not its pretty interesting

[Boo]

Originally Posted by frogs&brit

if you want info about making changes to the weather google haarp they can move the jet stream which changes the weather they can also change yours and my very own thoughts using electricity whether you believe it or not its pretty interesting

Where did you get those ideas? Because on their website they say, and I quote,

"The HAARP facility will not affect the weather. Transmitted energy in the frequency ranges that will be used by HAARP is not absorbed in either the troposphere or the stratosphere - the two levels of the atmosphere that produce the earth's weather. Electromagnetic interactions only occur in the near-vacuum of the rarefied region above about 70 km known as the ionosphere.
The ionosphere is created and continuously replenished as the sun's radiation interacts with the highest levels of the Earth's atmosphere. The downward coupling from the ionosphere to the stratosphere/troposphere is extremely weak, and no association between natural ionospheric variability and surface weather and climate has been found, even at the extraordinarily high levels of ionospheric turbulence that the sun can produce during a geomagnetic storm. If the ionospheric storms caused by the sun itself don't affect the surface weather, there is no chance that HAARP can do so either."

[frogs&brit]

Originally Posted by Boo

Where did you get those ideas? Because on their website they say, and I quote,

"The HAARP facility will not affect the weather. Transmitted energy in the frequency ranges that will be used by HAARP is not absorbed in either the troposphere or the stratosphere - the two levels of the atmosphere that produce the earth's weather. Electromagnetic interactions only occur in the near-vacuum of the rarefied region above about 70 km known as the ionosphere.
The ionosphere is created and continuously replenished as the sun's radiation interacts with the highest levels of the Earth's atmosphere. The downward coupling from the ionosphere to the stratosphere/troposphere is extremely weak, and no association between natural ionospheric variability and surface weather and climate has been found, even at the extraordinarily high levels of ionospheric turbulence that the sun can produce during a geomagnetic storm. If the ionospheric storms caused by the sun itself don't affect the surface weather, there is no chance that HAARP can do so either."

jesse ventura interviewed the scientist who invented the machines son, who stated, that his father created the machine to solve drought among other things in places that needed it most. does it say on their website who owns it now, because that would be the united states military not just the govt but the military(2 diff things people usually mistake for the same now a day). they laid claim on it for no other reason that i can think of other than defense and warfare. its also been said that the machine can create a sort of force field, if you may. haarp isnt the only one, there are more scattered around the world, all supposedly controlled by haarp in alaska which is double gated over 30 miles from the nearest town. like i say believe it or not its just interesting to me, and i suggest you look at a few other websites. there are some good vids on youtube

ps: how do you feel about monsanto and agent orange. lol

[Boo]

Originally Posted by frogs&brit

jesse ventura interviewed the scientist who invented the machines son, who stated, that his father created the machine to solve drought among other things in places that needed it most. does it say on their website who owns it now, because that would be the united states military not just the govt but the military(2 diff things people usually mistake for the same now a day). they laid claim on it for no other reason that i can think of other than defense and warfare. its also been said that the machine can create a sort of force field, if you may. haarp isnt the only one, there are more scattered around the world, all supposedly controlled by haarp in alaska which is double gated over 30 miles from the nearest town. like i say believe it or not its just interesting to me, and i suggest you look at a few other websites. there are some good vids on youtube

All of this is as phony as pro wrestling. Almost every year since 1995, HAARP has held an open house, open to anyone with or without video cameras.

HAARP also has hosted a regular program called the Polar Aeronomy and Radio Science Summer School for students and graduate supervisors.

Even Ventura said in one interview that this show is not a documentary, but a form of entertainment. At least he’s right about that.

With manmade global warning the evidence, scientific and otherwise was everywhere that it was a hoax and it took the hacked emails to gett the media to report it because the media looked the other way until a story broke they couldn't ignore, and even then they tried to spin it - Ventura and anyone else have absolutely no evidence for their accusations about Haarp and are simply getting publicity because he has an agenda too, a show to put on. (Ventura was a navy seal and I do respect him for his service to our country, but that is where my respect for him ends)

[Boo]

Just like the manmade global warming propagandists paint a world with
oceans rising and polar bears dying as the Arctic melts away - all lies - Here
is a poster designed to promote the acceptance of evolution as a fact, and
so it states "evolution is one of the best documented and widely accepted
principles of modern science" Not a theory, but a principle`... a fact!
So naturally I'd expect this poster to show some of this "best documented evidence...
...wouldn't you?

Look at the poster - not one iota of evidence, not one! But merely an artist's
portrayal of the conclusions evolutionists want us to accept ... evidently on faith?
Because there is not one iota of evidence presented here. PURE PROPAGANDA!
Just a freakin artist conception of a "family tree" which they know is all you
need to indoctrinate a dumbed down public. If you were in any legitimate
science program and submitted your imagined artist drawing as evidence of
your theory you would be laughed out of the classroom, but the creators of
this poster think that it is their best presentation to the public of support for
this theory... seriously tell me you don't see what I am saying?

These "evolutionists" responsible for this family tree are simply elitists who
think that everyone else is just stupid and should believe what they want us
to believe because they know...and we are too stupid to understand the
"evidence" anyway so they can interpret it for us and expect us to swallow
their conclusions...just like the promoters of manmade global warming. And so they turn
the layman's head who concedes that they know what they are talking about,
and while his head is turned they're illegally "cooking the books" (look it up) so to speak.



You see the truth is, if you wanted someone to really understand there is evidence for evolution
which is the first statement of this article and therefore the subject at hand you would present
the most undisputable scientific evidence, wouldn't you? At least one specific thing.
Instead they revert to a strawman "family tree", a fiction of imagination, nothing but smoke and mirrors...why?
because there is no undisputable evidence for the theory of evolution....and they know it,
but don't want you to believe it. Their first statement by the way,
"Since then the fossil record and DNA studies have added and continue to add overwelming support for this view
of life's history" is a blatant lie, actually the opposite is true and that is why they want to get you to believe THE LIE first,
so when you hear to the contrary, this indoctrination you have received will cause you to dismiss the truth,
that the fossil record and DNA studies do not support this view of life's history. That is how they work.

(now look at the chart - accordingly every living thing on earth evolved from ocean rust then bacteria - personally, I can never muster enough faith to believe in that theory, and if you don't think it takes a whole lot of faith to believe that then your line probably stopped evolving at Fungi )

[Boo]

Scientist steps down during e-mail probe

The Fraud Is Everywhere: SUNY Albany and Queens University Belfast Join Climategate

[Boo]

Activists confronting Al Gore Liar, Liar, pants on fire (and it's not cause of global warming!) and then there is this video excerpt of a video that came out before climategate revealing the truth the mainstream media and politicians want to ignore NOT EVIL JUST WRONG but it took the smoking gun of climategate to prove the hoax to the world, yet the media and the politicians are still trying to spin the facts and push their far left agenda.

[Boo]

Scientists Say Dolphins Should Be Considered ‘Persons’

My first thought's are:

Are these the same "scientists" that created climategate?

or

Are these "scientists" affiliated with them in some way?

or

Were they taught by the same far left professors that taught the climategate "criminals" that the ends justifies the means?

How can any intelligent person trust anything the media reports as "Scientists Say..." anymore?

It's a sad day for science - thanks to the media who reports mainly what they want us to hear according to their agenda.

[urofan]

The mercury in energy-efficient light bulbs pose a potential risk to both people and animals I'm upset that the government might make us use energy-efficient bulbs instead of ordinary light bulbs. I have concerns that people have not been told how to safely dispose of them. Al gore promtes energy-efficient light bulbs as being environmentally safe!

[Boo]

I know, technically according to the law if you break one in your house you have to call a HazMat team to clean up!!!

You drink diet Coke or consume anything with aspartame? See how the scientists lied and hid dangerous research results from the FDA.

[urofan]

There are so many ways to be hurt or killed that it is not even funny.
What scares me the most is a big earthquake in the United States that hurts and kills people!

[Boo]

Ain't it the truth!! You could be here today and gone tomorrow! How about Haiti yesterday - it's terrible.

Recent earthquakes

Time....... Magnitude..... Location

Yesterday.....7.0 ........Haiti region Map
Yesterday.....4.3 ........Southern California Map
3 days ago....6.5 ........Offshore Northern California Map

[cat001]

This reminds me, i've got an assignment to write up describing the aetiology and symptoms of a named infectious disease, explaining how climate change has altered its geographical prevalence and about the species at risk.

Think I'll do it on the spread of chytridiomycosis in amphibians...It's a scary thought to think that we're now entering the 6th mass extinction!

[Boo]

UN climate chief admits mistake on Himalayan glaciers warning

The admission came after the scientists behind the warning said that it was based on a news story in New Scientist, published eight years before the IPCC's 2007 report. It has also emerged that the New Scientist report was itself based on a short telephone interview with Syed Hasnain, a little-known Indian scientist then based at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi.

Mr Hasnain has since admitted that the claim was "speculation" and was not supported by any formal research.

[Boo]

Raymond G. De Vries, an associate professor of medical education at
the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, and three colleagues last
year (2006) reported surveying more than 3,000 scientists about whether
they had ever engaged in misbehavior, such as changing a study
because of pressure from a source of funds, or failing to present data
that contradict one’s own research.

One-third of the scientists acknowledged they had committed some form of
research misbehavior.

A crucial factor in keeping such abuses in check is our ability to detect them.

Remember...all scientists are supposed to be ethical and are supposed to
report their findings accurately ... now we find out that many of them don't do it
and that is just the ones who admitted it...I'm sure there were many in that study
who didn't admit it ... hey if they cheat why should they tell the truth in a survey?

I wouldn't be surprised if the actual misbehavors is way above 50%!

[Boo]

So here you go - either bin laden has not heard of the climategate fiasco, or he has ascribed to the fraud.

Really makes you wonder about the politicians who were pushing the fraud of manmade global warming on the world when our arch enemy terrorist agrees with them so whole heartedly - his rant sounds exactly like what the manmade global warming alarmists (like the looney tune Al Gore) have been saying. This is today's news, Jan 29, 2010 about Global Warming.

"Bin Laden, if he wasn't living in a cave, would apparently drive a Prius. In a new audio message he lays into the US for causing global warming, and singles out George W. Bush for not ratifying the Kyoto treaty.
'All industrial nations, mainly the big ones, are responsible for the crisis of global warming,' he says in the tape, which has not been verified but is thought to be Bin Laden, according to the BBC. 'This is a message to the whole world about those who are causing climate change, whether deliberately or not, and what we should do about that.' He added that 'Bush the son, and the [US] Congress before him, rejected this agreement [the Kyoto protocol] only to satisfy the big companies.'"

Above quote is from http://gawker.com/5459506/osama-bin-...rming-activist I like the one comment about the article "This b****** just made me into a terrorist because I agree with him about Kyoto."

Yeah - really who's side are these global warming finatics really on!

[Boo]

50 Percent Of The U.S. Is Covered In Snow And 80 People Have Died In Europe From The Bitter Cold Just This Month

Global warming? Are they kidding us? As world leaders were gathered in Copenhagen to discuss the devastating "threat" of global warming, many of their home countries were experiencing their coldest Decembers in ages. In fact, Barack Obama actually had to leave the Copenhagen summit early due to a massive snow storm that hit Washington D.C. The snow storm deposited between 15 and 30 inches of snow throughout the mid-Atlantic region on December 19th. It was the biggest snow storm ever recorded in December in Washington D.C., and there were over 4000 traffic accidents in the state of Virginia alone due to the poor conditions. But it is not just the mid-Atlantic that has been hit hard this December. In fact, approximately 50 percent of the United States is now covered in snow.
Not that Europe has it any better. The death toll from winter storms across Europe has risen to at least 80, as arctic temperatures and heavy snow continue to plague the continent. In Poland, it is estimated that 42 people froze to death during a recent three day period when temperatures plunged to under minus 20 degrees Celsius.
So is this global warming?
We could actually use some global warming about now.
The truth is that the earth is actually in a cooling period right now.
In fact, new measurements from a NASA satellite show a dramatic cooling in the upper atmosphere that directly correlates with the declining phase of the current solar cycle.
It is the sun that drives global warming and cooling.
But you will never convince the environmental extremists of that.
However, if you want to know what the evidence really says about global warming, please read the recent article that we did entitled "How To Save The Environment? Get Al Gore The Heck Away From It".

The reality is that humanity is not causing global warming.

In fact, the world will probably get quite a bit more snow this winter during this cooling period.
So, enjoy the snow as the environmentalists try to figure out a way to blame it all on "global warming".

[Boo]

Originally Posted by urofan

There are so many ways to be hurt or killed that it is not even funny.
What scares me the most is a big earthquake in the United States that hurts and kills people!

Well you have good reason to be scared:

How Soon Are Scientists Expecting An Earthquake Similar To The One In Haiti To Strike The U.S.?

Sooner Than You Might Think

The 7.0 magnitude earthquake that hit Haiti is being called the worst natural disaster in at least a decade. In fact, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki Moon is already calling it a worse disaster than the Asian tsunami of several years ago that killed so many thousands upon thousands of people. Authorities are desperately trying to get aid to the survivors in Haiti but they are being severely hampered by the chaos ravaging that nation in the aftermath of the earthquake. Looting is rampant, people are burning piles of dead bodies, the sound of gunfire is everywhere and gangs of machete-wielding young men are roaming the streets.
So can what is happening in Haiti happen in the United States?
Of course it can.
Or did you forget about Hurricane Katrina?
The truth is that most areas in the United States are only about 9 meals away from anarchy.
When people get desperate they will do just about anything for survival. We like to think of ourselves as so "advanced" and so "civilized", but the truth is that an emergency situation can turn most people into wild animals very quickly.
So what are the odds of a massive earthquake like the one that devastated Haiti hitting the U.S. any time soon?
Unfortunately the odds are not in our favor.
We live at a time when earthquakes are increasing in frequency and in intensity all over the globe.
In fact, a 6.3 magnitude earthquake shook the ocean floor between South America and Antarctica on Sunday.
Fortunately it was not close enough to any populated areas to do significant damage, but the next time we might not be so lucky.
The truth is that there are several areas of the United States where scientists are expecting massive earthquakes to strike.
For instance, U.S. scientists are predicting a Haiti-magnitude earthquake along the New Madrid fault in the U.S. some time during the next 50 years.
If you do not know where the New Madrid fault line is, just Google it.
Wikipedia describes the New Madrid fault as being "a major seismic zone and a prolific source of intraplate earthquakes (earthquakes within a tectonic plate) in the Southern and Midwestern United States stretching to the southwest from New Madrid, Missouri."
In other words, a massive earthquake along the New Madrid fault line could devastate an area stretching from Chicago to St. Louis to Memphis all the way down to the mouth of the Mississippi.
In fact, a large number of people have had "dreams" and "visions" that just such an earthquake will actually create a huge new body of water in that area. Some of them have predicted that the earthquake will be so massive that it will actually cause the Mississippi River to run backwards.
In 1811, an earthquake along the New Madrid fault was so powerful that it "shook windows and furniture in Washington, D.C., rang bells in Richmond, Virginia, sloshed well water and shook houses in Charleston, South Carolina, and knocked plaster off of houses in Columbia, South Carolina."
Another giant earthquake along the fault system in 1812 was so intense that it was felt all the way in New York City and Boston.
So yes, it can happen in the United States. In fact, scientists are expecting it to happen at some point in the next 50 years.
But of course when one thinks of earthquakes in the United States, one usually thinks of California first.
In fact, a flurry of recent earthquake activity all over the state of California is raising concerns that California could be the next spot to be hit by the "Big One".
A very large number of small earthquakes have been reported all over the state of California in the last 7 days.
Is this an indication that we could see something happen there soon?
Let's hope not.
The truth is that when the "Big One" does hit California, it may do a whole lot more than knock a few buildings down.
While a 7.0 earthquake would not do as much damage in most areas of California as it did in Haiti, the truth is that California is likely to see a much more powerful earthquake someday.
For decades there have been those who say that they have had "dreams" and "visions" about an earthquake that is so bad that it will actually cause a portion of California to slide into the ocean.
Seriously.
There are even people who have drawn up maps showing what California will look like after this happens.
But there are more than just a few dreamers who are convinced that this will happen to California someday. The belief that "The Big One" will one day hit California is so prevalent that even Time Magazine has done a major story about it.
In fact, there seems to be a general consensus in the scientific community that the Big One is coming to California and that everybody needs to start preparing for it.
The Los Angeles Times recently reported on the "Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast" which was released in 2007. This report stated that California has a 99.7% chance of a 6.7 magnitude earthquake within 30 years.
A 99.7 percent chance?
How much more of a sure thing do you want?

If the scientists and the "visionaries" are right,
massive earthquakes and significant geological changes are coming to the United States during our lifetimes.
In fact, what is coming to the United States might just make what is going on in Haiti look like a Sunday afternoon stroll in the park.

Are you ready?

Of course there is always the likelihood that the earthquake scientists are as unethical as the climate-gate scientists and make these assertions only so they can get more grant money for their research in which case

WE HAVE NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT!!!!

[Boo]

Read this article, then read what I say about it and go back and re read the article and tell me if you don't see it in a different light...
Professor's alien life 'seed' theory claimed



The remains of living matter have
been found in interstellar dust clouds

New evidence from astrobiology "overwhelmingly" supports the view that life was seeded from outside Earth, a scientist has claimed.

Prof Chandra Wickramasinghe of Cardiff University says the first microbes were deposited on Earth 3,800m years ago.
The astrobiologist has helped developed the panspermia theory which suggests an extra-terrestrial origin for life.
He argues for a cycle of life as microbes find their way into comets and "multiply and seed other planets".
In the article, published in the International Journal of Astrobiology, Monday, he argues humans and indeed all life on Earth is of alien origin, brought onto the planet by comets hitting the planet.
Prof Wickramasinghe, of Cardiff University's centre for astrobiology, says there is a cyclical transfer process of life from planet to planet.
He believes comets hit planets and push living organic matter out into space, some of which survives and in turn gets transferred to developing planetary systems over a timescale of millions and millions of years, seeding life on the newly formed planets.

Interstellar clouds appear to be the graveyard of life not its cradle


Professor Chandra Wickramasinge

He accepts this model still does not explain how life actually began in the first place, but says there is no hard evidence to support the theory that life only began in a "primordial soup" on Earth, or other places.
Over the past three decades research has shown that large swathes of the Milky Way are strewn with gigantic dust clouds full of organic molecules, which some people have argued shows life emerging independently from new in these clouds.
In his paper, he says recent interpretation of spectra readings from the organic molecules found in interstellar clouds has indicated that they are in fact the remains of bacteria which has been broken down, rather than being built up.
"Interstellar clouds appear to be the graveyard of life not its cradle," he said.
"Each time a new planetary system forms a few surviving microbes find their way into comets. These then multiply and seed other planets," he said.
He adds: "We are thus part of a connected chain of being that extends over a large volume of the cosmos. Evidence is pointing inexorably in this direction."
The professor and his late colleague Sir Fred Hoyle championed the panspermia theory from the 1960s.
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ______
Here is the rub, they decieve you by portraying terms like "recent interpretation", "a scientist has claimed" in such a way that they give the impression they could be fact or even are.

eg. They make the blatant, unproven statement in a caption under an artist depiction of a cloud

The remains of living matter have been found in interstellar dust clouds

followed by a so called scientist's claim (which should be preceded by "a scientist has claimed" because the important thing is that he claims this, not what he claims) and goes on to talk about the scientist's BELIEFS which are not based on any scientific proof but recent interpretation of spectra readings (there can be many interpretations of spectral readings)

So basically they are trying to get you to believe the pipe dream of some so called "scientist", very likely a quack scientist, making you think there could actually be some sort of scientific proof of his interpretation of spectra readings from outer space.

The final give away is that he and his late collegue came up with the theory in the late 60s when there was no way to support it with scientific evidence, so now they are trying to make the recent findings fit their long held theory, ( I mean pipe dream )....exactly what a scientist is not supposed to do! Read, there is not one iota of evidence in this article that "... is pointing inexorably in this direction." as they state so conclusively.
Give me a break! You have to learn to look for these subtleties or you'll wind up believing a hodgepodge of junk science.

[Boo]

India forms new climate change body

The Indian government has established its own body to monitor the effects of global warming because it “cannot rely” on the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the group headed by its own leading scientist Dr R.K Pachauri.

By Dean Nelson in New Delhi
Published: 3:47PM GMT 04 Feb 2010

Scientists believe it could take more than 300 years for the HImalayan glaciers to disappear Photo: ALAMY

The move is a significant snub to both the IPCC and Dr Pachauri as he battles to defend his reputation following the revelation that his most recent climate change report included false claims that most of the Himalayan glaciers would melt away by 2035. Scientists believe it could take more than 300 years for the glaciers to disappear.
The body and its chairman have faced growing criticism ever since as questions have been raised on the credibility of their work and the rigour with which climate change claims are assessed.

In India the false claims have heightened tensions between Dr Pachauri and the government, which had earlier questioned his glacial melting claims. In Autumn, its environment minister Mr Jairam Ramesh said while glacial melting in the Himalayas was a real concern, there was evidence that some were actually advancing despite global warming.

Dr Pachauri had dismissed challenges like these as based on “voodoo science”, but last night Mr Ramesh effectively marginalized the IPC chairman even further.

He announced the Indian government will established a separate National Institute of Himalayan Glaciology to monitor the effects of climate change on the world’s ‘third ice cap’, and an ‘Indian IPCC’ to use ‘climate science’ to assess the impact of global warming throughout the country.

“There is a fine line between climate science and climate evangelism. I am for climate science. I think people misused [the] IPCC report, [the] IPCC doesn’t do the original research which is one of the weaknesses… they just take published literature and then they derive assessments, so we had goof-ups on Amazon forest, glaciers, snow peaks.

“I respect the IPCC but India is a very large country and cannot depend only on [the] IPCC and so we have launched the Indian Network on Comprehensive Climate Change Assessment (INCCA),” he said.
It will bring together 125 research institutions throughout India, work with international bodies and operate as a “sort of Indian IPCC,” he added.
The body, which he said will not rival the UN’s panel, will publish its own climate assessment in November this year, with reports on the Himalayas, India’s long coastline, the Western Ghat highlands and the north-eastern region close to the borders with Bangladesh, Burma, China and Nepal. “Through these we will demonstrate our commitment to climate science,” he said.

The UN panel’s claims of glacial meltdown by 2035 “was clearly out of place and didn’t have any scientific basis,” he said, while stressing the government remained concerned about the health of the Himalayan ice flows. “Most glaciers are melting, they are retreating, some glaciers, like the Siachen glacier, are advancing. But overall one can say incontrovertibly that the debris on our glaciers is very high the snow balance is very low. We have to be very cautious because of the water security particularly in north India which depends on the health of the Himalayan glaciers,” he added.

The new National Institute of Himalayan Glaciology will be based in Dehradun, in Uttarakhand, and will monitor glacial changes and compare results with those from glaciers in Pakistan, Nepal and Bhutan.

Related Articles

• Global cooling hits Al Gore's home
• Global warming and a tale of two planets
• The eco-loons are appalled by India's super-cheap Tata Nano. I think it's brilliant
• Barack Obama faces 'revolution' if he imposes tough carbon targets, warns IPCC
• Despite the hot air, the Antarctic is not warming up

__________________________________________________ _________________

With India pulling out and their huge industrializing economy there is no way the US will be able to lead the way on the IPCC initiatives...thank GOD!

[Boo]

Obama Laughed at for Climate Change Remark During His SOTU Address

President Obama was openly laughed at during his recent state of the union
address after referring to the "overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change".

First his audience laughs,

then Pelosi,

then Biden

and finally Obama gives us an "okay you caught me" smirk
at the end of this clip.



As global warming alarmism begins to fall apart, it's important to show the world what a joke it's become.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q20cnn8vOfg

[wikkid_x]

They had a whole show on this on truTv. Have you guys seen Conspiracy Theories with Jesse Ventura?

[wikkid_x]

Here is the youtube link to it if anyone wants to watch it. I would watch it on full screen. there are 4 parts to it, so click on the watch next part button when it comes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igg79pqfT08

[Boo]

Originally Posted by wikkid_x

They had a whole show on this on truTv. Have you guys seen Conspiracy Theories with Jesse Ventura?

Yes it is amazing how everybody Al Gore, Jessie Ventura, the networks and on and on, are making tons of money, from an obvious FRAUD that anyone with a little common sense could have told you years ago was an absurd theory, that mankind could have such a devastating effect on the global temperature when it doesn't take a genius to realize the temperature of the earth is controlled and affected by the sun an it's cycles of sunspot activity. Everything else is minuscule in it's effect. Why would any sane person believe human industrialization and capitalism is going to trump the Sun!

[wikkid_x]

Yes, but, I like how the show gives a wake up call to those who do not know this. That is, if they do watch the show.

[Boo]

Really, but why would anyone believe a word this guy says about anything, now.


Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995

By Jonathan Petre
Last updated at 5:12 PM on 14th February 2010


Data: Professor Phil Jones admitted his record keeping is 'not as good as it should be'(That's not all that is 'not as good as it should be'!!!!)

The academic at the centre of the ‘Climategate’ affair, whose raw data is crucial to the theory of climate change, has admitted that he has trouble ‘keeping track’ of the information.
Colleagues say that the reason Professor Phil Jones has refused Freedom of Information requests is that he may have actually lost the relevant papers.
Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues that he lacked organisational skills, that his office was swamped with piles of paper and that his record keeping is ‘not as good as it should be’.
The data is crucial to the famous ‘hockey stick graph’ used by climate change advocates to support the theory.

Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.
And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.
The admissions will be seized on by sceptics as fresh evidence that there are serious flaws at the heart of the science of climate change and the orthodoxy that recent rises in temperature are largely man-made.
Professor Jones has been in the spotlight since he stepped down as director of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit after the leaking of emails that sceptics claim show scientists were manipulating data.
The raw data, collected from hundreds of weather stations around the world and analysed by his unit, has been used for years to bolster efforts by the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to press governments to cut carbon dioxide emissions.

More...

• MAIL ON SUNDAY COMMENT: The professor's amazing climate change retreat

Following the leak of the emails, Professor Jones has been accused of ‘scientific fraud’ for allegedly deliberately suppressing information and refusing to share vital data with critics.
Discussing the interview, the BBC’s environmental analyst Roger Harrabin said he had spoken to colleagues of Professor Jones who had told him that his strengths included integrity and doggedness but not record-keeping and office tidying.
Mr Harrabin, who conducted the interview for the BBC’s website, said the professor had been collating tens of thousands of pieces of data from around the world to produce a coherent record of temperature change.
That material has been used to produce the ‘hockey stick graph’ which is relatively flat for centuries before rising steeply in recent decades.
According to Mr Harrabin, colleagues of Professor Jones said ‘his office is piled high with paper, fragments from over the years, tens of thousands of pieces of paper, and they suspect what happened was he took in the raw data to a central database and then let the pieces of paper go because he never realised that 20 years later he would be held to account over them’.
Asked by Mr Harrabin about these issues, Professor Jones admitted the lack of organisation in the system had contributed to his reluctance to share data with critics, which he regretted.




But he denied he had cheated over the data or unfairly influenced the scientific process, and said he still believed recent temperature rises were predominantly man-made.
Asked about whether he lost track of data, Professor Jones said: ‘There is some truth in that. We do have a trail of where the weather stations have come from but it’s probably not as good as it should be.
‘There’s a continual updating of the dataset. Keeping track of everything is difficult. Some countries will do lots of checking on their data then issue improved data, so it can be very difficult. We have improved but we have to improve more.’
He also agreed that there had been two periods which experienced similar warming, from 1910 to 1940 and from 1975 to 1998, but said these could be explained by natural phenomena whereas more recent warming could not.

He further admitted that in the last 15 years there had been no ‘statistically significant’ warming, although he argued this was a blip rather than the long-term trend.
And he said that the debate over whether the world could have been even warmer than now during the medieval period, when there is evidence of high temperatures in northern countries, was far from settled.
Sceptics believe there is strong evidence that the world was warmer between about 800 and 1300 AD than now because of evidence of high temperatures in northern countries.
But climate change advocates have dismissed this as false or only applying to the northern part of the world.
Professor Jones departed from this consensus when he said: ‘There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia.
‘For it to be global in extent, the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions.
‘Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today, then obviously the late 20th Century warmth would not be unprecedented. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm than today, then the current warmth would be unprecedented.’
Sceptics said this was the first time a senior scientist working with the IPCC had admitted to the possibility that the Medieval Warming Period could have been global, and therefore the world could have been hotter then than now.
Professor Jones criticised those who complained he had not shared his data with them, saying they could always collate their own from publicly available material in the US. And he said the climate had not cooled ‘until recently – and then barely at all. The trend is a warming trend’.
Mr Harrabin told Radio 4’s Today programme that, despite the controversies, there still appeared to be no fundamental flaws in the majority scientific view that climate change was largely man-made.
But Dr Benny Pieser, director of the sceptical Global Warming Policy Foundation, said Professor Jones’s ‘excuses’ for his failure to share data were hollow as he had shared it with colleagues and ‘mates’.
He said that until all the data was released, sceptics could not test it to see if it supported the conclusions claimed by climate change advocates.
He added that the professor’s concessions over medieval warming were ‘significant’ because they were his first public admission that the science was not settled.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz0fevF6QZg
__________________________________________________ ___________________

Just so y'all know, even the IPCC had admitted to the possibility that the Medieval Warming Period could have been global, and therefore the world could have been hotter then!!! (meaning global warming is not man made) So why did Al gore say the science on man made global warming was settled (multiple times) ....because he is a LIAR..... just like all the climate gate conspirators.

[Boo]

The Heritage Foundation also studied the BBC interview of Phil Jones and was particularly interested in the following question and answer:

BBC: "When scientists say "the debate on climate change is over", what exactly do they mean - and what don't they mean?"

Jones: "It would be supposition on my behalf to know whether all scientists who say the debate is over are saying that for the same reason. I don't believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this. This is not my view. There is still much that needs to be undertaken to reduce uncertainties, not just for the future, but for the instrumental (and especially the palaeoclimatic) past as well."

The Heritage Foundation was correct is focusing on this response because it points to our current state of affairs where politics is forcing an issue of science when the full scientific understanding doesn't even exist.

If the vast majority of climatologists do not believe the debate on climate change is over, why do our politicians pushing for cap and trade and a transition to a "clean energy economy" repeatedly assert that the science is settled? Because the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said so and told us that a warming planet was "unequivocal."

And because this is NOT about the climate.
It's about money and power and another way for people to be taxed and an elite group of "leaders" to get rich.

Obama's call for increased funding for his global warming program should be rejected completely. This is not the role of the federal government, and the "debate" over global warming is far from over. Let's get back to the business of the smaller government mandated in the Constitution. That would be change we could all believe in.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Scientist at center of email scandal admits no recent warming
by Michael Fumento

February 14, 2010 @ 2:36 pmThere has been no global warming for a long time, as I wrote recently in Forbes Online (”Show Me the Warming,” Nov. 30, 2009).

I noted that Kevin Trenberth, a lead author of the warmist bible, the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report—told Congress two years ago that evidence for manmade warming is “unequivocal.” He claimed “the planet is running a ’fever’ and the prognosis is that it is apt to get much worse.” Yet in one of the released emails he admitted that data showed there was no warming “at the moment.” I then explained:

But Trenberth’s “lack of warming at the moment” has been going on at least a decade. “There has been no [surface-measured] warming since 1997 and no statistically significant warming since 1995,” observes MIT meteorologist Richard Lindzen. “According to satellite data, global warming stopped about 10 years ago and there’s no way to know whether it’s happening now,” says Roy Spencer, former NASA senior scientist for climate studies.

The atmospheric concentration of CO2 keeps going up,
yet temperatures for the last decade have been flat

The importance of this is that during the past decade, we’ve belched so-called “greenhouse gases” (GHGs) into the atmosphere at ever greater rates, from 6,510 million metric tons in 1996 to 8,230 in 2006—a 26% increase. Atmospheric concentrations have also reached the highest levels ever observed.
Now Professor Phil Jones, director the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Center and the central figure in the ‘Climategate’ affair, has conceded there’s been no ‘statistically significant’ warming. Naturally he said it was a “blip” and not a trend, and he may well prove right. But that doesn’t eliminate the problem that this “blip” has been occurring with historic GHG emissions, therefore the grossly simplistic formula of GHG emissions = warming is false.
He also made what may be the strongest admission by a major warmist that the earth could have been warmer during medieval times (about 800 - 1300) when mankind was emitting essentially no GHGs. (Viking ships did use sails, you may recall.) And he said that the debate over whether the world could have been even warmer than now during the medieval period, when there is evidence of high temperatures in northern countries, was far from settled.
Heretofore, warmists tried to dismiss this altogether or say it only applied to northern climes.
Nevertheless, “There is much debate over whether the MWP was global in extent or not,” Jones admitted, adding “The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia.”
He said that, “For it to be global in extent, the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern hemisphere” and “There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions.” Still, “If the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today, then obviously the late 20th Century warmth would not be unprecedented.”
In that case, he should be informed of a Nature magazine study last year indicating water temperatures in the area of Indonesia were the same in the MWP as they are today.
You can read some of the specific questions and answers here with annotations by Indur Goklany.
Let’s salute Phil Jones’s honesty - even if he only came by it relatively late in life.

« Roundup of wisdom regarding the current weather icebox and the global warming debate
U.N. Climate panel pummeled for misinformation, high and low »

[Boo]

Funny? Yeah, cute illustration but it is so absolutely true.

[Boo]

3 big firms quit warming-bills lobbying group

Jennifer A. Dlouhy,Tom Fowler, Hearst Washington Bureau Wednesday, February 17, 2010

Two of the nation's largest energy companies on Tuesday quit the lobbying alliance that has been the major force shaping anti-global warming legislation in Congress and claimed that the leading climate change bills don't do enough for oil and natural gas.

ConocoPhillips and BP joined machine manufacturer Caterpillar Inc. in withdrawing from the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, despite collaborating last year on a blueprint for capping carbon dioxide emissions blamed for contributing to global warming. That plan became the model for a climate change bill that passed the House last year and similar measures in the Senate.
The decision dealt a major blow to the USCAP alliance of more than two dozen businesses and environmental groups and could further slow already sluggish negotiations in the Senate on climate change.
The group used its lobbying heft to promote a government giveaway of valuable carbon dioxide emissions allowances designed to soften the business costs of complying with a new nationwide cap on greenhouse gases.
But ConocoPhillips and BP said leading climate change bills treated the oil and gas industry unfairly and did not recognize the role of natural gas in curbing greenhouse gas emissions nationwide. ConocoPhillips also had unsuccessfully pressed USCAP to put its lobbying weight behind a new plan for capping emissions from transportation fuels that would be kinder to refiners.
Oil industry leaders have complained that the House-passed bill would only donate 2 to 2.25 percent of those emissions allowances to refiners - an amount that would only cover about half of the annual emissions from the refining process, much less the emissions produced when consumers burn their fuels in cars, trucks and planes.
The Climate Action Partnership downplayed the departures.
"USCAP is a CEO-led organization whose membership changes periodically," the group said in a statement. "In fact, over the past seven months, USCAP has added three new corporate members."
Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles, and Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., have widely credited the group with changing the debate about climate change by uniting environmentalists and business leaders behind a single proposal.
The group made waves on Capitol Hill when it was formed in January 2007 by Pacific Gas and Electric Co., Dupont Energy, the Natural Resources Defense Council and other groups. BP and Caterpillar also were founding members.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So it starts, more companies will slowly withdraw from participation in the fraud of manmade global warming and next you'll see the charlatan players like AL GORE who made millions from promoting and participating in the scams (like carbon credits) spawned by this fraud be sued for what they have done for the past 25 years and rightly so, for teaching our children in school all the lies about manmade global warming. Have you told your kids that their teachers have been lieing to them?

[Boo]

Things Reportedly Caused
by Global Warming

I really love this one

[Boo]

Watch the on-line version of the show by clicking the links below.



Global Warming: Meltdown digs deeply into the strong
differences of positions about global warming; It answers
the negative responses by several key institutions to our
first global warming telecast* in January.

The “Climategate” revelations that began in mid December have crescendoed into a series of almost daily embarrassments for the UN IPCC. This telecast covers as many of them as we can cram into an hour. The program can be viewed in segments. With the intro to each segment you will find links you may use to find more information on the topics covered. If this is the first time you are hearing about my efforts to debunk the bad science behind the global warming frenzy, you will find a wealth of information, videos and links to sites on the colemanscorner page of KUSI.com/weather/.

To view this special report in its entirety, click on the links below:

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6
Part 7
Part 8
Part 9

*The first program “Global Warming: The Other Side” can be viewed on this website at:
http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemans.../81583352.html

[Boo]

BREAKING NEWS: scientist admits IPCC used fake data to pressure policy makers

23 01 2010

The IPCC is now damaged goods.

Pachauri is toast, and nobody will be able to cite the IPCC AR4 again without this being brought up.
The Daily Mail’s David Rose in the UK broke this story, it is mind boggling fraud to prod “government action” and grants. Emphasis in red mine.

The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.
Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research.
In an interview with The Mail on Sunday, Dr Lal, the co-ordinating lead author of the report’s chapter on Asia, said: ‘It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.
‘It had importance for the region, so we thought we should put it in.’
Chilling error: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change wrongly asserted that glaciers in the Himalayas would melt by 2035

Dr Lal’s admission will only add to the mounting furore over the melting glaciers assertion, which the IPCC was last week forced to withdraw because it has no scientific foundation.
According to the IPCC’s statement of principles, its role is ‘to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis, scientific, technical and socio-economic information – IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy’.
The claim that Himalayan glaciers are set to disappear by 2035 rests on two 1999 magazine interviews with glaciologist Syed Hasnain, which were then recycled without any further investigation in a 2005 report by the environmental campaign group WWF.
It was this report that Dr Lal and his team cited as their source.
The WWF article also contained a basic error in its arithmetic. A claim that one glacier was retreating at the alarming rate of 134 metres a year should in fact have said 23 metres – the authors had divided the total loss measured over 121 years by 21, not 121.
Last Friday, the WWF website posted a humiliating statement recognising the claim as ‘unsound’, and saying it ‘regrets any confusion caused’.

Dr Lal said: ‘We knew the WWF report with the 2035 date was “grey literature” [material not published in a peer-reviewed journal]. But it was never picked up by any of the authors in our working group, nor by any of the more than 500 external reviewers, by the governments to which it was sent, or by the final IPCC review editors.’

In fact, the 2035 melting date seems to have been plucked from thin air.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz0dUoPiTkG
h/t to WUWT reader “Konrad”

[Boo]

Al Gore's Personality Disorder
Henry I. Miller, 03.01.10, 04:21 PM EST

Is the former vice president not-so-secretly a narcissistic, shameless phony?

Just when we thought that--finally--we wouldn't have Al Gore to kick around any more, he resurfaces with a characteristically apocalyptic, know-it-all New York Times op-ed about global warming, "an unimaginable calamity requiring large-scale, preventive measures to protect human civilization as we know it."
How awful a calamity? "The displacement of hundreds of millions of climate refugees, civil unrest, chaos and the collapse of governance in many developing countries, large-scale crop failures and the spread of deadly diseases." Sounds almost as bad as a Gore presidency.

Leaving aside the school-marmish, patronizing attitude that makes him such a magnet for parody (recall the Saturday Night Live send-ups before the 2000 general election), how believable is Gore?
He's a phony--and a shameless one at that. In his op-ed, he refers to "tobacco companies block[ing] constraints on the marketing of cigarettes for four decades after science confirmed the link of cigarettes to diseases of the lung and the heart." Well, that is true, and it is consistent with his impassioned address in 1996 to the Democratic Party convention, in which he vowed to fight the tobacco industry to his last breath because 12 years earlier his sister had died from lung cancer. But in 1988, while campaigning for the nomination for president, Gore had been telling tobacco farmers (in a Southern accent much thicker than it ever had been in Washington) that he was practically one of them, that he had tenderly held the young plants in his own two hands, that he had their interests at heart and so on. And his movie, An Inconvenient Truth, which offers an exaggerated, one-sided and often inaccurate view of global warming, is more propaganda than documentary.
There may be a medical explanation for what makes Al Gore tick. On the basis of his actions and writings over many years my guess is Gore suffers from Narcissistic Personality Disorder. The criteria for this diagnosis, as described in the psychiatrist's bible, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, include a " pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts," as indicated by these manifestations:
--"A grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)." Gore regularly demonstrates his grandiosity. Who can forget his notorious claim that he had been instrumental in creating the Internet? But far more serious and complex are Gore's delusions about issues of technology and environmentalism, such as his repeated endorsement of anti-technology tracts and criticism of technological advances while a congressman, senator and vice president. His writings generally place science and technology at odds with "the natural world" and, by inference, with the well-being and progress of mankind.

Gore's patronizing and overwrought Earth in the Balance provides numerous illustrations of many of these diagnostic criteria, offering disturbing insights into its disturbed author. In it, Gore trashes the empirical nature of science for disconnecting man from nature: "But for the separation of science and religion," he laments, "we might not be pumping so much gaseous chemical waste into the atmosphere and threatening the destruction of the earth's climate balance." But for the separation of science and religion, we would still be burdened with the notion that the sun and the planets revolve around the Earth.
It gets worse. Throughout the book Gore employs the metaphor that those who believe in technological advances are as sinister and polluters are as evil as the perpetrators of the Holocaust. He accuses Americans of being dysfunctional because we've developed "an apparent obsession with inauthentic substitutes for direct experience with real life," such as "Astroturf, air conditioning and fluorescent lights ... Walkman and Watchman, entertainment cocoons, frozen food for the microwave oven," and so on.

Another example of Gore's bizarre thinking is his take on biotechnology. After campaigning tirelessly for years to over-regulate the most precise and predictable techniques of biotechnology applied to agriculture--ostensibly to ensure environmental safety--he changed his tack and came up with this doozy: "The most lasting impact of biotechnology on the food supply may come not from something going wrong, but from all going right. My biggest fear is not that by accident we will set loose some genetically defective Andromeda strain. Given our past record in dealing with agriculture, we're far more likely to accidentally drown ourselves in a sea of excess grain."
The reality is that grain production will need to double during the next few decades to feed an increasing world population, and during the past several years food prices have been under intense pressure because of the diversion of vast amounts of corn to the production of ethanol for fuel. Moreover, modern biotechnology is extremely environment-friendly, conserving water and reducing the use of chemical pesticides and the release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

Gore's Sunday op-ed column was titled, "We Can't Wish Away Climate Change." Too bad we can't wish away Al Gore.


Henry I. Miller, a physician and molecular biologist, is a fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution. He was formerly an official at the NIH and FDA. (Obviously he is not a politician - my 2 cents)

Related Stories

• Survival Of The Fittest
• Stormy Times For Global Warmists
• The Fiction Of Climate Science: Part 2
• The Fiction Of Climate Science
• The Seeds Of Irresponsible Activism

• Videos

Reader Comments

The sky is falling! The sky is falling! Oh, wait, that's just the snow.

--"Preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty or ideal love; believes that he or she is 'special' and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)." These sorts of fantasies run riot in Gore's book Earth in the Balance, in which he assumes that he and a small number of other elites have divined the solutions to the world's problems and the bold and dramatic measures that await the education and enlightenment of the public. When he was vice president, Gore and his staff of true believers attempted to purge the federal government of any dissension or challenge to his view of policy, in a way reminiscent of the worst paranoid excesses of the Nixon administration. Vexed by people who weren't sufficiently "special" or ideologically pure, Gore simply got rid of them.
--"Requires excessive admiration." With the exception of the period since his defeat in the 2000 presidential election, Gore has for nearly his whole adult life been a politician who surrounded himself with sycophants--need one say more?
--"Lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others ... shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes." While a senator, Gore was notorious for his rudeness and insolence. A favorite trick during hearings was to pose a question and, as the witness began to answer, commence a whispered conversation with another committee member or staffer. If the witness paused to make sure the senator did not miss the response, Gore would instruct him to continue, then resume his private conversation, leaving no ambiguity: Not only is your testimony unimportant, but I won't even pay you the courtesy of pretending to listen to it. Gore once accused his political enemies of possessing "an extra chromosome," a remark that infuriated families of persons with Down Syndrome, which is caused by the presence of an extra chromosome.

[Boo]

.. but what a way to go!!! Manmade!!!

[Boo]

Long Hot Year:
Latest Science Debunks Global Warming Hysteria

by Patrick J. Michaels

a professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia,
is a senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute.

Executive Summary

The national media have given tremendous play to the claims of Vice President Al Gore, some federal scientists, and environmental activists that the unseasonably warm temperatures of this past summer were proof positive of the arrival of dramatic and devastating global warming. In fact, the record temperatures were largely the result of a strong El Niño superimposed on a decade in which temperatures continue to reflect a warming that largely took place in the first half of this century.

Observed global warming remains far below the amount predicted by computer models that served as the basis for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Whatever record is used, the largest portion of the warming of the second half of this century has mainly been confined to winter in the very coldest continental air masses of Siberia and northwestern North America, as predicted by basic greenhouse effect physics. The unpredictability of seasonal and annual temperatures has declined significantly. There has been no change in precipitation variability. In the United States, drought has decreased while flooding has not increased.

Moreover, carbon dioxide is increasing in the atmosphere at a rate below that of most climate-change scenarios because it is being increasingly captured by growing vegetation. The second most important human greenhouse enhancer -- methane -- is not likely to increase appreciably in the next 100 years. And perhaps most important, the direct warming effect of carbon dioxide was overestimated. Even global warming alarmists in the scientific establishment now say that the Kyoto Protocol will have no discernible impact on global climate.

Full Text of Policy Analysis No. 329 (PDF, 16 pgs, 145 Kb)

© 1998 The Cato Institute

[Boo]

Alan Reynolds
- NYPost.com
- March 02, 2010


Al Gore's defense of global-warming hysteria in Sunday's New York Times has many flaws, but I'll focus on just one whopper -- where the "Inconvenient Truth" man states the opposite of scientific fact.

Al Gore's defense of global-warming hysteria in Sunday's New York Times has many flaws, but I'll focus on just one whopper -- where the "Inconvenient Truth" man states the opposite of scientific fact.

Gore wrote, "The heavy snowfalls this month have been used as fodder for ridicule by those who argue that global warming is a myth, yet scientists have long pointed out that warmer global temperatures have been increasing the rate of evaporation from the oceans, putting significantly more moisture into the atmosphere -- thus causing heavier downfalls of both rain and snow in particular regions, including the Northeastern United States."

It's an interesting theory, but where are the facts?

According to "State of the Climate" from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, "Global precipitation in 2009 was near the 1961-1990 average." And there was certainly no pattern of increasing rain and snow on America's East Coast during the post-1976 years, when NOAA says the globe began to heat up.

So what was it, exactly, that Gore's nameless scientists "have long pointed out"? A 2008 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, "Climate Change and Water," says climate models "project precipitation increases in high latitudes and part of the tropics." In other areas, the IPCC reports only "substantial uncertainty in precipitation forecasts."

In other words, the IPCC said that its models predicted some increases in rain or snow -- not observed them. And only in high latitudes or the tropics, which hardly describes New York or Washington, DC. In fact, recent research actually contradicts Gore's claims about "significantly more water moisture in the atmosphere."

In late January, Scientific American reported: "A mysterious drop in water vapor in the lower stratosphere might be slowing climate change," and noted that "an apparent increase in water vapor in this region in the 1980s and 1990s exacerbated global warming."

The new study came from a group of scientists, mainly from the NOAA lab in Boulder. The scientists found: "Stratospheric water-vapor concentrations decreased by about 10 percent after the year 2000 . . . This acted to slow the rate of increase in global surface temperature over 2000 to 2009 by about 25 percent."

Specifically, the study found that water vapor rising from the tropics has been reduced, because it has gotten cooler there (another inconvenient truth). A Wall Street Journal headline summed it up: "Slowdown in Warming Linked to Water Vapor."

Moisture in the lower stratosphere (about 8 miles above the earth's surface) has been going down, not up.
Aside from clouds, water vapor accounts for as much as two-thirds of the earth's greenhouse-gas effect. Water vapor traps heat from escaping the atmosphere -- but clouds have the opposite effect (called "albedo") by reflecting the sun's energy back into space. And snow on the ground from the IPCC's predicted precipitation in high latitudes would have the same cooling effect as clouds.

What the new research suggests is that changes in water vapor may well trump the effect of carbon dioxide (only a fraction of which is man-made) and methane (which has mysteriously slowed since about 1990).
This raises an intriguing question: Since the Environmental Protection Agency declared that it has the authority to regulation carbon emissions because of their presumed effect on the global climate, why hasn't the EPA also attempted to regulate mist and fog?

Alan Reynolds, a Cato Institute senior fellow, is author of "Income and Wealth."

[Boo]

Shellfish could supplant tree-ring climate data

Temperature records gleaned from clamshells reveal accuracy of Norse sagas.
Richard A. Lovett

Mussels could yield a more accurate temperature record than trees.Alamy
Oxygen isotopes in clamshells may provide the most detailed record yet of global climate change, according to a team of scientists who studied a haul of ancient Icelandic molluscs.
Most measures of palaeoclimate provide data on only average annual temperatures, says William Patterson, an isotope chemist at the University of Saskatchewan in Saskatoon, Canada, and lead author of the study1. But molluscs grow continually, and the levels of different oxygen isotopes in their shells vary with the temperature of the water in which they live. The colder the water, the higher the proportion of the heavy oxygen isotope, oxygen-18.
The study used 26 shells obtained from sediment cores taken from an Icelandic bay. Because clams typically live from two to nine years, isotope ratios in each of these shells provided a two-to-nine-year window onto the environmental conditions in which they lived.
Patterson's team used a robotic sampling device to shave thin slices from each layer of the shells' growth bands. These were then fed into a mass spectrometer, which measured the isotopes in each layer. From those, the scientists could calculate the conditions under which each layer formed.
"What we're getting to here is palaeoweather," Patterson says. "We can reconstruct temperatures on a sub-weekly resolution, using these techniques. For larger clams we could do daily."
It's an important step in palaeoclimatic studies, he says, because it allows scientists to determine not only changes in average annual temperatures, but also how these changes affected individual summers and winters.
"We often make the mistake of saying that mean annual temperature is higher or lower at some period of time," Patterson says. "But that is relatively meaningless in terms of the changes in seasonality."

Patterson, W. P. et al, PNAS

For example, in early Norse Iceland — part of the 2,000-year era spanned by the study — farmers were dependent on dairy farming and agriculture. "For a dairy culture, summer is by far the most important," he says. "A one-degree decrease in summer temperatures in Iceland results in a 15% decrease in agricultural yield. If that happens two years in a row, your family's wiped out."
Technically, the molluscs record water temperatures, not air temperatures. But the two are closely linked — specially close to the shore, where most people lived. "So, when the water temperatures are up, air temperatures are up. When water temperatures are down, air temperatures are down," Patterson says.

Lean times

One of Patterson's goals was to verify assertions in historical Icelandic sagas describing the weather. Because these sagas include dispatches to the king back in Norway, there was an incentive to exaggerate. "If you're having a bad year, you're not expected to provide as much in the way of tribute or taxes," Patterson explains.
The study's findings suggest that the sagas are reasonably accurate. In the 1000s, for example, the 'Book of Settlements' — a medieval manuscript containing details of Iceland's settlements — reports a famine so severe "men ate foxes and ravens" and "the old and helpless were killed and thrown over cliffs", Patterson says. And according to his shells, it was indeed a difficult era, with summer water temperatures peaking at only 5–6 °C, down from as high as 7.5–9.5 °C around 100 years earlier.

The mollusc-based temperature record for Iceland suggests Norse sagas can be trusted.Mary Evans Picture Library
Patterson's data also reveal a number of climate changes recorded by historians, including a Roman-era warming period, a cold snap in the Dark Ages and a subsequent period of warming, during which the Vikings discovered Iceland.
But it's not just historians who will be interested. The new data will help climate modellers to improve their understanding of seasonal effects in the North Atlantic, Patterson says. "This is a new line of evidence."
Other scientists are impressed. "The technique is fascinating," says geoscientist Richard Alley of Pennsylvania State University in University Park. "This represents a huge amount of work, and demonstrates outstanding potential for revealing past processes in unprecedented detail. One can envision a tree-ring-like continuous history, given a lot more effort."
If he can find the funding, that is exactly what Patterson would like to establish next. "We have what may be the world's oldest clam," he says, "that might give a continuous record going back 400 years." He also wants to push the study back towards the end of the last ice age. "We have 11,000 years worth of material," he says.

• References
  1. Patterson, W. P., Dietrich, K. A., Holmden, C. & Andrews, J. T. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA doi: 10.1073/pnas.0902522107 (2010).

Comments

If you find something abusive or inappropriate or which does not otherwise comply with our Terms or Community Guidelines, please select the relevant 'Report this comment' link.
Comments on this thread are vetted after posting.

• #9641 Cool. Having temperature data with the potential to give better resolution climate data is a great benefit.
  Since clams lay down more shell every year I wonder if it would be possible to use the layers of shell growth like tree rings to give annual average temperatures?
  • 2010-03-09 03:31:55 PM
  • Posted by: Greg Mazo
• #9644 Many clams do have tree-ring-like growth rings. The east coast US species I have looked at have rapid summer growth rings, separated by narrow, denser, and usually darker winter lines. This is related to abudance of algae, and temperature-related metabolic activity. MERCENARIA, a shallow water species, can live at least 30 years. Deeper water clams on the shelf are thought to live over 100 years.
  Daily growth lines have been seen in some fossil shells.
  The shape of the deposition layer is complicated, and can be visulized by adding tetracycline to actively growing clams.
  • 2010-03-09 11:13:56 PM
  • Posted by: Dean Dey

[Boo]

GLOBAL WARMING:

The Myth, Hype, and the Facts.

GLOBAL WARMING: MYTH VS. REALITY
A few years ago, President Bill Clinton, addressing a group of meteorologists at the White House, said that "Global warming is a fact, and human activity is the cause."
Just recently, the U.N. came out with the IPCC report that said that Humans are the cause of Global warming.
Those two statements above are misleading, false, and CANNOT be backed up with scientific fact!
This may be a harsh reality in light of all of the recent news stories, but quite frankly, any supposed warming of the atmosphere may be coming from the hot air of politicians and environmental groups that are feeding us misinformation. Human activity is the least contributor of problems to the climate, and global warming, does not exist the way we have been led to believe.
First of all, what is global warming? According to current scientific definition, it is an increase in the temperature of the planet over many years of time. Unfortunately, there is currently no set amount of degrees, and no set amount of time. Has this happened? Yes, and no. It all depends upon WHERE the temperatures are measured. In large cities, the temperatures have risen slightly, but in other areas, the temperatures have dropped. The increases are within the Earth's natural variation of temperature. Yes, there have been warmer winters and summers, and the temperature in the large cities has increased slightly, but throughout the years, there has been no significant change in the Earth's temperature.
Keep in mind, that the variations in climate over the years is due to natural causes, more than human interaction. Changes in the Sun's energy output, rotation of the Earth, revolution of the Earth, and debris from comets, meteors, and asteroids, actually have an effect on the climate. Add to that, dust from earthquakes and volcanoes, and we have even bigger impact from natural events. One volcanic eruption for example, puts more pollution into the atmosphere than ten years worth of human activity.
And what about this so called "man-made" pollution? We have all heard about it. But Is it causing the Greenhouse Effect, creating global warming, etc.? Hardly.
Most of the so called "greenhouse gasses" have natural sources; volcanoes, animal and plant respiration, and the oceans. The proponents of this greenhouse effect tell us that carbon dioxide is the main problem, and we should be spending billions of dollars trying to cut back on emissions from cars, factories, etc. According to governmental agencies, to cut back these emissions of twenty percent in the next ten years, we would have to spend about 100 billion dollars a year. And that would still leave one of the biggest polluters untouched; trees.
Yes, trees and plants only clean the air while they are growing. Once fully grown, they actually give off carbon dioxide! The carbon is incorporated into carbohydrate compounds and stored in plant tissue. When the trees and forests are fully grown, the Carbon Dioxide is released back into the air. Also, fallen leaves and branches give off Carbon Dioxide. That "haze" that makes the Smokey Mountains such a beautiful sight, is composed of natural compounds of which much of it is Carbon Dioxide.
Not to worry however, because carbon dioxide is not the main greenhouse gas that we have to worry about; water vapor is. But the environmentalists and the politicians can't do anything about it since it occurs naturally from evaporation, so they tell us that carbon dioxide is the problem. Keep in mind, that if we didn't have the small natural greenhouse effect that the water vapor gives us, the temperature on the Earth would be like that on Mars, where a warm day would be zero degrees!
Of all the Carbon Dioxide emissions into the atmosphere, 51 percent is from plants and trees, 45 percent from the oceans, and only three percent from the burning of fossil fuels!
Surprisingly, this much maligned "Greenhouse Gas" accounts for only 0.035 percent of our atmosphere. The real problem 'Greenhouse Gas" again, is actually water vapor, which accounts for about two percent of our atmosphere. However, it occurs naturally in our atmosphere, due to ocean and water evaporation, and since the global warming folks can't stop it, they ignore it and pick on the Carbon Dioxide instead. According to scientists with the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, "Water Vapor is the predominant greenhouse gas, and plays a crucial role in the global climate system".
The whole thing in a nutshell, is that the Earth's environment and it's climate are very complex, and to really understand what is happening, we must weed out the political, environmental, and media propaganda, and examine the facts. It is very hard to solve a problem, when one does not exist, and as far as global warming and human cause goes, there is no problem to be found, therefore there is none to solve.

***

September 12, 2007 - 300 Scientists Refute Global Warming

WASHINGTON, Sept. 12 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- A new analysis of peer-reviewed literature reveals that more than 500 scientists have published evidence refuting at least one element of current man-made global warming scares. More than 300 of the scientists found evidence that 1) a natural moderate 1,500-year climate cycle has produced more than a dozen global warmings similar to ours since the last Ice Age and/or that 2) our Modern Warming is linked strongly to variations in the sun's irradiance. "This data and the list of scientists make a mockery of recent claims that a scientific consensus blames humans as the primary cause of global temperature increases since 1850," said Hudson Institute Senior Fellow Dennis Avery.
Other researchers found evidence that 3) sea levels are failing to rise importantly; 4) that our storms and droughts are becoming fewer and milder with this warming as they did during previous global warmings; 5) that human deaths will be reduced with warming because cold kills twice as many people as heat; and 6) that corals, trees, birds, mammals, and butterflies are adapting well to the routine reality of changing climate.
Despite being published in such journals such as Science, Nature and Geophysical Review Letters, these scientists have gotten little media attention. "Not all of these researchers would describe themselves as global warming skeptics," said Avery, "but the evidence in their studies is there for all to see."
The names were compiled by Avery and climate physicist S. Fred Singer, the co-authors of the new book Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years, mainly from the peer-reviewed studies cited in their book. The researchers' specialties include tree rings, sea levels, stalagmites, lichens, pollen, plankton, insects, public health, Chinese history and astrophysics.
"We have had a Greenhouse Theory with no evidence to support it-except a moderate warming turned into a scare by computer models whose results have never been verified with real-world events," said co-author Singer. "On the other hand, we have compelling evidence of a real-world climate cycle averaging 1470 years (plus or minus 500) running through the last million years of history. The climate cycle has above all been moderate, and the trees, bears, birds, and humans have quietly adapted."
"Two thousand years of published human histories say that the warm periods were good for people," says Avery. "It was the harsh, unstable Dark Ages and Little Ice Age that brought bigger storms, untimely frost, widespread famine and plagues of disease." "There may have been a consensus of guesses among climate model-builders," says Singer. "However, the models only reflect the warming, not its cause." He noted that about 70 percent of the earth's post-1850 warming came before 1940, and thus was probably not caused by human-emitted greenhouse gases. The net post-1940 warming totals only a tiny 0.2 degrees C.
The historic evidence of the natural cycle includes the 5000-year record of Nile floods, 1st-century Roman wine production in Britain, and thousands of museum paintings that portrayed sunnier skies during the Medieval Warming and more cloudiness during the Little Ice Age. The physical evidence comes from oxygen isotopes, beryllium ions, tiny sea and pollen fossils, and ancient tree rings. The evidence recovered from ice cores, sea and lake sediments, cave stalagmites and glaciers has been analyzed by electron microscopes, satellites, and computers. Temperatures during the Medieval Warming Period on California's Whitewing Mountain must have been 3.2 degrees warmer than today, says Constance Millar of the U.S. Forest Service, based on her study of seven species of relict trees that grew above today's tree line.
Singer emphasized, "Humans have known since the invention of the telescope that the earth's climate variations were linked to the sunspot cycle, but we had not understood how. Recent experiments have demonstrated that more or fewer cosmic rays hitting the earth create more or fewer of the low, cooling clouds that deflect solar heat back into space-amplifying small variations in the intensity of the sun.
Avery and Singer noted that there are hundreds of additional peer-reviewed studies that have found cycle evidence, and that they will publish additional researchers' names and studies. They also noted that their book was funded by Wallace O. Sellers, a Hudson board member, without any corporate contributions.

***

Sizzling study concludes: Global warming 'hot air'
'You can spit, have same effect as doubling the carbon dioxide'

Posted: August 20, 2007
10:07 p.m. Eastern

© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
A major new scientific study concludes the impact of carbon dioxide emissions on worldwide temperatures is largely irrelevant, prompting one veteran meteorologist to quip, "You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide."
That comment comes from Reid Bryson, founding chairman of the Department of Meteorology at the University of Wisconsin, who said the temperature of the earth is increasing, but that it's got nothing to do with what man is doing.
"Of course it's going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we're coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we're putting more carbon dioxide into the air."
"Anthropogenic (man-made) global warming bites the dust," declared astronomer Ian Wilson after reviewing the newest study, now accepted for publication in the peer-reviewed Journal of Geophysical Research.
The project, called "Heat Capacity, Time Constant, and Sensitivity of Earth's Climate System," was authored by Brookhaven National lab scientist Stephen Schwartz.
"Effectively, this (new study) means that the global economy will spend trillions of dollars trying to avoid a warming of (about) 1.0 K by 2100 A.D.," Wilson wrote in a note to the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works Sunday.
He was referring to the massive expenditures that would be required under such treaties as the Kyoto Protocol.
"Previously, I have indicated that the widely accepted values for temperature increase associated with a double of CO2 were far too high, i.e. 2-4.5 Kelvin. This new peer-reviewed paper claims a value of 1.1 +/- 0.5 K increase," he added.
Bryson's and Wilson's comments were among those from a long list of doubters of catastrophic, man-made global warming, assembled by Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., and posted on a blog site for the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Another leader, Ivy League geologist Robert Giegengack, chairman of the Department of Earth and Environmental Science at the University of Pennsylvania, said he doesn't even consider global warming among the top 10 environmental problems.
"In terms of [global warming's] capacity to cause the human species harm, I don't think it makes it into the top 10," he said. "[Former Vice President Al Gore] claims that temperature increases solely because more CO2 in the atmosphere traps the sun's heat. That's just wrong … It's a natural interplay. As temperature rises, CO2 rises, and vice versa. It's hard for us to say CO2 drives temperature. It's easier to say temperature drives CO2."
Gore made – and stars in – a film about purported global warming, "An Inconvenient Truth," that won an Oscar. It has become mandatory for students in many high schools and colleges.
However, the studies assembled by Inhofe's team said that's not necessarily so, according to the scientists.
"If we were to stop manufacturing CO2 tomorrow, we wouldn't see the effects of that for generations," Giegengack said.
"Carbon dioxide is 0.000383 of our atmosphere by volume (0.038 percent)," said meteorologist Joseph D'Alea, the first director of meteorology at The Weather Channel and former chief of the American Meteorological Society's Committee on Weather Analysis and Forecast.
"Only 2.75 percent of atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic in origin. The amount we emit is said to be up from 1 percent a decade ago. Despite the increase in emissions, the rate of change of atmospheric carbon dioxide at Mauna Loa remains the same as the long term average (plus 0.45 percent per year)," he said. "We are responsible for just 0.001 percent of this atmosphere. If the atmosphere was a 100-story building, our anthropogenic CO2 contribution today would be equivalent to the linoleum on the first floor."
Former Harvard physicist Lubos Motl added that those promoting the fear of man-made climate changes are "playing the children's game to scare each other."
"By the end of the (CO2) doubling, i.e. 560 ppm (parts per million) expected slightly before (the year) 2100 – assuming a business-as-usual continued growth of CO2 that has been linear for some time – Schwartz and others would expect 0.4 C of extra warming only – a typical fluctuation that occurs within four months and certainly nothing that the politicians should pay attention to," Motl explained.
Joel Schwartz, of the American Enterprise Institute, said, "there's hardly any additional warming 'in the pipeline' from previous greenhouse gas emissions. This is in contrast to the IPCC, which predicts that the Earth's average temperature will rise an additional 0.6 degrees C during the 21st Century even if greenhouse gas concentrations stopped increasing," he added.
"Along with dozens of other studies in the scientific literature, [this] new study belies Al Gore's claim that there is no legitimate scholarly alternative to climate catastrophism. Indeed, if Schwartz's results are correct, that alone would be enough to overturn in one fell swoop the IPCC's scientific 'consensus,' the environmentalists' climate hysteria, and the political pretext for the energy-restriction policies that have become so popular with the world's environmental regulators, elected officials, and corporations. The question is, will anyone in the mainstream media notice?" AEI's Schwartz concluded.
The Senate committee assessment said 2007 could go down in history "as the 'tipping point' of man-made global warming fears."
Meteorologist Joseph Conklin, of the website Climate Police said "global warming" is disintegrating.
"A few months ago, a study came out that demonstrated global temperatures have leveled off. But instead of possibly admitting that this whole global warming thing is a farce, a group of British scientists concluded that the real global warming won't start until 2009," Conklin wrote.
However, a United Nations scientist, Jim Renwick, recently conceded that climate models do not account for the variability in nature, and so are not reliable. And Conklin noted the U.S. National Climate Data Center has compiled data that shouldn't be used, because its reporting points are located on hot black asphalt, next to trash burn barrels and even attached to hot chimneys, a methodology that is "seriously flawed."
WND has previously reported on significant doubts about global warming.
Last September, a leading U.S. climate researcher claimed there's a decade at most left to address global warming before environmental disaster takes place, but the federal government issued a report showing the year 1936 had a hotter summer than 2006.
"The average June-August 2006 temperature for the contiguous United States (based on preliminary data) was 2.4 degrees F (1.3 degrees C) above the 20th century average of 72.1 degrees F (22.3 degrees C)," said the NOAA report. "This was the second warmest summer on record, slightly cooler than the record of 74.7 degrees F set in 1936 during the Dust Bowl era. This summer's average was 74.5 degrees F. Eight of the past ten summers have been warmer than the U.S. average for the same period."
WND also reported on NASA-funded study that noted some climate forecasts might be exaggerating estimations of global warming.
The space agency said climate models possibly were overestimating the amount of water vapor entering the atmosphere as the Earth warms.
The theory many scientists work with says the Earth heats up in response to human emissions of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, causing more water to evaporate from the ocean into the atmosphere.
In addition, WND reported that Dr. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, maintains there has been little or no warming since about 1940.
"Any warming from the growth of greenhouse gases is likely to be minor, difficult to detect above the natural fluctuations of the climate, and therefore inconsequential," Singer wrote in a climate-change essay. "In addition, the impacts of warming and of higher CO2 levels are likely to be beneficial for human activities and especially for agriculture."

****

This latest farce about Global Warming was released On July 30th, 2007.

WASHINGTON -- The number of tropical storms developing annually in the Atlantic Ocean more than doubled over the past century, with the increase taking place in two jumps, researchers say. The increases coincided with rising sea surface temperature, largely the byproduct of human-induced climate warming, researchers Greg J. Holland and Peter J. Webster concluded. Their findings were being published online Sunday by Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London.
Chris Landsea, science and operations officer at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Hurricane Center, said the study is inconsistent in its use of data.
The work, he said, is "sloppy science that neglects the fact that better monitoring by satellites allows us to observe storms and hurricanes that were simply missed earlier.

****

Journalists have warned of climate change for 100 years, but can’t decide weather we face an ice age or warming. Four times since the late 1800's, the media had warned us of upcoming doom from either Global Warming, or Global Cooling. As recent as 1975, we were told that Global Cooling would destroy the environment forever. Now just 30 years later, the scientist admitted that they were wrong. Check out these climate hoaxes at:

http://www.businessandmedia.org/spec...ce_execsum.asp

See a chart of the "predictions" of these hoaxes and misinformation about climate change at:

http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/fireandice_resultschart.asp

****

Even a casual study of climate change during the last few hundred years, shows that there is a possibility that the Earth is still recovering from the Little Ice Age. This recovery may explain much warming due to unknown causes that has occurred even during the present interglacial period; the warming rate of this recovery may be as much as 0.5°C/100 years from about 1700 to the present. This is comparable with the rate of 0.6°-0.7°C/100 years, which the IPCC claims to be due to the greenhouse effect. Many glaciers in the world began to recede starting about 1700, and sea ice in the Arctic Ocean began to recede starting in 1800, so these phenomena began long before 1940 when CO2 began to increase rapidly.
In addition, there was one obvious temperature rise from 1920 to 1940, and even a decrease from 1940 to 1975, at the same time as CO2 began to increase rapidly. It is inconceivable that the IPCC did not carefully examine the rise between 1920 and 1940. The rate and magnitude of the increase was similar to those after 1975. Their conclusion should be very tentative until the causes of the 1920-1940 rise can be identified. There is no conclusive evidence that the rise after 1975 is different from the 1920-1940 rise.
by Syun-Ichi Akasofu, International Arctic Research Center, University of Alaska Fairbanks

****

The global-warming hypothesis, however, is no longer tenable. Scientists have been able to test it carefully, and it does not hold up. During the past 50 years, as atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have risen, scientists have made precise measurements of atmospheric temperature. These measurements have definitively shown that major atmospheric greenhouse warming of the atmosphere is not occurring and is unlikely ever to occur.
The temperature of the atmosphere fluctuates over a wide range, the result of solar activity and other influences. During the past 3,000 years, there have been five extended periods when it was distinctly warmer than today. One of the two coldest periods, known as the Little Ice Age, occurred 300 years ago. Atmospheric temperatures have been rising from that low for the past 300 years, but remain below the 3,000-year average.

Consider what this means for the global-warming hypothesis. This hypothesis predicts that global temperatures will rise significantly, indeed catastrophically, if atmospheric carbon dioxide rises. Most of the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide has occurred during the past 50 years, and the increase has continued during the past 20 years. Yet there has been no significant increase in atmospheric temperature during those 50 years, and during the 20 years with the highest carbon dioxide levels, temperatures have decreased.

Arthur Robinson and Zachary Robinson, chemists at the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine.

***

According to Professor Bob Carter,an environmental scientist at James Cook University who studies ancient climate change:

"The salient facts are these. First, the accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998. Oddly, this eight-year-long temperature stasis has occurred despite an increase over the same period of 15 parts per million (or 4 per cent) in atmospheric C02."
"Second, lower atmosphere satellite-based temperature measurements, if corrected for non-greenhouse influences such as El Nino events and large volcanic eruptions, show little if any global warming since 1979, a period over which atmospheric C02 has increased by 55 ppm (17 per cent)."
"Third, there are strong indications from solar studies that Earth's current temperature stasis will be followed by climatic cooling over the next few decades."

***

Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"

***

Conveniently overlooked by global warming alarmists, the sun may very well be the most significant factor in changes in our planet's climate. Sami Solanki, Director of the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Germany states, "The Sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures." Increases and decreases in solar activity also seem to correspond with warming and cooling periods throughout the last 1,000 years.

***

William Gray of the Atmospheric Science Department at Colorado State University argues the notion of consensus (of scientists believing in Human induced Global Warming) is "one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people."

***

More than 17,100 American scientists, two-thirds with advanced degrees, have signed the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine's Global Warming Petition, which says in part, "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate."

***

SCIENTISTS OPPOSING THE MAINSTREAM OF GLOBAL WARMING (Wikipedia)
Click HERE to see scientists opposing the Global Warming Scenario.

"For the problem with An Inconvenient Truth is that it is well-made propaganda for the global warming cause rather than well-made climate science. Nowhere does Mr Gore tell his audience that all of the phenomena that he describes fall within the natural range of environmental change on our planet. Nor does he present any evidence that climate during the 20th century departed discernibly from its historical pattern of constant change. This is not surprising, for no such evidence yet exists". "The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science." "Yet we do not read about natural climate change in the everyday news. Instead, newspapers, radio and television stations bludgeon us with a merciless stream of human-caused global-warming alarmism, egged on by a self-interested gaggle of journalists, environmental lobbyists, scientific and business groups, church leaders and politicians, all of whom preach that we must "stop climate change" by reducing human CO2 emissions. Professor Bob Carter, Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University.

***

25 "Truths" left out of GORE'S INCONVENIENT TRUTH (By Iain Murray, National Review Online)
1. Carbon Dioxide’s Effect on Temperature. The relationship between global temperature and carbon dioxide (CO2), on which the entire scare is founded, is not linear. Every molecule of CO2 added to the atmosphere contributes less to warming than the previous one. The book’s graph on p. 66-67 is seriously misleading. Moreover, even the historical levels of CO2 shown on the graph are disputed. Evidence from plant fossil-remains suggest that there was as much CO2 in the atmosphere about 11,000 years ago as there is today.

2. Kilimanjaro. The snows of Kilimanjaro are melting not because of global warming but because of a local climate shift that began 100 years ago. The authors of a report in the International Journal of Climatology “develop a new concept for investigating the retreat of Kilimanjaro’s glaciers, based on the physical understanding of glacier–climate interactions.” They note that, “The concept considers the peculiarities of the mountain and implies that climatological processes other than air temperature control the ice recession in a direct manner. A drastic drop in atmospheric moisture at the end of the 19th century and the ensuing drier climatic conditions are likely forcing glacier retreat on Kilimanjaro.”

3. Glaciers. Glaciers around the world have been receding at around the same pace for over 100 years. Research published by the National Academy of Sciences last week indicates that the Peruvian glacier on p. 53-53 probably disappeared a few thousand years ago.

4. The Medieval Warm Period. Al Gore says that the “hockey stick” graph that shows temperatures remarkably steady for the last 1,000 years has been validated, and ridicules the concept of a “medieval warm period.” That’s not the case. Last year, a team of leading paleoclimatologists said, “When matching existing temperature reconstructions…the time series display a reasonably coherent picture of major climatic episodes: ‘Medieval Warm Period,’ ‘Little Ice Age’ and ‘Recent Warming.’” They go on to conclude, “So what would it mean, if the reconstructions indicate a larger…or smaller…temperature amplitude? We suggest that the former situation, i.e. enhanced variability during pre-industrial times, would result in a redistribution of weight towards the role of natural factors in forcing temperature changes, thereby relatively devaluing the impact of anthropogenic emissions and affecting future temperature predictions.”

5. The Hottest Year. Satellite temperature measurements say that 2005 wasn't the hottest year on record — 1998 was — and that temperatures have been stable since 2001 (p.73). Here’s the satellite graph:

6. Heat Waves. The summer heat wave that struck Europe in 2003 was caused by an atmospheric pressure anomaly; it had nothing to do with global warming. As the United Nations Environment Program reported in September 2003, “This extreme weather [sic] was caused by an anti-cyclone firmly anchored over the western European land mass holding back the rain-bearing depressions that usually enter the continent from the Atlantic ocean. This situation was exceptional in the extended length of time (over 20 days) during which it conveyed very hot dry air up from south of the Mediterranean.”

7. Record Temperatures. Record temperatures — hot and cold — are set every day around the world; that’s the nature of records. Statistically, any given place will see four record high temperatures set every year. There is evidence that daytime high temperatures are staying about the same as for the last few decades, but nighttime lows are gradually rising. Global warming might be more properly called, “Global less cooling.” (On this, see Patrick J. Michaels book, Meltdown:The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media.)

8. Hurricanes. There is no overall global trend of hurricane-force storms getting stronger that has anything to do with temperature. A recent study in Geophysical Research Letters found: “The data indicate a large increasing trend in tropical cyclone intensity and longevity for the North Atlantic basin and a considerable decreasing trend for the Northeast Pacific. All other basins showed small trends, and there has been no significant change in global net tropical cyclone activity. There has been a small increase in global Category 4–5 hurricanes from the period 1986–1995 to the period 1996–2005. Most of this increase is likely due to improved observational technology. These findings indicate that other important factors govern intensity and frequency of tropical cyclones besides SSTs [sea surface temperatures].”

9. Tornadoes. Records for numbers of tornadoes are set because we can now record more of the smaller tornadoes (see, for instance, the Tornado FAQ at Weather Underground).

10. European Flooding. European flooding is not new (p. 107). Similar flooding happened in 2003. Research from Michael Mudelsee and colleagues from the University of Leipzig published in Nature (Sept. 11, 2003) looked at data reaching as far back as 1021 (for the Elbe) and 1269 (for the Oder). They concluded that there is no upward trend in the incidence of extreme flooding in this region of central Europe.

11. Shrinking Lakes. Scientists investigating the disappearance of Lake Chad (p.116) found that most of it was due to human overuse of water. “The lake’s decline probably has nothing to do with global warming, report the two scientists, who based their findings on computer models and satellite imagery made available by NASA. They attribute the situation instead to human actions related to climate variation, compounded by the ever increasing demands of an expanding population” (“Shrinking African Lake Offers Lesson on Finite Resources,” National Geographic, April 26, 2001). Lake Chad is also a very shallow lake that has shrunk considerably throughout human history.

12. Polar Bears. Polar bears are not becoming endangered. A leading Canadian polar bear biologist wrote recently, “Climate change is having an effect on the west Hudson population of polar bears, but really, there is no need to panic. Of the 13 populations of polar bears in Canada, 11 are stable or increasing in number. They are not going extinct, or even appear (sic) to be affected at present.”

13. The Gulf Stream. The Gulf Stream, the ocean conveyor belt, is not at risk of shutting off in the North Atlantic (p. 150). Carl Wunsch of MIT wrote to the journal Nature in 2004 to say, “The only way to produce an ocean circulation without a Gulf Stream is either to turn off the wind system, or to stop the Earth’s rotation, or both”

14. Invasive Species. Gore’s worries about the effect of warming on species ignore evolution. With the new earlier caterpillar season in the Netherlands, an evolutionary advantage is given to birds that can hatch their eggs earlier than the rest. That’s how nature works. Also, “invasive species” naturally extend their range when climate changes. As for the pine beetle given as an example of invasive species, Rob Scagel, a forest microclimate specialist in British Columbia, said, “The MPB (mountain pine beetle) is a species native to this part of North America and is always present. The MPB epidemic started as comparatively small outbreaks and through forest management inaction got completely out of hand.”

15. Species Loss. When it comes to species loss, the figures given on p. 163 are based on extreme guesswork, as the late Julian Simon pointed out. We have documentary evidence of only just over 1,000 extinctions since 1600 (see, for instance, Bjørn Lomborg’s The Skeptical Environmentalist, p. 250).

16. Coral Reefs. Coral reefs have been around for over 500 million years. This means that they have survived through long periods with much higher temperatures and atmospheric CO2 concentrations than today.

17. Malaria and other Infectious Diseases. Leading disease scientists contend that climate change plays only a minor role in the spread of emerging infectious diseases. In “Global Warming and Malaria: A Call for Accuracy” (The Lancet, June 2004), nine leading malariologists criticized models linking global warming to increased malaria spread as “misleading” and “display[ing] a lack of knowledge” of the subject.

18. Antarctic Ice. There is controversy over whether the Antarctic ice sheet is thinning or thickening. Recent scientific studies have shown a thickening in the interior at the same time as increased melting along the coastlines. Temperatures in the interior are generally decreasing. The Antarctic Peninsula, where the Larsen-B ice shelf broke up (p. 181) is not representative of what is happening in the rest of Antarctica. Dr. Wibjörn Karlén, Professor Emeritus of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology at Stockholm University, acknowledges, “Some small areas in the Antarctic Peninsula have broken up recently, just like it has done back in time. The temperature in this part of Antarctica has increased recently, probably because of a small change in the position of the low pressure systems.” According to a forthcoming report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, climate models based on anthropogenic forcing cannot explain the anomalous warming of the Antarctic Peninsula; thus, something natural is at work.

19. Greenland Climate. Greenland was warmer in the 1920s and 1930s than it is now. A recent study by Dr. Peter Chylek of the University of California, Riverside, addressed the question of whether man is directly responsible for recent warming: “An important question is to what extent can the current (1995-2005) temperature increase in Greenland coastal regions be interpreted as evidence of man-induced global warming? Although there has been a considerable temperature increase during the last decade (1995 to 2005) a similar increase and at a faster rate occurred during the early part of the 20th century (1920 to 1930) when carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases could not be a cause. The Greenland warming of 1920 to 1930 demonstrates that a high concentration of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is not a necessary condition for period of warming to arise. The observed 1995-2005 temperature increase seems to be within a natural variability of Greenland climate.” (Petr Chylek et al., Geophysical Research Letters, 13 June 2006.)

20. Sea Level Rise. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change does not forecast sea-level rises of “18 to 20 feet.” Rather, it says, “We project a sea level rise of 0.09 to 0.88 m for 1990 to 2100, with a central value of 0.48 m. The central value gives an average rate of 2.2 to 4.4 times the rate over the 20th century...It is now widely agreed that major loss of grounded ice and accelerated sea level rise are very unlikely during the 21st century.” Al Gore’s suggestions of much more are therefore extremely alarmist.

21. Population. Al Gore worries about population growth; Gore does not suggest a solution. Fertility in the developed world is stable or decreasing. The plain fact is that we are not going to reduce population back down to 2 billion or fewer in the foreseeable future. In the meantime, the population in the developing world requires a significant increase in its standard of living to reduce the threats of premature and infant mortality, disease, and hunger. In The Undercover Economist, Tim Harford writes, “If we are honest, then, the argument that trade leads to economic growth, which leads to climate change, leads us then to a stark conclusion: we should cut our trade links to make sure that the Chinese, Indians and Africans stay poor. The question is whether any environmental catastrophe, even severe climate change, could possibly inflict the same terrible human cost as keeping three or four billion people in poverty. To ask that question is to answer it.”

22. Energy Generation. A specific example of this is Gore’s acknowledgement that 30 percent of global CO2 emissions come from wood fires used for cooking (p. 227). If we introduced affordable, coal-fired power generation into South Asia and Africa we could reduce this considerably and save over 1.6 million lives a year. This is the sort of solution that Gore does not even consider.

23. Carbon-Emissions Trading. The European Carbon Exchange Market, touted as “effective” on p. 252, has crashed.

24. The “Scientific Consensus.” On the supposed “scientific consensus”: Dr. Naomi Oreskes, of the University of California, San Diego, (p. 262) did not examine a “large random sample” of scientific articles. She got her search terms wrong and thought she was looking at all the articles when in fact she was looking at only 928 out of about 12,000 articles on “climate change.” Dr. Benny Peiser, of Liverpool John Moores University in England, was unable to replicate her study. He says, “As I have stressed repeatedly, the whole data set includes only 13 abstracts (~1%) that explicitly endorse what Oreskes has called the ‘consensus view.’ In fact, the vast majority of abstracts does (sic) not mention anthropogenic climate change. Moreover — and despite attempts to deny this fact — a handful of abstracts actually questions the view that human activities are the main driving force of ‘the observed warming over the last 50 years.’” In addition, a recent survey of scientists following the same methodology as one published in 1996 found that about 30 percent of scientists disagreed to some extent or another with the contention that “climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes.” Less than 10 percent “strongly agreed” with the statement. Details of both the survey and the failed attempt to replicate the Oreskes study can be found here.

25. Economic Costs. Even if the study Gore cites is right (p. 280-281), the United States will still emit massive amounts of CO2 after all the measures it outlines have been realized. Getting emissions down to the paltry levels needed to stabilize CO2 in the atmosphere would require, in Gore’s own words, “a wrenching transformation” of our way of life. This cannot be done easily or without significant cost. The Kyoto Protocol, which Gore enthusiastically supports, would avert less than a tenth of a degree of warming in the next fifty years and would cost up to $400 billion a year to the U.S. All of the current proposals in Congress would cost the economy significant amounts, making us all poorer, with all that that entails for human health and welfare, while doing nothing to stop global warming.


OH, and By the way....

Al Gore’s Personal Energy Use Is His Own “Inconvenient Truth”

Gore’s home uses more than 20 times the national average

Al Gore’s global-warming documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, collected an Oscar for best documentary feature, but the Tennessee Center for Policy Research has found that Gore deserves a gold statue for hypocrisy.

Gore’s mansion, located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES).

In his documentary, the former Vice President calls on Americans to conserve energy by reducing electricity consumption at home.

The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh—more than 20 times the national average.

Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh—guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Gore’s average monthly electric bill topped $1,359.

Since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Gore’s energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, to 18,400 kWh per month in 2006.

Gore’s extravagant energy use does not stop at his electric bill. Natural gas bills for Gore’s mansion and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year.

“As the spokesman of choice for the global warming movement, Al Gore has to be willing to walk the walk, not just talk the talk, when it comes to home energy use,” said Tennessee Center for Policy Research President Drew Johnson.

In total, Gore paid nearly $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills for his Nashville estate in 2006.

***

GLOBAL WARMING: WHO TO BELIEVE?

One must keep in mind, that temperatures on the Earth will rise, and fall, but are within the normal cycles of our planet's climate. According to scientists at the National Climactic Data Center, the weather and climate during the past 20 years has not been out of the ordinary. And further more, the study of tree rings and cores drilled in the ice caps, going back more than 100 years, has indicated no significant change in the climate. These studies have also indicated that the last big warm-up of the Earth was about 600 years ago, long before there was human interaction from factories, cars, and the burning of fossil fuels.

***

According to the Laboratory of Climateology in Arizona, "environmental disaster is nowhere imminent", and according to Richard S Lindzen from M I T, one of the nations leading experts on atmospheric science, "we don't have any evidence that global warming is a serious problem".

***

Fred Singer, the first director of the United States Satellite Program has another view. IF, and he emphasizes IF, global warming takes place, it could be beneficial. According to him, fears about the rising sea levels are not necessary. New research indicates that increased ocean evaporation due to warming, would lead to more rain, and therefore to more ice accumulation in the polar regions. This in turn, would actually drop sea levels. Also, due to less temperature gradient between the Equator and the Poles, severe weather would be less frequent.

Recent Statements About Global Warming From Scientists

In recent studies, Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics looked at more than 200 studies that examined climate data from such phenomena as the growth of tree rings which are sensitive to climatic conditions and climate change. They concluded that many records reveal that the 20th century is probably not the warmest nor a uniquely extreme climate period. They said that two extreme climate periods-the Medieval Warming Period between 800 and 1300 and the Little Ice Age of 1300 to 1900-occurred worldwide, at a time before industrial emissions of greenhouse gases became abundant.

***

"The climate has warmed in the last century, but this took place before 1940. ...we don't think it was human activity. Satellite records of the temperatures from 3 miles up, do not show any warming at all. Heat Islands caused by urbanization have distorted thermometer temperatures."
(Prof. Fred Singer-Atmospheric Physicist, University of Virginia)

***

"40 years of ice accumulation would have buried the planes under 40 feet of ice." (the planes were under 268 feet of ice.) Why was there so much ice over the planes at a time when global warming and the melting of the polar ice caps were such big news?...Greenland has been cooling for the last 50 years...
(Weatherwise Magazine)

***

"We don't even know if man-made aerosols are warming or cooling the planet. Man-Made aerosols tend to be processed out of the atmosphere by clouds within a few weeks."
(NASA Earth Observatory Internet Bulletin)

***

"The coverage of ice in the Arctic has been virtually unchanged since 1979, while Ice in the Antarctic regions has actually increased." Temperatures over time, aligned themselves very well with the variations in the Solar Cycle, ...using temperatures form the 1880's to 1999."
(WSI-Intellicast Meteorologists using data from NOAA and Goddard Space Flight Center)

***

"NOAA research shows that the tropical multi-decadal signal is causing the increased Atlantic hurricane activity since 1995, and is not related to greenhouse warming".(National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration)

***

"I'm saying that the sun has an effect. But I'm also saying it's uncertain how much global warming has to do with the sun and how much is caused by carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The greenhouse effect must play some role. But those who are absolutely certain that the rise in temperatures are due solely to carbon dioxide have no scientific justification. It's pure guesswork." (Danish National Space Center)

***

"You have these news events where people are taken to Glacier National Park or to Alaska, and they are shown a glacier that has been retreating," says Professor Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. "The assumption is it's global warming. But then you look at the markers and you see that the retreat began around 1820. That's not due to global warming, at least not from man. In other words, these things happen."

***

"Few people contest the idea that some of the recent climate changes are likely due to natural processes, such as volcanic eruptions, changes in solar luminosity, and variations generated by natural interactions between parts of the climate system (for example, oceans and the atmosphere). There were significant climate changes before humans were around and there will be non-human causes of climate change in the future." (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration)

***

"I have been in operational meteorology since 1978, and I know dozens and dozens of broadcast meteorologists all over the country. Our big job: look at a large volume of raw data and come up with a public weather forecast for the next seven days. I do not know of a single TV meteorologist who buys into the man-made global warming hype. I know there must be a few out there, but I can’t find them. Here are the basic facts you need to know: Billions of dollars of grant money is flowing into the pockets of those on the man-made global warming bandwagon. No man-made global warming, the money dries up. This is big money, make no mistake about it. Nothing wrong with making money at all, but when money becomes the motivation for a scientific conclusion, then we have a problem. For many, global warming is a big cash grab. The climate of this planet has been changing since God put the planet here. It will always change, and the warming in the last 10 years is not much difference than the warming we saw in the 1930s and other decades. And, lets not forget we are at the end of the ice age in which ice covered most of North America and Northern Europe." (ABC-TV Alabama affiliate weatherman James Spann)

***

"There was a lot of global warming in the 1930s and '40s, and then there was a slight global cooling from the middle '40s to the early '70s. And there has been warming since the middle '70s, especially in the last 10 years. But this is natural, due to ocean circulation changes and other factors. It is not human induced. Nearly all of my colleagues who have been around 40 or 50 years are skeptical as hell about this whole global-warming thing. But no one asks us. If you don't know anything about how the atmosphere functions, you will of course say, 'Look, greenhouse gases are going up, the globe is warming, they must be related.' Well, just because there are two associations, changing with the same sign, doesn't mean that one is causing the other."(William Gray, hurricane expert and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project at Colorado State University)

***

Bernie Rayno, senior meteorologist with AccuWeather said in February 2007, "Our climate has been changing since the dawn of time. There is not enough evidence to link global warming to greenhouse gases."

***

Boston College's professor of geology and geophysics Amy Frappier explained in February 2007, "The geologic record shows that many millions of years ago, CO2 levels were indeed higher - in some cases many times higher - than today." Frappier noted that greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere do not consistently continue to have a warming effect on Earth, but gases instead stabilize in the atmosphere and cease having a warming effect. "At some point the heat-trapping capacity of [the gas] and its effect get saturated," said Frappier, "and you don't have increased heating."

***

Astrophysicist Nir Shaviv, one of Israel's top young scientists recanted his belief in manmade emissions driving climate change. "Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit in the story of global warming," Shaviv said in January 2007. But Shaviv now points to growing peer reviewed evidence that the sun has been driving the temperature changes and said, "Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global warming."

***

Climate Scientist Fred Singer & Environmental Economist Dennis Avery's 2006 book: "Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years" details the solar-climate link using studies from peer reviewed literature and "shows the earth's temperatures following variations in solar intensity through centuries of sunspot records, and finds cycles of sun-linked isotopes in ice and tree rings."

***

Niger Calder, former editor of New Scientist, also expressed his view last week that the UN rejects science it sees as "politically incorrect" and the UN denies that "climate history and related archeology give solid support to the solar hypothesis."

***

Panel of Broadcast Meteorologists Reject Man-Made Global Warming Fears in February 2007 - Claim 95% of Weathermen Skeptical "You tell me you're going to predict climate change based on 100 years of data for a rock that's 6 billion years old?" Meteorologist Mark Johnson said. "I'm not sure which is more arrogant, to say we caused (global warming) or that we can fix it," Meteorologist Mark Nolan said.

***

"And more scientists who don't believe in predictions of climate catastrophe need to rise above their fears of losing funding and speak out. Otherwise, this growing storm of global warming hysteria could do some real damage." (Dr. Roy Spencer is a principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA's Aqua satellite.)

***

In response to Al Gore's movie on global warming, "An Inconvenient Truth," where he hints that Hurricane Katrina is the result of Global Warming, and that more Hurricanes have, and will occur due to Global Warming:

Subscribing to the theory that the Atlantic Basin is in a busy cycle that occurs naturally every 25 to 40 years, are Chris Landsea, science and operations officer at the National Hurricane Center in Miami, and William Gray and Phil Klotzbach of Colorado State University, who pioneered much of modern hurricane-prediction theory.
"There has been no change in the number and intensity of Category 4 or Category 5 hurricanes around the world in the last 15 years," Mr. Landsea said, in a telephone interview from Miami. Mr. Emanuel of MIT said that, globally, the number and intensity of hurricanes are unchanged over the past 30 years.
According to NOAA hurricane records going back into the mid-1800s, hurricanes come in cycles. There have been quiet periods, with less hurricane activity, followed every 25 to 40 years by active periods, that last about 25 years. The current active period began in 1995 and is expected to last another 10 to 15 years.
At Colorado State University, Phil Klotzbach wrote an article, published in the Geophysical Research Letter and concluded that where sea-surface temperature has increased, there is in fact a slight decrease in hurricane activity.
"With regards to the number of Category 4-5 hurricanes, there has been a large increase in North Atlantic storms and a large decrease in Northeast Pacific storms," wrote Mr. Klotzbach in "talking points" for the paper on his Web site. "When these two regions are summed together, there has been virtually no increase in Category 4-5 hurricanes."

***

"Climate change is real" is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural "noise." (Letter to Canadian Prime Minister from 60 world leading climate Scientists)**** See the list of scientists below.
1) Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor, isotope hydrogeology and
paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa

2) Dr. Tad Murty, former senior research scientist, Dept. of Fisheries
and Oceans, former director of Australia's National Tidal Facility
and professor of earth sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide;
currently adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and
Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa

3) Dr. R. Timothy Patterson, professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences
(paleoclimatology) , Carleton University, Ottawa

4) Dr. Fred Michel, director, Institute of Environmental Science and
associate professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Carleton University,
Ottawa

5) Dr. Madhav Khandekar, former research scientist, Environment
Canada.
Member of editorial board of Climate Research and Natural Hazards

6) Dr. Paul Copper, FRSC, professor emeritus, Dept. of Earth Sciences,
Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ont.

7) Dr. Ross McKitrick, associate professor, Dept. of Economics,
University of Guelph, Ont.

8) Dr. Tim Ball, former professor of climatology, University of
Winnipeg; environmental consultant

9) Dr. Andreas Prokoph, adjunct professor of earth sciences,
University of Ottawa; consultant in statistics and geology

10) Mr. David Nowell, M.Sc. (Meteorology) , fellow of the Royal
Meteorological Society, Canadian member and past chairman of the NATO
Meteorological Group, Ottawa

11) Dr. Christopher Essex, professor of applied mathematics and
associate director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University
of Western Ontario, London, Ont.

12) Dr. Gordon E. Swaters, professor of applied mathematics, Dept. of
Mathematical Sciences, and member, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics
Research Group, University of Alberta

13) Dr. L. Graham Smith, associate professor, Dept. of Geography,
University of Western Ontario, London, Ont.

14) Dr. G. Cornelis van Kooten, professor and Canada Research Chair in
environmental studies and climate change, Dept. of Economics,
University of Victoria

15) Dr. Petr Chylek, adjunct professor, Dept. of Physics and
Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax

16) Dr./Cdr. M. R. Morgan, FRMS, climate consultant, former
meteorology advisor to the World Meteorological Organization.
Previously research scientist in climatology at University of Exeter,
U.K.

17) Dr. Keith D. Hage, climate consultant and professor emeritus of
Meteorology, University of Alberta

18) Dr. David E. Wojick, P.Eng., energy consultant, Star Tannery, Va.,
and Sioux Lookout, Ont.

19) Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, principal
consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, Surrey, B.C.

20) Dr. Douglas Leahey, meteorologist and air-quality consultant,
Calgary

21) Paavo Siitam, M.Sc., agronomist, chemist, Cobourg, Ont.

22) Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology,
Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology

23) Dr. Freeman J. Dyson, emeritus professor of physics, Institute for
Advanced Studies, Princeton, N.J.

24) Mr. George Taylor, Dept. of Meteorology, Oregon State University;
Oregon State climatologist; past president, American Association of
State Climatologists

25) Dr. Ian Plimer, professor of geology, School of Earth and
Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide; emeritus professor of
earth sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia

26) Dr. R.M. Carter, professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James
Cook
University, Townsville, Australia

27) Mr. William Kininmonth, Australasian Climate Research, former Head
National Climate Centre, Australian Bureau of Meteorology; former
Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission
for Climatology, Scientific and Technical Review

28) Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, former director of research, Royal
Netherlands Meteorological Institute

29) Dr. Gerrit J. van der Lingen, geologist/paleoclim atologist,
Climate Change Consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations,
New Zealand

30) Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, professor of environmental sciences,
University of Virginia

31) Dr. Nils-Axel Morner, emeritus professor of paleogeophysics &
geodynamics, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden

32) Dr. Gary D. Sharp, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study,
Salinas, Calif.

33) Dr. Roy W. Spencer, principal research scientist, Earth System
Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville

34) Dr. Al Pekarek, associate professor of geology, Earth and
Atmospheric
Sciences Dept., St. Cloud State University, St. Cloud, Minn.

35) Dr. Marcel Leroux, professor emeritus of climatology, University
of Lyon, France; former director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks
and Environment, CNRS

36) Dr. Paul Reiter, professor, Institut Pasteur, Unit of Insects and
Infectious Diseases, Paris, France. Expert reviewer, IPCC Working
group II, chapter 8 (human health)

37) Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, physicist and chairman, Scientific
Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw,
Poland

38) Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christianse n, reader, Dept. of Geography,
University of Hull, U.K.; editor, Energy & Environment

39) Dr. Hans H.J. Labohm, former advisor to the executive board,
Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International
Relations) and an economist who has focused on climate change

40) Dr. Lee C. Gerhard, senior scientist emeritus, University of
Kansas, past director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey

41) Dr. Asmunn Moene, past head of the Forecasting Centre,
Meteorological Institute, Norway

42) Dr. August H. Auer, past professor of atmospheric science,
University of Wyoming; previously chief meteorologist, Meteorological
Service (MetService) of New Zealand

43) Dr. Vincent Gray, expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The
Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of 'Climate Change 2001,' Wellington,
N.Z.

44) Dr. Howard Hayden, emeritus professor of physics, University of
Connecticut

45) Dr Benny Peiser, professor of social anthropology, Faculty of
Science, Liverpool John Moores University, U.K.

46) Dr. Jack Barrett, chemist and spectroscopist, formerly with
Imperial
College London, U.K.

47) Dr. William J.R. Alexander, professor emeritus, Dept. of Civil and
Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa. Member,
United Nations Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural
Disasters, 1994-2000

48) Dr. S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences,
University of Virginia; former director, U.S. Weather Satellite
Service

49) Dr. Harry N.A. Priem, emeritus professor of planetary geology and
isotope geophysics, Utrecht University; former director of the
Netherlands Institute for Isotope Geosciences; past president of the
Royal Netherlands Geological & Mining Society

50) Dr. Robert H. Essenhigh, E.G. Bailey professor of energy
conversion,
Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University

51) Dr. Sallie Baliunas, astrophysicist and climate researcher,
Boston,
Mass.

52) Douglas Hoyt, senior scientist at Raytheon (retired) and co-
author of the book The Role of the Sun in Climate Change; previously
with NCAR, NOAA, and the World Radiation Center, Davos, Switzerland
Dipl.-Ing. Peter Dietze, independent energy advisor and scientific
climate and carbon modeller, official IPCC reviewer, Bavaria, Germany

53) Dr. Boris Winterhalter, senior marine researcher (retired),
Geological Survey of Finland, former professor in marine geology,
University of Helsinki, Finland

54) Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical
Geography and Quaternary
Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden

55) Dr. Hugh W. Ellsaesser, physicist/meteorolo gist, previously with
the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Calif.; atmospheric
consultant.

56) Dr. Art Robinson, founder, Oregon Institute of Science and
Medicine, Cave Junction, Ore.

57) Dr. Arthur Rorsch, emeritus professor of molecular genetics,
Leiden University, The Netherlands; past board member, Netherlands
organization for applied research (TNO) in environmental, food and
public health

58) Dr. Alister McFarquhar, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K.;
international economist

59) Dr. Richard S. Courtney, climate and atmospheric science
consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K.

60) Dr. Chris de Freitas, climate scientist, associate professor, The
University of Auckland, N.Z.

***

Scientists threatened for questioning Man's impact on climate

Scientists threatened for 'climate denial'
By Tom Harper, Sunday Telegraph
Last Updated: 12:24am GMT 03/11/2007

Scientists who questioned mankind's impact on climate change have
received death threats and claim to have been shunned by the
scientific community.

They say the debate on global warming has been "hijacked" by a
powerful alliance of politicians, scientists and environmentalists
who have stifled all questioning about the true environmental impact
of carbon dioxide emissions.

Timothy Ball, a former climatology professor at the University of
Winnipeg in Canada, has received five deaths threats by email since
raising concerns about the degree to which man was affecting climate
change.

One of the emails warned that, if he continued to speak out, he would
not live to see further global warming.

"Western governments have pumped billions of dollars into careers and
institutes and they feel threatened," said the professor.

"I can tolerate being called a sceptic because all scientists should
be sceptics, but then they started calling us deniers, with all the
connotations of the Holocaust. That is an obscenity. It has got
really nasty and personal."

Last week, Professor Ball appeared in The Great Global Warming
Swindle, a Channel 4 documentary in which several scientists claimed
the theory of man-made global warming had become a "religion",
forcing alternative explanations to be ignored.

Richard Lindzen, the professor of Atmospheric Science at
Massachusetts Institute of Technology - who also appeared on the
documentary - recently claimed: "Scientists who dissent from the
alarmism have seen their funds disappear, their work derided, and
themselves labelled as industry stooges.

"Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they
fly in the face of the science."

Dr Myles Allen, from Oxford University, agreed. He said: "The Green
movement has hijacked the issue of climate change. It is ludicrous to
suggest the only way to deal with the problem is to start micro
managing everyone, which is what environmentalists seem to want to
do."

Nigel Calder, a former editor of New Scientist, said: "Governments
are trying to achieve unanimity by stifling any scientist who
disagrees. Einstein could not have got funding under the present
system."

***

Links to other sources explaining the Global Warming myth.
The links below, will take you to articles from newspapers and web sites throughout the world, that explain via graphs and scientific facts, that Global Warming due to Human activity is a myth and hype.
http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?ide=2
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=010405M
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/
http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/ice_ages.html
http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=264777
http://archive.patriotpost.us/pub/07-08_Digest/

BACK TO HOME PAGE

[Boo]

MUST SEE (the lies you have been told will make your blood boil)
------>............Lord Christopher Monckton Speaking in St. Paul

Lord Christopher Monckton,
the world's best known man-made global warming skeptic, has gone on the record as stating he believes
"eventually Gore and many others like him are going to face prosecution
for having taken money off people in the name of so called gloom investments..."

The Mark Gillar Show
on BlogTalkRadio
A.K.A. Global Cooling Radio

The World's Leading Global Warming Skeptics
Take Your Questions Live on The Air!!!

Guest: Lord Christopher Monckton
Bio: Click Here
Works: Click Here
Links: Video #1, Video #2, Video #3



Guest: Joanne Nova
Date: April 10, 2010
Time: 10:00 am Central DST
Bio: Click Here
Works: Click Here
Links: Website, Video #1, Video #2
To Listen: Visit our BlogTalkRadio Page
Dial-in: Call 646-727-3170 to ask a question.

Guest: Christopher Horner
Date: April 24, 2010
Time: 10:00 am Central DST
Bio: Click Here
Works: Book #1, Book #2, Book #3
Links: Video #1, Video #2, Video #3
To Listen: Visit our BlogTalkRadio Page
Dial-in: Call 646-727-3170 to ask a question.

Guest: Patrick Michaels
Date: April 7, 2010
Time: 7:00 pm Central DST
Bio: Click Here
Works: Book #1, Book #2, Book #3
Links: Video #1, Video #2, Video #3
To Listen: Visit our BlogTalkRadio Page
Dial-in: Call 646-727-3170 to ask a question.

Guest: Ann McElhinney
Date: April 17, 2010
Time: 10:00 am Central DST
Bio: Click Here
Works: Film #1Film #2
Links: Website, Video #1, Video #2
To Listen: Visit our BlogTalkRadio Page
Dial-in: Call 646-727-3170 to ask a question.

Guest: Marc Morano
Date: April 21, 2010
Time: 6:30 pm Central DST
Bio: Click Here
Works: WebsiteEsquire Profile
Links: Video #1, Video #2, Video #3
To Listen: Visit our BlogTalkRadio Page
Dial-in: Call 646-727-3170 to ask a question.

Guest: Steve Milloy
Date: April 28, 2010
Time: 7:00 pm Central DST
Bio: Click Here
Works: Website, Book #1, Book #2
Links: Video #1, Video #2, Video #3
To Listen: Visit our BlogTalkRadio Page
Dial-in: Call 646-727-3170 to ask a question.

Guest: Joseph D'Aleo
Date: May 1, 2010
Time: 10:00 am Central DST
Bio: Click Here
Works: Website, Paper, Book
Links: Video #1, Video #2, Video #3
To Listen: Visit our BlogTalkRadio Page
Dial-in: Call 646-727-3170 to ask a question.


Questions for Our Guests May Also Be Submitted in Advance to

markgillar@hootervillegazette.com

[Boo]

Who's who on climate fraud
By: Barbara Hollingsworth
Local Opinion Editor
December 4, 2009

In 1912, a respected paleontologist at the British Museum confirmed that bones found in a Piltdown quarry came from the “missing link” between apes and humans. Forty years later, the so-called Piltdown Man was proved to be a hoax. Thanks to purloined e-mails from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU), global warming is turning out to be the 21st-century equivalent of Piltdown Man.

E-mails between a small group of highly influential climate scientists at the center of the worldwide panic over global warming exposed multiple discussions among them concerning their manipulation of data and using various evasive tactics to avoid releasing the facts behind their ginned-up numbers to the public via Freedom of Information Act requests.

Here’s a rogue’s gallery of five major perpetrators of what’s turning out to be the biggest scientific hoax in modern history:

These five, though far from being the only ones,
are among the top perpetrators of the Great Global Warming Hoax.
They should never be taken seriously again.

Geoff Jenkins, chairman of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s first scientific group and self-described “frontman explaining climate change.” Jenkins admitted in 1996 to a “cunning plan” to feed fake temperature information to Nick Nuttall, head of media for the United Nations Environment program. At the time, Jenkins predicted temperatures in London would hit 113 degrees Fahrenheit and the Thames River would rise three feet even though 1996 was, in fact, cooler than 1995.

Phil Jones, director of the CRU, controlled two key databases that are the primary sources underlying claims by the United Nations and others of a global scientific “consensus” that catastrophic consequences will result from man-made global warming unless trillions of dollars are spent now to prevent it.
Jones e-mailed instructions to colleagues to “hide the decline” in temperatures and to pressure editors of academic journals to blackball the work of “climate skeptics.”
After claiming that the original climate data had been destroyed in the 1980s, Jones was caught urging his CRU colleagues to “delete as appropriate” data requested under Britain’s freedom of information laws.

Michael Mann, director of Penn State University’s Earth System Science Center, is one of the lead authors of the U.N.’s Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change report. Mann was the originator of the “hockey stick” graph that supposedly proved that the Earth’s temperature was at the highest level in recorded history. However, it also appeared to eliminate both the Medieval Warm Period, in which surface temperatures were higher than they are today, and Europe’s “Little Ice Age.”
In 2003, Canadian statistician Steve McIntyre exposed the flawed methodology behind Mann’s hockey stick. The recent e-mail leak led another scientist to quip: “Dr. Mann is in transition from Penn State to State Pen. We can only hope he does a better job with license plates.”
Mann has been a committee chairman for the National Academy of Sciences and a member of multiple NAS panels and committees.

James Hansen, head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, whose records were also cited as evidence, second only to the CRU data, of incontrovertible man-made global warming. McIntyre also caught Hansen engaging in the same sort of statistical manipulation in which past temperatures were lowered and recent ones “adjusted” to convey the false impression that the nonexistent warming trend was accelerating. After trying to block McIntyre’s IP address, NASA was forced to back down from its claim that 1998 was the hottest year in U.S. history.

Al Gore, Former Vice President Al Gore is the author of “An Inconvenient Truth,” star of the 2006 Oscar-winning movie of the same name and winner of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for his tireless efforts to limit economic development in industrialized countries with a cap-and-trade scheme. Many experts agree that such a system would increase food and energy prices, while wasting trillions of dollars on alternative energy sources (in which Gore is heavily invested). Gore’s case rests on the now-discredited theory that carbon dioxide emissions (which are increasing) are heating up the Earth’s atmosphere, even though actual global temperatures have been declining for at least a decade.

These five,
though far from being the only ones,
are among the top perpetrators of the Great Global Warming Hoax.
They should never be taken seriously again.

Barbara F. Hollingsworth is The Examiner's local opinion editor.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/op...#ixzz0lpOR4dYF

(FOR A SPECIAL GRAPHIC LAYOUT, CLICK HERE)

[Boo]

– as a scam!

'Climategate' author unveils evidence of 'every deception imaginable'

climategate3d-autographed.jpg

Al Gore's insistence that global warming is "settled science" has been used to defend claims humanity is on the edge of destroying the world. Now author Brian Sussman, whose book is being released – Earth Day – agrees it's "settled," as a scam.

Sussman unveils in his book evidence that the move to restrict carbon-dioxide emissions, tax a multitude of energy programs and create a "Big Brother" that would limit household energy use, among other programs, is

a move to give government unlimited control over people.

[Boo]

GUESS I'VE BEEN WRONG ALL ALONG

[Boo]

Hannity - New Film Refutes Global Warming (11.20.09)

How the UN Climate panel lies about global warming - The Medieval Warm Period warmer than the present, therefore mankind can't be responsible for present day warming.

Check out all the Monckton videos on Global Warming on the right also - amazing!