| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
kookomula
Validated Poster
Joined: 17 Sep 2005
Posts: 328
|
 Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2007 2:23 am Post subject: Confusion rains.....US Gag Scientist - Global Warning |
 |
|
In detailed written testimony delivered yesterday to the US House of Representatives, Dr Hansen said that there had been creeping politicisation of climate change with the effect that the American public has been left confused about the science of global warming.
"During my career I have noticed an increasing politicisation of public affairs at headquarters level, with a notable effect on communication from scientists to the public," Dr Hansen writes in his testimony. "Interference with communication of science to the public has been greater during the current administration than at any time in my career," he says. "In my more than three decades in government, I have never seen anything approaching the degree to which information flow from scientists to the public has been screened and controlled as it has now.
Political appointees within the public affairs office at Nasa headquarters were accused by Dr Hansen of interfering in scientific statements and of blocking reports that link rising temperatures or melting sea ice with global warming. He says instructions and reprimands were often made orally so that there was no paper or electronic record of the interference, which allowed press relations personnel to dismiss gagging allegations as hearsay.
"My suggestion for getting at the truth is to question the relevant participants under oath, including the then Nasa associate administrator for earth sciences, who surely is aware of who in the White House was receiving and reviewing press releases that related to climate change," Dr Hansen says.
When Dr Hansen gave a lecture to the American Geophysical Union about the record global temperatures in 1995, the White House called Nasa headquarters to complain of the resulting media attention. "The upshot was a new explicit set of constraints on me, including the requirement that any media interviews be approved beforehand and that headquarters have the right of first refusal on all interviews," he says.
"It became clear that the new constraints on my communications were going to be a real impediment when I was forced to take down from our website our routine posting of updated global temperature analysis."
Since then, Nasa has slashed its budget for the study of earth sciences.
"The impact is to confuse the public about the reality of global warming, and about whether that warming can be reliably attributed to human-made greenhouse gases," he says.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article2374354.ece |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
bgmark2
Wrecker
Joined: 05 May 2007
Posts: 15
|
| Posted: Mon May 21, 2007 3:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
sounds like reverse propaganda...but along with the German rocket scientists perhaps the US got the nazi propagandrists as well
_________________
yes u knw |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stefan
Banned
Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 1219
|
| Posted: Mon May 21, 2007 7:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
Reverse propaganda *slaps forehead*
Yes thats right DECADES and DECADES of the US Government repressing and attacking scientists who said man was contributing to climite change.
Billions upon billions of dollars spent by Exxon Mobil and Daimler Cyrstler to pay for articles and letters to be written throwing doubt on the fact that man was contributing to climate change.
Why????
For little us conspiracy theorists to convince us that infact man is contributing to climate change.
I am just about sick of the stupidity of man influenced climate change deniers on this site.
The logic is that the US government and multinational corporations, our natural enemies, are suddenly the good guys on this one issue.
Why?
Because due to the gradual noise being made about this issue over DECADES and DECADES, eventually the public is becoming more aware about the issue and European politicians are starting pay lip-service to it.
They aren't doing anything concrete of course, just making a few speeches and opportunistically putting some stealth taxes in place to take advantage of the publics concern while putting no significant restrictions on their own industry at the same time.
But that's quite enough for half the people here to say "the politicians are saying it's real... it MUST be false then" and suddenly scrabbling to get behind the junk science PAID FOR BY THE US GOVERNMENT, EXXON MOBIL AND DAIMLER CRYSTLER FOR CHRIST'S SAKE!!!! now our new best friends!!!!
Let me make this clear: Just because European politicians are making noise to placate voters and slapping a few new taxes on us does not mean Global Warming is a part of the New World Order's plans - look closer and NOTHING concrete is being done whatsoever to inhibit carbon burning.
The US Government and multinational corporations have been leading a propaganda war against the reality of man influenced climate change for a LONG, LONG, LONG time. The only reason they have been able to have any success is their near complete control of their media, in Europe this propaganda war has mostly failed forcing politicians to publicly mention how much they care about it while doing F.A. Next time a politician says the cares about the NHS and then cuts spending, I suppose you'll be saying the NHS is clearly a tool of the NWO, because, look, politicians are saying they care about it so it must be!
I would find it hilarious how such a large proportion of supposed dissidents against the new world order have jumped on a band wagon the NWO loving built in it's own garage, if it wasn't so goddamn tragic.
The "science" truthers vacantly spurt in support of this view was paid for by the US GOV and US CORPS, please, please, please WAKE UP!!!!!!!!!!!!
I don't expect any of you to agree with me, I just hope you're all comfy in the New World Order's back pocket.
_________________
Peace and Truth |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ishaar
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Jun 2006
Posts: 232
Location: uk
|
| Posted: Mon May 21, 2007 12:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Stefan
Here is a history of earth climate, from here:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/GB25Aa02.html
Looking at the history of the climate, if the following is true, it seems to vary widely through the ages. According to the article C02 levels are at an all time low. The problem is western governments will use global warming in the same way they use terrorism. It is likely they will even pull a few weather 'false flags' using the weather control technology they undeniably have.
| Quote: | A chronology of climate change
The last glaciation began 70,000 years ago and ended about 10,000 years ago. The Earth was a lot colder than it is now; snow and ice had accumulated on a lot of the land, glaciers existed on large areas and the sea levels were lower.
15,000 years ago: The last glaciation reaches a peak, with continental glaciers that cover a lot of the sub-polar and polar areas of the land areas of Earth. In North America, all of New England and all of the Great Lakes area, most of Ohio, Indiana, Minnesota and the North Dakotas, lie under ice sheets hundreds of meters thick. More than 37 million cubic kilometers of ice was tied up in these global sheets of ice. The average temperature on the surface of the Earth is estimated to have been cooler by approximately 6 degrees Celsius than currently. The sea level was more than 90 meters lower than currently.
15,000 years ago to 6,000 years ago: Global warming begins. The sheets of ice melt, and sea levels rise. Some heat source causes approximately 37 million cubic kilometers of ice to melt in approximately 9,000 years. Around 9,500 years ago, the last of the Northern European sheets of ice leave Scandinavia. Around 7,500 years ago, the last of the American sheets of ice leave Canada. This warming is neither stable nor the same everywhere. There are periods when mountain glaciers advance, and periods when they withdraw. These climatic changes vary extensively from place to place, with some areas affected while others are not. The tendency of warming is global and obvious, but very uneven. The causes of this period of warming are unknown.
8,000 years ago to 4,000 years ago: About 6,000 years ago, temperatures on the surface of Earth are about 3 degrees warmer than currently. The Arctic Ocean is ice-free, and mountain glaciers have disappeared from the mountains of Norway and the Alps in Europe, and from the Rocky Mountains of the United States and Canada. The ocean of the world is some three meters higher than currently. A lot of the present desert of the Sahara has a more humid, savannah-like climate, with giraffes and savannah fauna species.
4,000 years ago to AD 900: Global cooling begins. The Arctic Ocean freezes over, mountain glaciers form once more in the Rocky Mountains, in Norway and in the Alps. The Black Sea freezes over several times, and ice forms on the Nile in Egypt. Northern Europe gets a lot wetter, and the marshes develop again in previously dry areas. The sea level drops to approximately its present level. The temperatures on the surface of the Earth are about 0.5-1 degree cooler than at present. The causes of this period of cooling are unknown.
AD 1000 to 1500: This period has quick, but uneven, warming of the climate of the Northern Hemisphere. The North Atlantic becomes ice-free and Norse exploration as far as North America takes place. The Norse colonies in Greenland even export crop surpluses to Scandinavia. Wine grapes grow in southern Britain. The temperatures are from 3-8 degrees warmer than currently. The period lasts only a brief 500 years. By the year 1500, it has vanished. The Earth experiences as much warming between the 11th and the 13th century as is now predicted by global-warming scientists for the next century. The causes of this period of warming are unknown.
1430 to 1880: This is a period of the fast but uneven cooling of Northern Hemisphere climates. Norwegian glaciers advance to their most distant extension in post-glacial times. The northern forests disappear, to be replaced with tundra. Severe winters characterize a lot of Europe and North America. The channels and rivers get colder, the snows get heavy, and the summers cool and short. The temperatures on the surface of the world are about 0.5-1.5 degrees cooler than present. In the United States, 1816 is known as the "year with no summer". Snow falls in New England in June. The widespread failure of crops and deaths due to hypothermia are common. The causes of this period of cooling are unknown.
1880 to 1940: A period of warming. The mountain glaciers recede and the ice in the Arctic Ocean begins to melt again. The causes of this period of warming are unknown.
1940 to 1977: Cooling period. The temperatures are cooler than currently. Mountain glaciers recede, and some begin to advance. The tabloids inform us of widespread catastrophes due to the "New Glaciation". The causes of this period of cooling are unknown.
1977 to present: Warming period. The summer of 2003 is said to be the warmest one since the Middle Ages. The tabloids notify us of widespread catastrophes due to "global warming". The causes of warming are discovered - humanity and its carbon-dioxide-generating fossil-fuel use and deforestation.
Comments
The above chronology of recent (geologically speaking) climate changes should place global-warming catastrophists (such as those who developed the Kyoto treaty) in an awkward position. Their fundamental assumption is that Earth's climate was stable and was doing just fine before the Industrial Revolution started interfering with climate's "natural" state. It is the Industrial Revolution, and in particular the use of fossil-fuel-burning machines, that has led us to the brink of environmental catastrophe due to global warming caused by increasing amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere.
But it is plain to see that both warming and cooling occurred numerous times before the Industrial Revolution. Similarly, all the dire predictions of global-warming consequences - sea-level rise, for example - have happened in the past. In fact, the greatest warming period was when dinosaurs walked the land (about 70 million to 130 million years ago). There was then five to 10 times as much CO2 in the atmosphere as there is today, and the average temperature was 4-11 degrees Celsius warmer. Those conditions should have been very helpful to life, since they permitted those immense creatures to find an abundance of food and they survived.
The Cretaceous was an intense "greenhouse world" with high surface temperatures. These high temperatures were due to the much higher level of CO2 in the atmosphere at the time - four to 10 times as much as is in our air today. The biota was a mixture of the exotic and familiar - luxuriant green forests of now-extinct trees flourished within the Arctic Circle and dinosaurs roamed. The global sea level was at its highest ever during this period, peaking during the Late Cretaceous around 86 million years ago. It is certain that the global sea level was well over 200 meters higher during this time than it is today. The Earth was immensely hotter, the CO2 vastly more plentiful, and the sea levels much higher than they are today.
The Earth has also been immensely colder, the CO2 much less plentiful, and the sea levels much lower than today. Fifteen thousand years ago, the sea level was at least 90 meters lower than it is today. The land looked bare because it was too cold for beech and oak trees to grow. There were a few fir trees here and there. No grass grew, however, just shrubs, bushes and moss grass. In the northern parts of North America, Europe and Asia there was still tundra. The animals were different from today too. Back then there were woolly mammoth, woolly rhinos, cave bears (the former three now extinct), bison, wolves, horses, and herds of reindeer like modern-day reindeer.
The major "sin" for the global warmists is CO2. The Kyoto treaty is meant to reduce the amount of this gas so as, they say, to reduce the degree of warming and eventually return us to some stable climate system. If we look at the historical situation, however, this is cause for alarm. For one thing, there has never been a stable climate system. For another, the level of CO2 in our atmosphere is near its historic low. In the long run, the greatest danger is too little rather than too much CO2. There has been a long-term reduction of CO2 throughout the 4.5-billion-year history of the Earth. If this tendency continues, eventually our planet may become as lifeless as Mars. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stefan
Banned
Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 1219
|
| Posted: Mon May 21, 2007 1:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yes classic - a philosophy lecturer whoes greatest acheivement is a book called "sex in islam" wagging his finger at genuine scientists reserearch calling them "catostrophists".
The basic sentiment is wrong- climatologists do not say the climate is or ever has been stable - they say man's burning of carbon is influencing the climate and making it warm further. Why is that difficult to understand?
In gaseous form carbon traps heat in the earths atmosphere.
Burning carbon liquid or solids convert them to gas.
You'll never find a global warming shill (or in this case unqualified gullible nitwit) trying to deney this; they can't.
Instead they say "but climate can change naturally so we can't be anything to do with it" like a moronic detective turning up at a crime scene where a man is riddled with bullets and saying "ah but we all know people die of natural causes, case closed". Or "but water vapour traps more heat" So what? It's about a balance being tipped. We NEED heat, we NEED "green house gasses" or we'll all freeze, but the added effects of our burning of carbon is tipping that balance.
Mean while the hunt for a qualified scientist who has published an aritcal echoing the same sentiments who is not funded by or working for an energy or automobile company continues...
Meanwhile Exxon mobil and Daimler-Crystler pay millions in grants to scientists every year to write articals (never peer reviewed papers) saying this, the US government suppress their own government scientists reports saying climate change is influenced by man... and this has been going on for decades.
What a f*cking coup for the New World Order this has been, the people who are supposed to be fighting them are suddenly their new best friends because someone whispered in their ear that they'd be taxed if they believed the nasty lies.
"So what if this is what the US government and corporations have been spending billions on trying to get us to think this for years and they are our enemy, now our own governments asking us to pay taxes because of it, they must now be our friend"
 I'm done posting on this it gets me too annoyed.
_________________
Peace and Truth |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ishaar
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Jun 2006
Posts: 232
Location: uk
|
| Posted: Mon May 21, 2007 1:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Regardless of the authors credentials is the history of climate change he descrbes accurate? I think he probably did rely on scientific data for this article rather than his own research into Earth climate.
Is it also true that co2 levels are at an all time low?
It looks like we aren't going to get a balanced view then, if the reports are being paid for by either the oil companies or infuenced by corrupt power crazed governments. Maybe the most unbiased info comes from publications dating prior to the present climate of frenzy.
| Quote: | | they say man's burning of carbon is influencing the climate and making it warm further. Why is that difficult to understand? |
Yes but how much further? Enough to cause global catastrophy?
I'm not sure one way or the other.
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm
| Quote: | Among experts who actually examine the causes of change on a global scale, many concentrate their research on designing and enhancing computer models of hypothetical futures. "These models have been consistently wrong in all their scenarios," asserts Ball. "Since modelers concede computer outputs are not "predictions" but are in fact merely scenarios, they are negligent in letting policy-makers and the public think they are actually making forecasts."
We should listen most to scientists who use real data to try to understand what nature is actually telling us about the causes and extent of global climate change. In this relatively small community, there is no consensus, despite what Gore and others would suggest.
Here is a small sample of the side of the debate we almost never hear:
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?"
Patterson concluded his testimony by explaining what his research and "hundreds of other studies" reveal: on all time scales, there is very good correlation between Earth's temperature and natural celestial phenomena such changes in the brightness of the Sun. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stefan
Banned
Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 1219
|
| Posted: Mon May 21, 2007 2:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
ishaar,
Now you're making more sense.
Yes it is true that there is much disagreement between climatologists about exactly what the effects of this current man influenced climate change will be - but virtually every model has common ground: notably that sea levels will rise.
Will the be catstophic? If you're bangladeshi or dutch absolutley. But virtually no model stops just at this point, all with other unpleasant outcomes, but they all agree that at least this will happen.
Man is contributing to and influencing climate change towards warming which may cause a climate which will not sustain life, and will certainly reduce quality of life greatly.
The US and corporations have been fighting for ignorance of this for decades, now they are going on a full frontal propaganda attack, it breaks my heart that so many who should be in the resistence have been conned.
What will happen, exactly? We don't know, but it is like jumping off a cliff and hoping you might grow wings to think its OK just to wait and see.
_________________
Peace and Truth |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Craig W
Validated Poster
Joined: 22 Feb 2007
Posts: 485
|
| Posted: Mon May 21, 2007 2:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There is a useful and comprehensive thread looking with a sceptical eye at anthropogenic global warming here:
http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=106
It includes many, many links to sources suggesting that the current so-called consensus view may not be correct.
_________________
"Nothing can trouble you but your own imagination." ~ Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stefan
Banned
Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 1219
|
| Posted: Mon May 21, 2007 3:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Craig, that thread was interesting.
First we have the article by the philosopher who wrote the book on Islam and Sex and has no scientific degree but has obviously been reading his right wing websites and knows the truth!
Dandy.
Next up we have a thrilling piece by the National Center for Policy Analysis.
Haven’t you heard of these guys before? It’s a right wing political think tank, not a science based group. It is also funded by the oil industry having received $390,900 from ExxonMobil between 1998 and 2005.
(Source:http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=55)
If you’d like to know more about this right wing think tank and their various views on why Hugo Chavez is evil, immigration is evil, socialised medicine is evil, abortion is evil and why the class divide in America is a myth, please do browse their website: http://www.ncpa.org/
Next up we have a paper by AIM (Accuracy in Media) who are one of the groups most responsible for the “Left Wing Media” fantasy which operates in the US (really! Most right wing Americans are convinced their media has a liberal bias, this has been effective propaganda for rubbishing any news which might filter through the controls the right wing media has which is not favourable for republicans). They were set up by Reed Irvine, whose fortune was largely in oil investment. In AIM's first year, Irvine advocated that Students for a Democratic Society, the Black Panthers and the Progressive Labor Party be charged with sedition during the Vietnam War, and is funded by *drum roll* THE OIL AND CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES (big surprise). Funding to AIM includes Exxon-Mobil Oil, Union Carbide, and various power companies. In 1985 AIM recieved a $20,000 grant from the Adolph Coors Foundation and $7,000 from the Texaco Philanthropic Foundation Inc. In 1986 they recieved $5,000 from Texaco.
Please do take a look at their vitriolic right wing website: http://www.aim.org/index.html
(Sources: http://www.fair.org/extra/9807/myth-makers.html http://rightweb.irc-online.org/groupwatch/aim.php)
In their article they quote Richard Lindzen who charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels, and a speech he wrote, entitled 'Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,' was underwritten by OPEC.
Am I the only one who sees a pattern emmerging?
Jesus... the resistence curled up in the palm of the New World Order what a state of afairs...
_________________
Peace and Truth |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616
|
| Posted: Mon May 21, 2007 6:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Is it also true that co2 levels are at an all time low? |
In this week's new scientist it is written -
| Quote: | | ...ice cores show that levels show that levels in the atmosphere have remained fairly steady at between 180 and 300 parts per million for the past half-million years, only to shoot up to more than 380ppm since the industrial age began |
They're running what's basically a debunking piece on the 'it's not us' theory this week. Probably worth a look for those with interest in this area.
I don't claim to know much about it, but think Stefan has made some very good points. Any 'research' funded by a corporate entity is pretty much guaranteed to say what that corporate entity wishes to hear. That's standard. People have been ringing alarm bells about this stuff for years and there's a world of difference between whether it's exploited politically as opposed to whether it's actually true.
Personally, I quite like the take on it in this month's Viz
| Quote: | A study by a government environmental taskforce has concluded that the planet Earth is 'completely bolloxed'. And leading scientists announced today that any attempts to stop the effects of global warming would be like 'pissing in the wind'.
The findings, published in New Scientist Magazine, overturn conventional thinking that by changing our habits, worsening freak weather conditions can be reversed.
Speaking next to a pile of burning tyres, the goovernment's chief meteorologist Cliff Spawn told reporters: "Turning your heating down by one degree is going to change precisely f*ck all. There are chemical factories and all sorts pumping tonnes of sh!te into the atmosphere all day every day. Think about that the next time you walk to walk in the pouring rain." |
_________________
It's a man's life in MOSSAD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Craig W
Validated Poster
Joined: 22 Feb 2007
Posts: 485
|
| Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 8:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Stefan wrote: | Craig, that thread was interesting.
|
Did you really read it, Stefan? In just half an hour? It is very long (190 posts and 13 pages with many in depth articles and links) and includes much, much more than the couple of allegedly dubious references you made.
I suspect that if you really did read the thread you might be less enthusiastic about the current "consensus" view.
There are many scientists opposing the IPCC's model and conclusions regarding anthopogenic global warming. Some 17,000, I think, have so far signed a petition organised by an Oregon-based Institute whose name eludes me - but is mentioned on that thread.
These scientists don't all agree. They differ over what the role of CO2 is in the climate, whether the earth is warming at all, whether it is warming because of us, whether rising CO2 is a bad thing, etc, etc. But they all agree that the current IPCC stance is alarmist and scientifially unfounded. So it seems we have widely diverging opinion on AGW within the earth science community.
Are you suggesting that these opposing scientists are NWO shills or corporate whores?
What about the fact that globalists and TNCs are at the forefront of pushing the AGW meme? The Club of Rome has explicitly stated that it wanted to use environmental issues such as global warming to further the globalist agenda.
Here is some evidence that the Club of Rome (which is stuffed with globalists) have been planning the global warming psy-op for many years.
In a report titled "The First Global Revolution" (1991):
| Quote: | | "In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.... All these dangers are caused by human intervention... The real enemy, then, is humanity itself." |
Al Gore was a member of Club of Rome in 1991 with Maurice Strong who authored Kyoto Protocols one year after this CoR report was published. Gore represented the US at the Kyoto Protocols conference in Kyoto in 1992: "The 1997 meeting will be held in Washington DC for the first time ever in the continental U.S. The topic is Multimedia and Society. The meeting will be chaired by Vice President Al Gore." (q: 1997)
Source: Daniel Taylor
http://www.oldthinkernews.com/Articles/oldthinker%20news/global_warmin g_hysteria_serves_as_part2.htm
This old Club of Rome report is available on Amazon at .72 cents if she wants to verify the statement.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/0679738258/ref=dp_olp_2/103-372 8773-5841424
Club of Rome citation of the report
THE FIRST GLOBAL REVOLUTION
Alexander King & Bertrand Schneider
Simon & Schuster, London, 1991
Below is the 2007 article documenting the above sourced quotation from the Club of Rome's own document.
| Quote: | Global warming hysteria serves as excuse for world government Part 1
If world government is to be achieved by consent, the world must be sold on the idea of world government and its necessity
Print article
<a href="http://www.oldthinkernews.com/Articles/oldthinker%20news/global_ warming_hysteria_serves_a.htm">Old-thinker news</a> | March 12, 2007
By Daniel Taylor
Proponents of a system of world government and the tyrannical measures that accompany it have seized upon the popular issue of global warming to advance long existing plans for global governance. World government has been the desire of power hungry organizations and the individuals running them for many years. The Bilderberg Group, CFR, Trilateral Commission, and their think tanks like the Club of Rome are all such organizations. Council on Foreign Relations member James Paul Warburg, who was the son of Paul Moritz Warburg, a prominent banker, stated before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1950 that, “We shall have world government whether or not you like it -- by conquest or consent.”
Terrorism, economics, and global warming are all reasons given by proponents of world government as evidence of the necessity for a new world order. If world government is to be achieved by consent, as Mr. Warburg put it, then the world must be sold on the idea of world government and its necessity.
In a report titled "The First Global Revolution" (1991) published by the Club of Rome, a globalist think tank, we find the following statement: "In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.... All these dangers are caused by human intervention... The real enemy, then, is humanity itself."
In the past, the Club of Rome has resorted to deceptive tactics in order to support their plans. In 1972, the Club of Rome, along with an MIT team released a report called "Limits to growth." The report stated that we were to reach an environmental holocaust by the year 2000 due to overpopulation and other environmental problems. Support for their conclusions was gathered by results from a computer model. Aurelio Peccei, one of the founders of the Club of Rome, later confessed that the computer program had been written to give the desired results.
Today, global warming and climate change in general have become foundational issues for one of the largest political movements of our time. As more focus is placed on global warming, the solutions which are being presented to the world often have nothing to do with what many are saying is the root cause of the problem. Scientific evidence has emerged, highlighted in the documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle," which supports the theory that the sun is in fact a major driving force behind global warming. Ice core samples show that CO2 levels (which are blamed by many to be the initiating force behind a rise in global temperature) rise 800 years after an initial rise in temperature. Other data gathered regarding solar activity show a clear connection between fluctuations in the sun's activity and temperature variations on earth. If the sun is in fact the culprit for changes in the earth's temperature, world taxes, global government and other solutions we are being given are not cutting to the root cause of climate change.
In response to the conventional explanation of global warming, several calls have been made by various individuals to create a system of world government, and put into place rigid controls over the lives of millions across the world.
Richard Haass, the current president of the Council on Foreign Relations, stated in his article "State sovereignty must be altered in globalized era," that a system of world government must be created and sovereignty eliminated in order to fight global warming, as well as terrorism. "Moreover, states must be prepared to cede some sovereignty to world bodies if the international system is to function," says Haass. "Globalization thus implies that sovereignty is not only becoming weaker in reality, but that it needs to become weaker. States would be wise to weaken sovereignty in order to protect themselves..."
Gordon Brown, the potential future Prime Minister of the UK, stated recently that a 'new world order' must be created in order to combat global warming.
Dr. Eric R. Pianka, a professor at the University of Texas who has a following of dedicated environmentalists, made startling comments regarding population reduction to a group of students and other scientists in April of 2006. Because of the negative effects of overpopulation on the earth, Pianka proposed that the Ebola virus be used as a tool of population reduction. Pianka also praised China's one child policy, saying that, "China was able to turn the corner and become the leading world super power because they have a police state and they are able to force people to stop re-producing."
Everyone, regardless of your position on global warming or the environment, must take into consideration the solutions that we are being given, as well as the forces behind them which seek to create a global system of domination and control. |
| Quote: | Global Warming Hysteria Serves As Excuse For World Government: Part 2
"Fear of environmental crises — whether real or not — is expected to lead to compliance.”
<a href="http://www.oldthinkernews.com/Articles/oldthinker%20news/global_ warming_hysteria_serves_as_part2.htm">Old-thinker news</a> | April 16, 2007
By Daniel Taylor
In the first article that I wrote regarding this subject I overlooked some key points which I failed to mention. As reported, Richard Haass, president of the CFR stated that in order to stop global warming, "...states must be prepared to cede some sovereignty to world bodies if the international system is to function," and "Globalization thus implies that sovereignty is not only becoming weaker in reality, but that it needs to become weaker. States would be wise to weaken sovereignty in order to protect themselves..." Gordon Brown, the potential Prime Minister of the U.K. stated that a 'new world order' must be created to combat global warming.
Global Governance: Why? How? When? is a paper written by Henry Lamb, which was published by the Murchison Chair of Free Enterprise College of Engineering in 1996. The paper details the progression of plans laid by the elite for global governance. The focus of this article is on one particular section of Lamb's paper regarding the role of environmentalism and the rise of global governance. Full credit is given to Henry Lamb for the research of and compilation of the information that will be cited. As mentioned before, elite groups such as the Bilderberg group, Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission and the Club of Rome play key roles in the development and implementation of these plans. These organizations have an interlocking web of connections by members often sharing positions in each group. Think tanks create plans, and other globalist organizations work to implement those plans.
Henry Lamb states, regarding the Club of Rome and their report regarding environmental issues called Limits to Growth,
"Among the more important but lesser known organizations... are the Club of Rome (COR — 1968) and the Trilateral Commission (TC — 1973). The COR is a small group of international industrialists educators, economists, national and international civil servants. Among them were various Rockefellers and approximately 25 CFR members. Maurice Strong was one of the "international” civil servants. Their first book, The Limits to Growth, published in 1972 unabashedly describes the world as they believe it should be:
“We believe in fact that the need will quickly become evident for social innovation to match technical change, for radical reform of the institutions and political processes at all levels, including the highest, that of world polity. And since intellectual enlightenment is without effect if it is not also political, The Club of Rome also will encourage the creation of a world forum where statesmen, policy-makers, and scientists can discuss the dangers and hopes for the future global system without the constraints of formal intergovernmental negotiation.”
Another report that the Club of Rome released, called Mankind at the Turning Point, outlines the goal of necessary change in 'world consciousness' in order for world government to succeed.
“The solution of these crises can be developed only in a global context with full and explicit recognition of the emerging world system and on a long-term basis. This would necessitate, among other changes, a new world economic order and a global resources allocation system . . . . A ‘world consciousness' must be developed through which every individual realizes his role as a member of the world community . . . . It must become part of the consciousness of every individual that the basic unit of human cooperation and hence survival is moving from the national to the global level.”
Robert Marshall, who organized the Wilderness Society in the 1930's wrote in his book, The People's Forests, that
“Public ownership is the only basis on which we can hope to protect the incalculable values of the forests for wood resources, for soil and water conservation, and for recreation . . . . Regardless of whether it might be desirable, it is impossible under our existing form of government to confiscate the private forests into public ownership. We cannot afford to delay their nationalization until the form of government changes.”
The United Nations (the land which it sits upon was donated by John D. Rockefeller Jr.) is yet another organization that has pursued - and failed on many occasions - the creation of a system of world government.
One branch of the U.N. is UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization). Julian Huxley, brother of Aldous Huxley - the author of Brave New World - was the first Director General of UNESCO. Julian also served as the vice president of the Eugenics society from 1937 to 1944. Julian wrote in UNESCO: Its Purpose and Its Philosophy that,
“Thus even though it is quite true that any radical eugenic policy will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible, it will be important for UNESCO to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care, and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that now is unthinkable may at least become thinkable.”
As noted previously, Dr. Eric Pianka of the University of Texas stated before a group of students and fellow scientists that population reduction would be necessary to save the earth.
UNCED (United Nations Conference on Environment and Development) held a conference in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. Dr. Dixy Lee Ray, who attended the conference stated that,
“The objective, clearly enunciated by the leaders of UNCED, is to bring about a change in the present system of independent nations. The future is to be World Government with central planning by the United Nations. Fear of environmental crises — whether real or not — is expected to lead to compliance.”
Citations and notes by Henry Lamb can be found here. I encourage everyone to read through this well written and documented work and consider the ramifications of this information. |
_________________
"Nothing can trouble you but your own imagination." ~ Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stefan
Banned
Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 1219
|
| Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 9:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
I read the page which you linked me, and every name and institute mentioned (excepting the philosophy professor already dealt with) proved to have Oil Corp ascosiations.
I am familiar with the argument you are making about the NWO, but it is in no way linked to whether or not man is influenceing climate change. Simply that the NWO will use any excuse and any opportunity to argue for their goals. A NWO figure saying "oh we could battle MICC if we formed a world governemnt" is hardly surprising, now people are starting to take it seriously, neither does it negate any of the points I have made above.
The simple fact is that you linked me a page on a thread, I researched every single name mentioned on it (actually you may notice from the speed of my reply that I already knew them by sight, having been interested in the subject for a long time) and it was 100% uncredible.
In terms of the imfamous Oregon petition:
In 2005, Scientific American reported:
“ Scientific American took a sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition —- one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers – a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community.”
And if anyone can give me their names - I am 100% confidant where their funding would be from.
In a 2005 op-ed in the Hawaii Reporter, Todd Shelly wrote:
“ In less than 10 minutes of casual scanning, I found duplicate names (Did two Joe R. Eaglemans and two David Tompkins sign the petition, or were some individuals counted twice?), single names without even an initial (Biolchini), corporate names (Graybeal & Sayre, Inc. How does a business sign a petition?), and an apparently phony single name (Redwine, Ph.D.). These examples underscore a major weakness of the list: there is no way to check the authenticity of the names. Names are given, but no identifying information (e.g., institutional affiliation) is provided. Why the lack of transparency?”
In May 1998 the Seattle Times wrote:
“ Several environmental groups questioned dozens of the names: "Perry S. Mason" (the fictitious lawyer?), "Michael J. Fox" (the actor?), "Robert C. Byrd" (the senator?), "John C. Grisham" (the lawyer-author?). And then there's the Spice Girl, a k a. Geraldine Halliwell: The petition listed "Dr. Geri Halliwell" and "Dr. Halliwell."
Asked about the pop singer, Robinson said he was duped. The returned petition, one of thousands of mailings he sent out, identified her as having a degree in microbiology and living in Boston. "It's fake," he said."
You say all scientists disagree on the effects of MICC - I fully agree - only a small amount of reading on the subject will tell you same. But you did not indicate what percentage were saying there was no such thing.
Bring ANY names to me, ANY names who actually refelct your view, and I am fairly confidant that I will be able to demonstrate that they are either not qualified to say what they are saying (i.e. they are doctors of a non scientific discipline who simply read right wing publications and use their phd status to give some kind of inferred authority when repeating what they have read) or they can be demonstrated to be paid by Oil, Automobile industries or right wing think tanks.
Our enemies.
Once upon a time anyway...
_________________
Peace and Truth |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Craig W
Validated Poster
Joined: 22 Feb 2007
Posts: 485
|
| Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 12:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Craig W wrote: | There is a useful and comprehensive thread looking with a sceptical eye at anthropogenic global warming here:
http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=106
It includes many, many links to sources suggesting that the current so-called consensus view may not be correct. |
Hi Stefan,
Just a couple of points. I don't want to get into a debate about the accuracy of the IPCC view. I am not a climatologist and I suspect you aren't either.
This is my earlier post. It was not particularly addressed to you but to anyone who was interested. I didn't state my view. You say I directed you to a page and that you read it. I did not. I simply posted a thread of relevance, which I found interesting. I still don't know whether you read the thread.
I doubt that all of the sources on that thread can be directly related to oil corporations. That some are does not prove anything. Oil companies are also promoting AGW. So where does that leave us? Also, I trust you are familiar with the concept of fake or controlled opposition. We don't know whether their motives are genuine.
You are right that the NWO crew will co-opt genuine issues as well as create their own. We cannot yet know which category their interest in AGW fits into.
Just one other throw away thought: there is some "chatter" among conspiracy theorists about the possible role of HAARP in the apparent warming of earth. I don't know what if anything to make of this notion. But it is not out of the question imo.
Regarding the petition, that's interesting. I wonder what the true figure of signatories is. Do you know?
That's all from me. 
_________________
"Nothing can trouble you but your own imagination." ~ Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stefan
Banned
Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 1219
|
| Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 12:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Craig,
As I said before, I read the page of the thread which you linked me, not the whole thread. Every name mentioned on that page, excepting the philosophy expert on Islam and Sex, were linked to oil corps. So with a limited selection, it was 100% uncredible. I didn't want to keep my response to you to a few days later, so I went with just that page.
You commented on how fast my reply was: that's because I have been involved in discussion about this for a long time, and in all of those cases I already knew the names of the think-tanks and people involved and where to link the evidence from.
Were you the guy I was speaking to about this at the AGM (sorry I'm terrible with names), if so, as I said then, on another forum I use I played a game with MICC deniers them- they were to try and find an article, letter, interview with a scientist who echoed their views which I could not link back to oil or automobile companies. Never once did I fail and in fact you'd find the same basic set of people cropping up all other the place in popular magazines and newspapers. The BBC even ran an artical saying MICC was a myth by someone on the board of Emerald Oil Corporation!!!! My letter of complaint was politley ignored.
In terms of the imfamous "dodgy petition", as I said in my last post Scientific American suggested there could be as many as 200 climatologists on that list. As I said above I'd like to see their names, as 200 is around about the number of climatologists I found to be on the pay roll of exxon and daimler cyrstler while playing the above mentioned game.
You're right I'm not a climatologist although as far as lay people go I have read a LOT on this issue and have fundraised for environmental charities, but no, I'm certainly not qualified to get into a debate about the science of it and wouldn't claim to be.
But regarding the point about "fake or controlled opposition" - there have been billions spent by the US government and Oil and Automobile corps over the last two and a half decades on repressing and attacking the notion of MICC this is a very expensive and long winded programme of "fake or controlled opposition".
What we are seeing NOW is "fake or controlled opposition" - European politians flapping their gums about how important MICC is (and doing nothing about it), Oil Corps putting out PR statements about how they are donating towards renewable eneregy resources (while with other hand still paying for junk science to discredit MICC), the US government, however, continues to lead the way in smearing and attacking anyone who supports MICC. This PR Lip service is working perfectly as fake opposition and I'm seeing the results right here, which saddens me as we are supposed to be opposition to the NWO and they are leading us with a leash.
Regarding HAARP. It's one of those issues which interests me greatly but I don't know much about.
_________________
Peace and Truth |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Craig W
Validated Poster
Joined: 22 Feb 2007
Posts: 485
|
| Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 4:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Stefan,
You may be right that all the alternative sources are tainted by oil companies. But citing one page of a 13-page thread neither proves that claim nor represents a fair reflection of that thread.
No it wasn't me at the AGM.
I am suspicious about the info on this matter from all sides. I am also suspicious at the politicans' readiness to use it as a stick to beat us with.
What do you make of Reid Bryson? Is he tainted? I am not offering this as proof of anything. As I have already stated, I am not qualified to endorse or question this stuff. But I find it superficially plausible.
http://www.wecnmagazine.com/2007issues/may/may07.html
| Quote: | The Faithful Heretic
A Wisconsin Icon Pursues Tough Questions
Some people are lucky enough to enjoy their work, some are lucky enough to love it, and then there’s Reid Bryson. At age 86, he’s still hard at it every day, delving into the science some say he invented.
Reid A. Bryson holds the 30th PhD in Meteorology granted in the history of American education. Emeritus Professor and founding chairman of the University of Wisconsin Department of Meteorology—now the Department of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences—in the 1970s he became the first director of what’s now the UW’s Gaylord Nelson Institute of Environmental Studies. He’s a member of the United Nations Global 500 Roll of Honor—created, the U.N. says, to recognize “outstanding achievements in the protection and improvement of the environment.” He has authored five books and more than 230 other publications and was identified by the British Institute of Geographers as the most frequently cited climatologist in the world.
Long ago in the Army Air Corps, Bryson and a colleague prepared the aviation weather forecast that predicted discovery of the jet stream by a group of B-29s flying to and from Tokyo. Their warning to expect westerly winds at 168 knots earned Bryson and his friend a chewing out from a general—and the general’s apology the next day when he learned they were right. Bryson flew into a couple of typhoons in 1944, three years before the Weather Service officially did such things, and he prepared the forecast for the homeward flight of the Enola Gay. Back in Wisconsin, he built a program at the UW that’s trained some of the nation’s leading climatologists.
How Little We Know
Bryson is a believer in climate change, in that he’s as quick as anyone to acknowledge that Earth’s climate has done nothing but change throughout the planet’s existence. In fact, he took that knowledge a big step further, earlier than probably anyone else. Almost 40 years ago, Bryson stood before the American Association for the Advancement of Science and presented a paper saying human activity could alter climate.
“I was laughed off the platform for saying that,” he told Wisconsin Energy Cooperative News.
In the 1960s, Bryson’s idea was widely considered a radical proposition. But nowadays things have turned almost in the opposite direction: Hardly a day passes without some authority figure claiming that whatever the climate happens to be doing, human activity must be part of the explanation. And once again, Bryson is challenging the conventional wisdom.
“Climate’s always been changing and it’s been changing rapidly at various times, and so something was making it change in the past,” he told us in an interview this past winter. “Before there were enough people to make any difference at all, two million years ago, nobody was changing the climate, yet the climate was changing, okay?”
“All this argument is the temperature going up or not, it’s absurd,” Bryson continues. “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.”
Little Ice Age? That’s what chased the Vikings out of Greenland after they’d farmed there for a few hundred years during the Mediaeval Warm Period, an earlier run of a few centuries when the planet was very likely warmer than it is now, without any help from industrial activity in making it that way. What’s called “proxy evidence”—assorted clues extrapolated from marine sediment cores, pollen specimens, and tree-ring data—helps reconstruct the climate in those times before instrumental temperature records existed.
We ask about that evidence, but Bryson says it’s second-tier stuff. “Don’t talk about proxies,” he says. “We have written evidence, eyeball evidence. When Eric the Red went to Greenland, how did he get there? It’s all written down.”
Bryson describes the navigational instructions provided for Norse mariners making their way from Europe to their settlements in Greenland. The place was named for a reason: The Norse farmed there from the 10th century to the 13th, a somewhat longer period than the United States has existed. But around 1200 the mariners’ instructions changed in a big way. Ice became a major navigational reference. Today, old Viking farmsteads are covered by glaciers.
Bryson mentions the retreat of Alpine glaciers, common grist for current headlines. “What do they find when the ice sheets retreat, in the Alps?”
We recall the two-year-old report saying a mature forest and agricultural water-management structures had been discovered emerging from the ice, seeing sunlight for the first time in thousands of years. Bryson interrupts excitedly.
“A silver mine! The guys had stacked up their tools because they were going to be back the next spring to mine more silver, only the snow never went,” he says. “There used to be less ice than now. It’s just getting back to normal.”
What Leads, What Follows?
What is normal? Maybe continuous change is the only thing that qualifies. There’s been warming over the past 150 years and even though it’s less than one degree, Celsius, something had to cause it. The usual suspect is the “greenhouse effect,” various atmospheric gases trapping solar energy, preventing it being reflected back into space.
We ask Bryson what could be making the key difference:
Q: Could you rank the things that have the most significant impact and where would you put carbon dioxide on the list?
A: Well let me give you one fact first. In the first 30 feet of the atmosphere, on the average, outward radiation from the Earth, which is what CO2 is supposed to affect, how much [of the reflected energy] is absorbed by water vapor? In the first 30 feet, 80 percent, okay?
Q: Eighty percent of the heat radiated back from the surface is absorbed in the first 30 feet by water vapor…
A: And how much is absorbed by carbon dioxide? Eight hundredths of one percent. One one-thousandth as important as water vapor. You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide.
This begs questions about the widely publicized mathematical models researchers run through supercomputers to generate climate scenarios 50 or 100 years in the future. Bryson says the data fed into the computers overemphasizes carbon dioxide and accounts poorly for the effects of clouds—water vapor. Asked to evaluate the models’ long-range predictive ability, he answers with another question: “Do you believe a five-day forecast?”
Bryson says he looks in the opposite direction, at past climate conditions, for clues to future climate behavior. Trying that approach in the weeks following our interview, Wisconsin Energy Cooperative News soon found six separate papers about Antarctic ice core studies, published in peer-reviewed scientific journals between 1999 and 2006. The ice core data allowed researchers to examine multiple climate changes reaching back over the past 650,000 years. All six studies found atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations tracking closely with temperatures, but with CO2 lagging behind changes in temperature, rather than leading them. The time lag between temperatures moving up—or down—and carbon dioxide following ranged from a few hundred to a few thousand years.
Renaissance Man, Marathon Man
When others were laughing at the concept, Reid Bryson was laying the ground floor for scientific investigation of human impacts on climate. We asked UW Professor Ed Hopkins, the assistant state climatologist, about the significance of Bryson’s work in advancing the science he’s now practiced for six decades.
“His contributions are manifold,” Hopkins said. “He wrote Climates of Hunger back in the 1970s looking at how climate changes over the last several thousand years have affected human activity and human cultures.”
This, he suggests, is traceable to Bryson’s high-school interest in archaeology, followed by college degrees in geology, then meteorology, and studies in oceanography, limnology, and other disciplines. “He’s looked at the interconnections of all these things and their impact on human societies,” Hopkins says. “He’s one of those people I would say is a Renaissance person.”
The Renaissance, of course, produced its share of heretics, and 21 years after he supposedly retired, one could ponder whether Bryson’s work today is a tale of continuing heresy, or of conventional wisdom being outpaced by an octogenarian.
Without addressing—or being asked—that question, UW Green Bay Emeritus Professor Joseph Moran agrees that Bryson qualifies as “the father of the science of modern climatology.”
“In his lifetime, in his career, he has shaped the future as well as the present state of climatology,” Moran says, adding, “We’re going to see his legacy with us for many generations to come.”
Holding bachelor’s and master’s degrees from Boston College, Moran became a doctoral candidate under Bryson in the late 1960s and early ’70s. “I came to Wisconsin because he was there,” Moran told us.
With Hopkins, Moran co-authored Wisconsin’s Weather and Climate, a book aimed at teachers, students, outdoor enthusiasts, and workers with a need to understand what the weather does and why. Bryson wrote a preface for the book but Hopkins told us the editors “couldn’t fathom” certain comments, thinking he was being too flippant with the remark that “Wisconsin is not for wimps when it comes to weather.”
Clearly what those editors couldn’t fathom was that Bryson simply enjoys mulling over the reasons weather and climate behave as they do and what might make them—and consequently us—behave differently. This was immediately obvious when we asked him why, at his age, he keeps showing up for work at a job he’s no longer paid to do.
“It’s fun!” he said. Ed Hopkins and Joe Moran would undoubtedly agree.
“I think that’s one of the reasons for his longevity,” Moran says. “He’s so interested and inquisitive. I regard him as a pot-stirrer. Sometimes people don’t react well when you challenge their long-held ideas, but that’s how real science takes place.”—Dave Hoopman |
_________________
"Nothing can trouble you but your own imagination." ~ Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cruise4
Validated Poster
Joined: 12 May 2007
Posts: 292
|
| Posted: Sat May 26, 2007 10:17 pm Post subject: I reckon CO2 led Global Warming is rubbish |
|
|
| And well tied in to the NWO Agenda. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Craig W
Validated Poster
Joined: 22 Feb 2007
Posts: 485
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 21, 2007 8:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Local scientist calls global warming theory hooey
Samara Kalk Derby
June 18, 2007
Reid Bryson, known as the father of scientific climatology, considers global warming a bunch of hooey.
The UW-Madison professor emeritus, who stands against the scientific consensus on this issue, is referred to as a global warming skeptic. But he is not skeptical that global warming exists, he is just doubtful that humans are the cause of it.
There is no question the earth has been warming. It is coming out of the "Little Ice Age," he said in an interview this week.
"However, there is no credible evidence that it is due to mankind and carbon dioxide. We've been coming out of a Little Ice Age for 300 years. We have not been making very much carbon dioxide for 300 years. It's been warming up for a long time," Bryson said.
The Little Ice Age was driven by volcanic activity. That settled down so it is getting warmer, he said.
Humans are polluting the air and adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, but the effect is tiny, Bryson said.
"It's like there is an elephant charging in and you worry about the fact that there is a fly sitting on its head. It's just a total misplacement of emphasis," he said. "It really isn't science because there's no really good scientific evidence."
Just because almost all of the scientific community believes in man-made global warming proves absolutely nothing, Bryson said. "Consensus doesn't prove anything, in science or anywhere else, except in democracy, maybe."
Bryson, 87, was the founding chairman of the department of meteorology at UW-Madison and of the Institute for Environmental Studies, now known as the Gaylord Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies. He retired in 1985, but has gone into the office almost every day since. He does it without pay.
"I have now worked for zero dollars since I retired, long enough that I have paid back the people of Wisconsin every cent they paid me to give me a wonderful, wonderful career. So we are even now. And I feel good about that," said Bryson.
So, if global warming isn't such a burning issue, why are thousands of scientists so concerned about it?
"Why are so many thousands not concerned about it?" Bryson shot back.
"There is a lot of money to be made in this," he added. "If you want to be an eminent scientist you have to have a lot of grad students and a lot of grants. You can't get grants unless you say, 'Oh global warming, yes, yes, carbon dioxide.'"
Speaking out against global warming is like being a heretic, Bryson noted.
And it's not something that he does regularly.
"I can't waste my time on that, I have too many other things to do," he said.
But if somebody asks him for his opinion on global warming, he'll give it. "And I think I know about as much about it as anybody does."
Up against his students' students: Reporters will often call the meteorology building seeking the opinion of a scientist and some beginning graduate student will pick up the phone and say he or she is a meteorologist, Bryson said. "And that goes in the paper as 'scientists say.'"
The word of this young graduate student then trumps the views of someone like Bryson, who has been working in the field for more than 50 years, he said. "It is sort of a smear."
Bryson said he recently wrote something on the subject and two graduate students told him he was wrong, citing research done by one of their professors. That professor, Bryson noted, is probably the student of one of his students.
"Well, that professor happened to be wrong," he said.
"There is very little truth to what is being said and an awful lot of religion. It's almost a religion. Where you have to believe in anthropogenic (or man-made) global warming or else you are nuts."
While Bryson doesn't think that global warming is man-made, he said there is some evidence of an effect from mankind, but not an effect of carbon dioxide.
For example, in Wisconsin in the last 100 years the biggest heating has been around Madison, Milwaukee and in the Southeast, where the cities are. There was a slight change in the Green Bay area, he said. The rest of the state shows no warming at all.
"The growth of cities makes it hotter, but that was true back in the 1930s, too," Bryson said. "Big cities were hotter than the surrounding countryside because you concentrate the traffic and you concentrate the home heating. And you modify the surface, you pave a lot of it."
Bryson didn't see Al Gore's movie about global warming, "An Inconvenient Truth."
"Don't make me throw up," he said. "It is not science. It is not true."
Not so fast, say scientists: Galen McKinley, an assistant professor of atmospheric and oceanic sciences at UW-Madison disagrees with Bryson, whom she notes is a respected researcher and professor with a long history at the university.
"There are innumerable studies that show that the shoe fits for global warming, I guess you could say, and the human causation for it," McKinley said.
"We understand very well the basic process of the greenhouse effect, which is that we know that the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increases the heat trapped by the atmosphere. You put one dollar more in the bank and you have one dollar more there tomorrow. It's a very clear feedback," she said.
Carbon dioxide emissions have been increasing over the industrial period, about 200 years, and can be observed very clearly through about 100 monitoring stations worldwide, McKinley said.
The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing consistently with the amount that humans are putting into the atmosphere, she said.
"We know humans are putting it there, we understand the basic mechanism and we know that the temperatures are warming. Many, many, many studies illustrate that both at the global scale and at the regional scale."
She cited the work of John Magnuson, a UW-Madison professor emeritus of limnology who is internationally known for his lake studies. Magnuson records the number of days of ice on the lakes in southern Wisconsin, including Mendota and Monona.
His research shows that over the course of the last 150 years, the average has gone from about four months of ice cover to more like 2.5 months, McKinley said.
Bryson would say that it is due to coming out of an Ice Age, McKinley notes, "but the rate of change that we are seeing on the planet is inconsistent with changes in the past that have been due to an Ice Age."
The huge changes in temperature that scientists are seeing are happening much faster than have ever been observed in the past due to the change from an Ice Age phase to a non-Ice Age phase, she said.
"We know that humans are putting CO2 into the atmosphere at an incredibly fast rate, much, much faster than any natural process has done it in the last at least 400,000 years and probably more like millions of years."
The rate of change is consistent with human activity, she said. That is why so many major scientific societies are concerned about global warming, she added.
The release in February of the latest report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) put the likelihood that human beings are the cause of global warming at 90 percent. It noted that temperatures will continue to climb for decades, that heat waves and floods will become more frequent and that the last time the Arctic and the Antarctic were warmer than they are today for an extended period -- before the start of the last Ice Age -- global sea levels were at least thirteen feet higher.
IPCC, founded in 1988, is the joint venture of the United Nations Environment Program and the World Meteorological Organization. Every four or five years, it conducts an exhaustive survey of the available data and issues a multivolume assessment of the state of the climate. IPCC's reports are vetted by thousands of scientists and the organization's 190-plus participating governments.
"My views are very similar to those expressed by IPCC," said Steve Vavrus, an associate scientist at the UW-Madison Center for Climatic Research.
"Reid Bryson maintains his long-standing opinions on anthropogenic climate change, and he's certainly entitled to them," Vavrus said.
"The scientific process is never 100 percent sure and it could be proven wrong," McKinley added.
"But I would say that the chances of that based on all of the best information at this current time are incredibly slim. And even though that possibility is out there, it would be irresponsible of us as a society not to act based on the best scientific information we have at the moment, which is that humans are causing the warming of the planet," she said.
"If you saw smoke in your house, it would be irresponsible not to get your family out, right?"
ENDS |
There are some very interesting comments that follow, about 90% in favour of Reid Bryson's thesis.
_________________
"Nothing can trouble you but your own imagination." ~ Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
uselesseater
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 21 Sep 2005
Posts: 629
Location: Leeds
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 05, 2007 12:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
It's far too complex a topic to consistently rely on logical fallacies of 'poisoning the well' and 'questionable cause'. So, all the oil companies in all the world won't make any difference to the truth. But this is what the New Scientist et al try to train us to think like.
Even the claims of the current global temperature trends in comparison to the past are far from conclusive when you consider the 1000's of different ways of measuring and building a temperature model from this data.
The fact that Co2 does reflect x ammount of heat back to towards the surface is about the only part of the theory which holds water. From this most people draw the conclusion that man made emmissions must be having an effect on the climate. Such is the vastness and complexity of the climate, measuring this and therefore proving this is virtually impossible to any reasonable probability is next to impossible.
This becomes meaningless, however when you learn that the fundamental assumption of the AGW argument is based on a lie of ommission. They show you the Co2/Temperature graph, disingenuously forgetting to mention that temperature increases preceed rises in Co2 by up to 800 years. This is not debated. Yes, temperature is the independent variable and C02 is the independent variable. This means the whole argument that Co2 produces warming is backwards.
The reason there is such a high proportion of disbelievers in the doom mongering official reality, on this board, is that there are a lot of critical thinkers in the truth movement.
Climate change is now a massive industry with Scientists, who are like we and oil company executives alike, mere mortals and therefore subject to the common human traits of selfishness, dishonesty and self delusion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Newspeak International
Validated Poster
Joined: 18 Apr 2006
Posts: 1158
Location: South Essex
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lockerbie
Moderate Poster
Joined: 06 Jul 2007
Posts: 147
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 8:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| global dimming is now pretty much accepted. the effects of global war,ming was hidden until recently by air pollution and now that we have started to cut down on air pollution the effects it previously hid are now not only visible but are exceeding expectations. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stefan
Banned
Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 1219
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 9:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"Claims that increased solar activity is the cause of global warming - rather than man-made greenhouse gases - have been comprehensively disproved by a detailed study of the Sun.
Scientists have delivered the final blow to the theory that recent global warming can be explained by variations in the natural cycles of the Sun - a favourite refuge for climate sceptics who dismiss the influence of greenhouse-gas emissions.
An analysis of the records of all of the Sun's activities over the past few decades - such as sunspot cycles and magnetic fields - shows that since 1985 solar activity has decreased significantly, while global warming has continued to increase."
http://environment.independent.co.uk/climate_change/article2753395.ece
_________________
Peace and Truth |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Newspeak International
Validated Poster
Joined: 18 Apr 2006
Posts: 1158
Location: South Essex
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 9:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | In his new book, The Assault on Reason, Al Gore pleads, "We must stop tolerating the rejection and distortion of science. We must insist on an end to the cynical use of pseudo-studies known to be false for the purpose of intentionally clouding the public's ability to discern the truth." Gore repeatedly asks that science and reason displace cynical political posturing as the central focus of public discourse.
If Gore really means what he writes, he has an opportunity to make a difference by leading by example on the issue of global warming.
A cooperative and productive discussion of global warming must be open and honest regarding the science. Global warming threats ought to be studied and mitigated, and they should not be deliberately exaggerated as a means of building support for a desired political position.
Many of the assertions Gore makes in his movie, ''An Inconvenient Truth,'' have been refuted by science, both before and after he made them. Gore can show sincerity in his plea for scientific honesty by publicly acknowledging where science has rebutted his claims.
For example, Gore claims that Himalayan glaciers are shrinking and global warming is to blame. Yet the September 2006 issue of the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate reported, "Glaciers are growing in the Himalayan Mountains, confounding global warming alarmists who recently claimed the glaciers were shrinking and that global warming was to blame."
Gore claims the snowcap atop Africa's Mt. Kilimanjaro is shrinking and that global warming is to blame. Yet according to the November 23, 2003, issue of Nature magazine, "Although it's tempting to blame the ice loss on global warming, researchers think that deforestation of the mountain's foothills is the more likely culprit. Without the forests' humidity, previously moisture-laden winds blew dry. No longer replenished with water, the ice is evaporating in the strong equatorial sunshine."
Gore claims global warming is causing more tornadoes. Yet the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated in February that there has been no scientific link established between global warming and tornadoes....
|
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Cognoscence/message/2099 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
