We all want to be wise and careful stewards of the beautiful planet we call home. However, certain aspects of the modern green movement that is permeating every segment of our society are not about protecting the environment. You don’t have to dig very deep to discover the true beliefs of the influential leaders who are using genuine concerns about the environment to promote an agenda of fear and control. Please carefully consider the implications of the opinions that they so openly and freely express:
"The common enemy of humanity is man.
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, and it is only through
changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.
The real enemy then, is humanity itself."
- Club of Rome,
premier environmental think-tank,
consultants to the United Nations
"We need to get some broad based support,
to capture the public's imagination...
So we have to offer up scary scenarios,
make simplified, dramatic statements
and make little mention of any doubts...
Each of us has to decide what the right balance
is between being effective and being honest."
- Prof. Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology,
lead author of many IPCC reports
"We've got to ride this global warming issue.
Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
we will be doing the right thing in terms of
economic and environmental policy."
- Timothy Wirth,
President of the UN Foundation
"No matter if the science of global warming is all phony...
climate change provides the greatest opportunity to
bring about justice and equality in the world."
- Christine Stewart,
former Canadian Minister of the Environment
The data doesn't matter. We're not basing our recommendations
on the data. We're basing them on the climate models.”
- Prof. Chris Folland,
Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research
“The models are convenient fictions
that provide something very useful.”
- Dr David Frame,
climate modeler, Oxford University
"I believe it is appropriate to have an 'over-representation' of the facts
on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience."
- Al Gore,
Climate Change activist
"We are on the verge of a global transformation.
All we need is the right major crisis..."
- David Rockefeller,
Club of Rome executive member
"Humanity is sitting on a time bomb. If the vast majority of the
world's scientists are right, we have just ten years to avert a
major catastrophe that could send our entire planet's climate system
into a tail-spin of epic destruction involving extreme weather, floods,
droughts, epidemics and killer heat waves beyond anything we have
ever experienced - a catastrophe of our own making."
- Al Gore,
An Inconvenient Truth
"My three main goals would be to reduce human population to
about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure
and see wilderness, with it’s full complement of species,
returning throughout the world."
-Dave Foreman,
co-founder of Earth First!
"One America burdens the earth much more than
twenty Bangladeshes. This is a terrible thing to say.
In order to stabilize world population,we must eliminate
350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say,
but it's just as bad not to say it."
- Jacques Cousteau,
"The extinction of the human species may not
only be inevitable but a good thing."
- Christopher Manes, Earth First!
“The extinction of Homo Sapiens would mean survival
for millions, if not billions, of Earth-dwelling species.
Phasing out the human race will solve every
problem on Earth - social and environmental.”
- Ingrid Newkirk,
former President of PETA
"Childbearing should be a punishable crime against
society, unless the parents hold a government license.
All potential parents should be required to use
contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing
antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing."
- David Brower,
first Executive Director of the Sierra Club
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Wed May 13, 2009 1:35 pm Post subject:
Still spamming the usual tripe from Christopher "business as usual" Booker who despite his numerous ..er... contributions to the debate still hasn't got his head around the difference between sea ice (which is seasonal) and ice shelves which used to be permanent.
"Satellites Show Arctic Literally on Thin Ice: Briefing Materials
04.06.09 A Media Briefing on the State of Arctic Sea Ice
WASHINGTON -- The latest Arctic sea ice data from NASA and the National Snow and Ice Data Center show that the decade-long trend of shrinking sea ice cover is continuing. New evidence from satellite observations also shows that the ice cap is thinning as well. Scientists who track Arctic sea ice cover from space announced that this winter had the fifth-lowest maximum ice extent on record. The six lowest maximum events since satellite monitoring began in 1979 have all occurred in the past six years (2004-2009).
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/seaice_status09.html
Followed by a contextless broadside from the quote mined ooh-scary greens; the implication once again being "business as usual - it's for the best".
I expect the very word "sustainable" is a "scam" to the likes of item7. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
Ocean Circulation Doesn't Work As Expected
May 13th, 2009 By Monte Basgall
This model of North Atlantic currents has been called into question by new data from Duke University and the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. Image: Archana Gowda, Duke
(PhysOrg.com) -- The familiar model of Atlantic ocean currents that shows a discrete "conveyor belt" of deep, cold water flowing southward from the Labrador Sea is probably all wet.
New research led by Duke University and the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution relied on an armada of sophisticated floats to show that much of this water, originating in the sea between Newfoundland and Greenland, is diverted generally eastward by the time it flows as far south as Massachusetts. From there it disburses to the depths in complex ways that are difficult to follow.
A 50-year-old model of ocean currents had shown this southbound subsurface flow of cold water forming a continuous loop with the familiar northbound flow of warm water on the surface, called the Gulf Stream.
"Everybody always thought this deep flow operated like a conveyor belt, but what we are saying is that concept doesn't hold anymore," said Duke oceanographer Susan Lozier. "So it's going to be more difficult to measure these climate change signals in the deep ocean."
And since cold Labrador seawater is thought to influence and perhaps moderate human-caused climate change, this finding may affect the work of global warming forecasters.
"To learn more about how the cold deep waters spread, we will need to make more measurements in the deep ocean interior, not just close to the coast where we previously thought the cold water was confined," said Woods Hole's Amy Bower.
Lozier, a professor of physical oceanography at Duke's Nicholas School of the Environment and Bower, a senior scientist in the department of physical oceanography at the Woods Hole Institution, are co-principal authors of a report on the findings to be published in the May 14 issue of the research journal Nature.
Their research was supported by the National Science Foundation.
Climatologists pay attention to the Labrador Sea because it is one of the starting points of a global circulation pattern that transports cold northern water south to make the tropics a little cooler and then returns warm water at the surface, via the Gulf Stream, to moderate temperatures of northern Europe.
Ads by Google
News from Planet Earth - News, features and podcasts on environmental science - www.planetearth.nerc.ac.uk
Climate Change - Be part of the solution. Learn more at ecoFactory.com now. - ecoFactory.com
Since forecasters say effects of global warming are magnified at higher latitudes, that makes the Labrador Sea an added focus of attention. Surface waters there absorb heat-trapping carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. And a substantial amount of that CO2 then gets pulled underwater where it is no longer available to warm Earth's climate.
"We know that a good fraction of the human caused carbon dioxide released since the Industrial revolution is now in the deep North Atlantic" Lozier said. And going along for the ride are also climate-caused water temperature variations originating in the same Labrador Sea location.
The question is how do these climate change signals get spread further south? Oceanographers long thought all this Labrador seawater moved south along what is called the Deep Western Boundary Current (DWBC), which hugs the eastern North American continental shelf all the way to near Florida and then continues further south.
But studies in the 1990s using submersible floats that followed underwater currents "showed little evidence of southbound export of Labrador sea water within the Deep Western Boundary Current (DWBC)," said the new Nature report.
Scientists challenged those earlier studies, however, in part because the floats had to return to the surface to report their positions and observations to satellite receivers. That meant the floats' data could have been "biased by upper ocean currents when they periodically ascended," the report added.
To address those criticisms, Lozier and Bower launched 76 special Range and Fixing of Sound floats into the current south of the Labrador Sea between 2003 and 2006. Those "RAFOS" floats could stay submerged at 700 or 1,500 meters depth and still communicate their data for a range of about 1,000 kilometers using a network of special low frequency and amplitude seismic signals.
But only 8 percent of the RAFOS floats' followed the conveyor belt of the Deep Western Boundary Current, according to the Nature report. About 75 percent of them "escaped" that coast-hugging deep underwater pathway and instead drifted into the open ocean by the time they rounded the southern tail of the Grand Banks.
Eight percent "is a remarkably low number in light of the expectation that the DWBC is the dominant pathway for Labrador Sea Water," the researchers wrote.
Studies led by Lozier and other researchers had previously suggested cold northern waters might follow such "interior pathways" rather than the conveyor belt in route to subtropical regions of the North Atlantic. But "these float tracks offer the first evidence of the dominance of this pathway compared to the DWBC."
Since the RAFOS float paths could only be tracked for two years, Lozier, her graduate student Stefan Gary, and German oceanographer Claus Boning also used a modeling program to simulate the launch and dispersal of more than 7,000 virtual "efloats" from the same starting point.
"That way we could send out many more floats than we can in real life, for a longer period of time," Lozier said.
Subjecting those efloats to the same underwater dynamics as the real ones, the researchers then traced where they moved. "The spread of the model and the RAFOS float trajectories after two years is very similar," they reported.
"The new float observations and simulated float trajectories provide evidence that the southward interior pathway is more important for the transport of Labrador Sea Water through the subtropics than the DWBC, contrary to previous thinking," their report concluded.
"That means it is going to be more difficult to measure climate signals in the deep ocean," Lozier said. "We thought we could just measure them in the Deep Western Boundary Current, but we really can't."
Listen to Marc Morano (he eats babies!) in an interview with Alex Jones on his radio show Friday 15th May 2009. His contribution on the Climate Change scam starts at 02:34:41 in the show.
right click this and "Save link as". _________________ Tooth Fairy denier
Santa Clause Denier
Man-made Climate Change Denier
US Navy Physicist warns of possibly 'several decades of crushing cold temperatures and global famine'
By Retired U.S. Navy Physicist and Engineer James A. Marusek
Apr 09 – Excerpts: “The sun has gone very quiet as it transitions to Solar Cycle 24.
“Since the current transition now exceeds 568 spotless days, it is becoming clear that sun has undergone a state change. It is now evident that the Grand Maxima state that has persisted during most of the 20th century has come to an abrupt end.
“(The sun) might (1) revert to the old solar cycles or (2) the sun might go even quieter into a “Dalton Minimum” or a Grand Minima such as the “Maunder Minimum”. It is still a little early to predict which way it will swing. Each of these two possibilities holds a great threat to our nation.
“We are now at a crossroad. Two paths lie before us. Both are marked with a signpost that reads “Danger”! Down one path lies monstrous solar storms. Down the other path lies several decades of crushing cold temperatures and global famine.”
“Climate change is primarily driven by nature. It has been true in the days of my father and his father and all those that came before us. Because of science, not junk science, we have slowly uncovered some of the fundamental mysteries of nature. Our Milky Way galaxy is awash with cosmic rays. These are high speed charged particles that originate from exploding stars.
“Because they are charged, their travel is strongly influenced by magnetic fields. Our sun produces a magnetic field wrapped in the solar winds that extends to the edges of our solar system. This field deflects many of the cosmic rays away from Earth. But when the sun goes quiet (minimal sunspots), this field collapses inward allowing high energy cosmic rays to penetrate deeper into our solar system.
As I say in Magnetic Reversals and Evolutionary Leaps, these same
cosmic rays can lead to mutations and evolutionary leaps.
“As a result, far greater numbers collide with Earth and penetrate down into the lower atmosphere where they ionize small particles of moisture (humidity) forming them into water droplets that become clouds. Low level clouds reflect sunlight back into space. An increase in Earth's cloud cover produce a global drop in temperature.
“If the sun becomes quieter than the old solar cycles, producing more than 1028 spotless days, then we might slip into a Dalton Minimum or maybe even a Grand Minima such as the Maunder Minimum. This solar state will last for decades. Several solar scientist have predicted this will begin in Solar Cycle 25, about a decade from now. But a few have predicted this will occur now in Solar Cycle 24.
“A quiet sun will cause temperatures globally to take a nose-dive. We will experience temperatures that we have not seen in over 200 years, during the time of the early pioneers.
“Temperatures are already falling. Satellites provide generally the most accurate atmospheric temperature measurements covering the entire globe. From the peak year 1998, the lower Troposphere temperatures globally have fallen around 1/2 degree Celsius due to the quiet sun.
“This is despite the fact that during that same time period, atmospheric carbon dioxide (at Mauna Loa) has risen 5% from 367 ppm to 386 ppm. The main threat from a “Dalton Minimum” or “Maunder Minimum” event is famine and starvation (affecting millions or hundreds of millions worldwide) due to shortened growing seasons and harsher weather. In the past, in addition to great famines, this cold harsh weather has also lead to major epidemics.
"Temperatures are already falling. Satellites provide generally the most accurate atmospheric temperature measurements covering the entire globe. From the peak year 1998, the lower Troposphere temperatures globally have fallen around 1/2 degree Celsius due to the quiet sun.
This is despite the fact that during that same time period, atmospheric carbon dioxide (at Mauna Loa) has risen 5% from 367 ppm to 386 ppm. The main threat from a “Dalton Minimum” or “Maunder Minimum” event is famine and starvation (affecting millions or hundreds of millions
worldwide) due to shortened growing seasons and harsher weather. In the past, in addition to great famines, this cold harsh weather has also lead to major epidemics."
and a few examples of the relationship between sunspot activity and Earth's climate.
"A taste of the cold weather due to a quiet sun.
Evidence of the Mississippi River, Ohio River, Allegheny River, Delaware River and Hudson River at the New York Harbor freezing and of very harsh winters.
Recent periods of quiet sun were the Dalton Minimum (1790-1830 A.D.), the Maunder Minimum (1645-1715 A.D.) and the Spörer Minimum (1420 to 1570 A.D.). The Maunder Minimum and Spörer Minimum were solar Grand Minima and each were individually referred to as the Little Ice Age. A few decades after the Dalton Minimum In the spring Eliza, a slave, carrying her young son, fled from Kentucky by crossing the Ohio River on foot. The river was “swollen and turbulent, great cakes of floating ice were swinging heavily to and fro in the turbid waters.” She leaped from one chunk of ice to the next until she reached freedom on the Ohio shore. [Source: Uncle Tomʼs Cabin. Harriet Beecher Stowe lived in Cincinnati, Ohio from 1832 to 1850. In 1851, she wrote “Uncle Tomʼs Cabin”. Her life in Ohio was intertwined in this work of fiction.]
During the Dalton Minimum The Hudson River at the New York Harbor froze, enabling people to walk across the ice from Manhattan to Staten Island. The Hudson froze over completely during particularly brutal winter
of 1779/1780, when the surface was solid for five weeks straight and the British rolled cannons over the ice. In 1821, taverns were constructed in the middle of the river to offer warmth and refreshment to pedestrians. [Sources: When New York Harbor Froze Over, 1779-1780 and F.Y.I.]
During the Dalton Minimum From 1803 to 1806, Captains Lewis and Clark lead a transcontinental expedition to explore the greater Northwest. During the winter of 1804/1805, the explorers set up a winter base camp
near the Big Knife River near what is today the town of Bismarck, North Dakota. The winter was bitterly cold. There were 6 days with temperatures of -30oF or lower. These occurred in 1804 on December 12 (-38oF), December 17 (-45oF), December 18 (-32oF), in 1805 on January 10 (-40oF), January 11 (-38oF), and January 13 (-34oF). Compare this to the current low temperatures of Bismarck, North Dakota in which only one day in the past decade fell below -30oF. On January 15, 2009 the temperature fell to -44oF.
[Sources: (1) The Journals of the Expedition under the Command of Captains Lewis and Clark, (2) Weather nderground for Bismarck, ND ]
During the Dalton Minimum Early settlers routinely waited till winter to cross the frozen Mississippi river in their wagon trains. In 1799, George Frederick Bollinger led a group of early pioneers from North Carolina to
establish early settlements in Missouri. They hoped to cross their largest obstacle, the Mississippi River, on the ice, frozen solid in mid-winter. They arrived on the east bank of the Mississippi river opposite St. Genevieve in late December, pitched camp and explored potential river crossings. St. Genevieve is located about a hundred miles downstream from St. Louis.
Daily the thickness of the ice was measured and then on December 31, a chopped hole in the ice indicated thickness well over two feet. The next day the settlers successfully drove their heavy loaded wagons across the river.
[Source: “The Bollinger Migration to the Louisiana Territory”, part of "Bollinger Collection" compiled by Orena Bollinger in 1984.]
Between the Dalton Minimum and the Maunder Minimum December 1776 was a desperate time for George Washington and the American Revolution. During the night of December 25, Washington led his small Continental army of 2,400 troops from Pennsylvania across the Delaware River made dangerous and barely navigable by huge chunks of ice. Once across they launched a surprise attack on the Britain's Hessian
mercenaries at Trenton, New Jersey, capturing 1,000 prisoners and seizing muskets, powder, and artillery.
[Sources: George Washington crossing the Delaware River by Leutze,
Washington's crossing of the Delaware River]
Between the Dalton Minimum and the Maunder Minimum
In Boston, Massachusetts on February 22, 1772, Anna, a young school girl, writes in her diary “Since about the middle of December, we have had till this week, a series of cold and stormy weather - every snow storm (of which we have had abundance) except the first, ended with rain,
by which means the snow was so hardened that the strong gales at northwest soon turned it, and all above ground to ice.” In some streets about town this mixture of ice and snow is 5 feet thick. On March 11, she writes that the snow is now 7 feet deep in some places around her
house.
[Source: “Diary of a Boston School Girl” written by Anna Green Winslow from 1771-1773, edited by Alice Morse Earle in 1894.]
Between the Dalton Minimum and the Maunder Minimum
Just before the opening battles of the French and Indian War in December 1753, George Washington, then 21 years old, crossed the Allegheny River. In their first attempt, Washington and a guide used a raft to cross the ice-choked river and this ended in disaster as Washington
was knocked overboard in deep water and saved himself only by catching the raft as it swept by. The severe cold that night froze their clothes and the guide's fingers. The river also froze, however, allowing them to walk across on the ice the next morning. Soon they reached the
safety of an English trader's settlement.
[Source: 1753: George Washington's Mission to the Ohio]
During the Maunder Minimum
During the Great Frost of (1683–1684) in England, the River Thames was completely frozen for two months, the ice was 11 inches thick at London. Sea ice was reported along the coasts of southeast England, and ice prevented the use of many harbors. The sea froze, so that ice formed for a time between Dover and Calais, joining England and France. (It is more likely that the shorelines froze and a great mass of densely packed icebergs, some 11 feet thick, built up along the coastlines fusing into a semi-rigid structure that may have connected the two shorelines together.) The Thames was recorded to have frozen over at London during the years: 1649, 1655, 1663, 1666, 1667, 1684, 1695, 1709, and 1716.
[Sources: River Thames Frost Fairs and Historical Weather Events 1650-1699] [See also: The Great Frost of 1683-4 and Where Thames Smooth Waters Glide]
During the Little Ice Age, growing seasons in England and Continental Europe generally became short and unreliable, which led to shortages and famine. These hardships were nothing compared to the more northerly countries: Glaciers advanced rapidly in Greenland, Iceland,
Scandinavia and North America, making vast tracts of land uninhabitable. The Arctic pack ice extended so far south that several reports describe Eskimos landing their kayaks in Scotland. Finlandʼs population fell by one-third, Icelandʼs by half, the Viking colonies in Greenland were
abandoned altogether, as were many Inuit communities.
[Sources: The Deniers: Our Spotless Sun]
During the Spörer Minimum
By 1518, early explorers made significant progress in probing and surveying the New World. They described North America as a “land of frozen seas, horrid, barren and scarcely habitable for cold”. “In the New World, cold predominates. The rigor of the frigid zone extends over half
of those regions which should be temperate by their position. Countries where the grape and the fig should ripen, are buried under snow one half of the year; and lands situated in the same parallel with the most fertile and best cultivated provinces in Europe, are chilled with perpetual
frosts, which almost destroy the power of vegetation.”
[Source: The History of the Discovery and Settlement of America by William Robertson, 1826] _________________ Tooth Fairy denier
Santa Clause Denier
Man-made Climate Change Denier
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Thu May 21, 2009 4:36 pm Post subject:
item7 wrote:
Quote:
US Navy Physicist warns of possibly 'several decades of crushing cold temperatures and global famine' By Retired U.S. Navy Physicist and Engineer James A. Marusek
Hey bleedin' ho.
For three months now item7 you've been banging on about global cooling fed by your industry denier PR websites, and you STILL cannot comprehend the concept of trends.
Perhaps this will explain it to you in simple terms:
All the rest of your post is just so much denier site sophistry built around that single deliberate misconception they continually punt to the stupid and the gullible (there is after all, no other excuse for being a corporate water carrier/shill).
If you do as suggested innumerable times before, check the original data sources where you will find that solar minima and maxima have come and gone since 1950 but the average global temperature keeps rising regardless.
Hence AGW.
In the meantime, Exxon-Mobil made the largest profit in the history of money last year. You must be so proud, you and them fighting and chipping away at the NWO.
ROFLMAO. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
It's them or us.
Last edited by chek on Thu May 21, 2009 8:04 pm; edited 1 time in total
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Thu May 21, 2009 8:13 pm Post subject:
mason-free party wrote:
can't believe people are still discussing this hogwash...global warming is a figment of the taxers imagination to rip one and all off...move on chek
So you say, with no evidence.
And when you look for evidence - as item7 has found - the energy interests will gladly provide something that looks like it, at first glance.
Cui bono? Not the common man, that's for sure.
In fact, if I was conspiracy minded, I'd hazard a guess that the NWO's chief money-making machine (oil) was promoting climate change denial in order to cause a mass cull.
After all, nearly 90% of the world's population rely on disappearing glaciers for water and increasingly drought ridden continental interiors for food. Who benefits from ignoring that and promoting business as usual?
Just as CIA future strategies are already planning for.
It pays to look beyond the obvious sometimes MFP. As you know, there's no point in creating unquestioning dupes if you don't plan to use them. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
chek said"After all, nearly 90% of the world's population rely on disappearing glaciers for water and increasingly drought ridden continental interiors for food. Who benefits from ignoring that and promoting business as usual?"
He knows that. Don't think for a moment that Chek believes the cr@p he prints - nobody is that thick. It is not stupidity that drives him - it is evil. _________________ Tooth Fairy denier
Santa Clause Denier
Man-made Climate Change Denier
Dangerous People
Sunday, May 17, 2009
[img]http://i676.photobucket.com/albums/vv126/kennyrk2/Clipboard01.jpg ?t=1242594572[/img]
The climate dream team? Rep. Henry Waxman, former VP Al Gore and Rep. Ed Markey are set on getting a cap-and-trade climate bill passed ASAP.
With the Nashville global warming cheerleader conference over, the kiddies will take to their congressional districts with the new training given them to make sure that their guru Gore is successful in getting Congress to go along with his theft scams.
H.R. 2454 is almost 1,000 pages. No one in Congress will know WTF it is all about.
H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009
Chairman Henry A. Waxman and Subcommittee Chairman Edward J. Markey introduced "H.R. 2454, The American Clean Energy and Security Act." The Energy and Commerce Committee will begin markup of the bill on Monday, May 18, 2009, at 1:00 p.m., and will complete consideration before the Memorial Day recess.
It's a given that when congress moves to pass a major bill, it it not in the best interests of the American people. The only interests they are concerned with are the ones who will make a profit and kick back a little to them.
The talking points for passage will be repetitive sound bytes that sound so good if one doesn't dig into the details.....solar, millions of jobs created, wind, electricity rates down, build the clean energy future and end our addiction to oil and coal.....
Better think again. A certain few will make plenty of money and we will pay for it.
Of course we want clean energy and a clean planet. It's just that Congress and Al Gore will never lead us there.
Fuzzy math? Letter writer rightly wonders why “we must reduce our consumption of CO2 by 50 percent because we are contributing 0.00104 percent of the atmospheric CO2″
From The Maui News:
Reality is finally setting in on the global warming hoax. Although, as expected, the mainstream media avoid anything that might affect their preconceived notions about global warming.
May 12, a nine-page memo from the Office of Management and Budget marked “Deliberative Attorney-Client Privilege” warned Congress that an EPA finding that greenhouse gases are a danger to public health is based on dubious assumptions and could have very large negative impacts on our already suffering economy.
The memo states that EPA did not thoroughly examine the relationship between greenhouse gases and human health and challenged the notion that the EPA or anyone else had proven CO2 or other greenhouse gases to be harmful to humans.
This statement reveals the global warming scam for what it is. With Congress wanting to regulate CO2 by passing the Climate Security Act, based on this scam, the result of which is a carbon tax applied on all fossil fuels used in power plants, for transportation, heating oil and manufactured goods.
Scientific measurements show that CO2 is about 0.038 percent of our atmosphere by volume. Real climate scientists - not Al Gore - have calculated that currently only 2.75 percent of this 0.038 percent atmospheric CO2 is from human sources.
Let’s see now. We must reduce our consumption of CO2 by 50 percent because we are contributing 0.00104 percent of the atmospheric CO2. And just what reductions are planned in China, Russia, India and Africa? This is why regulating CO2 in the U.S. is so ridiculous.
Don Gerbig
Lahaina
"Real climate scientists - not Al Gore - have calculated that currently only 2.75 percent of this 0.038 percent atmospheric CO2 is from human sources."
And there is no proof whatsoever that an increase in CO2 leads to global warming!! _________________ Tooth Fairy denier
Santa Clause Denier
Man-made Climate Change Denier
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Fri May 22, 2009 10:19 pm Post subject:
You've got to hand it to the item7's of this world, having nobody to talk to except we readers of this and similar boards as he tries desperately to warn of the plot as he imagines it, even after the facts (which have been repeatedly shown to be beyond his limited comprehension), the money-trail, and the structure of the deception he is a witting part of, have been exposed and explained to him. Many times.
Not having anybody to verbalise his thoughts with or tease out and rationalise the sane from the insane, for some reason, every time he voluntarily chooses the insane option.
Of course, there's no reason to believe me for I am evil as the sane and rational item7 has designated me.
But facts are facts and actions are actions which are on record and available for anyone to check out the whoppers item7 has been trying to mislead readers of this board with. Just like hundreds of others infesting the blogosphere in their failed attempt to sway intelligent opinion in their favour. Morons are, and have never been, of course any obstacle.
You can look here: http://www.911forum.org.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=16715
and here:
http://www.911forum.org.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=16841&start=0
should you want to review the evidence.
Finding no solace except in the whackiest of industry funded astroturf sites, run for corporate-friendly morons, designed to put up a miasma of cretinocity in the forlorn hope that even a single opinion may count when the time comes (and anyway, who gives a ferck when money's no object) as the corporatocracy desperately tries through using all available means to wriggle out of taking responsibility for their past actions. They've extracted more money than has ever been known in the history of money, but they would have us pay for their laxity and cleaning up after them?
Despite item7's lame and useless protestations to the contrary, I don't think so.
That carbon legislation is designed (following Burkian principles so
beloved by our right-wing, western, publicly consented governments) to induce reduction of CO2 base technology by application of standard economic theory, is a concept too far.
And so item7 this time brings us Al Gore as the C02 devil, growing rich - rich I tell you - off of mankind's sick weakness for fossil fuel based lifestyles because there is no other way and that is what human life is all about. Without those fossil fuelled lifestyles, we are less than human in item7's eyes, and Al Gore is a criminal against humanity!!!
Wot a larf!
Wotta dickwad!
Apart from students of coup d'etat, nobody on this side of the Atlantic knows or cares who Al Gore is!
You're just importing stuff whose relevance is over your head and that you don't understand, wholesale from American sites!
Wotta tossa! _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
An ad hom too far, Chek. Peak oil and carbon tax is beloved by the oil regulated corporate Gorist state. There is no opposition, no specific interests, - the suppliers, the manipulators, the government regulators, the environmentalist opposers, the taxers, the producers, Al Gore etc they're all in it with a single aim. _________________ http://www.exopolitics-leeds.co.uk/introduction
Global Warming: why it is the Left's last best chance to gain a stranglehold on our political system and economy...
and how we can fight back
For decades, environmentalism has been the Left's best excuse for increasing government control over our actions in ways both large and small. It's for Mother Earth! It's for the children! It's for the whales! But until now, the doomsday-scenario environmental scares they've trumped up haven't been large enough to give the sinister prize they want most of all: total control of American politics, economic activity, and even individual behavior. With global warming, however, greenhouse gasbags can argue that auto emissions in Ohio threaten people in Paris, and that only global government can tackle such problems. National sovereignty? Democracy? Forget it: global warming has now brought the Left closer to global government, statism, and the eradication of individual rights than it has ever been before.
Now, in The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism, Christopher C. Horner tears the cover off the Left's manipulation of environmental issues for political purposes -- and lays out incontrovertible evidence for the fact that catastrophic man-made global warming is just more Chicken-Little hysteria, not actual science. He explains why, although Al Gore and his cronies among the media elites and UN globalists endlessly bleat that "global warming" is an unprecedented global crisis, they really think of it as a dream come true.
Global warming is the ideal scare campaign for those who are doing all they can to secure strict control over society, business, and the minutest details of individual life. For, as Horner explains, if global warming really were as bad as the Leftist doomsayers insist it is, then no policy imaginable could "solve" it. According to the logic of the greens' own numbers, no matter how much we sacrifice there would still be more to do. That makes global warming the bottomless well of excuses for the relentless growth of Big Government.
Horner details how today's environmentalists use strong-arm legal tactics -- and worse -- against those who dare to point out the weakness of their arguments for global warming. Along the way, he explodes ten top global warming myths, carefully examines the evidence to determine how much warming there really is and what is actually causing it.
It's time to stand up to the environmentalist industry and insist: human beings are not the enemy. In breezy, light-hearted and always entertaining fashion, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism gives you the facts you need to do so.
Thank God there are people like Christopher C Horner prepared to stand up to the liars. They are helping to turn the tide and it is turning rapidly now. _________________ Tooth Fairy denier
Santa Clause Denier
Man-made Climate Change Denier
Exposing the secret agenda behind today's obsession with global warming
The U.N. recently announced global warming is leading inexorably to global catastrophe. Al Gore won the "best documentary" Oscar for his disaster film "An Inconvenient Truth." The news media beat the drum of "climate catastrophe" daily, all but ignoring scientists who say the threat is overblown or nonexistent. And across America, school children are frightened to death with tales of rising oceans, monster tornadoes, droughts and millions dying – all because of man-made global warming.
However, hidden just beneath the surface of the world's latest environmental craze is a stunningly different reality, as the March edition of WND's acclaimed Whistleblower magazine documents.
Titled "HYSTERIA: Exposing the secret agenda behind today's obsession with global warming," Whistleblower tells the rest of the story the "mainstream press" will never reveal.
To begin with, those who believe the dire warnings of today's establishment press should know, as U.S. Sen. James Inhofe has pointed out, that "for more than 100 years, journalists have quoted scientists predicting the destruction of civilization by, in alternation, either runaway heat or a new Ice Age."
Believe it or not, over the last century America's major media have predicted an impending global climate crisis four different times – each prediction warning that entire countries would be wiped out or that lower crop yields would mean "billions will die." In 1895, the panic was over an imminent ice age. Later, in the late 1920s, when the earth’s surface warmed less than half a degree, the media jumped on a new threat – global warming, which continued into the late 1950s. Then in 1975, the New York Times' headline blared, "A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable." Then in 1981 it was back to global warming, with the Times quoting seven government atmospheric scientists who predicted global warming of an "almost unprecedented magnitude."
Today, to cover all their bases, much of the press is changing its terminology from "global warming" to "climate change" or "climate catastrophe." That way they're covered either way: If the world gets colder, global warming is still at fault.
But hot-and-cold press coverage is just the beginning. Whistleblower's "HYSTERIA" issue reveals exactly why so many scientists, journalists and others (even the president's speechwriters now have him pay lip service to "climate change") are so gripped by global warming fever.
Here's a hint: As "Deep Throat" famously told Washington Post "Watergate" reporter Bob Woodward, "Follow the money."
Whistleblower shows how all the main players – from politicians and scientists to big corporations and the United Nations – benefit from instilling fear into billions of human beings over the unproven theory of man-made global warming. Indeed, just three weeks after the U.N. ratcheted up international fears over global warming, a panel of 18 scientists from 11 countries has now reported to the U.N. that the only thing that can stop catastrophic climate change is a global tax – on greenhouse gas emissions.
That's right. Global problems, real or conjured up, require global governmental solutions. As Whistleblower explains, environmentalism is nothing less than the global elitists' replacement ideology for communism/socialism. With communism largely discredited today – after all, 100-150 million people died at the hands of communist "visionaries" during the last century – elitists who desire to rule other people's lives have gravitated to an even more powerful ideology. More powerful because it seems to trump all other considerations, as it claims the very survival of life on earth is dependent on implementing its agenda.
Thus, while scientists and climatologists who dare to question the rigid orthodoxy of man-made catastrophic global warming are openly ridiculed and threatened with decertification, the movement for global governance, complete with global taxation, is moving into the fast lane.
"Global warming will be one of the most powerfully coercive weapons in the globalists' arsenal for the foreseeable future," said David Kupelian, WND managing editor and author of "The Marketing of Evil." "It's important that everyone understands the game being played. This issue of Whistleblower provides a powerful antidote to all the hysteria – namely, common sense and truth."
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Sat May 23, 2009 10:37 am Post subject:
paul wright wrote:
An ad hom too far, Chek.
Right. That'd be what us evils do.
paul wright wrote:
Peak oil and carbon tax is beloved by the oil regulated corporate Gorist state.
No, no they are not and you have no evidence that that is so.
Sustainability and minimal environmental impact are antithetical to the perpetual growth economy that mass societies are run on, which is why their astroturfers are fighting Step 1 tooth and nail.
[quote="paul wright" There is no opposition, no specific interests, - the suppliers, the manipulators, the government regulators, the environmentalist opposers, the taxers, the producers, Al Gore etc they're all in it with a single aim.[/quote]
Correct.
The single aim being business as usual, and failing that other means of control to maintain some cohesion and their top dog status.
Running an orchestrated campaign sowing confusion and doubt in order to induce public apathy and fatigue means, they hope, that fewer would be informed enough to have available counter-solutions to the preferred corporate options.
Oh look - item7's posting yet more misleading corporate friendly right-wing polemics which are all industrialist-friendly garbage opinion and no facts. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
Global Warming: why it is the Left's last best chance to gain a stranglehold on our political system and economy...
and how we can fight back
Thank God there are people like Christopher C Horner prepared to stand up to the liars. They are helping to turn the tide and it is turning rapidly now.
The irony of the above is almost too much.
So, as you've been shilling your corporate global cooling mantra for months now, let's see your facts or evidence to disprove this simple statement.
Not a script from your slimy corporate think tanks.
Not an irrelevant copy'n'paste from one of your stable of astroturf sites
Just the data, with no frills.
Ready?
"Nine of the top ten warmest years in recorded history have all been in the last 11 years".
Go for it, Mr. Global Cooling! _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
Among the most absurd elements of climate change debates is the persistence of the issue of ‘funding’. Absurd because at the same time that science is held to give uncorrupted and incorruptible instructions about how to respond to a changing climate, it is also held - by the very same people - to be vulnerable to ‘attack’ and ‘distortion’ by financial interests. This form of argument has been deployed by alarmists to diminish the credibility of anyone challenging the ‘consensus’, whether or not they actually challenge ‘the science’. According to this logic, anybody who has any sympathy with any sort of contrary argument, if they aren’t part of the organised conspiracy to ‘distort the science’, have been brainwashed by it.
It’s also absurd because no matter how hard an attempt is made to divide the debate between good and bad, funded and unfunded, interested and disinterested, the argument fails. For every vested interest in ‘business as usual’, there is a venture capitalist lobbying for legislation that will create a market for their carbon finance products. For every ‘politically-motivated’ argument standing against the Kyoto Protocol and its successor, there is an ideologue angling to reorganise society according to the tenets of environmentalism. For every ‘denial’ of climate change science, a hundred more liberties are taken with the facts in the other direction.
It’s even more absurd because those who shriek the loudest about the corrupting influence of dirty oil money tend to have far more than their fair share of power in climate debates.
Talking of which, we are flattered that Bob Ward - Policy and Communications Director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, erstwhile Director of Public Policy at risk insurance giants RMS and before that, Senior Manager for Policy Communication at the Royal Society - has dropped by to give his thoughts on our observation that, if you’re going to go around accusing the opposition of corruption, you’d better be whiter than white yourself. We suggested that Ward’s obsession with Exxon is rather ironic given his own links with the risk insurance industry. And, of course, the risk insurance industry has at least as much to gain from climate alarmism as Exxon has from playing down the dangers.
Except that the only thoughts that Ward has actually offered consist of accusations that… you’ve guessed it… that we are motivated by our own dodgy financial interests:
Dear Ben and Stuart,
Who needs ‘LinkedIn’ when you can have hilarious pages on spoof websites like this devoted to your career! Congratulations on one of the most imaginative attacks on me yet - it ranks alongside ExxonMobil’s attempts to convince Chris Huhne MP that there were question marks over my departure from the Royal Society!
I was hoping to gauge whether I was demonstrably more corrupt than you, but sadly you seem to be a bit shy about revealing the identity of your paymasters. Do tell!
Then, in true Pythonesque Spanish-Inquisition style, he adds:
I didn’t expect you to reveal your sources of financial support, and you didn’t disappoint. Or maybe you really are independently wealthy and don’t need to work for a living. Just like Prince Charles, eh chaps? Pip pip!
If Ward can be so wrong in this instance - and, for the record, he is utterly wrong on both counts - it does rather make one wonder about the veracity of any of his other accusations.
You are welcome to make of it what you like. We are aware that one mustn’t make too much of the witterings of a PR professional. But, at the very least, we’d expect rather more from a PR professional of Ward’s credentials, especially one who claims to speak for science - as Ward does in his many indignant open letters to his various nemeses. No, maybe not.
Anyway, like one commenter, we are intrigued to find out what Ward actually thinks is ‘imaginative’ about our account. All we have done is pull together a bunch of factual observations about the political, business and academic interests of Ward and his associates. No imagination necessary. But Ward is too busy with the ‘ad hominems’ to say what might actually be wrong with the piece.
It would seem that Ward is aspiring to the standards set by his former boss at the Royal Society, Bob May, who, while on the one hand, insists that we ‘respect the facts‘ (as designated by the Royal Society), is only too willing to make up stuff as it pleases him as long as it serves his political ends.
As we pointed out a long time ago, Greenpeace’s attempts to establish the size of the conspiracy to distort science culminated in a total failure of the argument. Their Exxonsecrets website aimed to demonstrate the flow of cash between the oil giant and a network of think tanks, and found a trail of cash amounting to $22 million between 1998 and 2006. Their own budget for the same period was $2.1 billion. For every dollar that Exxon is alleged to have spent on distorting the debate, Greenpeace spent a thousand on their own propaganda effort.
What does it prove? Not very much. All it says is that the issue of funding and interests isn’t clear cut, and in fact cuts both ways. But it does suggest that Grantham’s Policy and Communications Director is getting rather desperate if he is resorting to hurling accusations of dodgy funding at a couple of lowly bloggers.
If you think we are getting a bit over-excited by all this, you’re probably right. But the point is that, while people shriek that interests corrupt, it’s not just profits and careers that are being established on the back of climate change anxiety - an entire climate change industry and national and international political institutions are being constructed with the objective of changing the way we live. What we have argued on this blog is that, whatever the scientific truth about climate change, it doesn’t call for special politics and special political institutions that are, for the sake of our survival, above criticism and scrutiny. Bob Ward and his ilk seem to think that this industry and these institutions - which he has played his own small part in manufacturing - are above scrutiny, and that all he needs to do to dismiss any criticism is point his fingers and cry ‘Exxon!’. Given the lack of popular support for the restructuring of political systems on environmental grounds, perhaps Ward’s boss at Grantham, Lord Stern, should consider getting a new Public Relations man.
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Sat May 23, 2009 9:50 pm Post subject:
Note that item7 avoided the direct question from the immediately previous post. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
Alan Caruba pointed me in the direction of his Blog. He writes:
“Climate change is a non problem,” says Lord Christopher Monckton, a UK climate researcher. “The right answer to a non problem is to have the courage to do nothing.”
Of course, the 10,000 participants and observers at the United Nations conference on climate change are not there to “do nothing”, if you discount the handful of skeptics who are there to rip back the curtain to reveal what a complete fraud is occurring.
The United Nations is not a stranger to fraud. The Iraq Oil for Food fraud helped enrich a number of its officials. Its indifference to genocides and human rights offenses is well established, but its love of treaties in which to increase its power over sovereign nations is also well documented.
The global warming “crisis” has been created and pushed forward by the United Nations in the form of its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change whose various reports are replete with deception. Dr. Vincent Gray of New Zealand, an expert reviewer of every single draft of the IPCC reports, going back to its inception in 1990, says, “There is no evidence that carbon dioxide increases are having any effect whatsoever on the climate. It fails not only from the data, but it fails in the statistics, and the mathematics.”
On December 10, former Vice President Al Gore accepted a Nobel Prize for PEACE along with the IPCC. A panel of politicians, not scientists, awarded the prize. Moreover, what does the climate have to do with peace, unless perhaps one recalls that it was the Mini-Ice Age that drove Napoleon’s troops from Russia in defeat or that America’s Valley Force during the Revolution were also subject to conditions that caused even the Thames in London to freeze?
The Mini-Ice Age lasted from 1300 to around 1850. The earth has been warming ever since. It has nothing to do with human beings and everything to do with the Sun and other natural factors that determine the earth’s climate.
The charlatans behind the latest UN conference are not there to “do nothing.” They are there to impose limits on energy use that will have horrendous implications for any nation foolish enough to accept them.
The Kyoto Protocol needs to be allowed to expire. The world needs to do nothing about climate change because the human race can do nothing about climate change. Because the amount of carbon dioxide has nothing to do with climate change in that it follows a warming cycle, not precedes it. It changes nothing. It responds to change.
How difficult is that to understand?
Not difficult at all Alan.
Posted by Jeremy Jacobs at Wednesday, December 12, 2007
“The greatest challenge facing mankind is the challenge of distinguishing reality from fantasy, truth from propaganda”. Michael Chrichton
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” Joseph Goebbels
Separating truth from fiction, Stop Global Warming Hype hopes to educate the public about climate change by posting articles disputing statements made by the political movement called "global warming".
StopGlobalWarmingHype!!
'It's the photo that became a symbol of global warming: polar bears stranded on a melting ice-floe in mid-winter. The truth? It was taken in summer'
Data gets drawn from a ridiculously narrow span of time
Righteous sheep with no proof proclaim mankind is to blame.
I think all of these climate change idiots are too self-important.
Nature is going to do what nature is going to do.
Knowing it changes doesn't mean you affect it, or that you can.
Barrack Obama and Al Gore are just trying to make friends rich.
Ludicrous hype, fed by mass media's interest in selling papers.
All of this panic and selling "carbon credits" is nonsense.
There is no scientific proof linking change to human activity.
Zealots just cry out to "silence the heretic" if you disagree with them.
Bet that everyone who was so certain last year has changed their tune.
Ever notice "global warming" is now called "climate change"?
Each of these people just wants a crusade, a bandwagon, or funding.
Religious fervor, frothing at the mouth, these people are chumps.
Note that item7 avoided the direct question from the immediately previous post.
I had stopped responding to your tedious and stupid questions but I will make this final one to make it clear. My postings are to give surfers an alternative to the lies you peddle, not to engage in "debate" with an obvious shill. It is like trying to reason with a "creationist" when dealing with a climate alarmist. However much evidence a Darwinist presents as evidence of evolution and however much scientific fact is on the side of reason the Creationist counters with pseudo-scientific drivel. Whereas a Creationist can relatively safely be ignored (in the UK at least) the climate alarmists have to be beaten before we are all enslaved by the NWO puppet masters who are served by the likes of you Chek. They mean business and have a huge well-organised and well funded machine to peddle their lies and induct gullible people into their new religion. Fortunately they are losing. It is information which will destroy their odious movement not so called "debate" about their pathetic "evidence" of man-made climate change. Stick to your persistent ad hominems Chek but leave me out of any dialogue with yourself. I will no more "debate" with you on man-made climate change any more than I will debate with a "flat-Earther" or a "Creationist". Your "beliefs" are unsubstantiated drivel and not worthy of consideration of their truth. Your plan is scuppered because people are given another view and they see the light. I will continue to shine that light on this thread and people can decide for themselves rather that have a high-priest called Chek telling them what to believe. _________________ Tooth Fairy denier
Santa Clause Denier
Man-made Climate Change Denier
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Sun May 24, 2009 6:25 pm Post subject:
item7 in a curiously pompous, evasive nonsense through the looking-glass inversion of reality normally only available to the insane, whereby he thinks he's the one who has ever provided any scientific information let alone logic wrote:
blah blah answer avoiding blah
,
No "debate" required, sunbeam.
In any case, ideological spambots like you don't know how to debate, so I'm not expecting any quantum leap in your abilities at this stage.
All that's required from you are just the figures showing your "global cooling".
That's a numerical value so that part should be easy, even for you.
Basic, verifiable figures that can be checked by anyone.
It's the only way to expose this fraudulent sham you're running which has gone on way too long. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
The Climate-Industrial Complex
By BJORN LOMBORG, May 22, 2009
Some business leaders are cozying up with politicians and scientists to demand swift, drastic action on global warming. This is a new twist on a very old practice: companies using public policy to line their own pockets.
The tight relationship between the groups echoes the relationship among weapons makers, researchers and the U.S. military during the Cold War. President Dwight Eisenhower famously warned about the might of the "military-industrial complex," cautioning that "the potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist." He worried that "there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties."
This is certainly true of climate change. We are told that very expensive carbon regulations are the only way to respond to global warming, despite ample evidence that this approach does not pass a basic cost-benefit test. We must ask whether a "climate-industrial complex" is emerging, pressing taxpayers to fork over money to please those who stand to gain.
This phenomenon will be on display at the World Business Summit on Climate Change in Copenhagen this weekend. The organizers -- the Copenhagen Climate Council -- hope to push political leaders into more drastic promises when they negotiate the Kyoto Protocol's replacement in December.
The opening keynote address is to be delivered by Al Gore, who actually represents all three groups: He is a politician, a campaigner and the chair of a green private-equity firm invested in products that a climate-scared world would buy.
Naturally, many CEOs are genuinely concerned about global warming. But many of the most vocal stand to profit from carbon regulations. The term used by economists for their behavior is "rent-seeking."
The world's largest wind-turbine manufacturer, Copenhagen Climate Council member Vestas, urges governments to invest heavily in the wind market. It sponsors CNN's "Climate in Peril" segment, increasing support for policies that would increase Vestas's earnings. A fellow council member, Mr. Gore's green investment firm Generation Investment Management, warns of a significant risk to the U.S. economy unless a price is quickly placed on carbon.
Even companies that are not heavily engaged in green business stand to gain. European energy companies made tens of billions of euros in the first years of the European Trading System when they received free carbon emission allocations.
American electricity utility Duke Energy, a member of the Copenhagen Climate Council, has long promoted a U.S. cap-and-trade scheme. Yet the company bitterly opposed the Warner-Lieberman bill in the U.S. Senate that would have created such a scheme because it did not include European-style handouts to coal companies. The Waxman-Markey bill in the House of Representatives promises to bring back the free lunch.
U.S. companies and interest groups involved with climate change hired 2,430 lobbyists just last year, up 300% from five years ago. Fifty of the biggest U.S. electric utilities -- including Duke -- spent $51 million on lobbyists in just six months.
The massive transfer of wealth that many businesses seek is not necessarily good for the rest of the economy. Spain has been proclaimed a global example in providing financial aid to renewable energy companies to create green jobs. But research shows that each new job cost Spain 571,138 euros, with subsidies of more than one million euros required to create each new job in the uncompetitive wind industry. Moreover, the programs resulted in the destruction of nearly 110,000 jobs elsewhere in the economy, or 2.2 jobs for every job created.
The cozy corporate-climate relationship was pioneered by Enron, which bought up renewable energy companies and credit-trading outfits while boasting of its relationship with green interest groups. When the Kyoto Protocol was signed, an internal memo was sent within Enron that stated, "If implemented, [the Kyoto Protocol] will do more to promote Enron's business than almost any other regulatory business."
The World Business Summit will hear from "science and public policy leaders" seemingly selected for their scary views of global warming. They include James Lovelock, who believes that much of Europe will be Saharan and London will be underwater within 30 years; Sir Crispin Tickell, who believes that the United Kingdom's population needs to be cut by two-thirds so the country can cope with global warming; and Timothy Flannery, who warns of sea level rises as high as "an eight-story building."
Free speech is important. But these visions of catastrophe are a long way outside of mainstream scientific opinion, and they go much further than the careful findings of the United Nations panel of climate change scientists. When it comes to sea-level rise, for example, the United Nations expects a rise of between seven and 23 inches by 2100 -- considerably less than a one-story building.
There would be an outcry -- and rightfully so -- if big oil organized a climate change conference and invited only climate-change deniers.
The partnership among self-interested businesses, grandstanding politicians and alarmist campaigners truly is an unholy alliance. The climate-industrial complex does not promote discussion on how to overcome this challenge in a way that will be best for everybody. We should not be surprised or impressed that those who stand to make a profit are among the loudest calling for politicians to act. Spending a fortune on global carbon regulations will benefit a few, but dearly cost everybody else.
Mr. Lomborg is director of the Copenhagen Consensus, a think tank, and author of "Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming" (Knopf, 2007).
The Climate-Industrial Complex
By BJORN LOMBORG, May 22, 2009Mr.
Lomborg is director of the Copenhagen Consensus, a think tank, and author of "Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming" (Knopf, 2007).
Herr Lomberg accepts man made global warming is a fact.
"Unlike earlier climate change sceptics, Lomborg accepts the reality of climate change but adopts a triple track argument for doing little. First, he adopts a fatalistic position that little can be done. "Global warming is real and caused by CO2. The trouble is that the climate models show we can do very little about the warming," he wrote in the Daily Telegraph".
http://www.opinion.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/200 4/12/12/do1202.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2004/12/12/ixopinion.html
Lomberg is also the only scientist dismissed for dishonesty by the Danish government, and who now shills for the oil company financed,
anti-Global Warming, right-wing think-tank, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, dedicated to keeping kapitalism safe and protected while it phucks over the entire planet, given half a chance..
Lomberg's bottom line is please don't inflict extra costs that might eat into even the most stupendous of profits such as those made by the oil, coal and gas and transport industries. And his fatalistic, do-nothing diagnosis is contested by organisations seeking to provide workable solutions such as 350 Org (derived from the agreed acceptable limits of CO2 concentrations expressed as parts per million).
http://www.350.org/
Lomberg's current hobbies include fighting the NWO on all fronts, according to item7's "best judgement".
ROFLMAO.
Quite apart from being the most gullible and poorly researched poster on here since the no-planes cult invasion, you'd think basic respect would require some cross-checking before inflicting this continuous and ongoing stream of duplicitous tosh on this forum by item7.
What un wad de dick, pardon my French. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
Why I am a Climate Realist
Dr Willem de Lange, 23 May 2009
In 1996 the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Second Assessment Report was released, and I was listed as one of approximately 3000 “scientists” who agreed that there was a discernable human influence on climate.
I was an invited reviewer for a chapter dealing with the economic impact of sea level rise on small island nations. In keeping with IPCC procedures, the chapter was written and reviewed in isolation from the rest of the report, and I had no input into the process after my review of the chapter draft. I was not asked if I supported the view expressed in my name, and my understanding at the time was that no evidence of a discernable human influence on global climate existed.
The chapter I reviewed dealt primarily with the economic consequences of an assumed sea level rise of 1 m causing extensive inundation. My response was that I could not comment on the economic analysis, however, I disagreed with the initial assumptions, particularly the assumed sea level rise in the stated time period. Further, there was good evidence at the time that sea level rise would not necessarily result in flooding of small island nations, because natural processes on coral atolls were likely to raise island levels.
The IPCC Second Assessment Report assessed sea level rise by AD 2100 as being in the range 0.20-0.86 m, with a most likely value of 0.49 m (less than half the rate assumed for the economic analysis). Subsequent research has demonstrated that coral atolls and associated islands are likely to increase in elevation as sea level rises. Hence, the assumptions were invalid, and I was convinced that IPCC projections were unrealistic and exaggerated the problem.
Following the release of IPCC Second Assessment Report I also co-authored the sea level rise section of the New Zealand impact report, and same section for a revised report following the release of IPCC Third Assessment Report (2001). The third report followed the trend of decreasing sea level rise projections evident in sea level rise literature, with a most likely projection of 0.44 m. However, some extreme scenarios were added at a late stage of the review process to give a wider range of projections from 0.09-0.88 m. There was little support in the literature for these extremes, and my view was that a range of 0.31-0.49 m was more reasonable. I also expected future projections to be lower.
For the New Zealand 2001 report, I was asked to state that sea level rise was accelerating, or at least could be accelerating. However, my own research and published literature shows that sea level fluctuates at decadal time scales. Therefore, although there was an increase in the rate of sea level rise around 1998, I expected sea level rise to slow and reverse early in the 21st Century. The underlying long-term trend, however, was likely to decrease, and there were some tide gauge data to indicate that it had started to do so. In the 1980s, the New Zealand rate was 1.8 mm per year. By 1990, it was 1.7 mm per year, and by 2001 it was 1.6 mm per year. These changes are small, and were not enough to prove that sea level rise was slowing. However, they clearly did not show that sea level rise was accelerating.
After 2001, published studies continued to project lower global sea level rises over the 21st Century, and several reported a slowing of the rate of rise during the 20th Century. Shortly before the IPCC Assessment Report 4 was published I undertook a literature review of all sea level studies, which: projected lower levels than the IPCC Third Assessment Report review; indicated a slowing of the rate of sea level rise; emphasised the role of decadal scale fluctuations; and there was concern about the discrepancy between satellite and tide gauge sea level measurements. It was recognised that, although satellite sensing gives a better overall measurement of global sea level, satellites reported twice the rate of sea level rise being measured at the coast. It was evident that satellite data could not be combined with tide gauge data.
The IPCC Assessment Report 4 report emphasises a single paper, which was not available when I conducted my review, which spliced the satellite data onto the tide gauge data to “find” acceleration in sea level rise over the period of satellite measurement. This is being used to imply that global sea level rise is accelerating due to global warming (now renamed Climate Change). The satellite data only covered the period of increasing sea level associated with decadal cycles, and the known discrepancy between satellite trends and tide gauge trends was not corrected for. This is poor science comparable to the splicing of proxy and instrument data in the infamous Hockey Stick graph, and the splicing of ice core and instrumental CO2 measurements to exaggerate the changes.
Despite therefore finding accelerating sea level rise, the latest IPCC assessment projects lower sea level rises than the previous ones. The methodology used to report the projections was changed to make comparisons harder, but the range of 0.18-0.59 m equates to a most likely rise of around 0.39 m. The IPCC Assessment Report 4 also included an extra 0.20 m allowance for uncertainties associated with destabilisation of the Greenland and West Antarctic Ice Caps. Various groups have speculated that the collapse of these Ice Caps could produce a much higher additional sea level rise. In contrast, published studies that have specifically studied this contribution have concluded that given the worst possible scenarios, the maximum extra contribution is 0.18 m. Hence, the IPCC Assessment Report 4 allowance is a very conservative upper bound.
What has sea level actually done so far this century? There have been large regional variations, but the global rate has slowed and is currently negative, consistent with measured ocean cooling. Claims to the contrary are exaggerations and not realistic.
So, given my understanding of oceanography, what do I believe about climate change? Firstly climate change is real, and has occurred on Earth for at least 4 billion years – as long as an atmosphere and oceans have existed. Climate change occurs in cycles at various time scales, with the shorter time scales known as weather (by convention the distinction is 35 years). Trying to stop or control climate change is akin to stopping ocean tides. Secondly, I believe human activities affect climate, otherwise why would I bother with a mortgage. The climate inside my house is different to the climate that would exist if my house were gone.
There are many ways human activities affect climate on a small scale. Interestingly the concentration of CO2 is not one of them (CO2 are often elevated inside buildings). As the size of the area considered increases, the impact of human activities decreases. As the latest IPCC report notes, there is no convincing evidence of the impact of CO2 (or any other human influence on climate) at a continental scale. Yet, they say that the impact of a CO2 (and other gases treated as effective CO2) is the dominant driver of climate at a global scale and will have catastrophic consequences. This conclusion I strongly disagree with. Why?
It is frequently pointed out that the Earth is approximately 32°C warmer than it would be without an atmosphere due to the Greenhouse Effect. This is misleading, as the climate system responsible for this extra warmth includes many components. Important ones omitted in most discussions are clouds and oceans. About 70 percent of the Earth’s surface is covered in water, which absorbs sunlight and warms up. The oceans retain heat better than land, and, while slow to warm up, they cool slowly and warm the surroundings (a maritime climate).
Considering the available data, it is clear that the oceans warmed over the 20th Century by about the same amount as the atmosphere. This agreement should not be entirely surprising as 70 percent of the mean global air temperature comes from over oceans. The inconvenient truth that is generally ignored, is that the atmosphere is not capable of warming the oceans to any significant degree – 99.9 percent of ocean heat is derived from sunlight at wavelengths less than 3 microns. The balance is mostly from heat leaking from the interior of the Earth. The Greenhouse Effect involves a delay in the loss of infra-red radiation at wavelengths greater than 5 microns.
What does this mean for climate change? It means that variations in the amount of sunlight reaching the oceans will control the rate at which the oceans warm. This is influenced at long time scales by changes in the Earth’s orbit. At short time scales there are changes in the amount of sunlight associated with the sunspot cycle. These changes are small, but due to the ability of the oceans to store heat it may be possible to have a cumulative effect as sunspot cycles wax and wane. However, the main control is the amount of cloud and ice cover. Clouds and sea ice reflect sunlight before it can be absorbed by the oceans, and is referred to as albedo. Albedo changes have a greater influence on climate than the Greenhouse Effect, and are usually invoked to produce the catastrophic consequences of “Climate Change” (aka Accelerated Global Warming).
Oceans lose heat through evaporation (53 percent), infra-red radiation (41 percent) and conduction (6 percent). The Greenhouse Effect can slow the loss of the infra-red radiation, thereby warming the atmosphere but not the oceans. However, evaporation accounts for more than half the heat loss. Evaporation produces clouds, and hence there is a feedback loop – warming the oceans results in more evaporation, producing more clouds, which increases albedo, which cools the oceans. This is exactly what was observed during The Tropical Ocean Global Atmosphere Coupled Ocean Atmosphere Response Experiment (TOGA COARE) that was set up to investigate the Pacific Warm Pool – the warmest ocean water in the western equatorial Pacific Ocean. COARE also found that rainfall would cool the ocean surface, so increased evaporation producing rain is another feedback loop.
What does this have to do with the 20th Century? Well the observed climate change is consistent with variations in albedo and associated ocean warming and cooling, suggesting that it is just a natural cycle. This pattern of behaviour is evident in palaeoclimate data for most of the last 10,000 years. None of this is simulated in climate models. Instead they focus on the 20th Century increase in CO2, CH4 and a few other greenhouse gases. The increasing concentrations correlate well with global temperature. This is taken as proof that the greenhouse effect is driving temperature.
However, it is also correct that changing ocean temperatures affect the concentration of these gases in the atmosphere. At annual and 2-7 year time scales it is clear that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is strongly driven by the ocean. At longer time scales it is also clear that the concentration of greenhouse gases lags behind, and therefore is driven by, temperature. Once again the oceans are the likely control on atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations. The IPCC position requires that for 50-100 year periods everything works in reverse, which still showing a n oceanic influence at shorter time periods. It is more likely that the warming of the oceans since the Little Ice Age is a major contributor to the observed increase in CO2. Carbon isotopic ratios indicate that while there is a contribution from the burning of fossil fuels, it is of the order 1-5 percent of the increase.
So, I am a climate realist because the available evidence indicates that climate change is predominantly, if not entirely, natural. It occurs mostly in response to variations in solar heating of the oceans, and the consequences this has for the rest of the Earth’s climate system. There is no evidence to support the hypothesis runaway catastrophic climate change due to human activities.
No - it isn't April Fools day!!! They MEAN this kind of cr@p!!!!!
Quote:
Burping of the lambs blows roast off menu
From The Sunday Times, May 24, 2009
Jonathan Leake, Environment Editor
GIVE up lamb roasts and save the planet. Government advisers are developing menus to combat climate change by cutting out “high carbon” food such as meat from sheep, whose burping poses a serious threat to the environment.
Out will go kebabs, greenhouse tomatoes and alcohol. Instead, diners will be encouraged to consume more potatoes and seasonal vegetables, as well as pork and chicken, which generate fewer carbon emissions.
“Changing our lifestyles, including our diets, is going to be one of the crucial elements in cutting carbon emissions,” said David Kennedy, chief executive of the Committee on Climate Change.
Kennedy has stopped eating his favourite doner kebabs because they contain lamb.
A government-sponsored study into greenhouse gases found that producing 2.2lb of lamb released the equivalent of 37lb of carbon dioxide.
The problem is because sheep burp so much methane, a potent greenhouse gas. Cows are only slightly better behaved. The production of 2.2lb of beef releases methane equivalent to 35lb of CO2 Tomatoes, most of which are grown in heated glasshouses, are the most “carbon-intensive” vegetable, each 2.2lb generating more than 20lb of CO2 Potatoes, in contrast, release only about 1lb of CO2 for each 2.2lb of food. The figures are similar for most other native fruit and vegetables.
“We are not saying that everyone should become vegetarian or give up drinking but moving towards less carbon intensive foods will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve health,” said Kennedy.
The climate committee is analysing emissions from farming and will suggest measures to reduce them. However, it has concluded that people will have to change their habits.
Alcoholic drinks are another significant contributory factor, with the growing and processing of crops such as hops and malt into beer and whisky helping to generate 1.5% of the nation’s greenhouse gases.
The Carbon Trust, a government-funded firm, is working with food and drink companies to calculate the “carbon footprints” of products - sometimes with surprising results.
Coca-Cola, for example, generates only about half the greenhouse gas emissions of Innocent’s “smoothies”. Cadbury’s chocolate generates about 4½lb for every 2.2lb eaten - less than half that from theof CO2 same weight of chicken.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
