| READ MAIN PAGE | RSS Feed | RSS Comments | Log in | |
|
Warned about during May 2007
Source: LA Times
Source: Mises
This evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until we are absolutely certain when we apparently need to act now? So the idea that carbon emissions were causing global warming passed from the scientific community into the political realm. Research increased, bureaucracies were formed, international committees met, and eventually the Kyoto protocol was signed in 1997 to curb carbon emissions. The political realm in turn fed money back into the scientific community. By the late 1990s, lots of jobs depended on the idea that carbon emissions caused global warming. Many of them were bureaucratic, but there were a lot of science jobs created too. I was on that gravy train, making a high wage in a science job that would not have existed if we didn’t believe carbon emissions caused global warming. And so were lots of people around me; there were international conferences full of such people. We had political support, the ear of government, big budgets. We felt fairly important and useful (I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet! But starting in about 2000, the last three of the four pieces of evidence above fell away. Using the same point numbers as above:
It took several hundred years of warming for the oceans to give off more of their carbon. This proves that there is a cause of global warming other than atmospheric carbon. And while it is possible that rising atmospheric carbon in these past warmings then went on to cause more warming (”amplification” of the initial warming), the ice core data neither proves nor disproves this hypothesis.
There is now no observational evidence that global warming is caused by carbon emissions. You would think that in over 20 years of intense investigation we would have found something. For example, greenhouse warming due to carbon emissions should warm the upper atmosphere faster than the lower atmosphere — but until 2006 the data showed the opposite, and thus that the greenhouse effect was not occurring! In 2006 better data allowed that the effect might be occurring, except in the tropics. The only current “evidence” for blaming carbon emissions are scientific models (and the fact that there are few contradictory observations). Historically, science has not progressed by calculations and models, but by repeatable observations. Some theories held by science authorities have turned out to be spectacularly wrong: heavier-than-air flight is impossible, the sun orbits the earth, etc. For excellent reasons, we have much more confidence in observations by several independent parties than in models produced by a small set of related parties! Let’s return to the interaction between science and politics. By 2000 the political system had responded to the strong scientific case that carbon emissions caused global warming by creating thousands of bureaucratic and science jobs aimed at more research and at curbing carbon emissions. But after 2000 the case against carbon emissions gradually got weaker. Future evidence might strengthen or further weaken it. At what stage of the weakening should the science community alert the political system that carbon emissions might not be the main cause of global warming? None of the new evidence actually says that carbon emissions are definitely not the cause of global warming, there are lots of good science jobs potentially at stake, and if the scientific message wavers then it might be difficult to later recapture the attention of the political system. What has happened is that most research efforts since 1990 have assumed that carbon emissions were the cause, and the alternatives get much less research or political attention. Unfortunately politics and science have become even more entangled. Climate change has become a partisan political issue, so positions become more entrenched. Politicians and the public prefer simple and less-nuanced messages. At the moment the political climate strongly blames carbon emissions, to the point of silencing critics. The integrity of the scientific community will win out in the end, following the evidence wherever it leads. But in the meantime, the effect of the political climate is that most people are overestimating the evidence that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming. I recently bet $6,000 that the rate of global warming would slow in the next two decades. Carbon emissions might be the dominant cause of global warming, but I reckon that probability to be 20% rather than the 90% the IPCC estimates. I worry that politics could seriously distort the science. Suppose that carbon taxes are widely enacted, but that the rate of global warming increase starts to decline by 2015. The political system might pressure scientists to provide justifications for the taxes. Imagine the following scenario. Carbon emissions cause some warming, maybe 0.05C/decade. But the current warming rate of 0.20C/decade is mainly due to some natural cause, which in 15 years has run its course and reverses. So by 2025 global temperatures start dropping. In the meantime, on the basis of models from a small group of climate scientists but with no observational evidence (because the small warming due to carbon emissions is masked by the larger natural warming), the world has dutifully paid an enormous cost to curb carbon emissions. Politicians, expressing the anger and apparent futility of all the unnecessary poverty and effort, lead the lynching of the high priests with their opaque models. Ironically, because carbon emissions are raising the temperature baseline around which natural variability occurs, carbon emissions might need curbing after all. Maybe. The current situation is characterized by a lack of observational evidence, so no one knows yet. Some people take strong rhetorical positions on global warming. But the cause of global warming is not just another political issue, subject to endless debate and distortions. The cause of global warming is an issue that falls into the realm of science, because it is falsifiable. No amount of human posturing will affect what the cause is. It just physically is there, and after sufficient research and time we will know what it is. (A version of this article was previously blogged on Mises.org here, and inspired a spirited debate. The author reworked the piece for the Mises.org front page. The blog item remains the same.)
Source: FT.com The growing political salience of environmental politics has sparked a “green gold rush”, which has seen a dramatic expansion in the number of businesses offering both companies and individuals the chance to go “carbon neutral”, offsetting their own energy use by buying carbon credits that cancel out their contribution to global warming. The burgeoning regulated market for carbon credits is expected to more than double in size to about $68.2bn by 2010, with the unregulated voluntary sector rising to $4bn in the same period.
There is nothing new about the fear mongering about global warming and climate change except that big corporations and greedy zealots have now found a way, by modern means, to tax people for it and make them subject to a system in which the belief of disaster is supposed to be more important than actual science. People are not supposed to think for themselves. In the 70’s it was the Global Cooling fears that were the hot topic of debate. A lot of Global Warming activists are probably too young to remember that and we all know how that generation cares nothing about facts and history, so for those that do, here’s an interesting video that highlights the fear mongering of the 70’s.
Source: Newsbusters As will be revealed post haste, this newest – and likely youngest – member of the growing list of folks skeptical about man’s role in climate change actually walks the walk better than she talks the talk. Yet, despite her youth and precocious scientific acumen, it seems quite unlikely that she’ll be sitting down with Matt Lauer or Diane Sawyer any time soon to discuss her research concerning one of the most popular subjects on the media’s front-burner. Why? Because a prediction that she made last month concerning Australia’s drought has marvelously borne fruit making the scientists employed by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change look a bit foolish. [more]
Source: JS Online
Source: George Monbiot
John Edwards, you know, the ambulance chaser who would like to be president, believes that Global Warming could lead to increased terrorism. Sound like an insane comment thought up by some right wing Republican? Maybe. But it’s on his site. Fighting global warming will also protect our security interests — a recent report authored by a group of top military leaders said that, if unchecked, global warming could lead to civil strife, genocide, and increased terrorism.
Source: LVM Institute Thus, for example, from the depraved perspective of environmentalism, if global carbon dioxide emissions equal to 25 percent of present emissions were to disappear, because those responsible for them ceased to exist, there would be no need for the global cutback in emissions urged by the Stern Review, and thus no need for any diminution in economic well-being on the part of the survivors (provided, of course, their number did not increase). If still more emissions could be eliminated by the elimination of still more people, there would be room for actual economic improvement among the survivors, according to environmentalism. Obviously, the magnitude of mass murder that is invited is the greater, the greater is the alleged need to curb carbon dioxide emissions. Those who recognize the astoundingly evil nature of environmentalism must never cease opposing it.
Source: John Anderson
Source: Kristen Byrnes Al did not make and publicize this movie because he cares; something obvious when you consider his own lifestyle. He did not make this movie to run for president. This movie has grossed over 60 million dollars to date and it hasn’t even made it to cable. Al charges over $100,000 per slide show. But the real money that Al will make is through his new company, Generation Investment Management, a company that seeks to establish the rules and licensing for the new carbon-trading scheme. We have all heard of politicians who lie for money and power; it looks as if Al did not retire after all.
Source: John Anderson
Source: US Senate Committe on Environment and Public Works Following the U.S. Senate’s vote today on a global warming measure (see today’s AP article: Senate Defeats Climate Change Measure,) it is an opportune time to examine the recent and quite remarkable momentum shift taking place in climate science. Many former believers in catastrophic man-made global warming have recently reversed themselves and are now climate skeptics. The names included below are just a sampling of the prominent scientists who have spoken out recently to oppose former Vice President Al Gore, the United Nations, and the media driven “consensus” on man-made global warming. The list below is just the tip of the iceberg. A more detailed and comprehensive sampling of scientists who have only recently spoken out against climate hysteria will be forthcoming in a soon to be released U.S. Senate report. Please stay tuned to this website, as this new government report is set to redefine the current climate debate. In the meantime, please review the list of scientists below and ask yourself why the media is missing one of the biggest stories in climate of 2007. Feel free to distribute the partial list of scientists who recently converted to skeptics to your local schools and universities. The voices of rank and file scientists opposing climate doomsayers can serve as a counter to the alarmism that children are being exposed to on a daily basis. (See Washington Post April 16, 2007 article about kids fearing of a “climactic Armageddon”) The media’s climate fear factor seemingly grows louder even as the latest science grows less and less alarming by the day. (See Der Spiegel May 7, 2007 article: Not the End of the World as We Know It) It is also worth noting that the proponents of climate fears are increasingly attempting to suppress dissent by skeptics. (See UPI May 10, 2007 article: U.N. official says it’s ‘completely immoral’ to doubt global warming fears) Once Believers, Now Skeptics (Link to pdf version) Geophysicist Dr. Claude Allegre, a top geophysicist and French Socialist who has authored more than 100 scientific articles and written 11 books and received numerous scientific awards including the Goldschmidt Medal from the Geochemical Society of the United States, converted from climate alarmist to skeptic in 2006. Allegre, who was one of the first scientists to sound global warming fears 20 years ago, now says the cause of climate change is “unknown” and accused the “prophets of doom of global warming” of being motivated by money, noting that “the ecology of helpless protesting has become a very lucrative business for some people!” “Glaciers’ chronicles or historical archives point to the fact that climate is a capricious phenomena. This fact is confirmed by mathematical meteorological theories. So, let us be cautious,” Allegre explained in a September 21, 2006 article in the French newspaper L’EXPRESS. The National Post in Canada also profiled Allegre on March 2, 2007, noting “Allegre has the highest environmental credentials. The author of early environmental books, he fought successful battles to protect the ozone layer from CFCs and public health from lead pollution.” Allegre now calls fears of a climate disaster “simplistic and obscuring the true dangers” mocks “the greenhouse-gas fanatics whose proclamations consist in denouncing man’s role on the climate without doing anything about it except organizing conferences and preparing protocols that become dead letters.” Allegre, a member of both the French and U.S. Academy of Sciences, had previously expressed concern about manmade global warming. “By burning fossil fuels, man enhanced the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which has raised the global mean temperature by half a degree in the last century,” Allegre wrote 20 years ago. In addition, Allegre was one of 1500 scientists who signed a November 18, 1992 letter titled “World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity” in which the scientists warned that global warming’s “potential risks are very great.” Geologist Bruno Wiskel of the University of Alberta recently reversed his view of man-made climate change and instead became a global warming skeptic. Wiskel was once such a big believer in man-made global warming that he set out to build a “Kyoto house” in honor of the UN sanctioned Kyoto Protocol which was signed in 1997. Wiskel wanted to prove that the Kyoto Protocol’s goals were achievable by people making small changes in their lives. But after further examining the science behind Kyoto, Wiskel reversed his scientific views completely and became such a strong skeptic, that he recently wrote a book titled “The Emperor’s New Climate: Debunking the Myth of Global Warming.” A November 15, 2006 Edmonton Sun article explains Wiskel’s conversion while building his “Kyoto house”: “Instead, he said he realized global warming theory was full of holes and ‘red flags,’ and became convinced that humans are not responsible for rising temperatures.” Wiskel now says “the truth has to start somewhere.” Noting that the Earth has been warming for 18,000 years, Wiskel told the Canadian newspaper, “If this happened once and we were the cause of it, that would be cause for concern. But glaciers have been coming and going for billions of years.” Wiskel also said that global warming has gone “from a science to a religion” and noted that research money is being funneled into promoting climate alarmism instead of funding areas he considers more worthy. “If you funnel money into things that can’t be changed, the money is not going into the places that it is needed,” he said. Astrophysicist Dr. Nir Shaviv, one of Israel’s top young award winning scientists, recanted his belief that manmade emissions were driving climate change. “”Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit in the story of global warming. But after carefully digging into the evidence, I realized that things are far more complicated than the story sold to us by many climate scientists or the stories regurgitated by the media. In fact, there is much more than meets the eye,” Shaviv said in February 2, 2007 Canadian National Post article. According to Shaviv, the C02 temperature link is only “incriminating circumstantial evidence.” “Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global warming” and “it is unlikely that [the solar climate link] does not exist,” Shaviv noted pointing to the impact cosmic- rays have on the atmosphere. According to the National Post, Shaviv believes that even a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere by 2100 “will not dramatically increase the global temperature.” “Even if we halved the CO2 output, and the CO2 increase by 2100 would be, say, a 50% increase relative to today instead of a doubled amount, the expected reduction in the rise of global temperature would be less than 0.5C. This is not significant,” Shaviv explained. Shaviv also wrote on August 18, 2006 that a colleague of his believed that “CO2 should have a large effect on climate” so “he set out to reconstruct the phanerozoic temperature. He wanted to find the CO2 signature in the data, but since there was none, he slowly had to change his views.” Shaviv believes there will be more scientists converting to man-made global warming skepticism as they discover the dearth of evidence. “I think this is common to many of the scientists who think like us (that is, that CO2 is a secondary climate driver). Each one of us was working in his or her own niche. While working there, each one of us realized that things just don’t add up to support the AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) picture. So many had to change their views,” he wrote. Mathematician & engineer Dr. David Evans, who did carbon accounting for the Australian Government, recently detailed his conversion to a skeptic. “I devoted six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian government to estimate carbon emissions from land use change and forestry. When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty conclusive, but since then new evidence has weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause. I am now skeptical,” Evans wrote in an April 30, 2007 blog. “But after 2000 the evidence for carbon emissions gradually got weaker — better temperature data for the last century, more detailed ice core data, then laboratory evidence that cosmic rays precipitate low clouds,” Evans wrote. “As Lord Keynes famously said, ‘When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?’” he added. Evans noted how he benefited from climate fears as a scientist. “And the political realm in turn fed money back into the scientific community. By the late 1990’s, lots of jobs depended on the idea that carbon emissions caused global warming. Many of them were bureaucratic, but there were a lot of science jobs created too. I was on that gravy train, making a high wage in a science job that would not have existed if we didn’t believe carbon emissions caused global warming. And so were lots of people around me; and there were international conferences full of such people. And we had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet! But starting in about 2000, the last three of the four pieces of evidence outlined above fell away or reversed,” Evans wrote. “The pre-2000 ice core data was the central evidence for believing that atmospheric carbon caused temperature increases. The new ice core data shows that past warmings were *not* initially caused by rises in atmospheric carbon, and says nothing about the strength of any amplification. This piece of evidence casts reasonable doubt that atmospheric carbon had any role in past warmings, while still allowing the possibility that it had a supporting role,” he added. “Unfortunately politics and science have become even more entangled. The science of global warming has become a partisan political issue, so positions become more entrenched. Politicians and the public prefer simple and less-nuanced messages. At the moment the political climate strongly supports carbon emissions as the cause of global warming, to the point of sometimes rubbishing or silencing critics,” he concluded. (Evans bio link ) Climate researcher Dr. Tad Murty, former Senior Research Scientist for Fisheries and Oceans in Canada, also reversed himself from believer in man-made climate change to a skeptic. “I stated with a firm belief about global warming, until I started working on it myself,” Murty explained on August 17, 2006. “I switched to the other side in the early 1990’s when Fisheries and Oceans Canada asked me to prepare a position paper and I started to look into the problem seriously,” Murty explained. Murty was one of the 60 scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper which stated in part, “If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary.” Botanist Dr. David Bellamy, a famed UK environmental campaigner, former lecturer at Durham University and host of a popular UK TV series on wildlife, recently converted into a skeptic after reviewing the science and now calls global warming fears “poppycock.” According to a May 15, 2005 article in the UK Sunday Times, Bellamy said “global warming is largely a natural phenomenon. The world is wasting stupendous amounts of money on trying to fix something that can’t be fixed.” “The climate-change people have no proof for their claims. They have computer models which do not prove anything,” Bellamy added. Bellamy’s conversion on global warming did not come without a sacrifice as several environmental groups have ended their association with him because of his views on climate change. The severing of relations came despite Bellamy’s long activism for green campaigns. The UK Times reported Bellamy “won respect from hardline environmentalists with his campaigns to save Britain’s peat bogs and other endangered habitats. In Tasmania he was arrested when he tried to prevent loggers cutting down a rainforest.” Climate scientist Dr. Chris de Freitas of The University of Auckland, N.Z., also converted from a believer in man-made global warming to a skeptic. “At first I accepted that increases in human caused additions of carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere would trigger changes in water vapor etc. and lead to dangerous ‘global warming,’ But with time and with the results of research, I formed the view that, although it makes for a good story, it is unlikely that the man-made changes are drivers of significant climate variation.” de Freitas wrote on August 17, 2006. “I accept there may be small changes. But I see the risk of anything serious to be minute,” he added. “One could reasonably argue that lack of evidence is not a good reason for complacency. But I believe the billions of dollars committed to GW research and lobbying for GW and for Kyoto treaties etc could be better spent on uncontroversial and very real environmental problems (such as air pollution, poor sanitation, provision of clean water and improved health services) that we know affect tens of millions of people,” de Freitas concluded. de Freitas was one of the 60 scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper which stated in part, “Significant [scientific] advances have been made since the [Kyoto] protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases.” Meteorologist Dr. Reid Bryson, the founding chairman of the Department of Meteorology at University of Wisconsin (now the Department of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences, was pivotal in promoting the coming ice age scare of the 1970’s ( See Time Magazine’s 1974 article “Another Ice Age” citing Bryson: & see Newsweek’s 1975 article “The Cooling World” citing Bryson) has now converted into a leading global warming skeptic. In February 8, 2007 Bryson dismissed what he terms “sky is falling” man-made global warming fears. Bryson, was on the United Nations Global 500 Roll of Honor and was identified by the British Institute of Geographers as the most frequently cited climatologist in the world. “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?” Bryson told the May 2007 issue of Energy Cooperative News. “All this argument is the temperature going up or not, it’s absurd. 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,” Bryson said. “You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide,” he added. “We cannot say what part of that warming was due to mankind’s addition of ‘greenhouse gases’ until we consider the other possible factors, such as aerosols. The aerosol content of the atmosphere was measured during the past century, but to my knowledge this data was never used. We can say that the question of anthropogenic modification of the climate is an important question — too important to ignore. However, it has now become a media free-for-all and a political issue more than a scientific problem,” Bryson explained in 2005. Global warming author and economist Hans H.J. Labohm started out as a man-made global warming believer but he later switched his view after conducting climate research. Labohm wrote on August 19, 2006, “I started as a anthropogenic global warming believer, then I read the [UN’s IPCC] Summary for Policymakers and the research of prominent skeptics.” “After that, I changed my mind,” Labohn explained. Labohn co-authored the 2004 book “Man-Made Global Warming: Unraveling a Dogma,” with chemical engineer Dick Thoenes who was the former chairman of the Royal Netherlands Chemical Society. Labohm was one of the 60 scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper which stated in part, “’Climate change is real’ is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural ‘noise.’” Paleoclimatologist Tim Patterson, of Carlton University in Ottawa converted from believer in C02 driving the climate change to a skeptic. “I taught my students that CO2 was the prime driver of climate change,” Patterson wrote on April 30, 2007. Patterson said his “conversion” happened following his research on “the nature of paleo-commercial fish populations in the NE Pacific.” “[My conversion from believer to climate skeptic] came about approximately 5-6 years ago when results began to come in from a major NSERC (Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada) Strategic Project Grant where I was PI (principle investigator),” Patterson explained. “Over the course of about a year, I switched allegiances,” he wrote. “As the proxy results began to come in, we were astounded to find that paleoclimatic and paleoproductivity records were full of cycles that corresponded to various sun-spot cycles. About that time, [geochemist] Jan Veizer and others began to publish reasonable hypotheses as to how solar signals could be amplified and control climate,” Patterson noted. Patterson says his conversion “probably cost me a lot of grant money. However, as a scientist I go where the science takes me and not were activists want me to go.” Patterson now asserts that more and more scientists are converting to climate skeptics. “When I go to a scientific meeting, there’s lots of opinion out there, there’s lots of discussion (about climate change). I was at the Geological Society of America meeting in Philadelphia in the fall and I would say that people with my opinion were probably in the majority,” Patterson told the Winnipeg Sun on February 13, 2007. Patterson, who believes the sun is responsible for the recent warm up of the Earth, ridiculed the environmentalists and the media for not reporting the truth. “But if you listen to [Canadian environmental activist David] Suzuki and the media, it’s like a tiger chasing its tail. They try to outdo each other and all the while proclaiming that the debate is over but it isn’t — come out to a scientific meeting sometime,” Patterson said. In a separate interview on April 26, 2007 with a Canadian newspaper, Patterson explained that the scientific proof favors skeptics. “I think the proof in the pudding, based on what (media and governments) are saying, (is) we’re about three quarters of the way (to disaster) with the doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere,” he said. “The world should be heating up like crazy by now, and it’s not. The temperatures match very closely with the solar cycles.” Physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, chairman of the Central Laboratory for the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Radiological Protection in Warsaw, took a scientific journey from a believer of man-made climate change in the form of global cooling in the 1970’s all the way to converting to a skeptic of current predictions of catastrophic man-made global warming. “At the beginning of the 1970s I believed in man-made climate cooling, and therefore I started a study on the effects of industrial pollution on the global atmosphere, using glaciers as a history book on this pollution,” Dr. Jaworowski, wrote on August 17, 2006. “With the advent of man-made warming political correctness in the beginning of 1980s, I already had a lot of experience with polar and high altitude ice, and I have serious problems in accepting the reliability of ice core CO2 studies,” Jaworowski added. Jaworowski, who has published many papers on climate with a focus on CO2 measurements in ice cores, also dismissed the UN IPCC summary and questioned what the actual level of C02 was in the atmosphere in a March 16, 2007 report in EIR science entitled “CO2: The Greatest Scientific Scandal of Our Time.” “We thus find ourselves in the situation that the entire theory of man-made global warming—with its repercussions in science, and its important consequences for politics and the global economy—is based on ice core studies that provided a false picture of the atmospheric CO2 levels,” Jaworowski wrote. “For the past three decades, these well-known direct CO2 measurements, recently compiled and analyzed by Ernst-Georg Beck (Beck 2006a, Beck 2006b, Beck 2007), were completely ignored by climatologists—and not because they were wrong. Indeed, these measurements were made by several Nobel Prize winners, using the techniques that are standard textbook procedures in chemistry, biochemistry, botany, hygiene, medicine, nutrition, and ecology. The only reason for rejection was that these measurements did not fit the hypothesis of anthropogenic climatic warming. I regard this as perhaps the greatest scientific scandal of our time,” Jaworowski wrote. “The hypothesis, in vogue in the 1970s, stating that emissions of industrial dust will soon induce the new Ice Age, seem now to be a conceited anthropocentric exaggeration, bringing into discredit the science of that time. The same fate awaits the present,” he added. Jaworowski believes that cosmic rays and solar activity are major drivers of the Earth’s climate. Jaworowski was one of the 60 scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper which stated in part: “It may be many years yet before we properly understand the Earth’s climate system. Nevertheless, significant advances have been made since the protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases.” Paleoclimatologist Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor of the Department of Earth Sciences at University of Ottawa, reversed his views on man-made climate change after further examining the evidence. “I used to agree with these dramatic warnings of climate disaster. I taught my students that most of the increase in temperature of the past century was due to human contribution of C02. The association seemed so clear and simple. Increases of greenhouse gases were driving us towards a climate catastrophe,” Clark said in a 2005 documentary “Climate Catastrophe Cancelled: What You’re Not Being Told About the Science of Climate Change.” “However, a few years ago, I decided to look more closely at the science and it astonished me. In fact there is no evidence of humans being the cause. There is, however, overwhelming evidence of natural causes such as changes in the output of the sun. This has completely reversed my views on the Kyoto protocol,” Clark explained. “Actually, many other leading climate researchers also have serious concerns about the science underlying the [Kyoto] Protocol,” he added. Environmental geochemist Dr. Jan Veizer, professor emeritus of University of Ottawa, converted from believer to skeptic after conducting scientific studies of climate history. “I simply accepted the (global warming) theory as given,” Veizer wrote on April 30, 2007 about predictions that increasing C02 in the atmosphere was leading to a climate catastrophe. “The final conversion came when I realized that the solar/cosmic ray connection gave far more consistent picture with climate, over many time scales, than did the CO2 scenario,” Veizer wrote. “It was the results of my work on past records, on geological time scales, that led me to realize the discrepancies with empirical observations. Trying to understand the background issues of modeling led to realization of the assumptions and uncertainties involved,” Veizer explained. “The past record strongly favors the solar/cosmic alternative as the principal climate driver,” he added. Veizer acknowledgez the Earth has been warming and he believes in the scientific value of climate modeling. “The major point where I diverge from the IPCC scenario is my belief that it underestimates the role of natural variability by proclaiming CO2 to be the only reasonable source of additional energy in the planetary balance. Such additional energy is needed to drive the climate. The point is that most of the temperature, in both nature and models, arises from the greenhouse of water vapor (model language ‘positive water vapor feedback’,) Veizer wrote. “Thus to get more temperature, more water vapor is needed. This is achieved by speeding up the water cycle by inputting more energy into the system,” he continued. “Note that it is not CO2 that is in the models but its presumed energy equivalent (model language ‘prescribed CO2’). Yet, the models (and climate) would generate a more or less similar outcome regardless where this additional energy is coming from. This is why the solar/cosmic connection is so strongly opposed, because it can influence the global energy budget which, in turn, diminishes the need for an energy input from the CO2 greenhouse,” he wrote. Related Links
Source: Yorkshire Post Dr Mark Roodhouse, a historian from the University of York, believes that while many favour green taxes, their introduction wouldn’t deliver the much needed decrease in consumption, and, instead, we should look to the past for a much-needed history lesson. “Over the past decade, politicians from all parties have acknowledged the need to reduce the consumption of fossil fuels if carbon emissions are to be cut,” he says. “At the moment, carbon taxes seem to the front-runner, but there are real doubts about how effective they would be. During World War Two, the government decided not to increase taxation, not only because it would have taken too long for the benefits to be felt, but politicians feared the move would hit the poorest members of society the hardest. Although the reasons for rationing then differ greatly from today’s reasons for carbon rationing, the aim is the same – to reduce consumption and allow the equal distribution of the remaining consumer goods and services.” Telling people what they can and can’t spend their money on is unlikely to be popular, and its success would largely depend on the support of a public already bombarded by environmental horror stories on a daily basis. [more]
If you are convinced or inclined to lean towards the conceptual new religion known as Global Warming or Climate Change you may be asking yourself, “what about the already established religions then?”. Well, logically as predicted they will merge along with the new propaganda stream because it would be to their advantage. Why let the brainwashing be monopolized by a single group if you can try and get a bit of that for yourself without having to do all the work. The Sydney Morning Herald has an article, “Churches focus on earthly matters”, which reports on this. Churches have funded and supported “Big Bang” theories because it was possible to fit into their doctrine. And seeing as how evolution could not be incorporated the solution was to offer creationism as a quasi-science in order to get it into the classrooms. Global Warming on the other hand poses a more neutral ground where the propaganda machines are running on high octane from many different sources. A good time for any established religion to jump on the bandwagon because when they can turn something to their advantage they will, like for example embracing science:
And of course, as we’ve been saying, Global Warming and Climate Change, while absolutely natural and real, is turning into a form of religion, complete with zealots and dedicated followers, some of them easily labeled as “extremists”. It’s clear the established religions recognize that by inviting experts on the spiritual sides of the Climate Change debate:
Another reason for established religions to get involved is, of course, to merge into the debate and oppose idiots like Pianka who have publicly stated they prefer to start mass depopulation of humans on this earth, or the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society that considers us to be a virus. So perhaps it’s not entirely bad for a different brand of brainwash experts to merge into the stream, but we have to consider their intentions for doing so:
As could be expected, however, the church also decided to play their “do as I say, not as I do” card by accusing the Global Warming movement of exactly the same things that the churches and religions have been doing since their inception:
And if it wasn’t bad enough to be bombarded with the Global Warming religious chants of the Al Gore Flock of Followers and Climate Change Deciples now we can enjoy having the established churches call us “sinners” for not believing their quasi-science riddled with intentional errors:
Of course we don’t want to generalize too much because there are also churchmen who do not subscribe to the doctrine of Global Warming and are more careful about taking sides on the ongoing debate:
Whether the god, regardless of which one believes in, will accept carbon credits remains an open question. A more scientific certainty, however, is that those who are generating huge profits from the carbon credits scam certainly must be feeling like gods.
Source: American Thinker What’s gone wrong in our American democracy? The central premise of our American democracy. American democracy is now in danger. I had a sense of foreboding about our democracy. A new reality for the functioning of our democracy. Our democracy is in danger of being hollowed out. They feel disconnected from our democracy. Young Americans seem to feel that the jury is out on whether American democracy actually works or not … a conversation of Democracy … a decentralized process to reinvigorate democracy … etc etc. Mr. Gore seems unsure that we understand America is a democracy. He goes to great lengths to pound the term democracy into as many sentences as he can as if we’re unfamiliar with the word. He is right to be so agitated. Because we are not a democracy. We are a republic. We need only one fundamental diction to be clear in this distinction. ” … and to the republic for which it stands … ” Quoting Jessica Nappi in Capitalism Magazine (Jan 2001)
Incessantly hammering away at this term democracy, as if he were Pavlov and we but dogs, Al Gore reveals both his heart and his mind. He is not American. His every utterance and every persuasion is European socialist with considerable training in propaganda. Particularly the technique of the Big Lie. But his pointed lament about democracy also telegraphs that winds of change are upon us which must be the most fragile of zephyrs. He apparently knows something we do not yet see, as animals moan before an earthquake humans cannot detect in advance. Mr. Gore’s ululations on the demise of democracy would have no value if it were not actually so. If European socialism be robust inside the halls of our government and fashionable among national power brokers, what would be the point to his complaint? The answer must be that the way Mr. Gore was raised to rule is vanishing. Else why complain?
Source: American Thinker The mendacity of this work was stunning. Numerous errors, misstatements and outright lies have been detailed in many rebuttals, especially by Chris Horner and Marlo Lewis from the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Mendacious as it may be, that has not stopped a gullible media from swallowing it hook line and sinker as the metaphor goes, and foisting it on the American public. Their implacable lack of skepticism has been truly remarkable. Audacious must be Al Gore’s middle name. How else can you describe someone that would publish a book that calls for a complete reordering of the world and then follows it up with a book with the premise that if you don’t buy it you’re assaulting basic reason. The self-important catalog description of the book reveals Gore’s inherent conceit.
My father used to say if you point your finger at someone there are four pointed back at you. Other than Bill and Hillary Clinton, I can hardly think of anyone that has shown a greater mastery of the politics of fear. Secrecy and cronyism are literally a way of life for him. The timing of Gore’s book release is obviously designed to undercut those that disagree with his cabal. Its safe to predict that the media will all roll over again. What else would you expect, Al is a media god. Time Magazine is dutifully first out of the gate publishing a short excerpt teaser in their latest issue. To no avail, I did some research to discover who Al’s ghostwriter is. So far its still a secret (at least to me). Al is kind of like the Milli Vanilli of the literary and political world, lip synching his way all the way to the top. Unlike Rob and Fab, I don’t think Al will be served with any class action lawuits for deceptive sales practices on “his” book. I may be wrong, but don’t think we’ll be unearthing anything like Reagan’s “In his Own Hand” collection of personal writings from Al after he retires. Uncashed royalty checks perhaps, thoughtful prose, probably not. Since this essay is nominally about Al Gore’s new book, I guess I’ll comment on the actual excerpt if I have to. The prose is downright turgid and the writing style is akin to congressional testimony. In other words, bring the No Doze. Unintended irony oozes from every paragraph. The writer vainly attempts to be profound but comes off looking trite instead. The editors at Penguin must have been pulling out their hair out; consoled only in the knowledge that no one will actually read the book. The television interviews will be carefully scripted no ad libing. Just follow the teleprompter baby. The media may think Al Gore is a god but I think history will judge him more harshly. The sheer audacity of his global warming campaign is stunning to behold. The blind faith of the media is far more disturbing. Hopefully, this will be his last book.
Source: canada.com “I really don’t understand why they keep showing it,” says McKenzie (his parents asked that his last name not be used). “I’ve spoken to the principal about it, and he said that teachers are instructed to present it as a debate. But every time we’ve seen it, well, one teacher said this is basically a two-sided debate, but this movie really gives you the best idea of what’s going on.” McKenzie says he has educated himself enough about both sides of the climate- change controversy to know that the Al Gore movie is too one-sided to be taught as fact. Even scientists who back Mr. Gore’s message admit they’re uncomfortable with liberties the politician takes with “science” in the film. But, McKenzie says most of his classmates are credulous. His teachers are not much more discerning. “They don’t know there’s another side to the argument,” he says. McKenzie’s mother was outraged to find out that Mr. Gore’s film was being presented as fact in her son’s classroom. “This is just being poured into kids’ brains instead of letting them know there’s a debate going on,” she says. “An educational system falls down when they start taking one side.” [more]
Source: Bullwinkle Blog Turner Foundation $1,390,000.00 1996 – 2001 I guess the idiots at Greenpeace never heard of the Rockefellers, who founded Standard Oil, the evil corporation that is EXXON today. Greenpeace’s second largest contributor is EXXON. If Greenpeace was as concerned with the environment as they are with furthering their Leftist political agenda they might be worth paying attention to. Sadly they aren’t. What once may have been a legitimate environmental group is now nothing more than a bunch of Jr. Marxists, but they don’t let that stop them from taking money from the family that funded the world’s largest corporation, oil giant EXXON. Hypocrites. Look at the rest of the list of donors to Greenpeace and tell me which of those donors didn’t earn their wealth from corporations, the evil entities that Greenpeace refuses to accept donations from. What a joke. Almost as funny as Al Gore’s Carbon Offsets scam. Just like Al Gore’s admission that he exaggerated the Global Warming hoax Greenpeace has its own history of well documented honesty deficiency problems. Like all Liberal groups and Liberals in general, their whole existence relies on dishonesty.
Source: Static Noise
Source: Northern News
Source: BNN In theory, it makes sense to invest in something like this. It’s good for the planet. In reality, most of these concepts just don’t work, not on a global scale, anyhow. In a recent investigation, the Financial Times found that there are widespread purchases of carbon offsets that yield ‘no’ reduction in emissions. None at all. There are also a growing number of companies that profit from doing little more than questionable research, and brokers just selling pieces of paper. During the Middle Ages, it was common for sinners to buy what were called Indulgences, and have their sins forgiven, instead of repenting and promising to sin no more. Carbon credits are based on the same principle. It’s like junk bonds all over again. [more]
We have to wonder whether the Global Warming extremists and fear mongers, as well as those who are obsessed with their so-called “carbon footprint” and “carbon offset”, are able to remember this little thing called the Millenium Bug that was said to crash all computer systems and end life as we know it. The many years of media coverage on that, the media hype and all the scare-mongering that went along with it are really no different than the whole Climate Change hype based on false science and lack of understanding, just like those who feared the Millenium Bug really did not understand it.
Source: Canada Free Press The adage, however, is “follow the money” and here’s where we find the greatest supporters of cap-and-trade emissions credits. Huge financial firms such as Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs are betting they can make billions through government mandated programs in which vast amounts of money move back and forth through “climate exchanges” where companies trade their alleged emissions reduction activities for credits, i.e., real cash. [more]
Source: David Warren Since then, I have been bombarded with correspondence both favourable and unfavourable. I notice the former comes chiefly from those with plausible scientific backgrounds, the latter almost entirely from those whose ignorance of basic science scandalizes even me. However, there were a couple of credible science types who warned me against overstating the argument against the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, if only for tactical reasons. I’ve since continued to follow various links, both supplied and discovered, to intelligent discussion of the subject on the Internet. [more]
An article written by Sean Gonsalves will have people believe that anyone who does not stand behind the weak quasi-science publications of the IPCC and who do not “believe the warnings of global warming scientists” are suffering from “paranoid fantasies imagined by those hopelessly out-of-touch with reality” and likely to be part of the right-wing America. It makes me wonder if Mr. Gonsalves is able to look beyond the group he describes in his article, and beyond the borders of America. If he did he would find that many other nations and many other scientists there are also not putting their weight behind the IPCC and the global warming hype. Sure things are warming up but evidently not for the reasons that the “authorities” will have us –like Mr. Gonsalves does– believe. Mr. Gonsalves claims to not have seen, nor intend to see, Al Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth”. Yet he’s more than ready and willing to accept the reports that already have admitted errors in them because “most of us must inevitably depend upon (authority) for most of our knowledge”. We think that everyone should see Al Gore’s movie. And then look at both sides of the debate and research. A 10-year old would probably spot all the errors and tweaked science. But Mr. Gonsalves is probably a “precautionist” (is that the opposite of the conspiracy theorists he is writing about?) who thinks that;
If that’s the basis of a belief in Global Warming as per the reporting by the IPCC, a belief not being the same as knowledge, then perhaps Mr. Gonsalves should not drive a car because that’s dangerous. And maybe avoid food because there have been instances in the past were food was contaminated. Why even venture outside of our homes when things have been shown to come falling out of the sky, be it meteorites or bricks from a building construction? If we all stay inside our homes we’re safe. It’s a precaution. Of course that’s a silly and unrealistic form of taking precautions and maybe Mr. Gonsalves will agree on that. However, there is a difference between individuals taking precautions based on their beliefs and having the beliefs of others, beliefs based on rigged science and incorrect models, forced down the throats of everyone else. Something Mr. Gonsalves implies he’s in favor of. Why take a chance if you can adhere to precautionary principles? But Mr. Gonsalves has a picture of how a “global warming conspiracy crowd” must look and according to him it’s a group of people who believe that “climate science is filled with a bunch of Unabombers; a collection of Ted Kaczynskis”. Maybe it’s just me but I thought the Kaczynkski’s of the world are the actual conspiracy koo-koo’s. Of course we have to take Mr. Gonsalves’ article with a few grains of salt. Afterall, he derives his beliefs on figures of authority that are confined to only his own field of view, a view that is well within the limited borders of America it seems. Perhaps if Mr. Gonsalves did some research into how economies work he would not write things like;
Ever heard of the word investment? Corporations and governments invest money in the hopes that there will be a return on that investment. A government, as history shows, will happily invest money into things that people would consider a ludicrous idea, only to have it later on turn into a form of tax that benefits the growth of government. Ditto for corporations. Investing in the global warming scam is the hip thing to do if you’re a government or large corporation. But not for reasons of saving the environment. No, all the global warming talk is about climate chance, not about reducing pollution which is a real issue and which is shown to be to the detriment of the human population and nature itself. In the end, Mr. Gonsalves did write something sensible, though. He wants the younger generation to “take over the environmental conversation”. That’s exactly what we’re doing, thank you very much. Except, Mr. Gonsalves would probably have you believe that we’re a group of old-timers because our findings that are contrary to the IPCC reports would not fit in with his beliefs that the rest of us who don’t stand behind the IPCC believe that the “pro-global warming crowd” consists of Unabombers. That’s just proposterous. We don’t need Mr. Gonsalves to tell us what we believe.
Why would the UN Security Counsil be involved in deliberating Global Warming. Now that is a question many people have asked themselves. Why the Security Counsil, in particular? Brett D. Schaefer and Ben Lieberman have looked into this and have reached a conclusion that is difficult to disprove or disagree with.
The highly praised German publication Der Spiegel has published an article called “Not the End of the World as We Know It” which raises a number of important issues regarding the Global Warming scam and the Climate Change scare-mongering. It is not uncommon for Europe to be more level headed than our media here in the U.S. So let’s see what Der Spiegel had to say about it all. The article starts off with a bit of history involving Svante Arrhenius, the father of the “greenhouse effect” and moves on to describe the Little Ice Age that began in the 1300s which caused cooling temperatures that;
Now wouldn’t that be a wonderful results of global cooling that the companies who benefit and profit from genetically modifying our food supply would welcome. The effects and shock were deep-seated and long-lasting but that’s not where it ends:
On the subject of reversing the natural change of the climate the article had this to say:
Now that’s not what we are hearing in our country at all. Or not often anyway. A warmer climate that increases the diversity of species and could possibly have positive benefits? That is not entirely implausible if you consider:
And there’s another side to the doomsday coin that gullible fools have been throwing at us. While the scare-mongers and fear-predators are telling us how many people will die because of the effects of Global Warming, they are not taking into account the number of lives that will be saved because of it:
The article also debunks a number of myths about Global Warming, most of which are already covered on this site and the many archive articles. But there is another one that is worth making note of:
|