Topic: Carbon Dioxide & Global Warming - Case not proven...

[Tobes]

Wow! Just back from holiday - and there are so many cracking posts, I don;t know where to begin. This is an interesting addition to the topic from Alan (hello by the way).

I think what BOTH diametrically opposed views regarding global warming illustrate, is the ability and willingness of people to twist the interpretation of statistic to suit their own world view. Most people who utterly entrust our destiny to market forces would like to believe that global warming is an unscientific and improvable myth... (which is where 'An inconvenient Truth got its name one would guess). On the other hand (or maybe its the same!!!???) you have a bunhc of well meaning but perhaps rather sinister 'do gooders' who believe so strongly in the shibboleth than everything to do with modern life is essentually self-destructive, that they feel that we all need to be yoked to an array of centrally imposed restrictions, enforced by law and bureacrasy. In the meantime, companies and governments 'green-wash', inventing new marketing strategies to make us all try to assuage our collective guilt for 'destroying the planet' by making utterly futile and pointless gestures, given the scale of this issue, by having fortnightly bin collections, new taxation and paying for our plastic bags.

Either extreme are blinkered as far as I can see - and need to be a bit more honest with themselves as to why they've adopted the position they have. I can't completely agree with Alan, because the basic obviousness of the statistics seems pretty incontravertable to me. I may not be qualified to judge  those raw figures, but the fact that 98% of the scientific community (ie those not sponsored by lobbiests for the car or petroleum industry) agree that there's a link between carbon emission and climate change, I'm not going to argue simply becasue the fact clash with my philosophical and political outlook. Sometimes truth can be a bitter pill to swallow - and only a hypoctite and fool denies the obvious simply to avoid a conflict with another strongly held conviction. Ideals are just that - they have to flex with reality. If christ knows how many mega-tonnes of carbon was laid down over previous millenia from the fossilised remains of forrests which grew when the climate was very much hotter - and then we go burn the majority of that stuff within a couple of hundred years, releasing the heat and checmicals back into the environment, then doesn't common sense dictate that there's going to be some sort of side effect?

What boils my guts though is the sanctimonious and often utterly falacious crap which we are being fed by the guardian reading media every single day! It might be the obsession of the welathy and middle class to sort through bins of rotting rubbish - but none of them are really actually going to make any serious meaningful changes to their lifestyle, becasue to actually do enough to have even a minute measurable effect would necessitate a change of ALL of the elements by which they define their own success and wellbeing. Anyone for rationed electricity? Afterall, the sun doesn't always shine brightly, the wind doesn't always blow and a national grip isn't something which you can alter the current on depending upon your need. No chelsea tractor? No imported buffalo mosarella, south african red wine or holidays to Florida? I guess we shall see, n'est pas?

The other issue which Spiked regularly raises is that whilst there may well be a link between climate change and our modern lifestyles, what are the alternatives? A return to a warped form of a subsistence lifestyle? What would be the point when we as a population make up a tiny percentage of the world - one in which the most populous countries are running headlong to develop the very things which we benefitted from for the last 100 years - namely healthcare, transportation, cheap clothes and imporved production of food, eclectricity, gas etc etc etc. Someone in sandals telling them to reign back isn't going to habe any impact at all - and the simplicity that they'll 'follow our example' if we do it is as patonising as it's naive. THEY WON'T. And frankly, given that we wring our hands about global warming from the comfort of knowing where our next meals coming from, can we really blame them?

[Alan Hayward]

Global warming is a fact. But being caused by man is hysterical nonsense.

Call me a heretic, burn me at the stake for believing otherwise. It doesn't matter. The science of it is junk, pseudo and suits the people who have a vested interest in it. Be they voluntary, charitable or employed.

Give it five years and we will have the doom sayers yowling that the next ice age is "just around the corner" or "could be here real soon" if we don't start to burn the rest of our depleted fossil fuels (or more likely) start building the next generation of Advanced Gas Cooled nuclear reactors.

It's whatever suits the politicians and subsequently the media to strike fear into the heart of Mr Average Middleaze such that he believes it as fact.

[Mart]

Can't burn you at the stake, no no, no.

Though there is something glorious about a post mortem global footprint.

I will tell you what global warming means to me.

Half the kitchen is full of plastic recycling receptacles, some irony there I think. I get shafted when I tax my car. I hear the phrase 'Global Warming' at least once a day.  I am reluctant to do things I probably should because people keep telling me to do them in ever more strident tones. I amuse myself by looking at solar panels and wind turbines at £2k a pop in B&Q marvelling that the government would leave the preservation of the planet to a DIY superstore chain. I wonder where my free water saving device from Thames Water is. I curse the poxy energy saving light bulbs that take an age to work properly. I wonder how many layers of packaging I will have to fight through to get to my authentic frozen duck and noodle pizza, but since it is Tesco packaging it is fine and dandy.

I haven't got the science to wade through the arguments, and am aware that science is the new statistics anyway, so I operate at a pretty mundane level.

What I do know is that whatever credibility I gave to the Global Warming scenario is being stomped out of me by a profiteering, pontificating, bandwagon jumping, green booted wall of noise. If there was a message I can't hear it anymore.

Is I unique?

[Alan Hayward]

What I do know is that whatever credibility I gave to the Global Warming scenario is being stomped out of me by a profiteering, pontificating, bandwagon jumping, green booted wall of noise. If there was a message I can't hear it anymore.

Is I unique?

No.

You have seen the energy efficient, ultra violet reduced, landfill friendly, WEEE Directive compliant, low packaging light.

[Simon]

OMG Alan, when did you start hating environmentalists so much? 

I can appreciate your anger at the nanny state syndrome, it being something I'm very much feeling myself what with the ban on smoking in enclosed public places and quite a few non-enclosed spaces. But you seem to be so far off the mark when it comes to climate change that I don't know where to start. And it's too late at night after a busy weekend to start at the moment, although I'll try later. In the mean time, have you read the articles I linked to further up this thread?

There is one point you raised which I think needs addressing fairly urgently:

There's one for SCAN (the Swindon Climate Action Network) then. And you can stop sending me nanny state emails about how to live my life as well.

I'm not sure if I've interpreted this correctly, but are you saying that you are receiving e-mails from SCAN which you don't want to receive? If so, then we can always arrange for you to be removed from the mailing list. You only need to ask. SCAN doesn't knowingly spam people.

On scanning this thread after a sudden flurry of posts, one thing really stood out:

If christ knows how many mega-tonnes of carbon was laid down over previous millenia from the fossilised remains of forrests which grew when the climate was very much hotter - and then we go burn the majority of that stuff within a couple of hundred years, releasing the heat and checmicals back into the environment, then doesn't common sense dictate that there's going to be some sort of side effect?

I don't think I could have said it better myself. Climate science is an incredibly complex area, mind-bogglingly so when you start digging as much as I did after the Great Global Warming Swindle reared its ugly head, but I think Tobes has put his finger right on the reason why I believe that climate change is an anthropogenic phenomenon. Think about it in those terms, and it's the only conclusion a logical person can reach.

Plenty more in this thread to address, but I need to sleep sometime...

[Simon]

Somebody tell me the percentage of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? Oh yes, it's 0.383 ppm. That is 0.383 parts per million. A "major contributor" to greenhouse gases then. Somebody tell me how much water vapour there is in the atmosphere. Also a greenhouse gas. Should we ban the oceans, seas, lakes and rivers?

<edit>

Actually that was 383 ppm. Not 0.383 ppm.

Danged those copied full stops.

Still minuscule and smaller than my mortgage.

The World Health Organisation's maximum limit for arsenic in drinking water is 10 parts per billion. If 383ppm is smaller than your mortgage then 10ppb is probably about equivalent to a round of drinks.

Following your argument, if an area had an unusually high mortality rate and turned out to have 300ppm of arsenic in its drinking water supply, you could easily dismiss arsenic as the cause of death on the grounds that it's such a small amount.

It's not just the atmospheric concentration of CO₂ at one moment that's important. It needs to be taken in context with the concentration over geological timescales. Over the last 400,000 years it has oscillated between 200 and 300ppm, but since the industrial revolution has risen rapidly to a value well outside that range. That should be another sign that something's wrong.

You can't put all the blame on water vapour either. Although it's responsible for quite a large chunk of the greenhouse effect due to being the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, you need to bear in mind that the greenhouse effect is one of the things which makes this planet habitable. Without it, the world will be 30 degrees colder than it is now. CO₂ is responsible for between 9% and 26% of the greenhouse effect, so increasing the concentration to a level 30% greater than the geological maximum and nearly twice the geological minimum is going to have quite a substantial effect.

And when you consider that a rise of average global temperature to six degrees above its current level will result in mass extinction events, it's not so easy to dismiss the effect of all that CO₂ we're pouring into the atmosphere at an ever-increasing rate.

[Simon]

I remember in the 70's we were "headed for the next ice age" because we had a few years of cooling.

That was due to sulphate aerosols from dirty fossil fuel burning reflecting heat back out to space. Higher standards are in place now for atmospheric pollution, so sulphate aerosol emissions have gone down but the greenhouse gas emissions are still going up because we're still burning the fossil fuels at an ever increasing rate.

[Simon]

And now to the parts of the post which verge on the ad hominem. (I really thought you were above such things).

So get real all of you loony hysterical do-gooders. Perhaps you should spend your time campaigning to get the earth moved further away from the sun. Or change the orbit slightly. Or perhaps see if you can get a grant to pressurise the sun into modifying the sunspot cycle.

Now you're just being silly. Or am I verging on the ad hominem myself by saying that? 

Oh and of course all of the "professional" research bodies, pressure groups, quangos, Swindon Borough Council's "Global Warming Prevention Office" (or whatever dumb ass title he has), Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace and every other self righteous sheep who want to pronounce on the subject won't like it because it means that they will have to find something else to fill their time/employment/pay their mortgages with.

It's not a source of employment for me, and certainly doesn't pay my mortgage. It fills my time, but I'd be much happier if there was no need for SCAN. In fact I'd be ecstatic if we weren't busy wrecking our ecosystems while our government wages wars of choice abroad and gets more and more authoritarian at home, and if some greedy housing developers weren't hell-bent on burying Coate under concrete, then there'd be no need for any of the campaigning I get involved in, and maybe I could actually get a life for a change. But those things are all happening, and someone's got to try and do something about it. Call me a self-righteous sheep if you want, I'm not doing these things out of choice, I'm doing them out of necessity.

If it's any consolation, it annoys me no end when the government presents their latest crackpot scheme behind a facade of being green, while they still push ahead with building more roads and expanding the aviation industry. And I'm not at all happy with the latest growth industry of taking money off people so that they can soothe their consciences about their impact on the environment without actually doing anything about their impact on the environment. Like the car insurance companies who offer to offset all the carbon emissions from your car.

Time for another plug for http://www.cheatneutral.com I think.

I bet they hated it when the Cold War went tits up and they couldn't try and "Ban the Bomb" any more. Good job Global Warming was found as a saviour, eh?

I hate to disappoint you here, but the end of the cold war didn't bring about the end of nuclear proliferation, or of the campaign against it. There are still convoys regularly carrying nuclear warheads back and forth between Berkshire and the Clyde, so that technicians can take them apart and put them back together again for practice. There are still 4 nuclear-armed submarines based at the Clyde, with one patrolling the seas at all times, and the government decided earlier this year to extend their lifetimes for another 40 years. There's still an Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermarston, and they're building a huge new laser facility to simulate the internals of a nuclear explosion. The nuclear weapons industry is unfortunately still alive and well.

[Jean]

You’ve lost the plot, Alan. 

There is plenty of evidence to link climate change with rising atmospheric carbon levels whilst anthropogenic sources have accelerated the ‘normal’ 100,000 year climate cycle by 80,000 years.  That is to say that in just 20,000 years of the earth’s known climate cycle pattern, carbon levels have virtually reached the peak where the climate is then plunged into another ice age phase.

Believe it or not, Alan, I care not.  However, most of the solutions proposed that reduce man-made carbon emissions have significant environmental and social benefits.  It all boils down to the problem that we are consuming too much and there are too many humans living on earth. 

Excuse the cliché, but if you are not a part of the solution then you must be a part of the problem. 

Jean

[Alan Hayward]

You’ve lost the plot, Alan. 

There is plenty of evidence to link climate change with rising atmospheric carbon levels whilst anthropogenic sources have accelerated the ‘normal’ 100,000 year climate cycle by 80,000 years.  That is to say that in just 20,000 years of the earth’s known climate cycle pattern, carbon levels have virtually reached the peak where the climate is then plunged into another ice age phase.

Believe it or not, Alan, I care not.  However, most of the solutions proposed that reduce man-made carbon emissions have significant environmental and social benefits.  It all boils down to the problem that we are consuming too much and there are too many humans living on earth. 

Excuse the cliché, but if you are not a part of the solution then you must be a part of the problem. 

Jean

Sorry Jean, but I disagree with your and Simon's theories.

I just don't believe them as I don't believe the "science" that they are based on. And that's from a scientist by education and training.

Let's agree to differ, it is nothing personal.

And as for being "part of the solution" - well hey - that's your point of view, not mine. I see the problem more as one of popular indoctrination.

I am also convinced that there is a finite supply of fossil fuels and that measures should be made to preserve them as long as possible by reducing consumption. As I am also sure that double glazing, cavity wall insulation and loft insulation are a good idea - mainly because they keep your heating bills down and that's just common sense.

I guess it isn't a good time to say that I am strong believer in nuclear power then?

xxx

[Alan Hayward]

I remember in the 70's we were "headed for the next ice age" because we had a few years of cooling.

That was due to sulphate aerosols from dirty fossil fuel burning reflecting heat back out to space. Higher standards are in place now for atmospheric pollution, so sulphate aerosol emissions have gone down but the greenhouse gas emissions are still going up because we're still burning the fossil fuels at an ever increasing rate.

Ah yes, of course. I knew there would be a good reason.

I suppose that the Chinese and Russian power stations are very tightly controlled on sulphur emissions, eh?

China is the world's biggest emitter of sulphur dioxide. Coal- and oil-fired power stations were responsible for 11 million of the 25 million tonnes discharged last year, which caused acid rain that affected a third of the country. Clean Air Initiative 2006

You can't have it both ways, see?

This is how it works. Pick the "facts" and the psedo-science results that fit the argument.

[rob-magic]

This 'topic' has been in a tab in my web browser for weeks, like many others, waiting for me to address and I'm sorry for not having the time to appear less rude but I must make this post brief.

With exeption the the polarising remarks such as 'if you're not with us, you're with the terrorists' (I find this both unfair and unnecessary, I'm very pleased to see interaction here.

Very pleased. It shows me other people who give a toss, for whatever reason, feel they can share their views without the fear of learning something. (I'm presuming of course you're not all forum moderators who want to keep me from other things!)

Keep up the good work and never be afraid to ask questions.

Something is going on is all I can tell you. Actually, there is so much that I can't expect you to even try to grasp but there you go!

There are indeed some good posts here.

I urge you to all to try to digest some of Michael Tsarion's work.

Question: If whoever, for whatever reason, blew up a water planet 14 times the size of the earth in our solar system, say 2500 years ago, wouldn't that explain the iceage we're just coming out of?

If you want to get really crazy with ideas google for michael to start you off.

Peace

[Alan Hayward]

Here is my favourite graph at the moment.

Sunspot activity (measured by taking ice core samples in Antarctica and measuring various isotopes present) gives an accurate reading of solar activity.

More sunspots = more activity = higher solar output = higher temperatures on our insignificant (in the grand scheme of things) planet.

Well now. Ah, that will be us causing this increase then.

[Alan Hayward]

More on aerosols in the atmosphere for you Simon.

Saturday, August 04, 2007
 
More on the recent Asian brown cloud study

Yet again Greenie "scientists" go into reverse when it suits them. The science is only "settled" as long as it suits their foreordained conclusions. So why should anyone else believe the science is "settled"? The study and its conclusions are junk but the fact that the study can turn the "settled" science on its head with only a passing comment on that and still get published in a leading Greenie journal is the interesting part. The conclusion is obviously what matters and the science can be bent any way you like to suit that

Himalayan glaciers are melting - but not nearly as fast as the fanciful notion of global warming will have you believe. A new study in the Aug. 2 issue of the British science journal Nature found that the solid particles suspended in the atmosphere (called "aerosols") that make up "brown clouds" may actually contribute to warmer temperatures - precisely the opposite effect heretofore claimed by global warming alarmists. "These findings might seem to contradict the general notion of aerosol particles as cooling agents in the global climate system .," concluded the Nature news article summing up the study.

Based on data collected by unmanned aerial vehicles over the Indian Ocean, researchers from the University of California, San Diego and NASA reported not only that aerosols warmed temperatures, but they also increased atmospheric heating by 50 percent. This warming, they say, may be sufficient to account for the retreat of the Himalayan glaciers.

Putting aside the fact that the Himalayan glaciers have been retreating since 1780 - some 70 years before the onset of the current post-Little Ice Age warming trend and 100 years before the onset of significant global industrialization - full appreciation of the significance of the researchers' finding requires a brief trip down recent-memory lane, one, incidentally, that no media outlet reporting this finding bothered to make.

Global warming alarmism is rooted in the idea that ever-increasing manmade emissions of greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide, cause global temperatures to warm. This idea, however, doesn't match up very well against real-world observations. During the 20th century, for example, while manmade carbon dioxide emissions steadily increased from about 1940 to 1975, global temperatures cooled.

Global warming alarmists, such as the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), try to counter this observation by claiming that aerosol particles in the atmosphere - like soot and sulfates from fossil fuel combustion, and dust from volcanic eruptions - can mask the warming effect of greenhouse gases and cool the planet by reflecting solar radiation back into space. So then, which is it? Do aerosols cool or warm the planet? Can they do both? The correct answers to these questions are not as important as the fact that they are unanswered and will likely remain so for some time to come.

At the very moment that Congress considers enacting energy-price-raising and economy-killing legislation to regulate greenhouse gases based on the idea that human activity is harming global climate, the new aerosol study underscores (again) how little we understand whether and how human activities actually impact global climate. Consider other recent research that ought to give our arm-chair climatologists in Congress pause.

In May, researchers reported in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that the rate of manmade carbon dioxide emissions was three times greater during 2000 to 2004 than during the 1990s. But while humans may be burning more fossil fuels than ever before, that ever-increasing activity isn't having any sort of discernible or proportionate impact on global temperatures.

In April, researchers from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory reported in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that forests in northern regions - those north of the line of latitude that runs through southern Cuba - will warm surface temperatures by an estimated 10 degrees Fahrenheit by the year 2100.

Last October, Swedish researchers reported that cosmic-ray-caused changes in cloud cover over a five-year period can have 85 percent of the temperature effect alleged to have been caused by nearly 200 years of manmade carbon dioxide emissions. They estimated that the temperature effects of cloud cover during the 20th century could be as much as seven times greater than the alleged temperature effect of 200 years worth of additional carbon dioxide and several times greater than that of all additional greenhouse gases combined.

Would it be considered "piling on" to remind Congress that last year's hurricane season predictions - that is, a 95 percent chance of a very active season - turned out to be a total bust? If hurricane experts armed with supercomputers can't predict a regional storm season six months into the future, why would anyone think that they can project global climate trends for the next 100 years? These are just some of the things that climatologists have learned or have been proven wrong about in just the past year.

Given the myriad scientific holes in the manmade global warming hypothesis and allowing for the inevitable future discoveries about climate, it seems quite absurd for Congress to proceed on global warming as if, in Al Gore's words, "There is no longer any serious debate over the basic points that make up the consensus on global warming."

The new aerosol study doesn't show that climate alarmists may be just a little off course - it shows that they may be 180 degrees off. If manmade global climate change is something worth fretting over - and it's not at all clear that it is - the aerosol study opens up the possibility for an entirely new hypothesis for global warming with aerosols as the culprit. Yet up to now, the "consensus" crowd has portrayed aerosols in the opposite light as cooling agents. When so-called "consensus" can be that far off, it would seem that there's plenty of room for serious debate.

From: http://antigreen.blogspot.com/

Source: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,291906,00.html

[Tobes]

'antigreen' blog spot. Obviously a scientific and unpartisan approach being taken there then to shame the rest of the compliant media! Rob Magic's something of an expert on the veracity of claims made on American sites like this, maybe we can canvass his opinion? ...  (If the blog goes on to claim that the whole global warming 'fuss' is merely part of a global/alien conspiracy, then we're on to a sure fire winner!)

The fact that we don't know everything when it comes to the climate seems self apparent to me. The fact that the global temperature is part of an incredibly complex inter-related and sometimes contradictory seeming process doesn't preclude scientists from theorising based upon the evidence presented to them. Flaws or incomplete understanding of some phenomena doesn't preclude an accurate wider conclusion: If you have thousands of people with one understanding and some hundreds opposing them, I'd throw my money in with the majority view - especially when they're talking about something in their sphere of experetese: namely understanding the world around us. Theres NEVER going to be a concensus is there?

Its rather like challenging the entire basis of a doctors perscription for medicine to treat one of your headaches because he can't explain fully the functioning of the human mind. The headaches cooincided with you buying your iPod. They might alternatively be caused by a change in your diet, a disease, constipation or god knows what else... Hopefully this would be a good ocassion to apply Occam's Razor. Of course, I might not want to believe that the problem's being caused by my lifestyle choice, because, hey, listening to my iPod is fun and lots of other people would like one just like mine...

[Alan Hayward]

Well here is a cracker for you then Tobes, me old mucca.

The Creeping Fascism of Global Warming Hysteria

Man-made orthodoxy is a dogma of coercion, bias, and junk science

Paul Joseph Watson

Prison Planet

Tuesday, February 13, 2007    

The hoax of the doctrine of man-made global warming that is being foisted upon the world by decree, and the junk science that is manipulated to support it, represents a creeping fascism whose agenda to stifle open debate betrays the fact that climate change hysteria is a farce intended to crush freedoms and further centralize global power.

In an interview with a Czech newspaper, Vaclav Klaus, the President of the Czech Republic blamed the "whip of political correctness" for preventing more scientists and statesmen from going public with their skepticism on man-made global warming. This is precisely what we have arrived at, in a bizarre vacuum of common sense and without any attribution, the establishment and the controlled left have managed to squash reasoned two-sided debate about global warming by coating their argument with the nebulous claim that expressing disagreement is somehow bigoted, backward and even racist.

The very fact that the man-made advocates have to introduce such a far distant concept as race into a debate about scientific climate change makes it self-evident that their argument is inherently weak and vulnerable.

In an article we published in November about global warming being primarily caused by the sun, we commented somewhat tongue in cheek that people who express doubts about global warming would soon be compared to holocaust deniers by the media and other self-appointed cultural kingpins who demand total adherence to orthodox religion style beliefs about climate change.

Here's what we wrote:

The assertion that global warming is man made is so oppressively enforced upon popular opinion, especially in Europe, that expressing a scintilla of doubt is akin to holocaust denial in some cases. Such is the insipid brainwashing that has taken place via television, newspapers and exalted talking heads - global warming skeptics are forced to wear the metaphoric yellow star and only discuss their doubts in hushed tones and conciliatory frameworks, or be cat-called, harangued and jeered by an army of do-gooders who righteously believe they are rescuing mother earth by recycling a wine bottle or putting their paper in a separate trash can.

It's not longer a joke.

The Boston Globe's Ellen Goodman wrote an op-ed last week denouncing anyone who dares dissent against the God-like authoritative status of the IPCC UN report on climate change.

I would like to say we're at a point where global warming is impossible to deny. Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future.

This assault betrays what's at the heart of the global warming agenda - a cadre of control freaks who can't respond to the overwhelming evidence that the Sun and other long term natural cycles are responsible for climate change and thus have to resort to vile propagandistic personality attacks to sway the court of public opinion.

During a debate on the BBC's Question Time program, a panelist's appeal for viewers to simply look at both sides of the argument and consider other causes besides the man-made explanation was met with boos and cat-calls from the audience and the speaker was shouted down. It's now treated as sacrilegious to even question the force fed dogma that leads the automatons to endlessly repeat what has been brainwashed into them by the establishment media like a broken record.

"We can't afford to have this debate," they scream, arguing that the end is nigh and unbelievers need to be metaphorically burned at the stake of public opinion in the interests of human survival.

But for those with memories and the nerve to actually think for themselves, the climate doomsayers have been proven wrong throughout the decades. In the late 60's and early 70's, the in-vogue hysteria about climate change and how it spelled the end for humanity as we know it revolved around the concept of global cooling. Again, this arose out of a misunderstanding of long term temperature fluctuations and the fact that the earth was at the end of the cycle of the Little Ice Age.

Writer John Bender has done an excellent job of compiling quotes from environmental "authorities" of past decades who told us that the sky was falling yet have been completely discredited with hindsight. Keep these dire proclamations in mind when you hear yet another "repeater" regurgitate the brainwashing that he or she has been indoctrinated with by the establishment.

The continued rapid cooling of the earth since WWII is in accord with the increase in global air pollution associated with industrialization, mechanization, urbanization and exploding population. -- Reid Bryson, "Global Ecology; Readings towards a rational strategy for Man", (1971)

The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s, the world will undergo famines. Hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. Population control is the only answer -- Paul Ehrlich - The Population Bomb (1968)

I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000 -- Paul Ehrlich in (1969)

In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish. -- Paul Ehrlich, Earth Day (1970)

Before 1985, mankind will enter a genuine age of scarcity . . . in which the accessible supplies of many key minerals will be facing depletion -- Paul Ehrlich in (1976)

This [cooling] trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century -- Peter Gwynne, Newsweek 1976

There are ominous signs that the earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production - with serious political implications for just about every nation on earth. The drop in food production could begin quite soon... The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologist are hard-pressed to keep up with it. -- Newsweek, April 28, (1975)

This cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people. If it continues and no strong action is taken, it will cause world famine, world chaos and world war, and this could all come about before the year 2000. -- Lowell Ponte "The Cooling", 1976

If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder by the year 2000...This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age. -- Kenneth E.F. Watt on air pollution and global cooling, Earth Day (1970)

The IPCC is a political body, not a scientific organization, therefore its proclamation is purely intended at achieving a political agenda. The document they released on February 2 that was devotedly afforded days of intense coverage by the compliant establishment media was a political manifesto based on a scientific undertaking that has not even been completed. How empirical is a "scientific experiment" whose conclusions are announced before tests have even been completed? The document immediately states that the "scientific" research is being edited to conform to the already released political summary.

“Changes (other than grammatical or minor editorial changes) made after acceptance by the Working Group or the Panel shall be those necessary to ensure consistency with the Summary for Policymakers or the Overview Chapter,” states the brief.

The U.N. has confidently announced "case closed" on man-made global warming because they are editing their own uncompleted report to mirror their pre-conceived conclusion. Hardly "independent" is it?

The IPCC report was piggybacked onto a bandwagon of public relations stunts that had nothing to do with the evidence behind global warming but were enough to leave an impression in the mind of the casual viewer that the man-made explanation was a global consensus. These included the Eiffel Tower's lights being turned off for 5 minutes and a ludicrous incident in which British primate expert Jane Goodall imitated the wild call of a tropical chimpanzee.

Czech President Klaus stated, "Global warming is a false myth and every serious person and scientist says so. It is not fair to refer to the U.N. panel. IPCC is not a scientific institution: it's a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavor. It's neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment."

Man-made advocates go to great lengths to highlight the fact that transnational oil giants such as Exxon-Mobil offer thousands of dollars for reports aimed at disproving the UN theory, claiming this taints any opposing viewpoint as biased, and yet conveniently ignore the fact that it was the U.N. itself and Ted Turner, a man-made devotee and advocate of drastic population reduction to save the planet, who gifted the organization $1 Billion which in part funded the IPCC report. Is that not biased? Is that not a example of scientists being lavishly bankrolled to produce evidence that fits a pre-conceived outcome? Is the fact that a carbon tax fueled by fear of climate change that will go directly to assorted U.N. agencies itself a commentary on the U.N.'s role on hyping man-made global warming?

In addition, Greenpeace are recruiting "global warming field organizer's" whose job it is to lobby members of Congress to push the agenda for man-made global warming. So if you thought your donation was going to help save whales or protect the rainforest you're sorely mistaken - it's partly funding a PR assault that will eventually orbit right back to you in the form of a draconian carbon emissions tax that will do nothing to prevent global warming but will fill the pockets of global government and the U.N.

Not all scientists were prepared to sacrifice their impartiality to be in on the scam. Dr. Chris Landsea resigned from the IPCC in his own words because, “I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound.”

Landsea is one of many climate experts, meteorologists, geologists and others who have braved the scorn of the flat-earthers to point out that man-made advocates have utilized myopic and blinkered scientific trickery to make their case.

Timothy Ball, Chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg, recently penned an outstanding piece in which he detailed how the illusion is being played out and how skeptics of the farce are increasingly being made pariahs simply for having an opposing view. Ball puts it better than I ever could so I make no apologies for quoting his article at length.

Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was one of the first Canadian Ph.Ds. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.

Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification.

No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we don't pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world come to believe that something is wrong?

Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago, that global cooling was the biggest threat: a matter of faith. "It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species," wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976.

I was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as I am to the threats made about Global Warming. Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on.

Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.

No doubt passive acceptance yields less stress, fewer personal attacks and makes career progress easier. What I have experienced in my personal life during the last years makes me understand why most people choose not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent.

No one disagrees with the notion that global warming is occurring, but to discount the fact that it has anything to do with that giant flaming ball of fire in our sky that we can barely look at without being blinded is ignorance unparalleled.

How do we square the fact that almost every planet in our solar system is simultaneously undergoing temperature change and volatile weather patterns? Does this not suggest that global warming is a natural cycle as a result of the evolving nature of the sun and other celestial phenomena? Can Al Gore fill me in on this one?

Mars, Pluto, Jupiter, Saturn, Triton and numerous other nooks and crannies throughout the solar system are experiencing warming trends and volatile weather patterns. How many SUV's are there on Jupiter?

The earth and its celestial counterparts are getting hotter because the Sun is burning more brightly than at any time in the past 1,000 years, according to a study undertaken by the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Gottingen, Germany.

In addition, cosmic rays from exploding stars have now been found to contribute substantially to cloud formation and the greenhouse effect as the London Times reported yesterday.

The simple fact is that throughout the ages the earth has swung wildly between a warm, wet, stable climate, to a cold, dry and windy one - long before the first fossil fuel was burned. The changes we are now witnessing are a walk in the park compared to the battering that our rugged planet has taken in the past.

This is not a defense of the oil cartels or the Neo-Con wreckers, who would have every motivation to ignore global warming whether it is man-made or not.

Nor is it a blanket denial of the fact that the earth is getting very gradually hotter, but how do we reconcile global warming taking place at the farthest reaches of the solar system with the contention that it is caused by human activity? Have our exhaust fumes left earth's atmosphere and slipped through a black hole to Triton?

Countless other heroes of science have put their reputation and careers on the line in the name of truth to expose the man-made fraud and challenge the creeping fascism being engendered by means of using political correctness to hijack the debate. They have bucked the orthodoxy and risked being stripped of their credentials, as the Weather Channel’s most prominent climatologist would have it. Here are several insightful statements from these brave individuals.

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

"It's not 2,500 people offering their consensus, I participated in that. Each person who is an author writes one or two pages in conjunction with someone else. They travel around the world several times a year for several years to write it and the summary for policymakers has the input of about 13 of the scientists, but ultimately, it is written by representatives of governments, of environmental organizations like the Union of Concerned Scientists, and industrial organizations, each seeking their own benefit."
MIT's Professor of Atmospheric Science Dr. Richard Lindzen on the IPCC report.

"Climate keeps changing all the time. The fact that climate changes is not in itself a threat."
Dr. S. Fred Singer, Atmospheric Physicist at George Mason University.

Man-made global warming feeds into humanity's arrogant self-importance in thinking that it has become the master and therefore the decider of the earth's destiny. On an individual level, it also helps a person stroke their ego and feel good about themselves for recycling a few beer cans or wine bottles in the belief that they're saving the planet, and also gives them the excuse to exercise their judgment against anyone who doesn't do likewise.

Fearmongering about an imminent climate doomsday also hogs news coverage and important environmental issues like GM food, mad scientist chimera cloning and the usurpation and abuse of corporations like Monsanto flies under the radar.

Global warming is cited as an excuse to meter out further control and surveillance over our daily lives, RFID chips on our trash cans, GPS satellite tracking and taxation by the mile, as well as a global tax at the gas pump.

The extremist wing of the environmentalist movement, characterized by people like Dr. Erik Pianka, advocate the mass culling of humanity via plagues and state sanctioned bio-terrorism, in order to "save" the earth from the disease of humanity. Nazi-like genocidal population control measures and the environmental establishment have always held a close alliance.

The world is laboring under enforced adherence to a program of mass deception while scientists who attempt to blow the whistle on the fraud are silenced, tarred, ridiculed and fired. The biased control freaks at the United Nations and their intellectually spayed cheerleaders, whose goal it is to use the hysteria of climate change to impose draconian control measures on society and centralize world power, have declared "case closed" on the man-made origins of global warming. However, their foolish attempts to zealously mute mere expression of an opposing view betray the inherent flaws of their own mantra and will ultimately lead to its downfall.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/130207globalwarming.htm

It's a cracker.

[Alan Hayward]

'antigreen' blog spot.

Erm, it's a reference to a Fox News story.

Nice italics though. Makes you kinda hip and trendy.

[Tobes]

Prison Planet - yep, I've heard of it and read excerpts elsewhere (mainly quote within Spiked) I don't disagree with the need for scepticism when it comes to green fascism and the manipulation of the facts to suit personal and corporate agendas (see christ knows how many of my own posts on the subject!) but regarding global warming, I know few scientists myself, and it simply isn't credible to believe that the majority of their peers are being swept along and are compliant with this 'lie' due to poltical correctness or some sort of global conspiracy... that as a theory is FAR more incredible. Where I do agree with you is that suddenlt to question green science seems to have become some sort of Orwellian crime. That IS wrong - science is the whole study of question and to deny challenge is to stifle the evolution and growth of understanding I'd have thought.

The use of italics was merely to 'hint' (I can use inverted commas if you'd prefer) that citing a blog in the face of what to a casual observer, might seem to be a rather, how shall we say, 'disproportionate' source of evidence to the contrary compared to the numerous peer reviewed scientific publications... some might think it to be... less than convincing...

Rob Magic also sets a lot of store by his blogs - although one area I might agree with though is his suspicions given both the power and motives of the American mass media. I can be a cynic too.

Trendy? hahaha! What, like attacking orthodoxies on the flimsiest rationale? I'll stick to my italics...

[Alan Hayward]

Prison Planet - yep, I've heard of it and read excerpts elsewhere (mainly quote within Spiked) I don't disagree with the need for scepticism when it comes to green fascism and the manipulation of the facts to suit personal and corporate agendas (see christ knows how many of my own posts on the subject!) but regarding global warming, I know few scientists myself, and it simply isn't credible to believe that the majority of their peers are being swept along and are compliant with this 'lie' due to poltical correctness or some sort of global conspiracy... that as a theory is FAR more incredible. Where I do agree with you is that suddenlt to question green science seems to have become some sort of Orwellian crime. That IS wrong - science is the whole study of question and to deny challenge is to stifle the evolution and growth of understanding I'd have thought.

The use of italics was merely to 'hint' (I can use inverted commas if you'd prefer) that citing a blog in the face of what to a casual observer, might seem to be a rather, how shall we say, 'disproportionate' source of evidence to the contrary compared to the numerous peer reviewed scientific publications... some might think it to be... less than convincing...

Rob Magic also sets a lot of store by his blogs - although one area I might agree with though is his suspicions given both the power and motives of the American mass media. I can be a cynic too.

Trendy? hahaha! What, like attacking orthodoxies on the flimsiest rationale? I'll stick to my italics...

Pax.

You're cool. 

[Tobes]

ditto!