Émission de radio L'Autre Monde

Pour écouter, cliquez sur l'image! ..............................................
Suivez aussi L'Autre Monde sur YouTube et sur Twitter

dimanche 22 avril 2007

Le réchauffement climatique: Nous dit-on toute la vérité?





Le réchauffement climatique: Nous dit-on toute la vérité?


Vidéos et documentaires chocs à voir sur le réchauffement climatique, qui remettent en questions des aspects importants du phénomène du réchauffement, et surtout, de ses causes réelles.

Autant que d`un côté on a vu les compagnies pétrolières financer une panoplie de scientifiques, journalistes et autres agents gouvernementaux pour discréditer la thèse du réchauffement climatique dans un premier temps et ensuite la relation avec l`homme qui en serait la cause dans un deuxième temps, autant que du côté des supporteurs de la thèse on a eu recours à des mensonges, fausse science et manipulation. Je ne pense pas que le débat soit si objectif qu`ils le prétendent. Il est en fait très politisé, d`un côté comme de l`autre.

Pourquoi, par exemple, ne discutons pas de questions pertinentes comme le fait que les autres planètes et satellites du système solaire se réchauffent aussi, que notre soleil ne se consumme pas de façon stable, mais qui est plutôt plus ou moins actif selon les cycles, que des carrottes glacières ont révélé que les taux de CO2 et d`oxygène on déjà été beaucoup plus élévé, que le CO2 augmente après un réchauffement climatique, et non l`inverse, que le CO2 n`est en fait qu`un des gas à effet de serre et que sa quantité relative est vraiment pas aussi élévé et influente que le méthane par exemple et autres formes de pollution chimiques, radioactives et génétiques?

Pourquoi ne pas admettre que notre science qui prend des fois la forme d`une religion aveugle selon le profit à faire, est encore limitée, que nos "modèles" sur ordinateurs cherchant à reproduire l`infinie complexité des écosystèmes et en extraire des scénarios cataclysmiques pour les prochains 100 ans, ne sont que cela même: des modèles et non la réalité?

Pourquoi chercher à nous faire peur à tout prix pour avancer un état de conscience? La conscience ne grandit elle pas avec l`amour et la compassion? Nous polluons en malade et au lieu de changer directement nos modes de vies, on va se laisser taxer une fois de plus pour payer pour les multinationales qui elles vont encore finir par éviter à payer la facture. Le CFR, la Commission Trilatérale, et les globalistes cherchent utiliser des phénomènes réels et se cacher derrière le vernis de l`environnementalisme pour récupérer la volonté du bon peuple de vouloir préserver notre belle planète pour avancer leur agenda de contrôle mondial et nous dicter comment vivre nos vies, tout en empochant l`argent de nos taxes qui iront dans leurs poches au lieu de pour le bien commun. Ils salopent la planète avec leurs dioxines, agents chimiques, déchets nucléaires, OGM, uranium appauvri, leur cartel pétrolier (dont on aurait dû se séparer depuis un bon moment puisqu`on possède
déjà la technologie de production de l`énergie libre, selon les travaux de Nikola Tesla par exemple).

En fait, cette monstrueuse campagne de peur mondiale ressemble de plus en plus à un faux débat à mon avis, dans le sens que la place qu`il occupe et la direction pour "régler" ce "problème" de réchauffement climatique est faussé et permet à l`élite d`éviter des débats encore bien plus graves et sérieux et dont nous sommes certains que nous en sommes la cause directe,
comme l`utilisation d`uranium appauvri qui a une demie-vie de radioactivité de 4.5 milliards d`années.

Il y a déjà dans l`air l`équivalent de 400 000 bombes, comme celle largué sur Nagasaki, en terme de radioactivité à cause de ces armes toxiques d
e destruction massive employées par l`armée US, britannique et israélienne et provenant aussi des divers essais nucléaires dans le monde. On parle d`une menace bien réelle sur la génétique vivante de la planète entière pour les prochains quelques milliards d`années, et jamais ce débat n`atteint les médias de masse. N`y voyez-vous pas un traitement médiatique biasé? Et pour quelle raison?

La science ne fonctionne pas par consensus. Un consensus, c`est une clique de gens qui s`entendent sur quelque chose, mais ça ne veux pas dire science. Il n`y a pas de preuve finale encore que nous sommes la cause première du changement climatique puisque c`est avant tout un phénomène naturel. N`attendons surtout pas avant de réduire notre impact sur la planète, mais ne tombons pas aussi dans le piège des fausses solutions qui pourraient causer encore plus de dommages et de problèmes pour essayer de régler un phénomène que nous ne comprenons pas encore bien dans son ensemble.

Il est un fait géologique que la planète suit des cycles de reffroidissement et de réchauffement réguliers, et que nous sommes en fait sur le point de retourner dans une ère glacière.
Il y a 20 - 30 ans, il y a eu un même genre de tapage médiatique à propos du climat et que nous étions tous en danger d`extinction, mais cette fois par une supposée glaciation, et le tout est tombé à plat faute de corrélation avec la réalité, et quelques décennies seulement après cette histoire incroyable, les mêmes acteurs nous proposent une vison catastrophique du futur à cause du réchauffement. La fameuse photo que vous voyez en tête d`article est une autre manipulation des sentiments: on vous présente dans les médias de masse une photo où l`on aperçoit deux ours polaires sur des bouts de glace, et on vous émeut en vous disant que c`est le réchauffement de la planète causé par nous qui tue ces bêtes, alors qu`en réalité la photo fut prise en été, alors que les glaces fondent normalement, et en ne vous disant pas qu`ils étaient prêt de la berge d`où les ours n`ont aucun problème pour nager, puisqu`ils peuvent nager des distances de 100km!

Des glaciers fondent sur Terre et sur Mars, mais ils y aussi une liste de glacier qui grossissent aussi. À certains endroit, le niveau de l`océan semble avoir très légèrement monté, alors qu`à d`autres, il a baissé.

Et pourtant, si l`on ose poser des questions sur les causes réelles du réchauffement des dernières dizaines d`années, on risque de se faire traiter de malsain d`esprit, de traitre ou même depuis récemment, se faire comparer aux gens qui nient l`Holocauste des juifs. Pourquoi donc ces tentatives d`intimidation? Ça n`attire pas ma confiance. Pas plus que celle des compagnies pétrolières.

Le réchauffement climatique est en train de devenir une raison passe-partout pour les gouvernements de faire se qu`ils veulent, au nom de "l`environnement". Encore une autre mission de sauver le monde, alors qu`on a peine à se sauver soi-même bordel.

Alors consultez les vidéos et documents que je vous présente ici pour voir un peu l`autre côté de la médaille dont on entend pas parler dans les médias de masse et sur la place publique.

Soyons lucides, mes amis. Bon courage.





Global Warming - Doomsday Called Off

Global Warming - Doomsday Called Off















*********

The Whole Solar System is Undergoing Global Warming.


This is a fact that not many people know about, and quite a few people, would like that there was no evidence to back this fact, because some people would like the world to believe that human activity is the cause for global warming on Earth. I am not advocating that releasing harmful gases, and chemicals in the oceans and atmosphere are good, but after a few years of research, I have come to understand that global warming is happening in the Solar System, not just on Earth.

The science of discussing changing climate

Solar bursts threaten cars, planes and banks: experts warn

Sur Mars : Le réchauffement climatique mieux compris

Le climat de Mars déréglé par une variation de luminosité comme en Arctique

Russian Astronomer Cites Global Warming On Mars, Doubts Man-Made Climate Change on Earth

Polar caps wane as Mars tries global warming

Since Mars is getting warmer along with the Earth, clearly a shared cause is at work, and one needs to look no further than the sun, which is currently burning the brightest and hottest it has since accurate measurements became possible.

Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says

Global warming on other planets

SUV's On Jupiter?


Are humans responsible for climate change on the outer reaches of the solar system, or is it the sun?

Solar pulses suggest heavy Australia rain - scientist

The more active the sun is, the fewer cosmic rays penetrate to the Earth. The fewer cosmic rays, the less low-level cloud formation. The less low-level cloud formation, the less rain, and in addition, less clouds means higher temperatures since sunlight is not being reflected back into space from the clouds.


Warming climate blamed on cosmic rays

MAN-MADE climate change may be happening at a far slower pace than has been claimed.

Scientists claim that cosmic rays from outer space play a far greater role in changing the Earth's climate than global warming experts previously thought.

The mechanism is simple. Anyone who has ever built a high-school physics cloud chamber knows that cosmic rays trigger cloud formation. The more cosmic rays, the more clouds. The more clouds, the more sunlight gets reflected back into space. The more sunlight that gets reflected back into space, the cooler the Earth will be.

When the sun is more active (and it is very active right now), not only is more sunlight reaching the Earth but the sun's more energetic magnetic field deflects cosmic rays, keeping them from reaching the Earth. So, Earth gets a double-whammy of more sunlight, plus less cloud formation letting that sunlight through at the same time.

And the Earth gets warmer.


Scientist's Commentary on Global Warming

Scientists question trees' role in global warming


Yes, trees suck up carbon dioxide. Too bad they emit methane, a far more potent greenhouse gas!


Under the United Nations' Kyoto Protocol on global warming, the forest is a saint, as trees suck in carbon dioxide (CO2) as part of the natural process of respiration.

By such thinking, if Kyoto signatories plant lots of forests, they create wonderful sponges that absorb the dangerous climate-altering gas.

But what if trees, in addition to taking in CO2, also emit a greenhouse gas of their own?


That scenario is sketched in a new study by European scientists, which if confirmed, would be one of the biggest upheavals in climate science for years.

It would also inflict a serious blow to Kyoto, one of whose key pillars is the faith in "sinks", as forests are called in the treaty's jargon.


Until now, the mainstream belief is that atmospheric methane chiefly comes from bugs: from bacteria working in wet, oxygen-less conditions, such as swamps and rice paddies.

But in a study published in the journal Nature, a team led by Frank Keppler of the Max Planck Institute in Germany has found living plants, dried leaves and grass emit methane in the presence of air.


Nor is this gas just a piffling amount.

The researchers roughly estimate the world's living vegetation emits between 62 and 236 million tonnes of methane per year, and plant litter adds one to seven million tonnes.


This would be equivalent to between 10 and 30 per cent of all annual global emissions of methane.


Origin of pingo-like features on the Beaufort Sea shelf and their possible relationship to decomposing methane gas hydrates

Methane is a far greater cause of warming than anything linked to humans.


Freezing Bears Photo HOAX

You have to keep in mind that the bears are not in danger at all. This is a perfect picture for climate change…you have the impression they are in the middle of the ocean and they are going to die...But they were not that far from the coast, and it was possible for them to swim...They are still alive and having fun.

— The National Post (Canada), Gore pays for photo after Canada didn't, 23rd March, 2007


Read “Gore pays for photo after Canada didn't” on The National Post website.


The Great Global Warming Swindle

Global Warming: A Convenient Lie

Recently, a documentary aired on the UK’s Channel 4, entitled “The Great Global Warming Swindle”, which challenged the prevailing political understanding that global warming is caused by man-made activity. The movie argues that it is in fact the sun that is responsible for the current changes in the Earth’s temperature and the film is riddled with the testimony of many scientists and climate experts, furthering a growing dissent to the man-made theory. After all, that’s all it is, a theory. As soon as people start to state that “the debate is over”, beware, because the fundamental basis of all sciences is that debate is never over, that questions must be asked and answered and issues raised in order for the science to be accurate. So what exactly are the arguments behind the Sun being the main cause of global warming?

First off, it is very important to address the fact that Earth is not the only planet to be experiencing climate change in our solar system currently. In fact, many astronomers have announced that Pluto has been experiencing global warming, and suggested that it is a seasonal event, just like how Earth’s seasons change as the various hemispheres alter their inclination to the Sun. We must remember that it is the Sun that determines our seasons, and thusly has a greater impact upon the climate than we could ever even try to achieve.

Powerful Documentary Trounces Man-Made Warming Hoax

Why Politicized Science is Dangerous

Now we are engaged in a great new theory that once again has drawn the support of politicians, scientists, and celebrities around the world. Once again, the theory is promoted by major foundations. Once again, the research is carried out at prestigious universities. Once again, legislation is passed and social programs are urged in its name. Once again, critics are few and harshly dealt with.

Once again, the measures being urged have little basis in fact or science. Once again, groups with other agendas are hiding behind a movement that appears high-minded. Once again, claims of moral superiority are used to justify extreme actions. Once again, the fact that some people are hurt is shrugged off because an abstract cause is said to be greater than any human consequences. Once again, vague terms like sustainability and generational justice --- terms that have no agreed definition --- are employed in the service of a new crisis.

I am not arguing that global warming is the same as eugenics. But the similarities are not superficial. And I do claim that open and frank discussion of the data, and of the issues, is being suppressed. Leading scientific journals have taken strong editorial positions of the side of global warming, which, I argue, they have no business doing. Under the circumstances, any scientist who has doubts understands clearly that they will be wise to mute their expression.

That is the danger we now face. And this is why the intermixing of science and politics is a bad combination, with a bad history. We must remember the history, and be certain that what we present to the world as knowledge is disinterested and honest.

why no one seems to be listening to scientists who claim that global warming is NOT man-made

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.

'Global Warming Is Lies' Claims Documentary

FROM YESTERDAY'S LETTERS PAGE:

Back in the 70s (before the World Wide Web) we were all being sold on the fears of a new ice age. No, I am not kidding. The same mainstream media that screams "GLOBAL WARMING" at us today was predicting that the coming of the next ice age would happen within our lifetimes. And back in the 30s, the "fashionable science" was Eugenics, or the undesirability of allowing less than perfect humans to contaminate the gene pool by breeding. All that Hitler did in the name of "Racial Hygiene" was drawn from the American scientists he chose as his inspiration.

The fact is that much of what you think is science is just pop culture, what is trendy to believe in and support, or even religion dressed up as science to make it sell better, such as the "Big Bang." again back in the 70s the cocktail party cognoscenti were obligated to be able to discuss the origin of consciousness in the triune brain, even though real psychologists had abandoned the theory years ago.

People who are not actually scientists will cling to their pet theories the way they cling to religions. They don't really understand what they are talking about; they just know that is they speak the correct words, their peers will approve of them.

A good example of this mindset is illustrated by two recent news stories, one of which confirms that the level of solar radiation has in fact been increasing and is at a 60 year peak right now, and the announcement that Mars is showing signs of warming right alongside that of Earth. Now, a real scientist will look at those facts and say, "Okay, we need a new theory here." But the "Pop-scientists", the ones who wear science as a fashion accessory, they refuse to look at the facts. I have gotten emails insisting that the warming on Mars has nothing to do with the warming on Earth because, well, just BECAUSE! Then there are emails such as yours, attempting to twist a simple disagreement of the facts into an attack on the credibility of my whole site. In both cases, no contrary facts are presented, just a resorting to various "authorities" on global warming whose continued funding depends on the continued "existence" of global warming, much as the "authorities" on the coming ice age in the 70s needed a continuing threat of that ice age to exist in the public mind to secure their added funding. Remember the witch hunts of Europe? When people were paid to find witches, they found witches. When people are paid to find global warming, they find global warming. That is the danger of agenda-driven science. One does not get scientific results, one gets political results.

The fact is that the Earth is getting warmer. We just came out of an ice age. Of COURSE it is getting warmer. Earth is currently warmer than the ice ages and cooler than the Cretaceous. It is only human arrogance that dares declare one particular temperature as "correct" or "normal", or dares suggest that the always-changing Earth can or should be locked into one particular temperature, based on that rather arbitrary decision of what is "normal."

Now, I am fully in favor of conservation and wise use of resources. I am also in favor of developing energy alternatives that are as environmentally friendly as possible. I am convinced that had we taken the money wasted on Iraq and put it into research we would not need the oil any more.

But the clamor about global warming is not leading to solutions but merely scares people into buying ill considered policies and products without the careful thought that should go into such decisions. People will buy anything if they are told it is good for the environment.

But the reality is that everything man does affects the environment, no matter how eco-friendly it is claimed to be. Windmills were hailed as the ultimate in safe energy systems, until it was discovered that the disrupted wind flow changed the micro-climates in the lee of the wind farms, and that wind farms built across migratory paths wound up chopping thousands of birds (including endangered species) into bits.

Pop-scientists and cocktail party cognoscenti like to have a single easy theory that explains everything. "The world is getting warmer and if you stop driving your SUV/vote for my politician/buy my product all will be well!" The real world, and real science, are seldom that simple and clean cut. Yes, man undoubtedly has an influence on the Earth's environment. But the reality is that man's ability to change the Earth remains minuscule compared to other naturally occurring forces.

The real purpose of the global warming scare (besides selling candidates and products) is to give people something safe to fret about. Most of the global warming crowd welcome the global warming "cause" because it is safe. They are not in danger of having the government come after them the way pro-peace activists do, or those who expose government cover-ups. The global warmers can walk around with an air of superiority, feeling like they are making a better world without actually having to confront the far more deadly reality of a government that is lying us into war after war after war. That's why the global warmers cling to their religion so tightly. Without it, they would have to deal with some pretty harsh realities.

The Great Global Warming Swindle

First of all, greenhouse effect is not a bad thing. Without it, our planet would not support life as we know it, as the average temperature would be too cold to support liquid water.

Water vapor is the single most potent greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, trapping more heat than carbon dioxide and methane put together. Estimates of the impact of water vapor on global warming vary widely from a minimum of 60% of all greenhouse effect to 98% of all greenhouse effect, but even at the minimum of 60%, that leaves 40% of greenhouse effect to be shared by all other chemicals combined, including carbon dioxide and methane (which has ten times the greenhouse capacity pound for pound as carbon dioxide).

Now then, looking at Carbon Dioxide, we find that only .117% of atmospheric carbon dioxide is directly attributable to human technology such as automobiles. .117% is a rather small amount. If we were to measure out .117% of a football field, it comes out to 4.212 inches, barely long enough to get off the touchdown line.

global warming: CO2, Sunspots, or politics? By Phil N. Baldwin, JR.
(Exclusive to FMNN Via IlanaMercer.com)">An excerpt from global warming: CO2, Sunspots, or politics? By Phil N. Baldwin, JR.
(Exclusive to FMNN Via IlanaMercer.com)

We are told global warming is absolutely true and due to the specific man-generated, 'greenhouse gas' carbon dioxide (CO2). This gas is generated from the combustion of carbon sources such as wood, natural gas, propane, coal, oil and motor fuels. About 0.015% of the earth's atmospheric volume is CO2 down from a historical high of ~0.30%. The greenhouse gas you don't hear about is water vapor/gas. It represents on average about 1% of the earth's atmospheric volume or ~67 times more volume than CO2. A variation in the water vapor in the atmosphere of +1.5% of the 1% total (0.015%) [not unusual] would equal the total volume of the earth's CO2. What is responsible for the water vapor in the atmosphere and the variations? The Sun is responsible, not man.


If global warming was due to an increase in CO2 over the past 80 years then there should be a strong mathematical correlation between the change in CO2 and the change in global temperature. There is a math term called the coefficient of determination (R2) that is used to measure and explain the change in one variable (CO2) as related to impacts in a second variable (temperature). A value of 1.0 indicates a perfect explanation in the change in one variable as related or caused by the other. Usually in statistical math, high R2 values of 0.90 or greater are desired to have high confidence in a cause and impact relationship. That said, between 1925 and the current period, the R2 for CO2's impact on global temperature is ~0.21 or in effect no impact of significance. Then, what has a high correlationship with global temperature change?


Aucun commentaire: