L'Autre Monde: liens pour l'émission du 14 octobre 2007: le réchauffement climatique et actualité mondiale
Pour écouter, simplement cliquer sur le lien;Pour télécharger, faite un clique droit puis “enregistrer la cible sous…”
lien archive lautremonde
Cette semaine, nous fesons un retour sur le réchauffement climatique et tous les mensonges qui s'y rattachent... On va vider, entre autre, la question d'Al Gore et de son film sur le sujet. Mieux vaut y voir clair avant de se faire taxer pour du CO2....
Dans l'actualité, nous touchons à l'IRAA et le piratage et partage de la musique, de l'Iran/bombes nucléaires/USA/Israël, les plus gros exercices anti-terroristes et de désastres naturels en Amérique du Nord et de leurs contenus, Blackwater et l'extrême droite religieuse aux USA, les plus hauts taux d'emprisonnement dans le monde, les aéroports: là où on est tous assumés comme étant des terroristes potentiels, la Birmanie et la descente en enfer, les bases militaires US dans le monde et quelques chiffres étonnants.
Accompagné de très bonne musique qui vous transporte, comme d'habitude!
Le film-documentaire d’Al Gore, Une vérité qui dérange (2006), sa version écrite, devenue un best-seller, les tournées de conférences, la formation de jeunes capables de faire des présentation « powerpoint », les concerts Live Earth de juillet 2007, toute cette hyperactivité ne reflète aucunement une prise de conscience soudaine, par les peuples du monde, du danger que représente le réchauffement global, mais plutôt l’une des campagnes de propagande les plus massives de l’histoire. Après son début en mai 2006 aux Etats-Unis, Une vérité qui dérange a été distribué dans 35 pays, quelquefois présenté par Gore lui-même, et doit bientôt être introduit dans les écoles et les églises. Ce documentaire, récemment couronné d’un Oscar, n’est que la partie la plus visible d’une série d’opérations psychologiques et politiques coordonnées par des intérêts financiers basés en Grande-Bretagne, ayant pour but de tromper et de contrôler.
L’opération Gore dans son ensemble est organisée par ce que l’on pourrait appeler le « Centre de commande britannique », un réseau reliant étroitement le Premier Ministre britannique Tony Blair, le Chancelier de l’Echiquier Gordon Brown, le milliardaire à la retraite, ex-patron d’eBay, Jeff S. Skoll, aujourd’hui président de Participant Productions et principale source de financement du documentaire d’Al Gore, ainsi que le hedge fund Generation Investment Management, autrement connu comme « Blood and Gore », également basé à Londres.
En avril 2006, lors de son Skoll World Forum, le milliardaire a présenté David Blood et Al Gore, les deux co-fondateurs de Generation Investment Management, comme les « superstars » de l’ »économie du changement climatique ».
Le film de Gore affirme que les températures de
Premièrement, toute lecture locale des températures, lorsque considérée des points de vue de la variabilité de l’activité solaire et des variations à long terme des paramètres de l’orbite terrestre, ne constituent en aucun cas une « surchauffe du climat ». Deuxièmement, l’assertion selon laquelle on aurait observé un accroissement régulier de la concentration en dioxyde de carbone dans l’atmosphère n’est pas fondée. Les données utilisées par Gore sont basées sur des échantillons de glace non fiables, et ne prennent pas en compte les 90 000 mesures directes effectuées avec le plus grand soin par les plus grands noms de la chimie et de la physique au cours des 150 dernières années, et selon lesquelles les concentrations en dioxyde de carbone ont déjà surpassé dans le passé les niveaux actuels.
En ce qui concerne la conclusion du film, selon laquelle il faudrait réduire les niveaux d’activité économique et de population humaine, afin de réduire le dioxyde de carbone dans l’air, elle ne fait que prouver que toute cette campagne ne vise qu’à terroriser les populations et à contrôler l’activité économique des peuples et des nations.
Le film de Gore se termine par un appel à l’engagement dans une série de petites actions, que tout citoyen peut mettre en place, comme économiser l’énergie en changeant les ampoules électriques, utiliser moins souvent sa voiture, faire la promotion des biocarburants, planter un arbre, et se battre pour que l’Amérique gèle les niveaux d’émission en dioxyde de carbone. Lorsque le Tennessee Center for Policy Research, basé à Nashville, fit remarquer à Al Gore que la facture d’électricité de sa superbe villa (avec piscine intérieure chauffée) 20-room, eight-bathroom home consumes more electricity in a month than the average American household uses in a year.
était douze fois plus élevée que celle du foyer américain moyen, celui-ci répondit qu’il en avait compensé le coût en achetant des swaps sur le carbone. Il oublia toutefois de préciser qu’il avait acquis ces étranges instruments financiers auprès de son propre hedge fund, Generation Investment Management.
Lorsqu’on demanda à l’analyste financier Jim Cramer, lors d’une émission diffusée en février sur MSNBC, ce qu’il pensait de la possibilité de voir Gore se présenter à l’élection présidentielle de 2008, sa réponse fut : « Non. Il est gérant de hedge funds maintenant. Personne ne quitte ce jeu. »
ONE of the world's foremost meteorologists has called the theory that helped Al Gore share the Nobel Peace Prize "ridiculous" and the product of "people who don't understand how the atmosphere works".
It's As Ridiculous As If They'd Given Goebbels One in 1938.
Worse, it has cheapened the whole image of the Nobel Prize.
Put this one up on the shelf of shame, right next to Henry Kissinger's, or the peace prize they gave to Kofi Annan and the entire UN in 2001, sandwiched between the UN's okay for the bombing of Serbia, the killing of untold numbers of Iraqis, many of them babies and children in the years of sanctions, and its greenlight for the bombing of Baghdad in 2003. In 1998 the Nobel crowd gave the prize to Medecins Sans Frontieres, whose co-founder Bernard Kouchner is now
Of course Al Gore has been a shil for nuclear power ever since he came of age as a political harlot for the Oakridge nuclear laboratory in his home state of
Professor Easterbrook disputed Mr Gore's claim that "our civilisation has never experienced any environmental shift remotely similar to this". Nonsense, Professor Easterbrook said. He flashed a slide that showed temperature trends for the past 15,000 years. It highlighted 10 large swings, including the medieval warm period. These shifts were up to "20 times greater than the warming in the past century".
Some of Mr Gore's centrist detractors point to the report last month by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The panel said humans were the main cause of the globe's warming, part of Mr Gore's message that few scientists dispute. But it also portrayed climate change as a slow-motion process. It estimated that the world's seas would rise a maximum of 58 centimetres this century. Mr Gore envisions rises of up to six metres and depicts heavily populated areas as sinking beneath the waves.
Al Gore's environmental documentary An Inconvenient Truth contains nine key scientific errors, a High Court judge ruled yesterday.
A research group in
But the judge ruled that the "apocalyptic vision" presented in the film was politically partisan and thus not an impartial scientific analysis of climate change.
It is, he ruled, a "political film".
Mr Gore claims that a sea-level rise of up to 20 feet would be caused by melting of either West Antarctica or
The film claims that low-lying inhabited Pacific atolls "are being inundated because of anthropogenic global warming" but the judge ruled there was no evidence of any evacuation having yet happened.
Mr Gore claims that two graphs, one plotting a rise in C02 and the other the rise in temperature over a period of 650,000 years, showed "an exact fit". The judge said that, although there was general scientific agreement that there was a connection, "the two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts".
Mr Gore says the disappearance of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro was directly attributable to global warming, but the judge ruled that it scientists have not established that the recession of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro is primarily attributable to human-induced climate change.
The film contends that the drying up of Lake Chad is a prime example of a catastrophic result of global warming but the judge said there was insufficient evidence, and that "it is apparently considered to be far more likely to result from other factors, such as population increase and over-grazing, and regional climate variability."
Mr Gore blames Hurricane Katrina and the consequent devastation in
Schools will have to issue a warning before they show pupils Al Gore's controversial film about global warming, a judge indicated yesterday.
The move follows a High Court action by a father who accused the Government of 'brainwashing' children with propaganda by showing it in the classroom.
L’Institut Schiller, dont la présidente internationale est Helga Zepp-LaRouche, a lancé une campagne visant à regrouper en une opposition efficace les adversaires de la propagande sur le réchauffement climatique. A cette fin, il diffuse la pétition suivante.
Nous, soussignés, exigeons que les parlements et gouvernements du monde cessent immédiatement de propager des campagnes hystériques sur le prétendu « changement climatique ».
Depuis la sortie du film si peu scientifique de ce directeur de fonds spéculatif qu’est Al Gore, et depuis la publication du quatrième rapport du Groupe intergouvernemental d’experts sur l’évolution du climat (GIEC), on assiste à un véritable endoctrinement des populations et de leurs dirigeants, voire même, parfois, à des « campagnes de rééducation » des jeunes dans les écoles. Contrairement à cette avalanche de propagande, le fondement scientifique de l’hypothèse d’un changement climatique provoqué par l’homme (anthropogène) n’a pas été établi, et la présentation par les médias d’un prétendu consensus parmi la communauté scientifique est à la fois dangereuse et trompeuse pour la population.
Cette théorie est répandue dans le monde par un cercle restreint d’institutions politiques douteuses comme le GIEC, amplement financées.
Gov. "Arnie" of
"Trading?" As in ENRON-style trading?
This whole carbon emissions trading thing is starting to sound like a huge financial scam!
Opposing Views on Global Warming:
This potential for profit-making from climate change gained the avid attention of investment bankers, some of whom were central participants in the PCA through their connections with the boards of the
“Goldman Sachs will aggressively seek market-making and investment opportunities in environmental markets;" The firm indicated that the Center would engage in research to develop public policy options for establishing markets around climate change, including the design and promotion of regulatory solutions for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The firm also indicated that Goldman Sachs would “take the lead in identifying investment opportunities in renewable energy;” that year the investment banking firm acquired Horizon Wind Energy, invested in photovoltaics with Sun Edison, arranged financing for Northeast Biofuels, and purchased a stake in logen Corporation, which pioneered the conversion of straw, corn stalks, and switchgrass into ethanol.
Gore had a long-standing interest in environmental issues and had represented the
The book and the film of the same name both appeared in 2006, with enormous promotion and immediate success in the corporate entertainment industry (the film eventually garnering an Academy Award). Both vehicles vastly extended the reach of the climate change market-makers, whose efforts they explicitly extolled. “More and more
By the beginning of 2007 the corporate campaign had significantly scaled up its activity, with the creation of several new organizations. The
On comprend alors que les petrolieres vont profiter du petrole plus cher, et les taxes qui ne peuvent pas arreter le rechauffement climatique sont gere par des incompetents et vont aller ds les poches de quelques manipulateurs
Up to 20% of carbon savings in doubt as monitoring firms criticised by UN body
A Guardian investigation has found evidence of serious irregularities at the heart of the process the world is relying on to control global warming.
The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), which is supposed to offset greenhouse gases emitted in the developed world by selling carbon credits from elsewhere, has been contaminated by gross incompetence, rule-breaking and possible fraud by companies in the developing world, according to UN paperwork, an unpublished expert report and alarming feedback from projects on the ground.
One senior figure suggested there may be faults with up to 20% of the carbon credits - known as certified emissions reductions - already sold. Since these are used by European governments and corporations to justify increases in emissions, the effect is that in some cases malpractice at the CDM has added to the net amount of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere.
If CO2 can be so beneficial, why are we spending tens of billions of dollars to prove it is so bad? The answer is simple. It is part of an agenda to create global governance. There are several excellent DVDs coming out in the next several months that expose the global warming fraud, but only Global Warming or Global Governance? explains why so much money is being spent advancing the man-caused global warming hysteria. Experts and politicians who are aware of the global governance agenda explain how the international cartel is using global warming, biodiversity, education and many more alleged crises to control our economy and implement global governance – with them in control, of course.
Nineteen million dollars since 1990 is a lot of money – until it is compared to the whooping $50 billion that has fed the man-caused global warming hysteria. You read it correctly, that is $50 billion
Brown demands 'new world order'
Chancellor Gordon Brown is seeking to regain the initiative on the environment with a call for a "new world order" to combat climate change.
"In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill..." Club of Rome, an elite think-tank working with the UN.
"...we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public's imagination.... So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts.... Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest." Stanford Professor Stephen Schneider
"The earth continually warms and cools. The cycle is undeniable, ancient, often abrupt, and global. It is also unstoppable. Isotopes in the ice and sediment cores, ancient tree rings, and stalagmites tell us it is linked to small changes in the irradiance of the sun."[3, page 4] Atmospheric physicist Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery, Unstoppable Global Warming
“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony... climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” Christine Stewart, then Canadian Minister of the Environment
In other words, it's just another bunch of crap to trick you into doing what the self-appointed rulers of the world want you to do.
Dealing with global warming will be painful, says one of the most powerful Democrats in Congress. To back up his claim he is proposing a recipe many people won't like _ a 50-cent gasoline tax, a carbon tax and scaling back tax breaks for some home owners.
I told you; Global Warming is a scam to trick you into agreeing to higher taxes.
The British government is raising almost double the revenue in so called "green taxes" that it needs to offset the social cost of CO2 emissions according to a new report. An accompanying opinion poll also reveals that nearly two-thirds of people think politicians are using the green issue as an excuse to tax more.
The conclusion of a report by the TaxPayer's Alliance watchdog, states that "In many cases, individual green taxes and charges are failing to meet their objectives, are set at a level in excess of that needed to meet the social cost of CO2 emissions, and are causing serious harm to areas of the country and industries least able to cope."
Such calls for a carbon tax on energy have been echoed by globalist groups such as the Trilateral Commission and the Bilderberg group whose members are coincidentally made up of many big energy company heads and CEOs who stand to gain from long term hikes in prices to offset an initial drop in demand that a new tax would bring.
We have previously pointed out that while many green activists aim their criticisms at the energy companies and big government, it is the elite structures within and surrounding those very areas that are pushing global warming fears, in addition to their tax proposals.
Global warming also acts as a convenient veil for the real environmental crimes that will continue on behalf of the mega corporations and scientific establishment that are in bed with the very government imposing draconian measures on us in the name of the environment. GM contamination, toxic waste dumping, bizarre cloning mad science, and the destruction of the rain forests will continue apace while we are still being lectured about light bulbs and beer bottles.
Environment Minister John Baird concedes the economy will take a hit too - up to $8 billion annually in the "worst" year under the plan until 2020.
Scientifiques pas d’accords
The marquee slogan in the new cold war on global warming is that the scientific consensus is virtually unanimous. This is utterly false. The overwhelming majority of climate computer modelers, the beneficiaries of the $2 billion-a-year global warming grant industry, certainly believe in it but not necessarily most real climate scientists-people qualified in atmospheric physics, climatology and meteorology.
Geologists are particularly skeptical. Peter Sciaky, a retired geologist, writes to me thus:
"Among all my liberal and leftist friends (and I am certainly one of those), I know not a one who does not accept that global warming is an event caused by mankind. I do not know one geologist who believes that global warming is not taking place. I do not know a single geologist who believes that it is a man-made phenomenon.
Antonio Zichichi, who is also a retired professor of advanced physics at the University of Bologna, made this assertion today in an address delivered to an international congress sponsored by the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace.
The conference, which ends today, is examining "Climate Change and Development."
Zichichi pointed out that human activity has less than a 10% impact on the environment.
He also cited that models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are incoherent and invalid from a scientific point of view. The U.N. commission was founded in 1988 to evaluate the risk of climate change brought on by humans.
Zichichi, who is also member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, showed that the mathematical models used by the IPCC do not correspond to the criteria of the scientific method.
He said that the IPCC used "the method of 'forcing' to arrive at their conclusions that human activity produces meteorological variations."
A new survey of over 500 peer reviewed scientific research papers on climate change, written between 2004 and 2007, has concluded that less than half endorse what has been dubbed the "consensus view," that human activity is contributing to considerable global climate change.
In direct conflict with assertions by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that a scientific consensus agrees it is 90% likely that man is responsible for warming, Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte's survey contends that only 45% support the theory and that is only if you include papers that merely lean towards endorsement.
MANKIND is naive to think it can influence climate change, according to a prize-winning Australian geologist.
Canadian Professor: Prepare for Global Cooling
Don't blame rising levels of carbon dioxide (C02) for whatever global warming is now taking place; put the blame on "old sol" — the sun may be getting ready to put the world into the deep freezer.
So say a growing number of scientists who have studied the effect of the sun on the earth's climate and concluded that the only thing scientists understand about climate change is that it is always changing.
"Climate stability has never been a feature of planet earth,” explains R. Timothy Patterson professor and director of the Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Centre, Department of Earth Sciences,
"The only constant about climate is change; it changes continually and, at times, quite rapidly. Many times in the past, temperatures were far higher than today, and occasionally, temperatures were colder. As recently as 6,000 years ago, it was about
Dr. Patterson insists that even though advocates of the global warming theory such as Al Gore are insisting that the "the science is settled," that is far from being the case.
Scientists who questioned mankind's impact on climate change have received death threats and claim to have been shunned by the scientific community.
They say the debate on global warming has been "hijacked" by a powerful alliance of politicians, scientists and environmentalists who have stifled all questioning about the true environmental impact of carbon dioxide emissions.
Timothy Ball, a former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg in Canada, has received five deaths threats by email since raising concerns about the degree to which man was affecting climate change.
I should start posting the obscenity-laced emails I get every time I comment on the fact that it is NATURAL for Earth's climate to change, and that is has been doing so since long before humans showed up.
In an article we published in November about global warming being 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.
It's no longer a joke.
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
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
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.
In spite of what some call a national debate on global warming, there really hasn’t been one. There has been name calling, personal attacks, calls for defunding the skeptics, calls for Nuremburg trials, muzzling the critics. This isn’t debate, this is not a discussion, this isn’t consensus, and it isn’t science. It is bullying and thuggery, and reminiscent of remedial behavior classes.
Twenty years ago, climate research became politicised in favour of one particular hypothesis, which redefined the subject as the study of the effect of greenhouse gases. As a result, the rebellious spirits essential for innovative and trustworthy science are greeted with impediments to their research careers. And while the media usually find mavericks at least entertaining, in this case they often imagine that anyone who doubts the hypothesis of man-made global warming must be in the pay of the oil companies. As a result, some key discoveries in climate research go almost unreported.
"BURN THE HERETIC! BURN THE HERETIC!" -- The cult of the hot Earth
It may have been reckless for the cultists to try to link denial of man-made global warming with denial of the holocaust.
While sea-ice has diminished in the
Recently, a documentary aired on the
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.
There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998
By Bob Carter
For many years now, human-caused climate change has been viewed as a large and urgent problem. In
truth, however, the biggest part of the problem is neither environmental nor scientific, but a self-created
political fiasco. Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate
Research Unit at the
Yes, you did read that right. And also, yes, this eight-year period of temperature stasis did coincide with
society’s continued power station and SUV-inspired pumping of yet more carbon dioxide into the
In response to these facts, a global warming devotee will chuckle and say "how silly to judge climate change over such a short period". Yet in the next breath, the same person will assure you that the 28-year-long period of warming which occurred between 1970 and 1998 constitutes a dangerous (and man-made) warming. Tosh. Our devotee will also pass by the curious additional facts that a period of similar warming occurred between 1918 and 1940, well prior to the greatest phase of world industrialisation, and that cooling occurred between 1940 and 1965, at precisely the time that human emissions were increasing at their greatest rate.
Does something not strike you as odd here? That industrial carbon dioxide is not the primary cause of
earth’s recent decadal-scale temperature changes doesn’t seem at all odd to many thousands of
independent scientists. They have long appreciated - ever since the early 1990s, when the global warming bandwagon first started to roll behind the gravy train of the UN Inter-governmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) - that such short-term climate fluctuations are chiefly of natural origin. Yet the public
appears to be largely convinced otherwise. How is this possible?
Since the early 1990s, the columns of many leading newspapers and magazines, worldwide, have carried an increasing stream of alarmist letters and articles on hypothetical, human-caused climate change. Each such alarmist article is larded with words such as "if", "might", "could", "probably", "perhaps", "expected",
"projected" or "modelled" - and many involve such deep dreaming, or ignorance of scientific facts and
principles, that they are akin to nonsense.
The problem here is not that of climate change per se, but rather that of the sophisticated scientific
brainwashing that has been inflicted on the public, bureaucrats and politicians alike. Governments generally choose not to receive policy advice on climate from independent scientists. Rather, they seek guidance from their own self-interested science bureaucracies and senior advisers, or from the IPCC itself. No matter how accurate it may be, cautious and politically non-correct science advice is not welcomed in
Marketed under the imprimatur of the IPCC, the bladder-trembling and now infamous hockey-stick diagram that shows accelerating warming during the 20th century - a statistical construct by scientist Michael Mann and co-workers from mostly tree ring records - has been a seminal image of the climate scaremongering campaign. Thanks to the work of a Canadian statistician, Stephen McIntyre, and others, this graph is now known to be deeply flawed.
There are other reasons, too, why the public hears so little in detail from those scientists who approach
climate change issues rationally, the so-called climate sceptics. Most are to do with intimidation against
speaking out, which operates intensely on several parallel fronts.
Les modeles informatiques sont loins d’incorporer tous les variants reelles atmospheriques et des phenomenes naturels. Ils ont de la misere a predire la meteo de demain matin, et ils pretendent etre capable de predire le climat dans 100 ans! Plusieurs de leurs «predictions» se sont deja avere incorectes.
An extensive and previously unknown "twilight zone" of particles in the atmosphere could complicate scientists' efforts to determine how much the Earth's climate will warm in the future, a new study finds.
Translation: They don't know what it is they are looking at, let alone what it really means.
Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural—and not a human- induced—cause, according to one scientist's controversial theory.
Earth is currently experiencing rapid warming, which the vast majority of climate scientists says is due to humans pumping huge amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. (Get an overview: "Global Warming Fast Facts".)
In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.
Are humans responsible for climate change on the outer reaches of the solar system, or is it the sun?
Paul Joseph Watson
Thursday, November 16, 2006
Kofi Annan today slammed global warming skeptics as being "out of step" and "out of time," but how will altering human activity halt climate change when the evidence clearly indicates that the sun itself and not SUV's is heating up the entire solar system?
"The U.N. chief lamented "a frightening lack of leadership" in fashioning next steps to reduce global emissions. "Let us start being more politically courageous," he urged the hundreds of delegates from some 180 member nations of the 1992 U.N. climate treaty," reports Forbes.
But 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? Can Al Gore fill me in on this one?
- Space.com: Global Warming on Pluto Puzzles Scientists
In what is largely a reversal of an August announcement, astronomers today said Pluto is undergoing global warming in its thin atmosphere even as it moves farther from the Sun on its long, odd-shaped orbit.
- Space.com: New Storm on Jupiter Hints at Climate Change
The latest images could provide evidence that Jupiter is in the midst of a global change that can modify temperatures by as much as 10 degrees Fahrenheit on different parts of the globe.
- Current Science & Technology Center: Global Warming on Mars?
A study of the ice caps on Mars may show that the red planet is experiencing a warming trend. If both Mars and Earth are experiencing global warming, then perhaps there is a larger phenomenon going on in the Solar System that is causing their global climates to change.
- United Press International: NASA looks at a monster storm on Saturn
NASA says its Cassini spacecraft has found a hurricane-like storm at Saturn's South Pole, nearly 5,000 miles across -- or two-thirds Earth's diameter.
- Science Agogo: Global Warming Detected on Triton
There may not be much industrial pollution on
- Associated Press: Study says sun getting hotter
Solar radiation reaching the Earth is 0.036 percent warmer than it was in 1986, when the current solar cycle was beginning, a researcher reports in a study to be published Friday in the journal Science. The finding is based on an analysis of satellites that measure the temperature of sunlight.
- London Telegraph: The truth about global warming - it's the Sun that's to blame
Global warming has finally been explained: the Earth is getting hotter because the Sun is burning more brightly than at any time during the past 1,000 years, according to new research.
We are constantly urged to reduce the emission CO2 to combat climate change. But, the Greenhouse Effect is a natural phenomenon being a layer of gasses encircling the earth and acting as the earth's thermostat. This keeps the temperature at
Professor Rob Carter from the
"Water vapour made up about 95% of the greenhouse effect. Carbon Dioxide was a minor greenhouse gas, responsible for 3.6 % of the total greenhouse effect. Of this, only 0.12% or
So 5% of the greenhouse effect is made up of Carbon dioxide, Oxygen and ozone, Nitrous oxide, and Methane.
the level of CO2 is now 348.5 parts per million, or about 0.035% of the atmosphere. These results show that the rate of the rise in CO2 levels is LINEAR. In other words, it is not accelerating as predicted by the Greenhousers - rather CO2 levels are increasing at a steady constant rate.
Since it is estimated that the level of CO2 some 100 years ago was 280 parts per million, we can see that the rate of increase over the last century has only been 70 parts per million. Since the rate of increase has been and still is steady, we can make the simple calculation that CO2 will be double its natural level by the year 2290, not 2040 as predicted by the Greenhousers!
Since all the global warming predictions are based on a hypothetical doubling of CO2, it seems the doomsayers will have to wait another 300 years or longer to find out for sure, not 50 years as they imagine.
experiments done at the University of Tasmania on plant growth in conditions of enriched CO2 have produced some remarkable examples of plants which not only grow faster, but also become physically larger than normal if they grow in CO2-rich conditions.
In July 1989, a British ocean research expedition reported that they found marine plankton consuming vast quantities of atmospheric CO2. With oceans covering 70% of the planet, CO2 consumption by plankton would occur on an astronomical scale, and enhance the marine food chain into the bargain.
Carbon Dioxide is a fertilizer, not a pollutant: "As a culture, we have become obsessed with the idea that everything we do is harmful to the environment, and CO2 has been typecast as a 'pollutant', even though it occurs abundantly in nature. We have many environmental problems, but CO2 is not one of them".
Harvest prospects have improved significantly in parts of Africa's Sahel region bordering the
But, but, but, the global warming cult (also known as Gore-ees) told me the
And some idiot will blame global warming for the cold temperatures.
Les cycles et le soleil
Analysis of Antarctic ice cores led by Kenji Kawamura, a visiting scientist at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UC San Diego, shows that the last four great ice age cycles began when Earth's distance from the sun during its annual orbit became great enough to prevent summertime melts of glacial ice. The absence of those melts allowed buildups of the ice over periods of time that would become characterized as glacial periods.
"But, but, but, Al Gore told me that the sun has nothing to do with climate! He said Earth was being destroyed by my SUV and not paying enough carbon offset taxes!!!!"
Drs. David Gray (
Simply put, our sun is getting hotter and since we are close, we are getting hotter, but this has happened before,
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.
This "double whammy" is the mechanism by which solar output drives the global temperature.
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.
Since 1750 the electromagnetic radiation of the Sun has increased significantly, as indicated by the sunspot record. This increased electromagnetic radiation is considered by the author and others to be the real cause of global warming. The examination of the annual temperature records of the northern and southern hemispheres shows a sharp change and major increases since 1978, especially in the northern hemisphere. This is the so-called hockey stick effect, which the author concludes is not due to the influence of Man, and probably due to a change in the geothermal regime of heat flow from the fracture zones in the floor of the northern oceans. There is some confirmation of this in recent sea floor explorations. The role of atmospheric carbon dioxide and methane is considered in relation to claims that emissions by Man are causing global warming. It is shown that the increased warming is due to the Sun, and that the consequent warming of the oceans is causing the ex-solution of carbon dioxide and methane from the oceans, simply due to the decreasing solubility of these gases in sea water with increasing ocean temperatures. The extensive exploitation of groundwater around the world over the past century, at rates far in excess of possible recharge, has created a net addition to the hydrosphere commensurate with the apparent rise in sea levels over the past century. There is deadly pollution in the atmosphere over many world cities and industrial regions. These are local and regional matters, and should be corrected at the sources of pollution. Air pollution and global warming are scientifically separate matters.
Recent climate change is not caused by man-made pollution, but is instead part of a 1,500-year cycle of warming and cooling that has happened for the last million years, say the authors of a controversial study.
We just came out of the last "mini" ice age in the middle of the 1800s. Of COURSE the planet is getting warmer! In fact, show my any one time in the history of the Earth where it wasn't getting either hotter or colder. Show me one time in history where the Earth stayed at the exact same temperature for an extended period of time, say just 500 years.
Saying that we can (or should) halt global warming is like saying you can stop the Earth from spinning.
During the last 10,000 years climate has been seesawing between the North and
DOC PDF a downloader
ABSTRACT: The 1000 yr climatic and environmental history of the Earth contained in various proxy records is reviewed. As indicators, the proxies duly represent local climate. Because each is of a different nature, the results from the proxy indicators cannot be combined into a hemispheric or global quantitative composite. However, considered as an ensemble of individual expert opinions, the assemblage of local representations of climate establishes both the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period as climatic anomalies with worldwide imprints, extending earlier results by Bryson et al. (1963), Lamb (1965), and numerous intervening research efforts. Furthermore, the individual proxies can be used to address the question of whether the 20th century is the warmest of the 2nd millennium locally. Across the world, many records reveal that the 20th century is probably not the warmest nor a uniquely extreme climatic period of the last millennium.
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)
more monies could be spent on real environmental problems such as air pollution and bad or lack of water.
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?
Methane is a far greater cause of warming than anything linked to humans.
In his enviro-propaganda flick, An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore claims nine of the 10 hottest years on record have occurred in the last decade. That's been a common refrain for environmentalists, too, and one of the centrepieces of global warming hysteria: It's been really hot lately -- abnormally hot -- so we all need to be afraid, very afraid. The trouble is, it's no longer true.
Last week, NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies -- whose temperature records are a key component of the global-warming claim (and whose director, James Hansen, is a sort of godfather of global-warming alarmism) -- quietly corrected an error in its data set that had made recent temperatures seem warmer than they really were.
A little less than a decade ago, the
McIntyre has become the bane of many warmers' religious-like belief in climate catastrophe. In 2003, along with economist Ross McKitrick, McIntyre demolished the Mann "hockey stick" --a graph that showed stable temperatures for 1,000 years, then shooting up dangerously in the last half of the 20th Century.
The graph was used prominently by the UN and nearly every major eco lobby. But McIntyre and McKitrick demonstrated it was based on incomplete and inaccurate data.
The hottest year since 1880 becomes 1934 instead of 1998, which is now just second; 1921 is third.
Four of the 10 hottest years were in the 1930s, only three in the past decade. Claiming that man-made carbon dioxide has caused the natural disasters of recent years makes as much sense as claiming fossil-fuel burning caused the Great Depression.
The 15 hottest years since 1880 are spread over seven decades. Eight occurred before atmospheric carbon dioxide began its recent rise; seven occurred afterwards.
In other words, there is no discernible trend, no obvious warming of late.
Okay, this sounds good at the start (especially to the global warming cult) but compact flourescent bulbs contain mercury and many of them also contain radioactive isotopes to aid startup. Most of this material will end up in landfills.
Last month, the Prospect,
The "Oh my gawd the world is gonna end" cult isn't about science, or even about the world. It's about selling you things, whether products, policies, or new taxes. The compact fluorescent bulbs being sold as friendly for the environment are anything but. Left unmentioned in this article; the radioactive isotope (Kr85, a gamma emitter with a half life of 10.7 years) used in some of these bulbs.
A Democratic lawmaker has introduced a bill that would ban the sale of traditional incandescent light bulbs - which are less energy-efficient, prompting claims that they contribute to "global warming" - one day after a colleague told a press conference that legislating a ban would be a "last choice."
Now, let me start off by saying I think high-efficiency lights are very good. They save power, run much cooler (a real issue in summer) and last longer than conventional filament bulbs. In our home, there are only two old-style filament lamps still in use and they won't be here much longer. CFs rule and LED flashlights are the best.
That being said, I am opposed to a ban on conventional bulbs because I don't feel it is appropriate for government to dictate what lights people use. If they chose the older bulbs, well, that is fine. That is their choice, and while there is choice both old and new bulb makers will be motivated to produce better products at lower prices. The newer high-efficiency bulbs are better and longer lasting than older style bulbs because they HAVE to be to win customers. Once the new bulbs are legally mandated, manufacturers will be free to make them lower in quality because the customers will have no alternatives to go to.
There is also the issue of the radioisotopes used in compact flourescent bulbs. Not everyone is comfortable with having radioactive sources in their reading lamps, with the risk of accidental ingestion if the light is shattered.
Colza et mais
The global warming "cult" isn't about saving the Earth. It's about SELLING things, both products and policies, the gullible voters and consumers who slavishly adorn themselves with the concern of the day, worn not for science but for fashion. And, as this example shows, they actually do more harm than good to the environment they claim to be so concerned with.
A renewable energy source designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is contributing more to global warming than fossil fuels, a study suggests.
Measurements of emissions from the burning of biofuels derived from rapeseed and maize have been found to produce more greenhouse gas emissions than they save.
Rapeseed and maize biodiesels were calculated to produce up to 70 per cent and 50 per cent more greenhouse gases respectively than fossil fuels. The concerns were raised over the levels of emissions of nitrous oxide, which is 296 times more powerful as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Scientists found that the use of biofuels released twice as much as nitrous oxide as previously realised. The research team found that 3 to 5 per cent of the nitrogen in fertiliser was converted and emitted. In contrast, the figure used by the International Panel on Climate Change, which assesses the extent and impact of man-made global warming, was 2 per cent. The findings illustrated the importance, the researchers said, of ensuring that measures designed to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions are assessed thoroughly before being hailed as a solution.
Maize for ethanol is the prime crop for biofuel in the
It was accepted by the scientists that other factors, such as the use of fossil fuels to produce fertiliser, have yet to be fully analysed for their impact on overall figures. But they concluded that the biofuels “can contribute as much or more to global warming by N2 O emissions than cooling by fossil-fuel savings”.
Current hikes in both grain and pork prices are blamed on the same culprit - the ethanol industry, whose explosive growth has been gobbling up a growing share of China's corn (maize) harvest traditionally preserved for food and animal feed.
Another example of how the "cult" pushes forward with their "save the world" ideas without really thinking them all the way through.
Armed groups in
Surging demand for “green” fuel has prompted rightwing paramilitaries to seize swaths of territory, according to activists and farmers. Thousands of families are believed to have fled a campaign of killing and intimidation, swelling
This is truly one of the dark aspects of the "green energy revolution".
A leading expert in
Pave The Earth!
One planet, one slab of cement!
Seriously, this illustrates how much of the so-called science of global warming is really just pop-beliefs. Trees have been waved around as the savior of our world, and now we find out that the reality is not as clear-cut as the political opportunists would portray it.
Don't get me wrong. I like trees and like to have trees around my all the time. But real life is never as black and white as the cultists would like you to think.
If anyone wants to know who trying to change Earth's climate is a fool's errand one only needs to look at the history of Yellowstone National Park and the endless chain of one bad decision after the other in park policy that, with the very best of intentions to "preserve" nature, actually triggered major ecological shifts within the park. First the native Americans were forbidden to hunt the park lands, so game animals multiplied quickly and soon the available forage plants were decimated. The animals began to starve, so the park managers imported predators to control the population but the forage plants, now gone, did not come back, so the game animals continued to die off while the predators wandered off the park and attacked farm livestock in the area. Fire prevention slowly changed the plant life in the park, leading to a disaster when park managers realized that occasional fires were necessary for certain species to survive (such as redwoods, whose seeds sprout after a forest fire) and tried to execute "controlled burns", which quickly went uncontrolled.
All this mess was done without an evil corporate entity raping the Earth for profit, but was done by scientists and environmentalists with the very best of intentions, great enthusiasm, and poor understanding of what they were dealing with.
No imagine that same "force for good" unleashed on the planet as a whole.
Going back on their word not to slaughter wild bison, state and federal agencies to do just that. Today they have hazed about 50 wild bison off of cattle-free National Forest land and captured them in a bison trap constructed near the
Within the first ten years of their management of the park, the ecology of the park had been forever changed by the well intentioned yet incorrect assertions of the park service on how best to preserve the land. First they believed that the elk were about to become extinct, so they began the process of shooting and poisoning all of the wolves in the reserve, who were the natural predator of the elks. This resulted in an explosion of the elk population and another totally unexpected result. You see, part of the diet of the elk was in fact the trees that the beavers of the park used to make their dams, and the lack of those trees and the resulting dams threw into chaos the water management of the park. The beavers disappeared, the meadows dried up and the otters and trout vanished.
Common patterns of correction, followed corrections of corrections have followed for the last century at the park. Grizzly Bears have been protected, and then killed off, wolves killed off, then brought back, etc., etc.
Park Rangers worked hard to extinguish every single fire, not realizing that fire clears away dead growth and that some of the park's flora need fire to procreate. When control burns were started to clear away the dead brush, they ran wild and devastated the park.
On and on it goes, and the value of Yellowstone as an example of environmentalism long on ambition and short on science is that there is no evil corporation to blame it all on.
Far from preserving
This is a classic example of good intention mixing with bad science in the environmentalist movement. The theory was that old used tires could be dumped into the ocean and form the foundation for new coral reefs. It sounded good in the press briefings and the government went along with the idea, so 2 million tires went into the water off of
The bad news: Not only does coral not grow on tires, but the tires killed what was already down there. Worse, driven by ocean current, the tires have moved into areas where they were never intended to go and started poisoning the life there as well.
CNN just reported that it is estimated it will take 2 years of diving to bring up all the tires.
Scientists' Report Documents ExxonMobil’s Tobacco-like Disinformation Campaign on Global Warming Science
Oil Company Spent Nearly $16 Million to Fund Skeptic Groups, Create Confusion
Read the Report
Appendix C (PDF high resolution)