Al Gore & The Global Warming Agenda [Archive] - Page 3

View Full Version : Al Gore & The Global Warming Agenda

Pages : 1 2 [3] 4

d-cat

11-09-2008, 11:09 AM

Obama's chief of staff choice favors compulsory universal service

"It’s time for a real Patriot Act that brings out the patriot in all of us. We propose universal civilian service for every young American. Under this plan, All Americans between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five will be asked to serve their country by going through three months of basic training, civil defense preparation and community service" …
https://www.examiner.com/x-536-Civil-Liberties-Examiner~y2008m11d6-Obamas-chief-of-staff-choice-favors-compulsory-universal-service

Here's some interesting info on the above quoted Obama's chief of staff choice, Rahm Emanuel:

https://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=6201900&page=1

d-cat

11-09-2008, 11:15 AM

Note the date. It's gone.

So, how do you feel about the possibility?

Yup. A two party tyranny. OK. So now they want three months of each young persons time to train them for disaster preparedness. That could be enough to set a lot of undisciplined people on a positive course for life. That prospect sounds good to me. Something similar happened to me when I was a near total f**k up at age 17. I spent six months with a little discipline. Possibly saved my (at that time) nearly worthless ass.

I have trouble with compulsory anything. Troubles with authority, you know? But I also see the possible benefits for an increasingly (it seems) undisciplined youth in our country. Perhaps a youth corps (I keep spelling that corpse) will help. The experience of comaraderie among youth should come from somewhere besides a street gang.

In Israel they have compulsory military service for all. They serve for years and every person is in the military reserve (if I recall correctly) for life. That does a lot to bond people to each other and to their country. I think that wouldn't work in the US, but three months ... that might work. And I bet it wouldn't cost a trillion dollars either.

-Jeff

"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." - Goethe

d-cat

11-12-2008, 06:35 PM

Obama’s Civil Defense Program Resembles Domestic Draft

A newly rediscovered 2006 audio clip has shed more light on Rahm Emanuel and Barack Obama’s plan for compulsory community service and a “national civilian security force”.

https://www.prisonplanet.com/obamas-civil-defense-program-resembles-domestic-draft.html

handy

11-17-2008, 06:58 AM

Braggi

11-17-2008, 07:33 AM

... Unfortunately, this global warming nonsense is quite serious and threatens our very existence. Al Gore is demanding that in the next decade, this country destroy 70 percent of its capacity to create electricity and replace it with...windmills. That is like destroying a textile mill and replacing it with hand looms. As I have said before, environmentalists like Gore have a grand and great vision for our future; it is just that they do not plan to take part in it.

OK, there's no such thing as global warming. Fine.

Can we now get on with the business of moving our energy production into the 21st century? We've nearly destroyed the carrying capacity of the planet with our 19th century ways. Let's get those windmills going. Hurry up. The rest of the world is pulling out ahead of us.

-Jeff

d-cat

11-20-2008, 11:11 PM

some sorta back on thread news...

November 16, 2008
False Numbers From James Hansen and NASA
Posted by Bill Anderson at November 16, 2008 09:36 PM

It seems that the global warming "prophet" James Hansen and his friends at NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies have been fudging some of the global warming numbers. It was Hansen and Company who told us that this past October was the warmest October on record.

Whoops! It seems that Hansen's acolytes were giving us...September's temperatures. Yes, in the Northern Hemisphere, September tends to be a warmer month than October. (We had six inches of snow at our place a couple days before Halloween.)

Unfortunately, this global warming nonsense is quite serious and threatens our very existence. Al Gore is demanding that in the next decade, this country destroy 70 percent of its capacity to create electricity and replace it with...windmills. That is like destroying a textile mill and replacing it with hand looms. As I have said before, environmentalists like Gore have a grand and great vision for our future; it is just that they do not plan to take part in it.

thanks! here are some reports on that:

https://freespeech.vo.llnwd.net/o25/pub/pp/images/november2008/171108top.jpg

IPCC Scientists Caught Producing False Data To Push Global Warming
Climate scientists allied with the IPCC have been caught citing fake data to make the case that global warming is accelerating, a shocking example of mass public deception that could spell the beginning of the end for the acceptance of man-made climate change theories.
https://www.infowars.com/?p=6009

The world has never seen such freezing heat

A surreal scientific blunder last week raised a huge question mark about the temperature records that underpin the worldwide alarm over global warming. On Monday, Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), which is run by Al Gore's chief scientific ally, Dr James Hansen, and is one of four bodies responsible for monitoring global temperatures, announced that last month was the hottest October on record.

This was startling. Across the world there were reports of unseasonal snow and plummeting temperatures last month, from the American Great Plains to China, and from the Alps to New Zealand. China's official news agency reported that Tibet had suffered its "worst snowstorm ever". In the US, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration registered 63 local snowfall records and 115 lowest-ever temperatures for the month, and ranked it as only the 70th-warmest October in 114 years...
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/11/16/do1610.xml

Documentary:
Global Warming Or Global Governance?
https://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8147337841241405073

handy

11-22-2008, 07:41 AM

The Warmer, the Merrier

by James P. Hogan

Earth warmed a little during the last century as part of the natural climate cycles that have always been happening and always will. The principal agent by far – to the tune of 95% of the total in maintaining an atmosphere that keeps the Earth from freezing at this distance from the Sun – is water vapour, which doesn't even figure in the computer models that the current hysteria is based on, because you can't control it, tax it, or blame it on your favorite villains. At 0.03% of the Earth's atmosphere, carbon dioxide is a minor player, and the proportion of it due to human activities, minuscule – 2% of the 0.03%, which is six millionths of the 5% warming which was due to CO2 to begin with. Put another way, the human contribution works out at three cents in a hundred thousand dollars.

Carbon dioxide did increase over the latter half of the twentieth century, but the assertion that it was all or mainly a result of burning hydrocarbon fuels has no solid foundation. Warming for any reason will release carbon from vast natural reservoirs. Reconstructions of past conditions show CO2 levels up to 20 times higher than at present, before there were any humans at all, and data from such sources as ice cores, lake sediments, and tree rings indicate that in the swings over the ages, the warming occurred first, making CO2 levels a longer-term effect rather than the driver. Mean temperatures actually fell from the late 1940s through to the 1970s and again from around 1998 to the present, while CO2 continued rising steadily, very likely as a consequence of the 300-year recovery from the "mini ice age" of the 17th century. The chart below shows the change in Arctic temperatures over the last 120 years compared to CO2 levels and to variations in the energy output of the Sun. Which do you think is more likely to be driving the temperature?

But even if the recent warming trends were shown to be largely of our own doing, there's more reason for celebration than the panic that we're witnessing. Warm worlds are cheerier, healthier, more secure, and better able to support a richer and more abundant biosphere than cold ones. On land and in the oceans, life thrives in the green equatorial and temperate zones, not the icy higher latitudes. A warmer world would transform the vast wastes of Siberia and northern Canada into forests, gardens, granaries, and habitats, opening up huge areas to accommodate the growing population that some view as a blight, and bring water back to such regions as the Sahara and Middle East, that were once verdant. So, if human activity is capable of making a measurable difference, one would think that a good policy to adopt would be to help things along by using the abundance of energy that the world offers, to increase wealth and living standards generally, and enjoy the environmental benefits.

Instead, we hear eminences that inform and direct the world's peoples calling for legislation to classify carbon dioxide as a pollutant. The irony of such nonsense is that carbon dioxide is plant food, and hence the basic nutrient that supports all life on Earth. A largely unreported consequence of the CO2 increase that took place over the last half century has been a huge increase in agricultural yield, general greening of much of the planet, and more efficient use of water by plants. Because of deficiency in micronutrients, large areas of the oceans are biological deserts that could be "fertilized" at low cost to increase phytoplankton and hence fish populations enormously. Instead of manically and pointlessly seeking to decrease emissions at staggering cost in an attempt to implement an unworkable solution to a nonexistent problem, we could be turning the byproducts of human industrial and agricultural enterprise into living things and abundant food. This really is wonderful news for those who believe that human creativity and cooperation offer the possibility of building better tomorrows for the entire race, and that the choice is ours to make.

It takes real talent in doom-mongering and wilful blindness to turn such promise and potential into a disaster scenario. The Western world has surely never been run by such a pack of fools as those inflicted on it at the present time.

November 22, 2008

James P. Hogan [send him mail], a former digital systems engineer and computer sales executive, has been a full-time writer since 1980. He was born in London, moved to the USA for many years, and now lives in the Republic of Ireland. His web site is at www.jamesphogan.com.

Copyright © 2008 LewRockwell.com

d-cat

12-06-2008, 04:11 PM

Scientists on CO2:

"I am at a loss to understand why anyone would regard carbon dioxide as a pollutant. Carbon dioxide, a natural gas produced by human respiration, is a plant nutrient that is beneficial both for people and for the natural environment. It promotes plant growth and reforestation. Faster-growing trees mean lower housing costs for consumers and more habitat for wild species. Higher agricultural yields from carbon dioxide fertilization will result in lower food prices and will facilitate conservation by limiting the need to convert wild areas to arable land." - David Deming, Ph.D. Geophysics

"Many chemicals are absolutely necessary for humans to live, for instance oxygen. Just as necessary, human metabolism produces by-products that are exhaled, like carbon dioxide and water vapor. So, the production of carbon dioxide is necessary, on the most basic level, for humans to survive. The carbon dioxide that is emitted as part of a wide variety of natural processes is, in turn, necessary for vegetation to live. It turns out that most vegetation is somewhat 'starved' for carbon dioxide, as experiments have shown that a wide variety of plants grow faster, and are more drought tolerant, in the presence of doubled carbon dioxide concentrations. Fertilization of the global atmosphere with the extra CO2 that mankind's activities have emitted in the last century is believed to have helped increase agricultural productivity. In short, carbon dioxide is a natural part of our environment, necessary for life, both as 'food' and as a by-product." - Roy Spencer, Ph.D. Meteorology

"Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is a colorless, odorless trace gas that actually sustains life on this planet. Consider the simple dynamics of human energy acquisition, which occurs daily across the globe. We eat plants directly, or we consume animals that have fed upon plants, to obtain the energy we need. But where do plants get their energy? Plants produce their own energy during a process called photosynthesis, which uses sunlight to combine water and carbon dioxide into sugars for supporting overall growth and development. Hence, CO2 is the primary raw material that plants depend upon for their existence. Because plants reside beneath animals (including humans) on the food chain, their healthy existence ultimately determines our own. Carbon dioxide can hardly be labeled a pollutant, for it is the basic substrate that allows life to persist on Earth." - Keith E. Idso, Ph.D. Botany

"Atmospheric CO2 is required for life by both plants and animals. It is the sole source of carbon in all of the protein, carbohydrate, fat, and other organic molecules of which living things are constructed. Plants extract carbon from atmospheric CO2 and are thereby fertilized. Animals obtain their carbon from plants. Without atmospheric CO2, none of the life we see on Earth would exist. Water, oxygen, and carbon dioxide are the three most important substances that make life possible. They are surely not environmental pollutants." - Arthur B. Robinson, Ph.D. Chemistry

"CO2 for different people has different attractions. After all, what is it? - it’s not a pollutant, it’s a product of every living creature’s breathing, it’s the product of all plant respiration, it is essential for plant life and photosynthesis, it’s a product of all industrial burning, it’s a product of driving – I mean, if you ever wanted a leverage point to control everything from exhalation to driving, this would be a dream. So it has a kind of fundamental attractiveness to bureaucratic mentality." - Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science, MIT

"To suddenly label CO2 as a "pollutant" is a disservice to a gas that has played an enormous role in the development and sustainability of all life on this wonderful Earth. Mother Earth has clearly ruled that CO2 is not a pollutant." - Robert C. Balling Jr., Ph.D. Professor of Climatology, Arizona State University

https://www.populartechnology.net/2008/11/carbon-dioxide-co2-is-not-pollution.html

If Elected Obama Will Declare CO2 a “Dangerous Pollutant”

A global carbon tax is not so much about limiting CO2 as it is a scheme designed to pay for world government and corporate globalization. “The Climate Change Control Bill strongly supported by Obama calls for an international governing regime to monitor and regulate carbon dioxide and ‘carbon footprints’ from discovery, to production, to consumption at a cost of $50 trillion globally and at a cost of $8 trillion for US taxpayers, all to be paid for by a global tax, whose monies will be used to establish a world government body,” writes Patrick Briley
https://infowars.net/articles/october2008/171008CO2.htm

Obama to Declare Carbon Dioxide Dangerous Pollutant
https://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a2RHIj_6hvV0

theindependenteye

12-06-2008, 06:39 PM

Zeno Swijtink

12-06-2008, 07:29 PM

The dose makes the poison - Paracelsus

lynn

12-07-2008, 08:20 AM

And I don't trust those claiming to 'know' the dose, or the poison...

-------------------------

Braggi

12-07-2008, 01:44 PM

And I don't trust those claiming to 'know' the dose, or the poison...

You don't need to trust that the person pointing the machine gun at you is a good shot to know you're going to die.

Let's get on with the business of taxing fossil fuels and using the revenues to purchase solar, wind and tidal alternatives (that are owned by We the People instead of monolithic, monopolistic energy companies). This is the first decision the "Department of Homeland Security" should have made.

-Jeff

d-cat

12-09-2008, 09:02 AM

Glaciers in Norway Growing Again
https://www.dailytech.com/Glaciers%2Bin%2BNorway%2BGrowing%2BAgain/article13540.htm

Perth, Australia: November in the record books
https://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,27574,24733718-2761,00.html

Big Business to back carbon trading
BIG business will today pledge full support for an emissions trading scheme.
https://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23960552-5013404,00.html

The price of dissent on global warming
https://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0%2C25197%2C24700827-7583%2C00.html

Carbon Trade Swindle Behind Gore Hoax
https://larouchepub.com/other/2007/3413carbon_swindle.html

Climate change targets will push UK households into “fuel poverty”
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/22/20081201/tuk-environment-us-britain-climate-env-fa6b408.html

WeatherChannel founder to sue Al Gore for fraud
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfHW7KR33IQ

Global Warming Hoax, Planned in 1961
excerpts from The Report From Iron Mountain (1967)
for more info see post #2 of this thread
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvcuylMrkXk

Braggi

12-09-2008, 09:11 AM

...
Big Business to back carbon trading
BIG business will today pledge full support for an emissions trading scheme.
https://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23960552-5013404,00.html

...

Carbon Trade Swindle Behind Gore Hoax
https://larouchepub.com/other/2007/3413carbon_swindle.html

...

Agreed, carbon trading is nonsense. We should start directly taxing the most environmentally damaging fossil fuel extraction and use and using the money to purchase government owned solar, wind and tidal power generators to break the monopoly energy companies. Carbon "offsets" are a diversion. Creating better energy systems needs to be job one.

If global warming is caused by human intervention, it will eventually improve and reverse. If not, we can all just buy sunglasses as Ronald Reagan recommended.

-Jeff

d-cat

12-09-2008, 09:22 AM

https://freespeech.vo.llnwd.net/o25/pub/pp/images/december2008/091208top.jpg
https://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7a03e5b6-c541-11dd-b516-000077b07658.html
https://blogs.ft.com/rachmanblog/2008/12/and-now-for-a-world-government/ (alternate link)

Financial Times Editorial Admits Agenda For Dictatorial World Government
Editorial concedes that “global governance” is a euphemism for anti-democratic global government, citing the "financial crisis", “global warming” and the “global war on terror” as three major pretexts through which it is being introduced.

https://www.prisonplanet.com/financial-times-editorial-admits-agenda-for-dictatorial-world-government.html

.

d-cat

12-09-2008, 04:40 PM

>>"I am at a loss to understand why anyone would regard carbon dioxide as a pollutant. ... (etc.)

I don't think there's much disagreement with any of these quotes. If a law is drafted, they might do well to find a different word than "pollutant."

But none of that speaks to the issue of whether CO2 buildup is a threat or not. The same arguments might apply to water, but if you're over your head in it, you're likely to experience some discomfort.

Cheers—
Conrad

If there ever were "too much" Co2, the resulting lusher planet earth would turn it into O2.

Also, there wouldn't be a need for things like this:

https://www.greenhousemegastore.com/images/johnson-co2-generator-dd.jpg

Johnson CO2 Generator
Normally there are approximately 300 parts per million (PPM) of CO2 in the atmosphere; when this level is increased to over 1000 PPM, it results in higher production and better plant quality. The Johnson Generator provides up to 1500 PPM per unit in a 4800 square foot (446 square meter) greenhouse.
https://www.greenhousemegastore.com/prodinfo.asp?number=CO%2D1001

Planet earth was getting warmer just like all the planets of our solar system, and I've posted stories about this from NASA, MIT, etc. Martians don't drive SUVs as far as I know!

Then there were stories about the sun being "eerily calm" for 400+ days and being without sun spots. And now there are stories about how our planet is getting cooler. Add it all up and, to me, it's the sun that causes climate change! And all throughout our solar system.

I've also posted about a book from the 60's and another from '91 where it's stated that the elite would use global warming to manipulate the public. The '91 book was the minutes of a Club of Rome meeting of which Al "Armand" Gore is a member. To me, it's clear. "Man-made-catastrophic-global-warming" is a fraud, and is being used to help usher in a (unelected) world government.

Braggi

12-10-2008, 09:49 AM

If there ever were "too much" Co2, the resulting lusher planet earth would turn it into O2.

Also, there wouldn't be a need for things like this:

https://www.greenhousemegastore.com/images/johnson-co2-generator-dd.jpg

Johnson CO2 Generator
Normally there are approximately 300 parts per million (PPM) of CO2 in the atmosphere; when this level is increased to over 1000 PPM, it results in higher production and better plant quality. The Johnson Generator provides up to 1500 PPM per unit in a 4800 square foot (446 square meter) greenhouse.
https://www.greenhousemegastore.com/prodinfo.asp?number=CO%2D1001 ...

This, of course, shows you know little about atmospheric science whether it be that of a greenhouse or that of a planet, but thanks for the link. I always wondered how they work.

-Jeff

d-cat

12-11-2008, 08:10 AM

This, of course, shows you know little about atmospheric science whether it be that of a greenhouse or that of a planet, but thanks for the link. I always wondered how they work.

-Jeff

“Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University*of Auckland, NZ.

“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” - Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.

“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology *and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”

Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists,” - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

“The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” - Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico

“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.

“After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri’s asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it’s hard to remain quiet.” - Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society’s Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.

“For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" - Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.

“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” - Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.

“Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.” - Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.

“Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” - Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.

UN Blowback: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims
https://www.infowars.com/?p=6445

Braggi

12-11-2008, 08:29 AM

[b]“Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” ...

Great. What is it that you and your alter ego, Handy, are trying to get us bubble headed liberals to understand? You are both posting the same things without comment. Is it that you have nothing to say yourself? What do you want?

Global warming is a non issue. Burning fossil fuels is poisoning the planet and enriching terrorists. The sooner we stop it the better.

Don't you agree with that?

-Jeff

lynn

12-12-2008, 05:20 AM

braggi...Don't you agree with that?

I don't agree at all...It's not a 'non issue'...People are trying to push political and economic agendas based on this thing called 'global warming', or 'greenhouse gas'...Maybe some of the agendas are benign, and maybe some are not...

But, I'm extremely distrustful of the agendas people are trying to push...And I'm already furious about some of them...Like the 'smog II test'...Someone like me can't drive my perfectly decent car now...(Luckily, right now I can borrow one)...And talking to a small farmer a while back...told me if they keep pushin' these standards 'higher'...He won't be able to work his farm and break even...He can't afford a new tractor...

Sometimes there's 'good enough'...And some of these obsessed political agendas are pushin' things way out of hand...I'm sick and tired of these 'holier than thou' 'greenie' people...They only make it harder for people like myself, and that small farmer...who are already living a very simple, decent life...

I'll bet my carbon 'footprint' is a whole heck of a lot less than those people out there tryin' to push this political crap...

It's 'TON'S' less than Al Bore's - THAT'S for SURE!!...

It also pisses me off when I see the local 'climate protection campaign' state on their website that the 'debate is over'...when it clearly is not...It never has been over...

I'm sick of the disingenuousness, and lies of many of these 'global warming alarmists' ...Many of them do seem to have a cult-like mentality...

Sure, I'd like to see some changes made...'cleaner alternative' energies developed...But, I'm also concerned about the how's and why's...

"The sooner we stop it the better."

Not necessarily...Who's going to get to define 'better'?...

https://online.wsj.com/article/SB122886086448792609.html

================================================
Global warming is a non issue. Burning fossil fuels is poisoning the planet and enriching terrorists. The sooner we stop it the better.
Don't you agree with that?
-Jeff

Gary

12-12-2008, 01:16 PM

theindependenteye

12-12-2008, 03:44 PM

...So I saw d-cat's page of quotes from a couple days ago and thought it was a good place to start.

Dear Gary—

Thanks for your time in chasing these things down and presenting them with objectivity. Would that we did this more often.

Peace & joy—
Conrad

d-cat

12-12-2008, 09:47 PM

I was surprised to see this thread was still alive. I am not looking to jump into the street fight here, but once in a while I try to catch up with the current standing of our knowledge, and that time was this last week. I also looked at Wacco because I remembered this thread and remembered that there was a lot of sources and statements cited against global warming. So I saw d-cat's page of quotes from a couple days ago and thought it was a good place to start.

I have followed these types of links in the past, not just here but on other sites or blogs claiming to refute global warming, and have never been lead to reputable sources. It has always felt like a waste of time and put me in a bad mood with all the name-calling and anonymous arrogance that accompanies both sides on most comment sections of websites. So I thought, ok, I'll just take the time to follow the top 5 quotes.

Duffy is a scientist who specializes in the use of wood pulp as can be easily accessed at his university webpage, a pretty far field from climate science. This "quote" is a small part of a larger discussion that was apparently a regurgitation of a work by a guy named Stephen Wilde, a familiar global warming skeptic often challenged for exaggerating his own credentials. (Wilde first accuses plagarism then accepts an apology from Duffy for not citing him.) https://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2008/09/another-dissenter-nz-professor-geoffrey.html So this is essentially a quote of a professor who agrees with Wilde, with little information about whether this professor has done any indepent research into this.

Again, another scientist from a different field. Kunihiko's expertise is in materials, not climate. He did apparently write a book called Hypocritical Ecololgy that is "flying off the shelves" as a Japan Times article writes. The book is in Japanese (which puts "flying of the shelves" into a more limited context), and almost all of the quotes online about him in English are quotes from the brief news article about him. Would it be pointingly cynical to wonder whether his statements have increased his book sales?

The Nobel Prize was awarded for his work with superconductors while working for GE, not climate. But this quote brings be to a larger point. I am a natural skeptic. If someone talks about herbal remedies or colonics, I say show me the data. Skepticism is the fuel behind scientific enquiry. But at some point, as data collection grows, interpretations become either more or less supported. In the discussion of global warming though, most people who consider themselves skeptics are much more than that. They are fervently against global warming as man-made, even though most data points to it. They attach themselves to the terms "Global warming hoax", the "inconvenient lie", "global warming swindle". That is not skepticism, that is proposing that somehow scientists across the world secretly agreed to fudge their data and interpretations for some larger reason.

Finally, a scientist from the right field. As with quote 3, I don't take issue with the fact that she says she is skeptical. This quote comes from a blog she wrote (introduced as "among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years" by an individual, not a scientific organization). In it she also says "There is no doubt that atmospheric greenhouse gases are rising rapidly and little doubt that some warming and bad ecological events are occurring." She does remain skeptical about the extent of human causes, and ultimately emphasizes that climate modeling is complex and needs more data. Interestingly she also says, "What should we as a nation do? In this case, we must act on the recommendations of Gore and the IPCC because if we do not reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and the climate models are right, the planet as we know it will in this century become unsustainable."
https://climatesci.org/2008/02/27/trmm-tropical-rainfall-measuring-mission-data-set-potential-in-climate-controversy-by-joanne-simpson-private-citizen/

A UN IPCC Scientist? That sounds good. But no, what he did was request a copy of the IPCC report to review as any scientist can and be called a "Expert Reviewer". "Award-winning"? That's vague. Some professors put grants they have been "awarded" on their credentials. PhD? Yes, and he seems to have contributed to a lot of great scientific articles, just not in the area regarding climate. He even jokes that he is an "eo" away frome being a meteorologist, because he is a metrologist (the study of measurement). https://climatesci.org/2008/06/17/guest-weblog-by-dr-kiminori-itoh-of-yokohama-national-university/

Summary
So there 5 quotes that don't yield surprising results to me. Does anyone expect that there would be 100% agreement across millions of scientist across the world, especially if we include scientists from distant fields of expertise. I can get disagreement between just 2 doctors in Sonoma County. But if 98 doctors were to say that a mole on my back looks cancerous and I should get it removed and 2 doctors say it looks harmless, I am going to get it removed. That may cost me money for nothing if the minority opinion was correct, but compared to the alternative?

I am not going to do more of this unless somebody gives me a title of a peer-reviewed publication that seems legitimate. Articles about how 2007 was the coldest in some part of the world etc. do not warrant much time because they do not by themselves disagree with climate change models. The pro-hoax side has a huge online presence with a lot of nifty quotes like the ones above, but barring a hypotheses regarding international conspiracy, the creation of a one world government, and inevitably a role for Al Gore, very little remains to scientifically substantiate their claims. Again, I am not saying that skepticism is bad, but arguing that the majority opinion (I'll avoid saying "consensus" as a concession) is wrong requires more than throwing around quotes and the results from individual narrow studies (this is directed at the conspiracy sites, not d-cat).

Here are a few more names you can write off...

Open Letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations

https://www.berlingske.dk/article/20071216/verden/71216035/
Open Letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations
His Excellency Ban Ki-Moon,
Secretary-General, United Nations
New York, N.Y.

Dec. 13, 2007

Dear Mr. Secretary-General,

Re: UN climate conference taking the World in entirely the wrong direction

It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages. Geological, archaeological, oral and written histories all attest to the dramatic challenges posed to past societies from unanticipated changes in temperature, precipitation, winds and other climatic variables. We therefore need to equip nations to become resilient to the full range of these natural phenomena by promoting economic growth and wealth generation.

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued increasingly alarming conclusions about the climatic influences of human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2), a non-polluting gas that is essential to plant photosynthesis. While we understand the evidence that has led them to view CO2 emissions as harmful, the IPCC's conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity. In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions. On top of which, because attempts to cut emissions will slow development, the current UN approach of CO2 reduction is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather than to decrease it.

The IPCC Summaries for Policy Makers are the most widely read IPCC reports amongst politicians and non-scientists and are the basis for most climate change policy formulation. Yet these Summaries are prepared by a relatively small core writing team with the final drafts approved line-by-line by government representatives. The great majority of IPCC contributors and ¬reviewers, and the tens of thousands of other scientists who are qualified to comment on these matters, are not involved in the preparation of these documents. The summaries therefore cannot properly be represented as a consensus view among experts.

Contrary to the impression left by the IPCC Summary reports: Recent observations of phenomena such as glacial retreats, sea-level rise and the migration of temperature-sensitive species are not evidence for abnormal climate change, for none of these changes has been shown to lie outside the bounds of known natural variability.

The average rate of warming of 0.1 to 0. 2 degrees Celsius per decade recorded by satellites during the late 20th century falls within known natural rates of warming and cooling over the last 10,000 years.

Leading scientists, including some senior IPCC representatives, acknowledge that today's computer models cannot predict climate. Consistent with this, and despite computer projections of temperature rises, there has been no net global warming since 1998. That the current temperature plateau follows a late 20th-century period of warming is consistent with the continuation today of natural multi-decadal or millennial climate cycling.

In stark contrast to the often repeated assertion that the science of climate change is "settled," significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming. But because IPCC working groups were generally instructed (see https://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/wg1_timetable_2006-08-14.pdf) to consider work published only through May, 2005, these important findings are not included in their reports; i.e., the IPCC assessment reports are already materially outdated.

The UN climate conference in Bali has been planned to take the world along a path of severe CO2 restrictions, ignoring the lessons apparent from the failure of the Kyoto Protocol, the chaotic nature of the European CO2 trading market, and the ineffectiveness of other costly initiatives to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Balanced cost/benefit analyses provide no support for the introduction of global measures to cap and reduce energy consumption for the purpose of restricting CO2 emissions. Furthermore, it is irrational to apply the "precautionary principle" because many scientists recognize that both climatic coolings and warmings are realistic possibilities over the medium-term future.

The current UN focus on "fighting climate change," as illustrated in the Nov. 27 UN Development Programme's Human Development Report, is distracting governments from adapting to the threat of inevitable natural climate changes, whatever forms they may take. National and international planning for such changes is needed, with a focus on helping our most vulnerable citizens adapt to conditions that lie ahead. Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity's real and pressing problems.

Yours faithfully,

Copy to: Heads of state of countries of the signatory persons.

The following are signatories:

1. Don Aitkin, PhD, Professor, social scientist, retired vice-chancellor and president, University of Canberra, Australia

2. William J.R. Alexander, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa; Member, UN Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994-2000

3. Bjarne Andresen, PhD, physicist, Professor, The Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Denmark

4. Geoff L. Austin, PhD, FNZIP, FRSNZ, Professor, Dept. of Physics, University of Auckland, New Zealand

5. Timothy F. Ball, PhD, environmental consultant, former climatology professor, University of Winnipeg

6. Ernst-Georg Beck, Dipl. Biol., Biologist, Merian-Schule Freiburg, Germany

7. Sonja A. Boehmer-Christiansen, PhD, Reader, Dept. of Geography, Hull University, U.K.; Editor, Energy & Environment journal

8. Chris C. Borel, PhD, remote sensing scientist, U.S.

9. Reid A. Bryson, PhD, DSc, DEngr, UNE P. Global 500 Laureate; Senior Scientist, Center for Climatic Research; Emeritus Professor of Meteorology, of Geography, and of Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin

10. Dan Carruthers, M.Sc., wildlife biology consultant specializing in animal ecology in Arctic and Subarctic regions, Alberta

11. R.M. Carter, PhD, Professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia

12. Ian D. Clark, PhD, Professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa

13. Richard S. Courtney, PhD, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K.

14. Willem de Lange, PhD, Dept. of Earth and Ocean Sciences, School of Science and Engineering, Waikato University, New Zealand

15. David Deming, PhD (Geophysics), Associate Professor, College of Arts and Sciences, University of Oklahoma

16. Freeman J. Dyson, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, N.J.

17. Don J. Easterbrook, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Geology, Western Washington University

18. Lance Endersbee, Emeritus Professor, former dean of Engineering and Pro-Vice Chancellor of Monasy University, Australia

19. Hans Erren, Doctorandus, geophysicist and climate specialist, Sittard, The Netherlands

20. Robert H. Essenhigh, PhD, E.G. Bailey Professor of Energy Conversion, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University

21. Christopher Essex, PhD, Professor of Applied Mathematics and Associate Director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario

22. David Evans, PhD, mathematician, carbon accountant, computer and electrical engineer and head of 'Science Speak,' Australia

23. William Evans, PhD, editor, American Midland Naturalist; Dept. of Biological Sciences, University of Notre Dame

24. Stewart Franks, PhD, Professor, Hydroclimatologist, University of Newcastle, Australia

25. R. W. Gauldie, PhD, Research Professor, Hawai'i Institute of Geophysics and Planetology, School of Ocean Earth Sciences and Technology, University of Hawai'i at Manoa

26. Lee C. Gerhard, PhD, Senior Scientist Emeritus, University of Kansas; former director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey

27. Gerhard Gerlich, Professor for Mathematical and Theoretical Physics, Institut für Mathematische Physik der TU Braunschweig, Germany

28. Albrecht Glatzle, PhD, sc.agr., Agro-Biologist and Gerente ejecutivo, INTTAS, Paraguay

29. Fred Goldberg, PhD, Adjunct Professor, Royal Institute of Technology, Mechanical Engineering, Stockholm, Sweden

30. Vincent Gray, PhD, expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of 'Climate Change 2001, Wellington, New Zealand

31. William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University and Head of the Tropical Meteorology Project

32. Howard Hayden, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Connecticut

33. Louis Hissink MSc, M.A.I.G., editor, AIG News, and consulting geologist, Perth, Western Australia

34. Craig D. Idso, PhD, Chairman, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Arizona

35. Sherwood B. Idso, PhD, President, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, AZ, USA

36. Andrei Illarionov, PhD, Senior Fellow, Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity; founder and director of the Institute of Economic Analysis

37. Zbigniew Jaworowski, PhD, physicist, Chairman - Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland

38. Jon Jenkins, PhD, MD, computer modelling - virology, NSW, Australia

39. Wibjorn Karlen, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden

40. Olavi Kärner, Ph.D., Research Associate, Dept. of Atmospheric Physics, Institute of Astrophysics and Atmospheric Physics, Toravere, Estonia

41. Joel M. Kauffman, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemistry, University of the Sciences in Philadelphia

42. David Kear, PhD, FRSNZ, CMG, geologist, former Director-General of NZ Dept. of Scientific & Industrial Research, New Zealand

43. Madhav Khandekar, PhD, former research scientist, Environment Canada; editor, Climate Research (2003-05); editorial board member, Natural Hazards; IPCC expert reviewer 2007

44. William Kininmonth M.Sc., M.Admin., former head of Australia's National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological organization's Commission for Climatology Jan J.H. Kop, MSc Ceng FICE (Civil Engineer Fellow of the Institution of Civil Engineers), Emeritus Prof. of Public Health Engineering, Technical University Delft, The Netherlands

45. Prof. R.W.J. Kouffeld, Emeritus Professor, Energy Conversion, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands

46. Salomon Kroonenberg, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Geotechnology, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands

47. Hans H.J. Labohm, PhD, economist, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International Relations), The Netherlands

48. The Rt. Hon. Lord Lawson of Blaby, economist; Chairman of the Central Europe Trust; former Chancellor of the Exchequer, U.K.

49. Douglas Leahey, PhD, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary

50. David R. Legates, PhD, Director, Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware

51. Marcel Leroux, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Climatology, University of Lyon, France; former director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS

52. Bryan Leyland, International Climate Science Coalition, consultant and power engineer, Auckland, New Zealand

53. William Lindqvist, PhD, independent consulting geologist, Calif.

54. Richard S. Lindzen, PhD, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

55. A.J. Tom van Loon, PhD, Professor of Geology (Quaternary Geology), Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan, Poland; former President of the European Association of Science Editors

56. Anthony R. Lupo, PhD, Associate Professor of Atmospheric Science, Dept. of Soil, Environmental, and Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri-Columbia

57. Richard Mackey, PhD, Statistician, Australia

58. Horst Malberg, PhD, Professor for Meteorology and Climatology, Institut für Meteorologie, Berlin, Germany

59. John Maunder, PhD, Climatologist, former President of the Commission for Climatology of the World Meteorological Organization (89-97), New Zealand

60. Alister McFarquhar, PhD, international economy, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K.

61. Ross McKitrick, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Economics, University of Guelph

62. John McLean, PhD, climate data analyst, computer scientist, Australia

63. Owen McShane, PhD, economist, head of the International Climate Science Coalition; Director, Centre for Resource Management Studies, New Zealand

64. Fred Michel, PhD, Director, Institute of Environmental Sciences and Associate Professor of Earth Sciences, Carleton University

65. Frank Milne, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Economics, Queen's University

66. Asmunn Moene, PhD, former head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway

67. Alan Moran, PhD, Energy Economist, Director of the IPA's Deregulation Unit, Australia

68. Nils-Axel Morner, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics, Stockholm University, Sweden

69. Lubos Motl, PhD, Physicist, former Harvard string theorist, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic

70. John Nicol, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Physics, James Cook University, Australia

71. David Nowell, M.Sc., Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, former chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa

72. James J. O'Brien, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Meteorology and Oceanography, Florida State University

73. Cliff Ollier, PhD, Professor Emeritus (Geology), Research Fellow, University of Western Australia

74. Garth W. Paltridge, PhD, atmospheric physicist, Emeritus Professor and former Director of the Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies, University of Tasmania, Australia

75. R. Timothy Patterson, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University

76. Al Pekarek, PhD, Associate Professor of Geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Dept., St. Cloud State University, Minnesota

77. Ian Plimer, PhD, Professor of Geology, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide and Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia

78. Brian Pratt, PhD, Professor of Geology, Sedimentology, University of Saskatchewan

79. Harry N.A. Priem, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Planetary Geology and Isotope Geophysics, Utrecht University; former director of the Netherlands Institute for Isotope Geosciences

80. Alex Robson, PhD, Economics, Australian National University Colonel F.P.M. Rombouts, Branch Chief - Safety, Quality and Environment, Royal Netherland Air Force

81. R.G. Roper, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology

82. Arthur Rorsch, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Molecular Genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands

83. Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, principal consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, B.C.

84. Tom V. Segalstad, PhD, (Geology/Geochemistry), Head of the Geological Museum and Associate Professor of Resource and Environmental Geology, University of Oslo, Norway

85. Gary D. Sharp, PhD, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, CA

86. S. Fred Singer, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia and former director Weather Satellite Service

87. L. Graham Smith, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Geography, University of Western Ontario

88. Roy W. Spencer, PhD, climatologist, Principal Research Scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville

89. Peter Stilbs, TeknD, Professor of Physical Chemistry, Research Leader, School of Chemical Science and Engineering, KTH (Royal Institute of Technology), Stockholm, Sweden

90. Hendrik Tennekes, PhD, former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute

91. Dick Thoenes, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands

92. Brian G Valentine, PhD, PE (Chem.), Technology Manager - Industrial Energy Efficiency, Adjunct Associate Professor of Engineering Science, University of Maryland at College Park; Dept of Energy, Washington, DC

93. Gerrit J. van der Lingen, PhD, geologist and paleoclimatologist, climate change consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, New Zealand

94. Len Walker, PhD, Power Engineering, Australia

95. Edward J. Wegman, PhD, Department of Computational and Data Sciences, George Mason University, Virginia

96. Stephan Wilksch, PhD, Professor for Innovation and Technology Management, Production Management and Logistics, University of Technolgy and Economics Berlin, Germany

97. Boris Winterhalter, PhD, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Finland

98. David E. Wojick, PhD, P.Eng., energy consultant, Virginia

99. Raphael Wust, PhD, Lecturer, Marine Geology/Sedimentology, James Cook University, Australia

100. Zichichi, PhD, President of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva, Switzerland; Emeritus Professor of Advanced Physics, University of Bologna, Italy

d-cat

12-12-2008, 09:51 PM

Climate change hits Mars
https://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1720024.ece

Mars is Melting
https://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/07aug_southpole.htm

Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

New Storm on Jupiter Hints at Climate Change
https://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_jr.html

Global Warming on Jupiter
https://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap080523.html

MIT researcher finds evidence of global warming on Neptune's largest moon
https://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/1998/triton.html

Pluto is undergoing global warming
https://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2002/pluto.html

d-cat

12-12-2008, 09:54 PM

Climate Scientist Quits IPCC, Blasts Politicized 'Preconceived Agendas'

An Open Letter to the Community from Chris Landsea

Dear Colleagues,

After some prolonged deliberation, I have decided to withdraw from participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.

With this open letter to the community, I wish to explain the basis for my decision and bring awareness to what I view as a problem in the IPCC process. The IPCC is a group of climate researchers from around the world that every few years summarize how climate is changing and how it may be altered in the future due to manmade global warming. I had served both as an author for the Observations chapter and a Reviewer for the 2nd Assessment Report in 1995 and the 3rd Assessment Report in 2001, primarily on the topic of tropical cyclones (hurricanes and typhoons). My work on hurricanes, and tropical cyclones more generally, has been widely cited by the IPCC. For the upcoming AR4, I was asked several weeks ago by the Observations chapter Lead Author Dr. Kevin Trenberth to provide the writeup for Atlantic hurricanes. As I had in the past, I agreed to assist the IPCC in what I thought was to be an important and politically neutral determination of what is happening with our climate.

Shortly after Dr. Trenberth requested that I draft the Atlantic hurricane section for the AR4's Observations chapter, Dr. Trenberth participated in a press conference organized by scientists at Harvard on the topic "Experts to warn global warming likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense hurricane activity" along with other media interviews on the topic. The result of this media interaction was widespread coverage that directly connected the very busy 2004 Atlantic hurricane season as being caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas warming occurring today.

Listening to and reading transcripts of this press conference and media interviews, it is apparent that Dr. Trenberth was being accurately quoted and summarized in such statements and was not being misrepresented in the media. These media sessions have potential to result in a widespread perception that global warming has made recent hurricane activity much more severe.

I found it a bit perplexing that the participants in the Harvard press conference had come to the conclusion that global warming was impacting hurricane activity today. To my knowledge, none of the participants in that press conference had performed any research on hurricane variability, nor were they reporting on any new work in the field. All previous and current research in the area of hurricane variability has shown no reliable, long-term trend up in the frequency or intensity of tropical cyclones, either in the Atlantic or any other basin. The IPCC assessments in 1995 and 2001 also concluded that there was no global warming signal found in the hurricane record.

Moreover, the evidence is quite strong and supported by the most recent credible studies that any impact in the future from global warming upon hurricanes will likely be quite small. The latest results from the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (Knutson and Tuleya, Journal of Climate, 2004) suggest that by around 2080, hurricanes may have winds and rainfall about 5% more intense than today. It has been proposed that even this tiny change may be an exaggeration as to what may happen by the end of the 21st Century (Michaels, Knappenberger, and Landsea, Journal of Climate, 2005, submitted).

It is beyond me why my colleagues would utilize the media to push an unsupported agenda that recent hurricane activity has been due to global warming. Given Dr. Trenberth's role as the IPCC's Lead Author responsible for preparing the text on hurricanes, his public statements so far outside of current scientific understanding led me to concern that it would be very difficult for the IPCC process to proceed objectively with regards to the assessment on hurricane activity. My view is that when people identify themselves as being associated with the IPCC and then make pronouncements far outside current scientific understandings that this will harm the credibility of climate change science and will in the longer term diminish our role in public policy.

My concerns go beyond the actions of Dr. Trenberth and his colleagues to how he and other IPCC officials responded to my concerns. I did caution Dr. Trenberth before the media event and provided him a summary of the current understanding within the hurricane research community. I was disappointed when the IPCC leadership dismissed my concerns when I brought up the misrepresentation of climate science while invoking the authority of the IPCC.

Specifically, the IPCC leadership said that Dr. Trenberth was speaking as an individual even though he was introduced in the press conference as an IPCC lead author; I was told that the media was exaggerating or misrepresenting his words, even though the audio from the press conference and interview tells a different story (available on the Web directly); and that Dr. Trenberth was accurately reflecting conclusions from the TAR, even though it is quite clear that the TAR stated that there was no connection between global warming and hurricane activity. The IPCC leadership saw nothing to be concerned with in Dr. Trenberth's unfounded pronouncements to the media, despite his supposedly impartial important role that he must undertake as a Lead Author on the upcoming AR4.

It is certainly true that "individual scientists can do what they wish in their own rights," as one of the folks in the IPCC leadership suggested. Differing conclusions and robust debates are certainly crucial to progress in climate science. However, this case is not an honest scientific discussion conducted at a meeting of climate researchers. Instead, a scientist with an important role in the IPCC who represented himself as a Lead Author for the IPCC [Dr. Trenberth] has used that position to promulgate to the media and general public his own opinion that the busy 2004 hurricane season was caused by global warming, which is in direct opposition to research written in the field and is counter to conclusions in the TAR.

This becomes problematic when I am then asked to provide the draft about observed hurricane activity variations for the AR4 with, ironically, Dr. Trenberth as the Lead Author for this chapter. Because of Dr. Trenberth's pronouncements, the IPCC process on our assessment of these crucial extreme events in our climate system has been subverted and compromised, its neutrality lost. While no one can "tell" scientists what to say or not say (nor am I suggesting that), the IPCC did select Dr. Trenberth as a Lead Author and entrusted to him to carry out this duty in a non-biased, neutral point of view. When scientists hold press conferences and speak with the media, much care is needed not to reflect poorly upon the IPCC.

It is of more than passing interest to note that Dr. Trenberth, while eager to share his views on global warming and hurricanes with the media, declined to do so at the Climate Variability and Change Conference in January where he made several presentations. Perhaps he was concerned that such speculation--though worthy in his mind of public pronouncements--would not stand up to the scrutiny of fellow climate scientists.

I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by preconceived agendas and being scientifically unsound. As the IPCC leadership has seen no wrong in Dr. Trenberth's actions and have retained him as a Lead Author for the AR4, I have decided to no longer participate in the IPCC AR4.

Sincerely,

Chris Landsea

17 January 2005

https://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=16806

Landsea is one of the world's leading hurricane researchers, specializing in seasonal and climatic relationships of Atlantic tropical cyclones. He served as chair of the American Meteorological Society's (AMS) Committee on Tropical Meteorology and Tropical Cyclones for the years 2000-2002. He was recipient of a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Post-Doctoral Fellowship in Climate and Global Change for the period 1995-1996.

d-cat

12-12-2008, 09:57 PM

UK judge: 'Alarmism' in Gore film
https://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/10/12/britain.gore.ap/index.html

British Court: Gore Film 'Political'
https://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1670882,00.html

Al Gore told there are nine inconvenient truths in his film
judge says errors were made in “the context of alarmism and exaggeration” in order to support Mr Gore’s thesis on global warming
https://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article2632660.ece

d-cat

12-16-2008, 07:48 PM

But, I'm extremely distrustful of the agendas people are trying to push...And I'm already furious about some of them...Like the 'smog II test'...Someone like me can't drive my perfectly decent car now...(Luckily, right now I can borrow one)...And talking to a small farmer a while back...told me if they keep pushin' these standards 'higher'...He won't be able to work his farm and break even...He can't afford a new tractor...

Many are claiming that this is the precise goal of the regulations - to put the small farmer out of business and gain control of the food supply. I think many here are aware of the documentary, The Future of Food (https://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3764995188693165078), about Monsanto destroying the small farmer. But many are not aware of Codex Alimentarius, which is basically the plan and method, using regulations, to take control of the world's food supply. Here is part 1 of a lecture on the subject by Dr. Rima E. Laibow of Natural Solutions Foundation (https://www.healthfreedomusa.org/) for anyone interested.

Codex Alimentarius P1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmrF9KjlGsc
links to following segments should be to the right

and here is a (rather shocking) audio interview with her from two weeks ago.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SopDXmCjUv0

Sure, I'd like to see some changes made...'cleaner alternative' energies developed...But, I'm also concerned about the how's and why's...

Yes, I agree, and the UN's political global warming agenda is distracting from real environmental/health issues, like depleted uranium and GMO food.

d-cat

01-05-2009, 05:48 AM

And talking to a small farmer a while back...told me if they keep pushin' these standards 'higher'...He won't be able to work his farm and break even...He can't afford a new tractor...

Farmers raising a stink about possible law that could tax cow 'emissions'
Farmers raising a stink about possible law that could tax cow 'emissions' | farmers, dairy, tax - Local News - Gaston Gazette (https://www.gastongazette.com/news/farmers_28456___article.html/dairy_tax.html)

phooph

01-05-2009, 11:35 AM

Farmers raising a stink about possible law that could tax cow 'emissions'
Farmers raising a stink about possible law that could tax cow 'emissions' | farmers, dairy, tax - Local News - Gaston Gazette (https://www.gastongazette.com/news/farmers_28456___article.html/dairy_tax.html)

Two possible solutions:

Scientist says eating kangaroo will reduce greenhouse gases | Herald Sun (https://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24162350-662,00.html)
Inhabitat » Scientists to Make Cows Fart Like Kangaroos to Cool the Planet (https://www.inhabitat.com/2008/01/03/scientists-to-make-cows-fart-like-kangaroos/)

d-cat

01-08-2009, 08:46 PM

Two possible solutions:

Scientist says eating kangaroo will reduce greenhouse gases | Herald Sun (https://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24162350-662,00.html)
Inhabitat » Scientists to Make Cows Fart Like Kangaroos to Cool the Planet (https://www.inhabitat.com/2008/01/03/scientists-to-make-cows-fart-like-kangaroos/)

gee, I don't know if we need it any cooler...

https://news.sky.com/sky-news/content/StaticFile/jpg/2008/Dec/Week3/15185654.jpg

Record Snowfall Hits Las Vegas
Las Vegas Covered In Snow: Winter Storms Coat Sin City In Record Snowfall | World News | Sky News (https://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Las-Vegas-Covered-In-Snow-Winter-Storms-Coat-Sin-City-In-Record-Snowfall/Article/200812315185666?lpos=World_News_News_Your_Way_Region_7&lid=NewsYourWay_ARTICLE_15185666_Las_Vegas_Covered_In_Snow%3A_Winter_Storms_Coat_Sin_City_In_Record_Snowfall)

Redding, CA: Record Cold
UPDATED daily forecast: Rain in the valley tonight; snow unlikely : Latest News : Redding Record Searchlight (https://www.redding.com/news/2008/dec/18/daily-forecast-record-cold-morning-rainsnow-possib/)

Beijing's coldest December day in 57 years
Winter truly arrived in Beijing yesterday with the highest temperature of the day down to minus 8.8. Media reports say it was “the coldest day in December in the last 57 years.”
Beijing's coldest December day in 57 years (https://www.danwei.org/front_page_of_the_day/beijing_winter.php)

Eight freeze to death in Europe's coldest winter night
Eight freeze to death in Europe's coldest winter night - Yahoo! News UK (https://uk.news.yahoo.com/18/20090107/twl-eight-freeze-to-death-in-europe-s-co-a2f61c0.html)

25 die in cold-related incidents in India
25 die in cold-related incidents in UP-India-The Times of India (https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/25_die_in_cold-related_incidents_in_UP/articleshow/3931622.cms)

Seattle: Record low temperature
Local News | Record low temperature set this morning | Seattle Times Newspaper (https://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008522970_webweather15m.html)

Southern US hit by rare snowfall
BBC NEWS | Americas | Southern US hit by rare snowfall (https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7780562.stm)

Thousands of UK drivers stranded every hour as temperatures fall to -10C
The day the sea froze: Temperature plunges to MINUS 12C and forecasters say it won't warm up until Sunday | Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1105053/Thousands-drivers-stranded-hour-temperatures-fall-10C--going-COLDER-tonight.html)

Houston ties earliest snowfall*record
https://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6156862.html

Ice storm knocks out power to 220,000 in US Midwest
Ice storm knocks out power to 220,000 in US Midwest | Reuters (https://www.reuters.com/article/rbssUtilitiesElectric/idUSN1944463220081219)

Soaring energy prices could mean more deaths among elderly people this winter
And with one of the coldest winters for some years predicted, the charity said that could lead to more people dying.
BBC NEWS | Health | More elderly 'could die of cold' (https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7752213.stm)

150,000 People To Die From Cold By Next Election. Friends of the Earth Publishes Death Forecasts
Friends of the Earth: Press Release: 150,000 PEOPLE TO DIE FROM COLD BY NEXT ELECTION. Friends of the Earth Publishes Death Forecasts for Each MP (https://www.foe.co.uk/resource/press_releases/19990318000124.html)

Thousands of elderly people die of cold each winter in a 'national scandal'
There are fears the death toll will be higher this year as forecasters predict lower temperatures than last year, utility bills have risen and the credit crunch means many households are struggling to make ends meet.
Thousands of elderly people die of cold each winter in a 'national scandal' - Telegraph (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/elderhealth/3531276/Thousands-of-elderly-people-die-of-cold-each-winter-in-a-national-scandal.html)

meanwhile...

IEA: $45 Trillion Needed to Combat Global Warming
DailyTech - IEA: $45 Trillion Needed to Combat Global Warming (https://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=12030)

Obama vows to end global warming 'denial' after Gore talks
https://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20081209/sc_afp/uspoliticsobamagoreclimate

d-cat

01-08-2009, 08:52 PM

Yes, I agree, and the UN's political global warming agenda is distracting from real environmental/health issues, like depleted uranium and GMO food.

btw

Obama’s Agriculture Secretary supports GMO crops, big agra
OCA: Take Action (https://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/642/petition.jsp?petition_KEY=1783)

d-cat

01-17-2009, 09:28 AM

lynn

01-19-2009, 03:52 AM

Yes, this is sickening...Just what people like myself were afraid of!!...

Hey 'greenies'...I'm a 'greenie' too...But, this whole 'carbon/greenhouse gas obsession' is despicable, and insane!...And must stop!!...

It's basically, going to be 'the poor'...like myself, this old woman and others who are going to suffer under these ridiculous policies!!

Stop it!...

Woman, 91, dies 'after becoming stressed over £16,000 council bill to make her home eco-friendly'
Woman, 91, dies 'after becoming stressed over £16,000 council bill to make her home eco-friendly' | Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1116088/Woman-91-dies-stressed-16-000-council-make-home-eco-friendly.html)

Braggi

01-19-2009, 11:14 AM

Hey d-cat, how come you're not posting all the headlines of record breaking high temperatures? Just wondering ...

-Jeff

handy

01-19-2009, 02:05 PM

no surprise here...

Division of Labour: Politics Archives
January 16, 2009
Hot Air
This, on the inauguration of The One who will, inter alia, reverse the trend toward global warming:

The carbon footprint of Barack Obama's inauguration could exceed 575 million pounds of CO2. According to the Institute for Liberty, it would take the average U.S. household nearly 60,000 years of naughty ecological behavior to produce a carbon footprint equal to the largest self-congratulatory event in the history of humankind.
Posted by Wilson Mixon at 04:52 PM in Politics

d-cat

01-20-2009, 08:28 PM

Hey d-cat, how come you're not posting all the headlines of record breaking high temperatures? Just wondering ...

-Jeff

I post the record cold reports because I don't believe that we can have prolonged worldwide record cold temperatures while also having catastrophic man-made global warming that's gonna melt the ice caps and kill us all unless we change our light bulbs and pay carbon taxes to the rich.

But feel free to post stories of warm temperatures (the few that there are). It will only help to show that the climate is varied, and trying to stabilize the climate is as ridiculous as trying to stabilize the seasons or temperatures. You can't stabilize the climate because you can't stabilize the sun.

You still don't believe in man-made catastrophic global warming do you? If you do, check out the first post of this thread. There's a book from '91 by The Club of Rome stating that they might use global warming to manipulate us. And Al Gore is a member of The Club of Rome. What more do you need?

The Spotless Sun Continues as Global Cooling Arrives
200812213081 | The Spotless Sun Continues as Global Cooling Arrives | / | Energy & Environment (https://www.rightsidenews.com/200812213081/energy-and-environment/the-spotless-sun-continues-as-global-cooling-arrives.html)

Where have all the sunspots gone?
View From The Lab: Where have all the sunspots gone? - Telegraph (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/3902164/View-From-The-Lab-Where-have-all-the-sunspots-gone.html)

Spotless Sun: Blankest Year of the Space Age
NASA - Spotless Sun: Blankest Year of the Space Age (https://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/30sep_blankyear.htm?list878321)

State of the Sun for year end 2008: all’s quiet on the solar front - too quiet
State of the Sun for year end 2008: all’s quiet on the solar front - too quiet « Watts Up With That? (https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/03/state-of-the-sun-year-end-2008-alls-quiet-on-the-solar-front/)

Sun Makes History: First Spotless Month in a Century
DailyTech - Sun Makes History: First Spotless Month in a Century (https://www.dailytech.com/Sun%2BMakes%2BHistory%2BFirst%2BSpotless%2BMonth%2Bin%2Ba%2BCentury/article12823.htm)

Spotless days: 400 and counting
Spotless days: 400 and counting « Watts Up With That? (https://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/08/13/spotless-days-400-and-counting/)

Earth on the Brink of an Ice Age
Earth on the Brink of an Ice Age - Pravda.Ru (https://english.pravda.ru/science/earth/106922-earth_ice_age-0)

Global Cooling is Here! Evidence for Predicting Global Cooling for the Next Three Decades
ICECAP (https://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/global_cooling_is_here_evidence_for_predicting_global_cooling_for_the_next_)

Shocking cold wave drops temps to 40 below zero
Shocking cold wave drops temps to 40 below zero - Yahoo! News (https://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090113/ap_on_re_us/snowstorm)

Wicked: Coldest Temps In Over A Decade
First Day With A Low Colder Than -10 In Chicago In More Than A Decade - cbs2chicago.com (https://cbs2chicago.com/local/brutal.cold.day.2.908889.html)

Facts debunk global warming alarmism
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported that October in the US was marked by 63 record snowfalls and 115 lowest-ever temperatures.
Over the past few years, similar signs of colder than usual weather have been recorded all over the world, causing many people to question the still fashionable, but now long outdated, global warming alarmism
Facts debunk global warming alarmism | The Australian (https://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24934655-5017272,00.html)

Professor denies global warming theory
“Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. Every time you exhale, you exhale air that has 4 percent carbon dioxide. To say that that’s a pollutant just boggles my mind. What used to be science has turned into a cult.”
Professor denies global warming theory - The Daily Princetonian (https://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2009/01/12/22506/)

Climate-change alarmism runs into a reality check
Climate-change alarmism runs into a reality check | Viewpoints, Outlook | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle (https://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/6201607.html)

Global Cooling Headed Our Way
Americans are surprised to learn that President-elect Obama's choice to be his global warming czar, one Carol Browner, was listed as one of 14 leaders of a socialist group's Commission for a Sustainable World Society, which calls for "global governance" and says rich countries must shrink their economies to address climate change, according to the Washington Times.
A global warming militant a socialist? How can that be? Well, it can be because the whole purpose of the AGW scam is nothing less than a covert movement to create a world socialist order.
The fact that the woman Barack Obama chose to oversee the effort to combat the global warming fantasy appears to be a believer in the socialist doctrine should come as no surprise — I warned that the hidden motivation of whole climate change scam is the creation world socialist order 12 years ago. Nobody listened...
Newsmax.com - Global Cooling Headed Our Way (https://www.newsmax.com/brennan/ice_age_cooling/2009/01/13/170804.html)

The threat of environmental crisis will be the 'international disaster key' that will unlock the New World Order. 
- Mikhail Gorbachev

d-cat

01-20-2009, 08:32 PM

Zeno Swijtink

01-20-2009, 10:04 PM

I post the record cold reports ...

What does that screen name mean? "d-cat." Is there a story behind this?

Zeno Swijtink

01-20-2009, 10:24 PM

Yes, this is sickening...Just what people like myself were afraid of!!...

Hey 'greenies'...I'm a 'greenie' too...But, this whole 'carbon/greenhouse gas obsession' is despicable, and insane!...And must stop!!...

It's basically, going to be 'the poor'...like myself, this old woman and others who are going to suffer under these ridiculous policies!!

Stop it!...

This would be impossible here under the "Pay-As-You-Safe" way of financing of energy saving measures that is part of our local plan.

https://www.sonoma.edu/users/s/swijtink/other/six/pay-as-you-save.png

https://www.coolplan.org/ccap-report/ccap-summary.pdf

Braggi

01-21-2009, 07:06 AM

Woman, 91, dies 'after becoming stressed over £16,000 council bill to make her home eco-friendly'
Woman, 91, dies 'after becoming stressed over £16,000 council bill to make her home eco-friendly' | Mail Online (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1116088/Woman-91-dies-stressed-16-000-council-make-home-eco-friendly.html)

I don't even believe this. How about an article with some actual details from a reputable source. I think you need to get your news from someplace other than Prison Planet.

-Jeff

Braggi

01-21-2009, 07:24 AM

... You still don't believe in man-made catastrophic global warming do you? If you do, check out the first post of this thread. There's a book from '91 by The Club of Rome stating that they might use global warming to manipulate us. And Al Gore is a member of The Club of Rome. What more do you need? ... — I warned that the hidden motivation of whole climate change scam is the creation world socialist order 12 years ago. Nobody listened...

Your stuff is getting so boring and really emphasizes how you really don't understand what's going on. I'll type this slowly so you can keep up: forests moderate weather. Got that? Forests affect weather. When the Earth is covered in forests, the way it was a couple hundred years ago, the weather is less extreme. Fewer extreme highs, fewer extreme lows. I'll let you do the research.

We're screwing up the balance in the atmosphere by deforesting vast swaths of forest all over the world at the same time we're also dumping vast quantities of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. We know the amount of CO2 has risen dramatically. No one disputes this, not even you. This is a change that entirely man made. Perhaps that's meaningless. You might think so, but most scientists think it is meaningful. Either way, the things we are doing that add to the CO2 are also poisoning our environment in other ways, such as adding vast amounts of mercury to the air and eventually to the water we all drink.

So, my bottom line is that we need to stop it with the fossil fuel as soon as we reasonably can. I still don't understand why this is a problem for you. What are you thinking?

Do you fear that one day you'll get a letter from your city council that says you'll have to install double pane windows? What's your problem?

-Jeff

d-cat

01-23-2009, 09:57 AM

I'll type this slowly so you can keep up:

I don't read this while you're typing; I read it after you post. What a stupid thing to say.

forests moderate weather. Got that? Forests affect weather. When the Earth is covered in forests, the way it was a couple hundred years ago, the weather is less extreme. Fewer extreme highs, fewer extreme lows. I'll let you do the research.

I'm not sure what you're responding to. I don't have an issue with this.

So, my bottom line is that we need to stop it with the fossil fuel as soon as we reasonably can. I still don't understand why this is a problem for you. What are you thinking?

I don't have a problem with cutting fossil fuels at all. You're putting words in my mouth again.

Do you fear that one day you'll get a letter from your city council that says you'll have to install double pane windows? What's your problem?

Just look at the subject of this thread! Here's a hint:

The threat of environmental crisis will be the 'international disaster key' that will unlock the New World Order. - Mikhail Gorbachev

d-cat

01-23-2009, 10:03 AM

Braggi

01-23-2009, 10:26 AM

... Just look at the subject of this thread! Here's a hint:

The threat of environmental crisis will be the 'international disaster key' that will unlock the New World Order. - Mikhail Gorbachev

So lay it on us: what is it, specifically, that you're afraid of.

-Jeff

Braggi

01-23-2009, 10:29 AM

Obama’s Nightmare “Green Agenda” Officially Unveiled
... the creation of millions of “green” stasi government jobs, has also been announced...

The "STASI" is already here. W. Bush gave us that. It's called "The Department of Homeland Security."

"Green" jobs have nothing to do with that.

So once again, what is it you're afraid of?

-Jeff

phooph

01-23-2009, 12:58 PM

Obama’s Nightmare “Green Agenda” Officially Unveiled
President Barack Obama’s plan to implement a cap-and-trade program that would cut carbon dioxide emissions by 80 per cent and also sink an already battered U.S. economy into a new great depression has officially been announced on the White House.gov website. However, the secondary phase of the agenda that would counter-balance such a move, the creation of millions of “green” stasi government jobs, has also been announced...
Alex Jones' Infowars.com: Because there is a war on for your mind! (https://www.infowars.com/?p=7288)

get ready for an onslaught of global warming fear mongering from corporate media!

Antarctic ice shelf set to collapse due to warming | Environment | Reuters (https://uk.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUKTRE50I4G520090119)

Global warming hits Mars too: study (https://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070404203258.5klhwqs4&show_article=1)

The idea that cutting carbon emissions would have negative economic impact is not borne out in reality:

<object classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000" codebase="https://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=9,0,0,0" width="400" height="264">

<embed flashvars="webhost=fora.tv&clipid=8645&cliptype=clip" src="https://fora.tv/embedded_player" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="https://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" width="400" height="264"></object>

lynn

01-27-2009, 02:00 AM

Do you fear that one day you'll get a letter from your city council that says you'll have to install double pane windows? What's your problem?

I sure would be pissed if they told me I had to do it...

And that reminds me...

Why does Al get to fly all over the globe...Use up a heck of a lot more energy than I do...And his family...He and his wife procreated 4 kids I think...

But, I can't even drive my car a few miles a day...

I deserve a big huge tax break...or somethin'!...

Braggi

01-27-2009, 08:20 AM

Do you fear that one day you'll get a letter from your city council that says you'll have to install double pane windows? What's your problem?

I sure would be pissed if they told me I had to do it...

So would I. Thing is, it's not going to happen, so you can safely shiver behind your single pane windows if that's your wish.

... And that reminds me...

Why does Al get to fly all over the globe...Use up a heck of a lot more energy than I do...And his family...He and his wife procreated 4 kids I think...

But, I can't even drive my car a few miles a day...

I deserve a big huge tax break...or somethin'!...

Yeah, I'm not a big fan of Al either. Except, he's got us talking about all this, doesn't he? Perhaps that's his actual agenda. In that case, we should thank him, because this forum has allowed us to look over all the nonsense from those who deny human influenced global warming. Thanks d-cat, for posting all that clap trap. Those who still have a shred of critical thinking can see through it, although the reasons why they cling to their positions remain obscure to this observer.

I'm no fan of "carbon credits" or anything like it, but it's really about time we start taxing fossil fuels to reflect their actual cost which must include the cost of the US military that is dedicated to maintaining multi-national corporate control of energy resources.

Check out this article to begin to comprehend how much tax payer money we waste in an attempt to keep the mega-corporations in power: The Worldwide Network of US Military Bases (https://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5564)

This is the main reason we have to get off of fossil fuels and stop ruining our fresh water supplies and return to growing most of our own food within our borders.

-Jeff

Braggi

01-27-2009, 08:29 AM

[QUOTE=Braggi;80672] ... This is the main reason we have to get off of fossil fuels and stop ruining our fresh water supplies and return to growing most of our own food within our borders. /QUOTE]

I forgot to mention, the "terrorist threat" will largely disappear when the military bases close and local people around the globe stop seeing "Americans" as occupying soldiers armed to the teeth and instead see us as concerned global citizens, bringing them much appreciated tourist dollars.

It wouldn't hurt if we stopped arming terrorist factions around the world too.

-Jeff

PS. Anyone see "Iron Man?" A surprisingly good movie with a crudely inserted political statement that's pretty right on.

ginayjackson

01-27-2009, 09:41 AM

Here's another case of a statement taken out of context and filtered through the haze of ignorance.

While I agree Obama's choice of words is easily subject to misinterpretation, the kind of national security Obama was talking about was the security of a safe place to live, of safe roads and bridges to drive on, of safe places to eat and sleep. He was talking about fully funding such "security forces" as the Peace Corps which helps us develop world security by making friends instead of enemies. By "well funded as the military" he didn't mean funded with the same number of dollars but fully funded so they don't have to go begging if they want to add a few more volunteers. That's a huge difference. He never suggested the forces that will insure security within our borders should cost the same as the military.

Stop projecting Nazism on Obama. The Neo-(Nazi)-Con was just defeated.

-Jeff
I agree with Jeff, it seems anytime someone tries to unite the masses for one cause whether it's cleaning the air, reducing pollution, cleaning up the freeways or helping kids with their homework, some moron wants to claim he/she is trying to start a dictatorship. Don't be so afraid to be on one accord with your community. Not to change the subject but it sounds similar to those who are so "afraid" to lose their second ammendment right that they dont mind innocent people are being killed. Get a grip on reality and stop crying sour grapes because an African-American won the presidency.

"Mad" Miles

01-27-2009, 04:42 PM

Hey Folks,

Hate to burst everyone's bubble here, pro or anti, but according to the PD's front page article today, we're screwed for the next 3K years whether we quit pumping out the CO2 or not.

I loved (Sic.) the 1930's style Dust Bowl Drought predictions for the North American (U.S.) Southwest, North Africa and Southern Europe, as if the economic news wasn't enough!!!

Anyone seeing all the flowers in the last couple of days? Think there'll be a wine grape crop next fall? Not if there's a significant freeze in the next few months.

Actually, the concluding quote from the scientific expert is that the report means we gotta cut out all our shit NOW!

Talk about mixed messages....

"Mad" Miles

:burngrnbounce:

lynn

01-27-2009, 08:29 PM

Braggi..."So would I. Thing is, it's not going to happen, so you can safely shiver behind your single pane windows if that's your wish."...

Okay...That does it!!...Real nice snide remark there!...

You guys just don't 'get it' at all...There are plenty of people who CAN'T AFFORD double pane windows!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!...They aren't exactly cheap!!!!!!!...

People are oughta' jobs and homes....And if they have a car to be able to go out to try and find a job...All these 'climate crisis' crazies want to make it even harder now for them to be able to drive the car they already have...by putting even tougher standards on tailpipe emissions...

And the climate crisis crazies have been lying all along saying...'The debate is Over'...

It's NEVER been over!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I've been reading debates all along!!!!!!!

I'm SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO sick of all this...It's so insanely ridiculous...

If you people want to keep believing that the earth's climate is suppose to be 'perfect', or 'stable' according to our expectations...And how it will be all disaster if we don't do something right now to 'change' the climate...

Put your money where your mouth is and...Go live in a cave and eat roots...

Or else, be ready to buy a lot of people new cars they can't afford...and a whole heck of a lot of other stuff, that might be coming down the pike...

Zeno Swijtink

01-27-2009, 09:13 PM

You guys just don't 'get it' at all...There are plenty of people who CAN'T AFFORD double pane windows!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!...They aren't exactly cheap!!!!!!!...

Of course, the question how to finance this all has been topmost on the mind of people who are thinking about climate change and the need for greenhouse gas reductions.

See page 31 of the Sonoma County Community Climate Action Plan

https://www.coolplan.org/ccap-report/CCAP_Final_11-05-08.pdf

https://www.sonoma.edu/users/s/swijtink/other/AB811.png

AB811 is the California Assembly Bill 811, a bill sponsored to allow cities to provide their residents with low-cost loans for energy-efficient home improvements.

See also https://ab811.org/

Valley Oak

01-27-2009, 11:21 PM

Lynn, given what's coming down the pike with Obama, if you had to choose between four more years of Bush and the current Obama administration, which would you choose?

Edward

Braggi..."So would I. Thing is, it's not going to happen, so you can safely shiver behind your single pane windows if that's your wish."...

Okay...That does it!!...Real nice snide remark there!...

You guys just don't 'get it' at all...There are plenty of people who CAN'T AFFORD double pane windows!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!...They aren't exactly cheap!!!!!!!...

People are oughta' jobs and homes....And if they have a car to be able to go out to try and find a job...All these 'climate crisis' crazies want to make it even harder now for them to be able to drive the car they already have...by putting even tougher standards on tailpipe emissions...

And the climate crisis crazies have been lying all along saying...'The debate is Over'...

It's NEVER been over!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I've been reading debates all along!!!!!!!

I'm SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO sick of all this...It's so insanely ridiculous...

If you people want to keep believing that the earth's climate is suppose to be 'perfect', or 'stable' according to our expectations...And how it will be all disaster if we don't do something right now to 'change' the climate...

Put your money where your mouth is and...Go live in a cave and eat roots...

Or else, be ready to buy a lot of people new cars they can't afford...and a whole heck of a lot of other stuff, that might be coming down the pike...

Braggi

01-28-2009, 08:26 AM

...
Put your money where your mouth is and...Go live in a cave and eat roots...

Thanks for your well reasoned and cleverly spoken response. I always appreciate your level headed input.

Actually, what I've done is replaced the windows in my house that leaked the most heat. The old ones, while double paned, were old style aluminum frame and many of the seals had leaked. I replaced them myself. They cost less than $60 each at Home Depot. I think they cost a little more now. I still have a number to replace, but they're smaller windows and don't leak as much heat.

I also replaced my worn out roof with rolled steel panels. When I did that I tightened up the old foam insulation to eliminate gaps and sealed the perimeter with expanding spray foam. That reduced heat loss a great deal.

We do all of our home heating with locally harvested, carbon neutral firewood that I cut, split and stack myself. I know that doesn't work for everyone, but it works well for us.

I think I do put my money where my mouth is. I live in a wood framed house, not a cave, but I'd actually like to dig a cave to use as a wine cellar and emergency shelter in case of forest fire. I also eat a lot of root vegetables, but could use more leafy vegetables in my diet. Thanks for your concern and suggestion.

... Or else, be ready to buy a lot of people new cars they can't afford...and a whole heck of a lot of other stuff, that might be coming down the pike...

I'm not big on buying any new stuff using environmental concerns as the reason, unless the purchase will "pay for itself" within a few years. The windows and extra roof insulation I installed certainly fit in that category.

I drive most of my road miles in a 1985 Honda Civic, four wheel drive car. It gets about 30 mpg which is still comparable to the most fuel efficient 4wd cars available now. I need 4wd to get up my driveway. I oppose laws that forcibly retire old cars and trucks for many reasons. It takes a great deal of raw materials and energy to build a new vehicle. Making what we have last longer is a good strategy for reducing consumption which is perhaps the most important strategy for reducing personal environmental impact.

So maybe I do "get it." At least I'm working on it.

Hope you're staying warm and dry,

-Jeff

d-cat

01-28-2009, 05:38 PM

The Spotless Sun Continues as Global Cooling Arrives
200812213081 | The Spotless Sun Continues as Global Cooling Arrives | / | Energy & Environment (https://www.rightsidenews.com/200812213081/energy-and-environment/the-spotless-sun-continues-as-global-cooling-arrives.html)

Where have all the sunspots gone?
View From The Lab: Where have all the sunspots gone? - Telegraph (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/3902164/View-From-The-Lab-Where-have-all-the-sunspots-gone.html)

Spotless Sun: Blankest Year of the Space Age
NASA - Spotless Sun: Blankest Year of the Space Age (https://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/30sep_blankyear.htm?list878321)

State of the Sun for year end 2008: all’s quiet on the solar front - too quiet
State of the Sun for year end 2008: all’s quiet on the solar front - too quiet « Watts Up With That? (https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/03/state-of-the-sun-year-end-2008-alls-quiet-on-the-solar-front/)

Sun Makes History: First Spotless Month in a Century
DailyTech - Sun Makes History: First Spotless Month in a Century (https://www.dailytech.com/Sun%2BMakes%2BHistory%2BFirst%2BSpotless%2BMonth%2Bin%2Ba%2BCentury/article12823.htm)

Spotless days: 400 and counting
Spotless days: 400 and counting « Watts Up With That? (https://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/08/13/spotless-days-400-and-counting/)

Earth on the Brink of an Ice Age
Earth on the Brink of an Ice Age - Pravda.Ru (https://english.pravda.ru/science/earth/106922-earth_ice_age-0)

Global Cooling is Here! Evidence for Predicting Global Cooling for the Next Three Decades
ICECAP (https://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/global_cooling_is_here_evidence_for_predicting_global_cooling_for_the_next_)

Shocking cold wave drops temps to 40 below zero
Shocking cold wave drops temps to 40 below zero - Yahoo! News (https://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090113/ap_on_re_us/snowstorm)

Wicked: Coldest Temps In Over A Decade
First Day With A Low Colder Than -10 In Chicago In More Than A Decade - cbs2chicago.com (https://cbs2chicago.com/local/brutal.cold.day.2.908889.html)

Global Cooling Headed Our Way
Americans are surprised to learn that President-elect Obama's choice to be his global warming czar, one Carol Browner, was listed as one of 14 leaders of a socialist group's Commission for a Sustainable World Society, which calls for "global governance" and says rich countries must shrink their economies to address climate change, according to the Washington Times.
A global warming militant a socialist? How can that be? Well, it can be because the whole purpose of the AGW scam is nothing less than a covert movement to create a world socialist order.
The fact that the woman Barack Obama chose to oversee the effort to combat the global warming fantasy appears to be a believer in the socialist doctrine should come as no surprise — I warned that the hidden motivation of whole climate change scam is the creation world socialist order 12 years ago. Nobody listened...
Newsmax.com - Global Cooling Headed Our Way (https://www.newsmax.com/brennan/ice_age_cooling/2009/01/13/170804.html)

It's snowing on Mars!
Ian Sample reports on the extraordinary information being sent back from Mars | Science | The Guardian (https://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/jan/27/mars-snow-space-technology-nasa)

d-cat

01-28-2009, 05:48 PM

the UN's political global warming agenda is distracting from real environmental/health issues, like depleted uranium and GMO food.

Long term soil devastation in Gaza due to use of white phosphorus and depleted uranium :: www.uruknet.info :: informazione dall'Iraq occupato :: news from occupied Iraq :: - it (https://uruknet.info/?p=m51189&hd=&size=1&l=e)

Hotspring 44

01-29-2009, 12:45 PM

Handy, do you have a specific plan in mind? Is there a book or a comprehensive diagram so to speak of specific scientific data?

Do is there or you have an instruction manual, we could read?
or do you know of any how to global warming survival instruction manuals that exist today? Or is the CIA, the only ones privilege to that manual?

What about the ocean levels rising? And displacing of hundreds of millions of people?

Are we politically and socially ready to deal with the hundreds of millions of refugees when the ocean levels rise?

What kind of human intervention, would we be able to do so that it would not take 10,000 - 100,000 years for the rest of the environment to adjust to such unprecedentedted rapid climate shifts?

As far as I know, those ice layers that we use to calculate the amount of carbon dioxide that was in the atmosphere at different times in the past; indicate those changes that you're referring to are tens of if not hundreds of thousands of years in time, apart from each other during the largest peak CO2 levels.

Even if there were not the gigantic political problems with the would-be flood refugees I mentioned earlier. Honestly, those problems right there would probably put this conversation dead in its tracks, if it really were to occur in our lifetimes.

Do you have any knowledge of the way humans could mitigate those long periods of time from between 10,000 and 100,000 years to being a reasonable [survivable] time scale for mitigating survival of [majority of] the masses that are alive now?

Probably not, is my guess.
However, I am open-minded, and I would be very interested to see a real block diagram so to speak of how that could actually in reality, under all of the political and environmental considerations that we have in the world right now could work.

I'm quite skeptical of any person or group that claims they know the answers to that one without at least acknowledging the demise of hundreds of millions if not billions of people and animals, the loss of arable and livable landmasses and viable oceans. believe it or not, plankton that lives in the ocean is where most of our oxygen comes from.

Plankton; just because we cannot see it growing as easaly as we see trees growing does not mean it's minimal; in regards to oxygen production.

To say that carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant in a sentence misrepresents what I believe they themselves, are actually trying to convey to the public.

Which is that unregulated, massive amounts of industrial carbon dioxide without mitigating the amount that goes into the atmosphere is what they are referring to.

But politics being what it is; It’s understandable that the whole thing that politicians come up with will probably be totally screwed up and either unworkable or nobody will either have the willingness or ability to effectively enforce it.

I'm suggesting that it is likely to just be a bunch of convoluted legal documents, rules and exceptions to particular parties political advantage at the time and not to forget the bureaucracy that would be created and the fact that nothing which would actually help the situation would be permitted in a timely manner.

Yes, if the vast majority of the human beings and their political representatives got along; we could probably pull it off and survive fairly successfully.

The way things are now, the faster it gets hot, the worse off you and I are as a direct result of radical climate change as far as I can tell.

What I mean by radical climate change is the differences in comparison to the historic time spans of time between peaks of trapped atmospheric CO2 and other inert gasses recorded by scientists in the South Pole ice core test samples.

Personally I don't have 10,000 to 100,000 years to wait for some utopia like what was implied in that article. <o:p></o:p>
<u1:p> </u1:p><o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
<u1:p> </u1:p><o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p><o:p></o:p>
The Warmer, the Merrier

by James P. Hogan

Earth warmed a little during the last century as part of the natural climate cycles that have always been happening and always will. The principal agent by far – to the tune of 95% of the total in maintaining an atmosphere that keeps the Earth from freezing at this distance from the Sun – is water vapour, which doesn't even figure in the computer models that the current hysteria is based on, because you can't control it, tax it, or blame it on your favorite villains. At 0.03% of the Earth's atmosphere, carbon dioxide is a minor player, and the proportion of it due to human activities, minuscule – 2% of the 0.03%, which is six millionths of the 5% warming which was due to CO2 to begin with. Put another way, the human contribution works out at three cents in a hundred thousand dollars.

Carbon dioxide did increase over the latter half of the twentieth century, but the assertion that it was all or mainly a result of burning hydrocarbon fuels has no solid foundation. Warming for any reason will release carbon from vast natural reservoirs. Reconstructions of past conditions show CO2 levels up to 20 times higher than at present, before there were any humans at all, and data from such sources as ice cores, lake sediments, and tree rings indicate that in the swings over the ages, the warming occurred first, making CO2 levels a longer-term effect rather than the driver. Mean temperatures actually fell from the late 1940s through to the 1970s and again from around 1998 to the present, while CO2 continued rising steadily, very likely as a consequence of the 300-year recovery from the "mini ice age" of the 17th century. The chart below shows the change in Arctic temperatures over the last 120 years compared to CO2 levels and to variations in the energy output of the Sun. Which do you think is more likely to be driving the temperature?

But even if the recent warming trends were shown to be largely of our own doing, there's more reason for celebration than the panic that we're witnessing. Warm worlds are cheerier, healthier, more secure, and better able to support a richer and more abundant biosphere than cold ones. On land and in the oceans, life thrives in the green equatorial and temperate zones, not the icy higher latitudes. A warmer world would transform the vast wastes of Siberia and northern Canada into forests, gardens, granaries, and habitats, opening up huge areas to accommodate the growing population that some view as a blight, and bring water back to such regions as the Sahara and Middle East, that were once verdant. So, if human activity is capable of making a measurable difference, one would think that a good policy to adopt would be to help things along by using the abundance of energy that the world offers, to increase wealth and living standards generally, and enjoy the environmental benefits.

Instead, we hear eminences that inform and direct the world's peoples calling for legislation to classify carbon dioxide as a pollutant. The irony of such nonsense is that carbon dioxide is plant food, and hence the basic nutrient that supports all life on Earth. A largely unreported consequence of the CO2 increase that took place over the last half century has been a huge increase in agricultural yield, general greening of much of the planet, and more efficient use of water by plants. Because of deficiency in micronutrients, large areas of the oceans are biological deserts that could be "fertilized" at low cost to increase phytoplankton and hence fish populations enormously. Instead of manically and pointlessly seeking to decrease emissions at staggering cost in an attempt to implement an unworkable solution to a nonexistent problem, we could be turning the byproducts of human industrial and agricultural enterprise into living things and abundant food. This really is wonderful news for those who believe that human creativity and cooperation offer the possibility of building better tomorrows for the entire race, and that the choice is ours to make.

It takes real talent in doom-mongering and wilful blindness to turn such promise and potential into a disaster scenario. The Western world has surely never been run by such a pack of fools as those inflicted on it at the present time.

November 22, 2008

James P. Hogan [send him mail], a former digital systems engineer and computer sales executive, has been a full-time writer since 1980. He was born in London, moved to the USA for many years, and now lives in the Republic of Ireland. His web site is at www.jamesphogan.com (https://www.jamesphogan.com).

Copyright © 2008 LewRockwell.com

lynn

01-30-2009, 03:57 PM

Hotspring...The way things are now, the faster it gets hot, the worse off you and I are as a direct result of radical climate change as far as I can tell.

Boy, those people freezin' in those ice storms right now....Sure want that global warming!!!...

============

Who says we have 'radical' climate change?...

Gary

01-30-2009, 05:39 PM

Boy, those people freezin' in those ice storms right now....Sure want that global warming!!!...

Climate change models predict parts of the globe will experience cooling even while the Earth as a whole will warm. This is why the term "climate change" has taken favor over "global warming", not because scientists are trying to change their story (common rhetoric in skeptic's arguments). The Sonoma Climate Protection Campaign has good resources to learn about this on a large and also local level.

Sky Metrics :: Background (https://www.climateprotectioncampaign.org/background/climatechange101.php)

d-cat

02-01-2009, 01:57 AM

Climate change models predict parts of the globe will experience cooling even while the Earth as a whole will warm. This is why the term "climate change" has taken favor over "global warming", not because scientists are trying to change their story (common rhetoric in skeptic's arguments). The Sonoma Climate Protection Campaign has good resources to learn about this on a large and also local level.

Sky Metrics :: Background (https://www.climateprotectioncampaign.org/background/climatechange101.php)

“Climate models are useless.” “Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results. In doing so, they neither explain what they have modified in the observations, nor explain how they did it. They have resisted making their work transparent so that it can be replicated independently by other scientists."

The above quotes come from retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist Dr. John S. Theon, former supervisor to James Hanson, the global warming fearmonger. Theon has stated that Hanson " embarrassed NASA" with his alarming climate claims.

.: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page :. (https://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=1a5e6e32-802a-23ad-40ed-ecd53cd3d320)

lynn

02-01-2009, 06:31 PM

The 'climate modelers' and advocates for AGW...

For those scientists, and science types who watch this stuff and are skeptical...

Put it this way...

DailyTech - Will the Real Antarctica Please Stand Up? (https://www.dailytech.com/Will+the+Real+Antarctica+Please+Stand+Up/article14028.htm)

=================

In short....It's seeming to me that one can use the current info. of 'climate science' to fit your own agenda...

Same way religious people use the Bible...

Yubajeff

02-04-2009, 04:07 PM

I lost my Kodak (and nearly my heart ) on Saturday Jan. 31 at the wake for Dr. David in Sebastolol. I also found a silver dophin ring at the event, and gave it to the organizer, who I don't know how to contact.
There are quite a few photos of the wake on the camera, which I was going to post publicly at the organizer's request.
Jeff/Scout 530-264-6343.

d-cat

02-06-2009, 07:25 AM

Al Gore to Children: Don't Listen to your Parents! parts 1 & 2

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="https://www.youtube.com/v/O-8r0Qvrl4Q&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="https://www.youtube.com/v/O-8r0Qvrl4Q&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="https://www.youtube.com/v/DVt8iz_VpeM&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="https://www.youtube.com/v/DVt8iz_VpeM&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

State Brainwashing Children To “Re-Educate” Their Parents For Green Dictatorship
Kids being brainwashed into informing on their families, following pattern of totalitarian societies throughout history

A massive program with its tentacles embedded into almost every corner of education and popular culture is underway to use the “green” agenda to brainwash children and turn them against their own parents, as the state moves towards the creation of a Stasi-style informant society using methods that have been repeated in every totalitarian state throughout history.
The controversy surrounding Al Gore’s comments during a speech at the University of Maryland Presidential Youth Inaugural Conference, during which he pitted children against their parents by telling them they “know more” about global warming, is merely the tip of the iceberg of a top-down movement that is mimicking a technique that dictatorships have practiced throughout history - the exploitation and brainwashing of children to turn them into Maoist, Stasi, Hitler Youth-style informants and enforcers against their own family and community...

Anonym zu www.prisonplanet.com/state-brainwashing-children-to-re-educate-their-parents-for-green-dictatorship.html (https://anonym.to/?https://www.prisonplanet.com/state-brainwashing-children-to-re-educate-their-parents-for-green-dictatorship.html)

Hotspring 44

02-06-2009, 03:22 PM

Personally I think wind and solar all the way as much as feasibly possible.

<u1:p></u1:p>Yes, it is feasible to go wind and solar largely.

<u1:p></u1:p>Most oil companies and energy companies along with mainly individuals that make huge profits when everybody else suffers brainwash people too.
They have a lot more resources at their fingertips that they utilize in order to brainwash people.
One of their most successful techniques is utilizing private industry to brainwash people.
Just because an ex government official, whom by the way is now a private person (Al Gore) is saying something that certain factions don't like does not necessarily mean those children are being brainwashed.
One person’s education equals another person's brainwashing!

<u1:p></u1:p>It also seems to me that Alex Jones has a bone or two to pick with the 60s generation Americana.

<u1:p></u1:p>There was a lot of ignored wisdom that was expressed during the 60s that the so-called older generation supposedly didn't listen to.
Like environmentalism, for example.
Sure, they wanted to clean the photo-chemical smog out of Los Angeles for example, but it took until the late 80s to realize how bad dioxin was.
But nobody that could do anything about it cared enough to listen.
Everybody in certain locations was still getting dosed with dioxins from old-generation designed transformers, for example.
There were ample warnings from certain people in regards to the dioxin specifically as well as many other highly toxic substances that we now either banned or highly control today.
The fact that they {the messengers telling of pollution} were being treated in a highly discriminatory and derogatory manner.
They were called hippies! So therefore it somehow excused public officials not to listen to them in the first place!

<u1:p></u1:p>

<u1:p></u1:p>The fact is that CO2 in the atmosphere does have an effect on thermal conductivity of the planet's atmosphere.
I think that most people here are scientific minded, and have studied it enough to realize that human influenced climate-shift in regards to atmospheric CO2 is factual.
I think where the controversy lays is in how much effect that atmospheric CO2 has in regards to thermal-conductivity of the atmosphere, either global warming/or, cooling effects.

<u1:p></u1:p>I did not hear in those Alex Jones radio-blurbs of Al Gore, with Al Gore saying anything about anybody turning anybody in for any violations of any kind whatsoever, environmental or otherwise.

<u1:p></u1:p>So I would conclude that in this case, Al Jones is fear mongering.

<u1:p></u1:p>I think all you got to do is look at the basic rule of greed to answer certain questions about certain people's motives regarding this topic.
When it's not only about money it's definitely all about power.

<u1:p></u1:p>Using energy in certain ways has locked us in for a long time. Certain individuals in the world have taken far too much advantage over us for long enough to reach a breaking point.
The questions are; shall the power and energy companies be permitted to break the country of all control of its wealth and treasure? Or will the majority of the population in this country decide to make certain changes, for the betterment of the vast majority of its citizens?

<o:p></o:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>

Besides, For example:<o:p></o:p>

If we were energy independent, we could eventually invest in oil from where ever we can get it as cheap as we can get it when we wanted to.
Utilizing private investment and government investment they, we, us, could pump it back into the ground, so we have a vast amount of strategic oil in times when we will need it later in the future for national security both militarily and financially.

<u1:p></u1:p>There is a vast amount of desert that solar panels can be put in.
However, there are some greenies that are afraid that somehow there's something in the sand that lives there.
They expressed concerns about the solar panels.
They were concerned that it will kill something, but they don't say exactly what or how.

As a person whom owns an older car in California, (who can not afford to go out and just buy brand new one that doesn't pollute as much). So I do have my paranoid fears about the government not allowing me use of my own vehicle anymore because it's a pre-2004 your model in fact, it's a pre-1980 year model. But that's another topic.
I share some of the frustrations about, (the) not in my backyard backward thinking green want to be; B S-or’s<o:p></o:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>That being said:

From what I can tell, Al Jones hates hippies!
I can understand some people's resentments, because I have seen how some people have represented hippiedom.
By the way, hippie could mean just about anything.
Some people that I know of that are and or have been called hippies were or are what I would call gross polluters! But so what!

<u1:p></u1:p>I notice whenever there is resentment expressed so vehemently as did Al Jones in radio show segments < Anonym zu www.prisonplanet.com/state-brainwashing-children-to-re-educate-their-parents-for-green-dictatorship.html (https://anonym.to/?https://www.prisonplanet.com/state-brainwashing-children-to-re-educate-their-parents-for-green-dictatorship.html) > that emotion and prejudice somehow gets tied together to create some kind of a paranoid fantasy to amplify whatever the guys personal opinion for or against something is so he can get some kind of support like financial support because he's in a radio show.

<u1:p></u1:p>Were any of those children indoctrinated by Al Gore, specifically on the extreme levels like this you tube trailer for Jesus Camp? <YouTube - jesus camp trailer (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RNfL6IVWCE) >
The above link is what I would call an example of what brainwashing children really looks and sounds like.
I
Has anybody here ever experienced or tried the refrigerator experiment that I've posted earlier in this thread?
Have you ever thought that maybe global warming has to do with evaporating water at a higher rate from oceans and lakes? Also that it would accumulate mostly at the coldest places where the majority of the mass of water vapor, which in this case is likely to be frozen on above sea level landmass at the South Pole continent?

<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>I think the most important thing to consider is that we all know the weather, i.e. the environment; naturally changes all of the time.
That doesn't mean that we should ignore things we know that do influence our lives in regards to our own environment-changing behavior.

<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>What about the sea levels rising?
Do you think there's enough comments from outer space, landing on the planet that are composed mostly of water that are doing so much that the sea levels have risen as much as they have in the past 20 years? I doubt it!

<u1:p></u1:p>
<u1:p></u1:p>I think that just because there are more eyes watching things.
More ice accumulating In the South Pole on its own by itself doesn't prove much in regards to global climate change. However, along with all the other evidence mainly that sea level has been steadily raising more than merely suggests that global warming has been occurring; its actual evidence.

<u1:p></u1:p>

[B]Al Gore to Children: Don't Listen to your Parents! parts 1 & 2

<object width="425" height="344">

<embed src="https://www.youtube.com/v/O-8r0Qvrl4Q&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></object>

<object width="425" height="344">

<embed src="https://www.youtube.com/v/DVt8iz_VpeM&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></object>

State Brainwashing Children To “Re-Educate” Their Parents For Green Dictatorship
[I]Kids being brainwashed into informing on their families, following pattern of totalitarian societies throughout history

A massive program with its tentacles embedded into almost every corner of education and popular culture is underway to use the “green” agenda to brainwash children and turn them against their own parents, as the state moves towards the creation of a Stasi-style informant society using methods that have been repeated in every totalitarian state throughout history.
The controversy surrounding Al Gore’s comments during a speech at the University of Maryland Presidential Youth Inaugural Conference, during which he pitted children against their parents by telling them they “know more” about global warming, is merely the tip of the iceberg of a top-down movement that is mimicking a technique that dictatorships have practiced throughout history - the exploitation and brainwashing of children to turn them into Maoist, Stasi, Hitler Youth-style informants and enforcers against their own family and community...

Anonym zu www.prisonplanet.com/state-brainwashing-children-to-re-educate-their-parents-for-green-dictatorship.html (https://anonym.to/?https://www.prisonplanet.com/state-brainwashing-children-to-re-educate-their-parents-for-green-dictatorship.html)

d-cat

02-11-2009, 06:34 PM

Hotspring,

That wasn't Alex Jones in the radio clip but Glen Beck of CNN/Fox fame.

I believe Beck is a propagandist, and I was reluctant to use the clips from his radio show - but it was the only interview with the father available at the time. Beck has lately been acting like he's on the people's side, talking about the New World Order and saying he's a Libertarian, but but it wasn't too long ago when he was saying that Ron Paul supporters should be put in camps. Propaganda is often used to divide the people, and considering Beck's hippie comments, I think this is an example of that.

Many say that Alex Jones is a fear monger - at least at first. Here's a pretty amazing short clip of him "fear mongering" in 2001 (it's real):

LinkAlexJuly2001 (https://anonym.to/?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8Hk1-BpXO8)

and way back in 1997:

LinkVintageAlex (https://anonym.to/?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNS5gU_KshI)

d-cat

02-15-2009, 08:14 AM

“Climate models are useless.” “Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results. In doing so, they neither explain what they have modified in the observations, nor explain how they did it. They have resisted making their work transparent so that it can be replicated independently by other scientists."

The above quotes come from retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist Dr. John S. Theon, former supervisor to James Hanson, the global warming fearmonger. Theon has stated that Hanson " embarrassed NASA" with his alarming climate claims.

.: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page :. (https://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=1a5e6e32-802a-23ad-40ed-ecd53cd3d320)

more on global warming fear monger James Hansen and climate modelers:

https://www.moonbattery.com/archives/james-hansen.jpg

'We have only four years left to act on climate change - America has to lead'

Jim Hansen is the 'grandfather of climate change' and one of the world's leading climatologists. In this rare interview in New York, he explains why President Obama's administration is the last chance to avoid flooded cities, species extinction and climate catastrophe
grandfather of climate change (https://anonym.to/?https://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jan/18/obama-climate-change)

Did Media Or NASA Withhold Climate History Data Changes From The Public? (article from 2007)

A change in climate history data at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies recently occurred which dramatically alters the debate over global warming. Yet, this transpired with no official announcement from GISS head James Hansen, and went unreported until Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit discovered it Wednesday. For some background, one of the key tenets of the global warming myth being advanced by Hansen and soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore is that nine of the ten warmest years in history have occurred since 1995. McIntyre has been crunching the numbers used to determine such things as published by GISS, and has identified that the data have recently changed such that four of the top ten warmest years in American history occurred in the 1930s, with the warmest now in 1934 instead of the much-publicized 1998...
Climate History Data Changes (https://anonym.to/?https://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/08/09/did-media-or-nasa-withhold-climate-history-data-changes-public)

Stimulus Plan: Non-Existent Unemployed Climate Modelers Get $140 Million

President Barack Obama’s trillion dollar stimulus plan, has morphed into an appropriations bill devoid of debate. The process forgoes any pretense of targeting unemployed people and resources. For instance, the bill reads “Provided further, That not less than $140,000,000 shall be available for climate data modeling.” This raises the question of how many unemployed climate modelers are out there pounding the pavement...

When presented with that question, last Friday, Pat Michaels, former president of the American Association of State Climatologists stated “I don’t know one unemployed modeler.” Whether or not another $140,000,000 for climate data modeling is a good idea, it is hard to see an immediate, economy-stimulating impact from this item. What’s the rush? Maybe they need to get all their modeling done before another cool year highlights how bad the models are.

https://anonym.to/?https://blog.heritage.org/2009/01/26/stimulus-plan-non-existent-unemployed-climate-modelers-get-140-million/

OrchardDweller

06-15-2009, 12:11 AM

Gore still insists there is a consensus on man-made global warming!

Gore Denies that Ken Lay, Goldman Sachs CEOs Helped Develop C02 Trading 'Scheme'

<object height="344" width="425">

<embed src="https://www.youtube.com/v/C28avoSrYyQ&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" height="344" width="425"></object>

<object height="344" width="425">

<embed src="https://www.youtube.com/v/4RDHquxGNYk&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" height="344" width="425"></object>

Speak2Truth

06-16-2009, 10:04 PM

Beck has lately been acting like he's on the people's side, talking about the New World Order and saying he's a Libertarian, but but it wasn't too long ago when he was saying that Ron Paul supporters should be put in camps.

Beck used to work for CNN. Now he works for FOX. I suspect Beck is more free to speak his mind on FOX, a station where commentators are up-front about their politics and ideologies.

I appreciated the Alex Jones video but I also predicted a second attack on the World Trade Centers for reasons that I believe are more sound.

Saddam Hussein made the threat and indications are that he followed through. Have a look:

Speak2Truth's Blog on Yahoo! (https://profiles.yahoo.com/blog/FF5PDJLI6BBYLYMZECK6ZTIVIY?eid=r6EWHZ41yywYxyTDVm1uS37sukhdD4eUiPrS86sE4ii91XNAyw)

Speak2Truth

06-16-2009, 10:08 PM

Gore still insists there is a consensus on man-made global warming!

He is studiously sticking to his script. That guy is such a fraud! He, along with Michael Gorbachev and other bad actors, set up this ripoff scheme and rushed it through our Congress as well as many other nations. Now it's all about Carbon Taxation and even though Gore's Hockey-stick graph is broken there's no way to get rid of the asset seizures by the crooks in power. They'll　ｎｅｖｅｒ　ｌｅｔ　ｇｏ！

Zeno Swijtink

06-16-2009, 10:45 PM

Speak2Truth

06-16-2009, 11:04 PM

Vik,

For weeks I have been going back to your website AMERICA SPEAK OUT (https://www.americaspeakout.com/)

but there has been no follow-up to your promise: " Coming Soon! - This site is under development. Forum participation will be operational in a few days. Please check back soon."

I am properly chastised. I admit it - I got sucked into a major development project for a group in Santa Barbara and haven't made much time for my projects.

You are right. Feel free to slap me around every week until I get the darned thing up and running!

I HAVE, this week, found another person who is willing to work with me on videos. One problem I had is that I cannot run all aspects of production myself. It takes at least one other person. I may have that problem solved. I'll know tomorrow when I meet with him again.

And, folks, if you want a quick history lesson on Global Warming, do check out AMERICA SPEAK OUT (https://www.americaspeakout.com) and look at the short video on the home page. It's a starter, anyway.

phooph

06-16-2009, 11:13 PM

Saddam Hussein made the threat and indications are that he followed through. Have a look:

Speak2Truth's Blog on Yahoo! (https://profiles.yahoo.com/blog/FF5PDJLI6BBYLYMZECK6ZTIVIY?eid=r6EWHZ41yywYxyTDVm1uS37sukhdD4eUiPrS86sE4ii91XNAyw)

Well, you have lost every shred of credibility on this one. On the day that Wesley Clark announced his candidacy for the presidency George Bush, Condi Rice, and Donald Rumsfeld all held press conferences in which they stated that they never said Saddam Hussein had anything to do with 9/11. Now why did they do that? Because the day after 9/11 the White House sent an errand boy to Clark's office and asked him to announce that Saddam Hussein had done it (so they could launch the invasion they had been planning since before taking office) and Clark told them something to the effect of "I cannot tell a lie," and they were afraid Clark would make the Bush administration's language connecting Iraq and 9/11 a campaign issue.

The Bushies were very clever on this one. Then never said Saddam did it. They always said something along the line of, "because of 9/11 we can no longer blah blah blah." They planted the idea in people's minds that Iraq was connected to 9/11 even though anyone with even a passing understanding of Middle East politics would know it to be BS. Most Americans know very little about most of the rest of the world and it makes them easy dupes for manipulation.

If Osama bin Ladin had something to do with 9/11 then Saddam Hussein was definitely not involved. bin Ladin had declared Saddam takfir (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takfir) many years before for his suppression of the more radical Shi'ites (the reason the US installed the Ba'athists in the first place) and wanted Saddam and his moderate Sunnis out of the way. The US supported the Ba'ath party because it was secular and socialist and thus antithetical to radical Islamists. It was friendly to Christians because Christians had founded the Ba'ath Party. Under Saddam Christians were protected and Christian missionaries like my second cousin were able to minister there without threat of death. Since Saddam is gone, they have all had to leave for their own safety. The current government is operating under Shari'ah Law and all the persecution that entails. The country that once had more Ph.Ds per capita than any other country in the world now has women with Ph.Ds in fear for their lives and afraid to leave their homes without being covered head to toe and accompanied by a male member of the family, and going to work is out of the question. Saddam was also the strongest counter to Iran in the region so we did Iran a big favor too. Go Bush!

Oh, and a comment on Fox broadcasting. A University of Virginia study on where people get their news and how well informed they were found that those who get their news from Fox were the least informed and most misinformed of television viewers. The other mainstream stations were slightly better, and those who got their news from Public Broadcasting were the best informed and least misinformed. When Jesse Helms launched his campaign to cut off all public funding to Public Broadcasting he got few backers as 75% of Republican members of congress said they depended upon it to keep them informed on the issues they were voting on.

When Fox owner, Rupert Murdock, received complaints that when he took over a newspaper he turned it into trash, responded that he was not in the business of informing people. So true and so consistent.

Speak2Truth

06-16-2009, 11:37 PM

Aside from what the Bush Admin SAID about things, let's look at the evidence.

We know that Saddam warned the US that if we "pressured" him he would send individual Arabs to attack inside the US.

We know that after we clobbered his military forces in the Gulf War, Iraq sent Ramzi Yousef and his buddy Yasin, with Iraqi passports, to the US. They orchestrated the first World Trade Center Bombing. Also, the Oklahoma City bombing in coordination with Terry Nichols.

Once Ramzi Yousef was nabbed, his uncle, who DID work with Al Qaeda as well, orchestrated the second World Trade Center attack. We know there was a terrorist training center just south of Baghdad where teams of four were trained, in the year prior to 9/11, to take over airliners. A guy who worked there told PBS the trainees were not Iraqi.

We know a Federal Court has already ruled there was sufficient evidence to show that Iraq was behind the 9/11 attack and Saddam's "Victory" billboard does support that notion.

But what of Al Qaeda working with Saddam? The 9/11 Commission already stated they had a cooperative working relationship. Saddam, by attacking Israel, won the confidence of Osama bin Laden. That was when their relationship changed. Saddam offered high-level training, financing and international operational support that Osama lacked.

Salman Pak / Al Salman
Salman Pak - Iraq Special Weapons Facilities (https://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/salman_pak.htm)

Satellite Photo - Salman Pak Airliner
Saddam's al Qaeda Connection (Salman Pak) (https://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1413167/posts)

Salman Pak, Iraq - interview with Sabah Khodada
Terrorists trained in hijacking tactics in year prior to 9/11
PBS - frontline: gunning for saddam: interviews: sabah khodada (https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/interviews/khodada.html)

BIN LADEN, ATEF INDICTED IN U.S. FEDERAL COURT FOR AFRICAN BOMBINGS - Iraq and Al Qaeda collaboration
News from the USIA Washington File (https://www.fas.org/irp/news/1998/11/98110403_nlt.html)

Saddam Hussein-al Qaeda: The Undisputed Links
Newsvine - Saddam Hussein-al Qaeda: The Undisputed Links (https://jfarchonis.newsvine.com/_news/2008/12/10/2197777-saddam-hussein-al-qaeda-the-undisputed-links)

Court Rules: Al Qaida, Iraq Linked
Court Rules: Al Qaida, Iraq Linked - CBS News (https://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/05/08/uttm/main552868.shtml)

Iraqi Documents Show al-Qaida Ties
Harmony documents and the IDA report show beyond any doubt that Saddam Hussein was willing to fund, train, and use Islamic terrorists, including groups affiliated with al-Qaida, to carry out his long-standing plans against the United States and U.S. allies in the region.
Newsmax.com - Iraqi Documents Show al-Qaida Ties (https://www.newsmax.com/timmerman/iraq_al_qaida_ties/2008/03/20/81851.html)

Clearly, the relationship between Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein changed once Saddam was at war against Israel and the United States.

It was friendly to Christians because Christians had founded the Ba'ath Party.

I'm not sure where you got that. My info shows that the Ba'ath Party was a spinoff of the Socialist NAZI party. Islamist/NAZI alliance goes back to Hitler's Islamist SS divisions in the Middle East, under the Mufti of Jerusalem.

Saddam was also the strongest counter to Iran in the region so we did Iran a big favor too. Go Bush!

Sorry, that is a misguided statement. Saddam started the war by sending his tanks into Saudi Arabia and Kuwait to seize control of Middle East oil. His Blitzkrieg was much like Hitler's. Bush did not start it - Saddam did long before Bush was President.

A University of Virginia study on where people get their news and how well informed they were found that those who get their news from Fox were the least informed and most misinformed of television viewers.

That's nice. I wonder how well informed the folks doing the study were?

Think about it. He who formulates the questions gets to play all sorts of games.

When Fox owner, Rupert Murdock, received complaints that when he took over a newspaper he turned it into trash, responded that he was not in the business of informing people. So true and so consistent.

I won't argue with that. Murdock runs Socialist newspapers in Australia. He created FOX to tap into an audience that was pissed off at the Communist News Network in the 1990s. I'm among the loudest voices complaining about what the folks at FOX are NOT allowed to say!

For example, even when the inset photo shows a huge "Fight for Communism" banner at the head of a May 1 illegal Mexican march, they are not allowed to say the 'C' word.

Zeno Swijtink

06-16-2009, 11:37 PM

I am properly chastised. I admit it - I got sucked into a major development project for a group in Santa Barbara and haven't made much time for my projects.

You are right. Feel free to slap me around every week until I get the darned thing up and running!

I HAVE, this week, found another person who is willing to work with me on videos. One problem I had is that I cannot run all aspects of production myself. It takes at least one other person. I may have that problem solved. I'll know tomorrow when I meet with him again.

And, folks, if you want a quick history lesson on Global Warming, do check out AMERICA SPEAK OUT (https://www.americaspeakout.com) and look at the short video on the home page. It's a starter, anyway.

To make us trust you, you need to build a track record of rich and reliable (as in "standing up to scrutiny") information, and of creative ideas worth pondering.

Speak2Truth

06-16-2009, 11:45 PM

To make us trust you, you need to build a track record of rich and reliable (as in "standing up to scrutiny") information, and of creative ideas worth pondering.

Okay, watch the short video and tell me if you think it stands up to scrutiny.

Let's start there.

I guarantee, at some point, I'll get a piece of information wrong. That is why I always try to do call-in TV shows and why I appreciate open forums for debate. I want to know if I've got something wrong and I want to see the information that will convince me.

Sometimes, folks give me new gems of knowledge and I appreciate it. I hope you do too.

Zeno Swijtink

06-16-2009, 11:53 PM

Okay, watch the short video and tell me if you think it stands up to scrutiny.

Let's start there.

I guarantee, at some point, I'll get a piece of information wrong. That is why I always try to do call-in TV shows and why I appreciate open forums for debate. I want to know if I've got something wrong and I want to see the information that will convince me.

Sometimes, folks give me new gems of knowledge and I appreciate it. I hope you do too.

I watched the video. But as with any visual material it's not clear what it asserts. Can you briefly summarize what assertions (and supporting evidence) this video makes?

Speak2Truth

06-17-2009, 12:16 AM

I watched the video. But as with any visual material it's not clear what it asserts. Can you briefly summarize what assertions (and supporting evidence) this video makes?

I'll do what I can here.

As we learned in Elementary School, the last Ice Age cycle ended about 18,000 years ago, relatively recently in human history. Humans had already migrated to North America, taking advantage of lower ocean levels as well as frozen ice routes. During that Ice Age, the permanent polar ice cap extended as far south as Kentucky and Turkey. Where we have built cities like New York and London the land was recently crushed under a mile of solid ice.

When the warming cycle started, melting back the ice and raising the oceans by 400 feet, billions of new acres of land were exposed for habitat. Presumably, the polar bears migrated from New Jersey to where they are hanging out now. ;-)

The warming cycle was drastic, as the sea level chart shows. Long before man built his first steam engine, the oceans rose 400 feet. Are we living in some sort of catastrophe right now? I ask because politicians tell us an ocean rise of 3 feet would be some sort of catastrophe.

Post-Glacial Sea Level Rise
File:Post-Glacial Sea Level.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png)

And we know what causes the warming and cooling cycles - and there's nothing we can do to stop it even if it were to our benefit to do so. Is it? Life loves a greenhouse, not a glacier.

We are well off today because of global warming. What we should dread is that it ends. We did not cause it and we cannot control it no matter how much of our money politicians seize at gunpoint.

Solar energy output drives earth temperature, except for volcanic interruptions
LASP: Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics (https://lasp.colorado.edu/science/solar_influence/index.htm)

Earth's eccentric orbit and tilt cause ice ages, warm periods.
Why do glaciations occur? (https://www.museum.state.il.us/exhibits/ice_ages/why_glaciations1.html)

Clues to End of the Last Ice Age - increased solar output warmed oceans, melting ice and releasing CO2
Clues to End of the Last Ice Age (https://www.usc.edu/uscnews/stories/14288.html)

Temperature Monitors Report Widescale Global Cooling
Scientists quoted in a past DailyTech article link the cooling to reduced solar activity
DailyTech - Temperature Monitors Report Widescale Global Cooling (https://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Worldwide+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm)

Crops under stress as temperatures fall
Our politicians haven't noticed that the problem may be that the world is not warming but cooling, observes Christopher Booker.
Crops under stress as temperatures fall - Telegraph (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5525933/Crops-under-stress-as-temperatures-fall.html)

phooph

06-17-2009, 12:27 AM

Your information is so out of alignment with reality that I wouldn't know where to start. Be that said, al Qaeda is a militant, fundamentalist Islamic group that considers anyone not of their brand of Islam to be a false Muslim and thus legitimate to kill along with infidels. Saddam Hussein's Ba'athist party was a secular socialist party founded in Syria in 1941 with the goal of establishing a pan Arabic, secular state, an anathema to al Qaeda and other fundamentalist Islamic sects who prefer an established state religion, namely their own brand of Islam. Saddam and other Ba'athists were targeted by al Qaeda for death and Saddam returned the favor keeping Iraq al Qaeda free until Gulf War II took him out of power. Al Qaeda then took advantage of the vacuum and chaos to move into Iraq. The Bushies spread a lot of propaganda attempting to link the two together but anyone familiar with mid east politics would know it was bogus. That's a very small percentage of the US population, however.

According to Brent Scowcroft and James Baker, (you do know who they are don't you?) the invasion of Iraq was proposed to W by Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz when they went to Texas and talked then governor Bush into running for president. They told him he would be a big hero if he could finish the job his father started and didn't finish, namely driving Saddam out of power. Bush was immature enough to fall for their game of showing up Dad, all they needed was an excuse. So despite the fact that Iraq had nothing whatsoever to do with 911 the Bushies couched their language in such a way as to convince Americans that Saddam had something to do with it without actually stating that he did. Very clever. I watched all those press conferences. Keeping Americans dumbed down so they can't tell the truth from a lie is the great success of the public education system and our spin doctors that pass for news reporters.

The 911 comission found no link between Saddam and al Qaeda.

Aside from what the Bush Admin SAID about things, let's look at the evidence.

We know that Saddam warned the US that if we "pressured" him he would send individual Arabs to attack inside the US.

We know that after we clobbered his military forces in the Gulf War, Iraq sent Ramzi Yousef and his buddy Yasin, with Iraqi passports, to the US. They orchestrated the first World Trade Center Bombing. Also, the Oklahoma City bombing in coordination with Terry Nichols.

Once Ramzi Yousef was nabbed, his uncle, who DID work with Al Qaeda as well, orchestrated the second World Trade Center attack. We know there was a terrorist training center just south of Baghdad where teams of four were trained, in the year prior to 9/11, to take over airliners. A guy who worked there told PBS the trainees were not Iraqi.

We know a Federal Court has already ruled there was sufficient evidence to show that Iraq was behind the 9/11 attack and Saddam's "Victory" billboard does support that notion.

But what of Al Qaeda working with Saddam? The 9/11 Commission already stated they had a cooperative working relationship. Saddam, by attacking Israel, won the confidence of Osama bin Laden. That was when their relationship changed. Saddam offered high-level training, financing and international operational support that Osama lacked.

Salman Pak / Al Salman
Salman Pak - Iraq Special Weapons Facilities (https://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/salman_pak.htm)

Satellite Photo - Salman Pak Airliner
Saddam's al Qaeda Connection (Salman Pak) (https://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1413167/posts)

Salman Pak, Iraq - interview with Sabah Khodada
Terrorists trained in hijacking tactics in year prior to 9/11
PBS - frontline: gunning for saddam: interviews: sabah khodada (https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/interviews/khodada.html)

BIN LADEN, ATEF INDICTED IN U.S. FEDERAL COURT FOR AFRICAN BOMBINGS - Iraq and Al Qaeda collaboration
News from the USIA Washington File (https://www.fas.org/irp/news/1998/11/98110403_nlt.html)

Saddam Hussein-al Qaeda: The Undisputed Links
Newsvine - Saddam Hussein-al Qaeda: The Undisputed Links (https://jfarchonis.newsvine.com/_news/2008/12/10/2197777-saddam-hussein-al-qaeda-the-undisputed-links)

Court Rules: Al Qaida, Iraq Linked
Court Rules: Al Qaida, Iraq Linked - CBS News (https://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/05/08/uttm/main552868.shtml)

Iraqi Documents Show al-Qaida Ties
Harmony documents and the IDA report show beyond any doubt that Saddam Hussein was willing to fund, train, and use Islamic terrorists, including groups affiliated with al-Qaida, to carry out his long-standing plans against the United States and U.S. allies in the region.
Newsmax.com - Iraqi Documents Show al-Qaida Ties (https://www.newsmax.com/timmerman/iraq_al_qaida_ties/2008/03/20/81851.html)

Clearly, the relationship between Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein changed once Saddam was at war against Israel and the United States.

I'm not sure where you got that. My info shows that the Ba'ath Party was a spinoff of the Socialist NAZI party. Islamist/NAZI alliance goes back to Hitler's Islamist SS divisions in the Middle East, under the Mufti of Jerusalem.

Sorry, that is a misguided statement. Saddam started the war by sending his tanks into Saudi Arabia and Kuwait to seize control of Middle East oil. His Blitzkrieg was much like Hitler's. Bush did not start it - Saddam did long before Bush was President.

That's nice. I wonder how well informed the folks doing the study were?

Think about it. He who formulates the questions gets to play all sorts of games.

I won't argue with that. Murdock runs Socialist newspapers in Australia. He created FOX to tap into an audience that was pissed off at the Communist News Network in the 1990s. I'm among the loudest voices complaining about what the folks at FOX are NOT allowed to say!

For example, even when the inset photo shows a huge "Fight for Communism" banner at the head of a May 1 illegal Mexican march, they are not allowed to say the 'C' word.

Zeno Swijtink

06-17-2009, 07:06 AM

The warming cycle was drastic, as the sea level chart shows. Long before man built his first steam engine, the oceans rose 400 feet. Are we living in some sort of catastrophe right now? I ask because politicians tell us an ocean rise of 3 feet would be some sort of catastrophe.

The difference is of course that at the time of the last period of warming - which happened slower and over a longer time - there were relatively few people living on Earth - estimates run from one to 10 million (Demography and Population Problems, by Rajendra K. Sharma, 2004, page 61) - and there were no valuable structures or important agricultural growing areas to be lost. At this moment there are 6,753,946,158 people on Earth, and counting (https://math.berkeley.edu/~galen/popclk.html).

Have a look at this article in the recent issue of Bay Nature (https://baynature.org/articles/jan-mar-2009/taking-the-heat/taking-the-heat) about how climate change is already happening for many critters in the Bay Area.

Braggi

06-17-2009, 07:08 AM

Your information is so out of alignment with reality that I wouldn't know where to start. ...
The 911 comission found no link between Saddam and al Qaeda.

Actually phooph, you summed things up quite well. The only statement I'd add to is that the "911 Omission" didn't do any substantiative investigation. They never investigated who did the deed. Their summary statement began with a foregone conclusion: that al Qaeda organized and carried out the attack and all other details flowed from there. How do we know that? We don't. According to the Omission, we know that al Qaeda operatives used al Qaeda money to pay travel expenses. OK. So who planned the attack and on whose orders? I don't believe these questions were answered because they were not asked.

It is pretty clear it wasn't Saddam who ordered the attack because he had no connection with al Qaeda except as a target himself. Beyond that it's unclear who actually did it.

-Jeff

Speak2Truth

06-17-2009, 10:12 AM

Your information is so out of alignment with reality

I believe every bit of it can be backed, though it does not agree with what the mass media have been telling people.

Of course, they studiously avoided the roles of Ramzi Yousef and Terry Nichols in the Oklahoma City bombing as well. But the History Channel was happy to explain it. The problem with mainstream news is that they are telling a fairy tale and have no concern with facts whatsoever.

Be that said, al Qaeda is a militant, fundamentalist Islamic group that considers anyone not of their brand of Islam to be a false Muslim and thus legitimate to kill along with infidels.Yet they work cooperatively with various Islamist groups around the world. They backed the Albanian Muslims taking over Kosovo, they work with the Janjiweed in the final stages of Jihad in Sudan, they went to Somalia to attack American forces, they recruit Americans like Jose Padilla... I don't think that assertion stands up to the facts. They may not mind if one of their bombs kills other Muslims, however.

Saddam Hussein's Ba'athist party was a secular socialist party founded in Syria in 1941 with the goal of establishing a pan Arabic, secular state, an anathema to al Qaeda and other fundamentalist Islamic sectsHere's a history of the Socialist origins of the Ba'ath party. I think we're in agreement on that part.

Saddam's Brain (https://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/837uvzrs.asp)

Al Qaeda seems willing to play "The enemy of my enemy is my friend, for now." I agree with you about their ultimate agenda, a new Caliphate.

Saddam did not form a close relationship with them but there are plenty of reports of collaboration between them. Saddam also worked with other Islamic groups and directly paid families of suicide bombers. He went to extremes to portray himself as the Islamic strongman throughout the 1990s, even having portraits of himself done in traditional Arabic garb on a white horse to make himself an Islamic icon.

Connect the Dots . . . Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden
https://www.archive-news.net/Articles/SH040923.html

Osama-Saddam links 9-11 commission missed (https://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39025)

Saddam attempted to bribe Scott Ritter - info in same file about Osama's envoy visit to Baghdad
https://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1067727/posts (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/05/04/writt04.xml)

In 1999, international news reports were full of links between Saddam and Osama bin Laden
https://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/947627/posts (https://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2003/7/16/123325)

BTW - I'm having a real problem with information links going dead. Damned frustrating. Original sources no longer work and I have to post their titles in Google to find other sources that talk about them.

And, while the World Trade center attacks (both of them) were connected to Al Qaeda, their execution involved Iraqis as well - the first planned by an Iraqi intelligence agent named Ramzi Yousef and his buddy Yasin who both came to the US with Iraqi passports. Saddam was directly cooperating with Al Qaeda in operations on US soil to kill Americans - JUST AS HE SAID HE WOULD.

That is a key point. Saddam stated to a US Ambassador that this would be done if we "pressured" him. Right after the Gulf War, the attacks on US soil began, just as Saddam said. And Iraqi government agents were demonstrably involved as well as Al Qaeda. Those are indisputable facts.

And, they were facts the "busies" did not talk about, nor did the media, nor did Clinton. They didn't say anything about it - instead feeding us the LEGAL reasons for taking down Saddam's regime: His defiance of the UN disarmament mandates.

Notice how the attacks ended when Bush took down Saddam?

Before you poohpooh the WMD bit, bear in mind we caught him red-handed. I don't care what is said in the mass media - I care about what is reported as found in Iraq by the folks finding and reviewing the evidence.

Hundreds of WMDs discovered in Iraq
Bombshell report notes 500 chemical weapons including sarin, mustard gas, more to be found
Hundreds of WMDs discovered in Iraq (https://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50746)

CIA Statement on Recently Acquired Iraqi Centrifuge Equipment
CIA Statement on Recently Acquired Iraqi Centrifuge Equipment (https://www.fas.org/irp/news/2003/06/cia062603.html)

Nuke program parts unearthed in Baghdad back yard
CNN.com - Nuke program parts unearthed in Baghdad back yard - Jun. 27, 2003 (https://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/06/26/sprj.irq.centrifuge/index.html)

Hundreds of Chemical Weapons Found in Iraq Since 2003, U.S. Intelligence Report Says
NTI: Global Security Newswire - Hundreds of Chemical Weapons Found in Iraq Since 2003, U.S. Intelligence Report Says (https://www.globalsecuritynewswire.org/gsn/GSN_20060622_4F54DFFC.php)

According to Brent Scowcroft and James Baker, (you do know who they are don't you?) the invasion of Iraq was proposed to W by Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz when they went to Texas and talked then governor Bush into running for president.Let's not forget - Al Gore also campaigned on the promise to finish the job in Iraq. They both ran for President at a time when:

1) Official US policy towards Iraq was forceful destruction of Saddam's regime and its replacement with a democratically elected government (Iraq Liberation Act, 1998).

2) After Clinton's miserable failure to accomplish the goals of his own Liberation Act, and his failed bombing campaign against Iraq, Saddam openly defied the disarmament mandates, refused to allow the UN inspectors back in, declared victory over the US and UN, inspiring North Korea, Libya, Iran and others to new boldness as well.

That's why both Gore and Bush promised to finish the job. Obviously, they would plan ahead to get it done. It was NOT a response to 9/11. Let's not forget - Saddam started the war, was offered a temporary cease-fire and never obeyed the terms of the cease-fire. So, Bill Clinton, after bombing Iraq on occasion throughout the 1990s to try and get Saddam to obey, finally called off the cease-fire in 1998. The war was back on and with very good reason.

I say it is you who are the victim of spin doctors. You seem to forget what-all happened since Saddam sent his tanks to conquer Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and lobbed missiles into Israel.

And, the indictments against Bin Laden found something that the reporters happily ignored:

Al Qaeda also forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in the Sudan and with the government of Iran and its associated terrorist group Hezballah for the purpose of working together against their perceived common enemies in the West, particularly the United States. In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.

Al Qaeda was clearly happy to make alliances that were not specifically their own brand of Islam.

Speak2Truth

06-17-2009, 10:45 AM

The difference is of course that at the time of the last period of warming - which happened slower and over a longer time - there were relatively few people living on Earth

If you look at the chart of sea level rise I posted, you'll notice that this particular warming cycle, starting about 18,000 years ago, was quite drastic. It has nearly leveled off now and is progressing more slowly.

Post-Glacial Sea Level Rise
File:Post-Glacial Sea Level.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png)

Nobody familiar with recent human history is arguing that warming does not occur. Just a couple thousand years ago, much of the Middle East was grassland. Pictures on temples in Egypt and other countries show animals that cannot possibly survive in the wild there now. And just a few thousand years ago, there was no San Francisco bay - it was a river running into the ocean. But the oceans continued to rise, just as they are now. That river valley filled in slowly, became a bay, and it continues to change. We should expect that. Change is normal on this planet. We would be fools to pretend otherwise.

The problem we face is that humans constructed cities at the water's edge in their ignorance of this ongoing warming process. Big mistake. We cannot stop the Solar System from doing what it does naturally. We did not cause it, either. The best we can do is figure out how we will adjust to the ongoing changes.

Al Gore's greatest deception is to convince people the Earth was stable over the past few thousand years then suddenly started warming as a response to human industry. We can easily prove him a liar.

From about 1945 to about 1980, the Earth went into a frightening cooling spell. The polar ice caps expanded by 15% by 1975 and Global Cooling was the big fear. Dire predictions of a new Ice Age flooded the news channels (I remember them). The CIA did studies on the effects of global cooling and the droughts, starvation and global disruption that were already happening (I have a book published at that time containing CIA report excerpts).

All this happened despite our pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. We could not cause warming if we wanted to.

Al Gore is one of the Big Liars of this century.

Hotspring 44

06-21-2009, 12:56 PM

Speak2Truth

06-22-2009, 11:15 AM

lynn

10-15-2009, 09:09 AM

Stephen Schneider is such a disingenuous jerk!...

Inconvenient Censorship: Stanford U. Bans Skeptical Climate Film from Airing Interview with Global Warming Prof. Stephen Schneider -- 'You are prohibited!'

https://www.climatedepot.com/a/3212/Inconvenient-Censorship-Stanford-U-Bans-Skeptical-Climate-Film-from-Airing-Interview-with-Global-Warming-Prof-Stephen-Schneider--You-are-prohibited

==============================================

Speak2truth...Appreciate your post above...Thanks...

Clancy

10-15-2009, 09:54 AM

Good. It would be just as appalling if Stanford started showing films 'skeptical' of evolution or the holocaust, and there's plenty of that whacko idiocy out there too.

You are free to ignore science, thankfully, academia, as yet, is not.

...Stanford U. Bans Skeptical Climate Film from Airing Interview with Global Warming Prof. Stephen Schneider -- 'You are prohibited!'

Inconvenient Censorship: Stanford U. Bans Skeptical Climate Film from Airing Interview with Global Warming Prof. Stephen Schneider -- 'You are prohibited!' | Climate Depot (https://www.climatedepot.com/a/3212/Inconvenient-Censorship-Stanford-U-Bans-Skeptical-Climate-Film-from-Airing-Interview-with-Global-Warming-Prof-Stephen-Schneider--You-are-prohibited)

==============================================

Speak2truth...Appreciate your post above...Thanks...

lynn

10-15-2009, 11:39 AM

No, Clancy....It is not good to be disingenuous...

And I don't 'ignore' science either...So, quit assuming things about me you know nothing about...You seem to have a tendency for that...Quit it...

Good. It would be just as appalling if Stanford started showing films 'skeptical' of evolution or the holocaust, and there's plenty of that whacko idiocy out there too.

You are free to ignore science, thankfully, academia, as yet, is not.

Clancy

10-15-2009, 11:59 AM

It's only your opinion that he's being disingenuous, it looks like intellectual integrity to me. Scientific consensus changes as new information comes to light, why is that so hard for some people to understand?

At one time, the best astronomers thought the sun orbited the earth, but it would be silly (and disingenuous) to try to use that fact to support the erroneous belief that the earth is the center of the solar system.

No, Clancy....It is not good to be disingenuous...

And I don't 'ignore' science either...So, quit assuming things about me you know nothing about...You seem to have a tendency for that...Quit it...

lynn

10-19-2009, 12:57 AM

Clancy...

Ah yes,

There’s your condescending tone again…Just can’t give it up can ya’…

It’s only your opinion…That he’s not being disingenuous…
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
Of course scientific theory changes…We are suppose to question, and learn…So, there shouldn’t be a need to 'ban' what he thought before…
<o:p></o:p>
Now, if you want to keep an attitude of condescension, and criticism that some people ‘ignore’ science…You can write to the scientists who ‘ignore’ science (as you see it)...
<o:p></o:p>
...“However, his casual denigration of each of the websites... represents a failure to engage in constructive scientific debate.“...<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
…”I would be glad to debate Dr. Schneider (or any of the other individuals who are listed). <o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
I also challenge them to refute in the professional literature (and in a debate) the numerous peer reviewed articles and national (e.g. see) and international climate assessments (e.g. see) that present scientific evidence that conflicts with the narrow perspective on climate science that Steve Schneider is representing.”…
<o:p></o:p>
https://climatesci.org/2009/05/24/comments-on-the-global-warming-debates-stephen-schneider-in-the-may-24-2009-issue-of-the-examinercom-by-thomas-fuller/ (https://climatesci.org/2009/05/24/comments-on-the-global-warming-debates-stephen-schneider-in-the-may-24-2009-issue-of-the-examinercom-by-thomas-fuller/)

Clancy

10-19-2009, 04:06 AM

Skeptical Climate...would be glad to debate Dr. Schneider...

Thankfully, Stanford University doesn't provide a podium for oil industry backed RW whackos to "debate" evolution either.

Zeno Swijtink

10-19-2009, 09:17 AM

A detailed response to some of the remarks of Pielke Sr can be found at RealClimate of July 1st of this year.

RealClimate: More bubkes (https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/07/more-bubkes/)

***

Clancy...

Ah yes,

There’s your condescending tone again…Just can’t give it up can ya’…

It’s only your opinion…That he’s not being disingenuous…
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
Of course scientific theory changes…We are suppose to question, and learn…So, there shouldn’t be a need to 'ban' what he thought before…
<o:p></o:p>
Now, if you want to keep an attitude of condescension, and criticism that some people ‘ignore’ science…You can write to the scientists who ‘ignore’ science (as you see it)...
<o:p></o:p>
...“However, his casual denigration of each of the websites... represents a failure to engage in constructive scientific debate.“...<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
…”I would be glad to debate Dr. Schneider (or any of the other individuals who are listed). <o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
I also challenge them to refute in the professional literature (and in a debate) the numerous peer reviewed articles and national (e.g. see) and international climate assessments (e.g. see) that present scientific evidence that conflicts with the narrow perspective on climate science that Steve Schneider is representing.”…
<o:p></o:p>
https://climatesci.org/2009/05/24/comments-on-the-global-warming-debates-stephen-schneider-in-the-may-24-2009-issue-of-the-examinercom-by-thomas-fuller/ (https://climatesci.org/2009/05/24/comments-on-the-global-warming-debates-stephen-schneider-in-the-may-24-2009-issue-of-the-examinercom-by-thomas-fuller/)

lynn

10-21-2009, 12:58 PM

Clancy....

Not every scientist, or science teacher, or science knowledgable person that is a 'questioner', or 'skeptic' about a doomsday scenario is a 'rw' backed by the oil industry...or just an 'rw' period...

Thankfully, Stanford University doesn't provide a podium for oil industry backed RW whackos to "debate" evolution either.

Clancy

10-21-2009, 01:10 PM

We're not talking about every scientist, science teacher or knowledgable person.

We're talking about your source, an intellectual weasel who has been thoroughly discredited. Try reading this, it's very interesting...
RealClimate: More bubkes (https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/07/more-bubkes/)

Now, do you have enough integrity to change your position?

Clancy....

Not every scientist, or science teacher, or science knowledgable person that is a 'questioner', or 'skeptic' about a doomsday scenario is a 'rw' backed by the oil industry...or just an 'rw' period...

Speak2Truth

10-29-2009, 04:56 PM

Speaking of cherry-picking time periods, you might find this enlightening...

https://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/1/1d/Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png

And what of the reputability of the folks pushing the notion that humans are the cause of this ocean rise - in order to justify seizing our assets and redistributing our wealth to people in other nations?

Reputation is built by those who "talk about" someone. A man can be completely honest and do good work but have an awful reputation merely because he is constantly bad-mouthed, like the recent President who made great progress moving our nation to carbon-free energy. Or, a man can be sleazy and dishonest yet have a great reputation because, in the public arena, he is talked up.

Let's not pretend "reputation" means anything in the debate over whether to pillage America's assets through carbon cap and trade. Let's stick with the facts and a healthy dose of self-interest. Lord knows, most of the rest of the world is eager to get a cut of the loot seized from the US and that is NOT in our best interests.

If only the truth were the basis for a man's reputation...

James Hansen’s Former NASA Supervisor Declares Himself a Skeptic
Says Hansen ‘Embarrassed NASA’

.: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page :. (https://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=1A5E6E32-802A-23AD-40ED-ECD53CD3D320)

Hotspring 44

10-29-2009, 07:21 PM

geomancer

11-13-2009, 07:09 AM

Record High Temperatures Far Outpace Record Lows Across US (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091112121611.htm)

Record High Temperatures Far Outpace Record Lows Across US

ScienceDaily (Nov. 13, 2009) — Spurred by a warming climate, daily record high temperatures occurred twice as often as record lows over the last decade across the continental United States, new research shows. The ratio of record highs to lows is likely to increase dramatically in coming decades if emissions of greenhouse gases continue to climb.

"Climate change is making itself felt in terms of day-to-day weather in the United States," says Gerald Meehl, the lead author and a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). "The ways these records are being broken show how our climate is already shifting."

The study, by authors at NCAR, Climate Central, The Weather Channel, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), has been accepted for publication in Geophysical Research Letters. It was funded by the National Science Foundation, NCAR's sponsor, the Department of Energy, and Climate Central.

If temperatures were not warming, the number of record daily highs and lows being set each year would be approximately even. Instead, for the period from January 1, 2000, to September 30, 2009, the continental United States set 291,237 record highs and 142,420 record lows, as the country experienced unusually mild winter weather and intense summer heat waves.

A record daily high means that temperatures were warmer on a given day than on that same date throughout a weather station's history. The authors used a quality control process to ensure the reliability of data from thousands of weather stations across the country, while looking at data over the past six decades to capture longer-term trends.

This decade's warming was more pronounced in the western United States, where the ratio was more than two to one, than in the eastern United States, where the ratio was about one-and-a-half to one.

The study also found that the two-to-one ratio across the country as a whole could be attributed more to a comparatively small number of record lows than to a large number of record highs. This indicates that much of the nation's warming is occurring at night, when temperatures are dipping less often to record lows. This finding is consistent with years of climate model research showing that higher overnight lows should be expected with climate change.

More records ahead

In addition to surveying actual temperatures in recent decades, Meehl and his co-authors turned to a sophisticated computer model of global climate to determine how record high and low temperatures are likely to change during the course of this century.

The modeling results indicate that if nations continue to increase their emissions of greenhouse gases in a "business as usual" scenario, the U.S. ratio of daily record high to record low temperatures would increase to about 20-to-1 by mid-century and 50-to-1 by 2100. The mid-century ratio could be much higher if emissions rose at an even greater pace, or it could be about 8-to-1 if emissions were reduced significantly, the model showed.

The authors caution that such predictions are, by their nature, inexact. Climate models are not designed to capture record daily highs and lows with precision, and it remains impossible to know future human actions that will determine the level of future greenhouse gas emissions. The model used for the study, the NCAR-based Community Climate System Model, correctly captured the trend toward warmer average temperatures and the greater warming in the West, but overstated the ratio of record highs to record lows in recent years.

However, the model results are important because they show that, in all likely scenarios of future greenhouse gas emissions, record daily highs should increasingly outpace record lows over time.

"If the climate weren't changing, you would expect the number of temperature records to diminish significantly over time," says Claudia Tebaldi, a statistician with Climate Central who is one of the paper's co-authors. "As you measure the high and low daily temperatures each year, it normally becomes more difficult to break a record after a number of years. But as the average temperatures continue to rise this century, we will keep setting more record highs."

An expanding ratio

The study team focused on weather stations that have been operating since 1950. They found that the ratio of record daily high to record daily low temperatures slightly exceeded one to one in the 1950s, dipped below that level in the 1960s and 1970s, and has risen since the 1980s. The results reflect changes in U.S. average temperatures, which rose in the 1950s, stabilized in the 1960s, and then began a warming trend in the late 1970s.

Even in the first nine months of this year, when the United States cooled somewhat after a string of unusually warm years, the ratio of record daily high to record daily low temperatures was more than three to two.

Despite the increasing number of record highs, there will still be occasional periods of record cold, Meehl notes.

"One of the messages of this study is that you still get cold days," Meehl says. "Winter still comes. Even in a much warmer climate, we're setting record low minimum temperatures on a few days each year. But the odds are shifting so there's a much better chance of daily record highs instead of lows."

Millions of readings from weather stations across the country

The study team analyzed several million daily high and low temperature readings taken over the span of six decades at about 1,800 weather stations across the country, thereby ensuring ample data for statistically significant results. The readings, collected at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Climatic Data Center, undergo a quality control process at the data center that looks for such potential problems as missing data as well as inconsistent readings caused by changes in thermometers, station locations, or other factors.

Meehl and his colleagues then used temperature simulations from the Community Climate System Model to compute daily record highs and lows under current and future atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases.

Journal reference:

Gerald A. Meehl, Claudia Tebaldi, Guy Walton, David Easterling, and Larry McDaniel. The relative increase of record high maximum temperatures compared to record low minimum temperatures in the U.S.. Geophysical Research Letters, (in press)
Adapted from materials provided by National Center for Atmospheric Research/University Corporation for Atmospheric Research.

National Center for Atmospheric Research/University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (2009, November 13). Record High Temperatures Far Outpace Record Lows Across US. ScienceDaily. Retrieved November 13, 2009, from Science Daily: News & Articles in Science, Health, Environment & Technology (https://www.sciencedaily.com) /releases/2009/11/091112121611.htm

Speak2Truth

11-14-2009, 01:31 PM

Essentially, what it is saying, is that the COOLING trend of about 1950 to 1970 has finally reversed. That is why it is in the last ten years that the highs outnumbered the lows. One has to pick and choose small periods of time to make any statement other than...

The Earth has been warming, on average, for the past 18000 years. Why should we expect anything different?

What has changed is that today's scammers are no longer claiming it is necessary to rip the living heart out of a human sacrifice every morning to ensure the sun will rise again. Today, they insist that they MUST seize our cash to "save the Earth".

This game is nothing new.

They are your enemies. Professional robbers who hide behind a wall of bureaucracy and seize more of your stuff than any common street thug could.

geomancer

11-17-2009, 10:21 PM

This link goes to a cool TED talk showing time lapse videos of very rapid glacial retreat at locations in Alaska, Greenland and Iceland. The lecture is interesting, but if you only want to the videos, they start about half way along in the lecture.

James Balog: Time-lapse proof of extreme ice loss | Video on TED.com (https://www.ted.com/talks/james_balog_time_lapse_proof_of_extreme_ice_loss.html)

Braggi

11-18-2009, 07:16 AM

This link goes to a cool TED talk showing time lapse videos of very rapid glacial retreat at locations in Alaska, Greenland and Iceland. ...

It's really amazing how far Al Gore will go in support of his agenda. I still haven't figured out exactly how he's making those glaciers melt. He's such a phony. He's probably up there with a magnifying glass.

-Jeff