Global warming 'scientists' busted?

What the media are not saying
User avatar
BASEL
Site Administrator
Posts: 1328
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 12:24 am
Location: dark side of the moon
Contact:

Global warming 'scientists' busted?

Post by BASEL » Mon Nov 17, 2008 1:42 pm

Default Global warming 'scientists' busted? :)
This is fairly good evidence of some nasty 'fiddling' with regards to global temperature statistics.

From http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m.../16/do1610.xml

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.

So what explained the anomaly? GISS's computerised temperature maps seemed to show readings across a large part of Russia had been up to 10 degrees higher than normal. But when expert readers of the two leading warming-sceptic blogs, Watts Up With That and Climate Audit, began detailed analysis of the GISS data they made an astonishing discovery. The reason for the freak figures was that scores of temperature records from Russia and elsewhere were not based on October readings at all. Figures from the previous month had simply been carried over and repeated two months running.

The error was so glaring that when it was reported on the two blogs - run by the US meteorologist Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre, the Canadian computer analyst who won fame for his expert debunking of the notorious "hockey stick" graph - GISS began hastily revising its figures. This only made the confusion worse because, to compensate for the lowered temperatures in Russia, GISS claimed to have discovered a new "hotspot" in the Arctic - in a month when satellite images were showing Arctic sea-ice recovering so fast from its summer melt that three weeks ago it was 30 per cent more extensive than at the same time last year.

A GISS spokesman lamely explained that the reason for the error in the Russian figures was that they were obtained from another body, and that GISS did not have resources to exercise proper quality control over the data it was supplied with. This is an astonishing admission: the figures published by Dr Hansen's institute are not only one of the four data sets that the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) relies on to promote its case for global warming, but they are the most widely quoted, since they consistently show higher temperatures than the others.

If there is one scientist more responsible than any other for the alarm over global warming it is Dr Hansen, who set the whole scare in train back in 1988 with his testimony to a US Senate committee chaired by Al Gore. Again and again, Dr Hansen has been to the fore in making extreme claims over the dangers of climate change. (He was recently in the news here for supporting the Greenpeace activists acquitted of criminally damaging a coal-fired power station in Kent, on the grounds that the harm done to the planet by a new power station would far outweigh any damage they had done themselves.)

Yet last week's latest episode is far from the first time Dr Hansen's methodology has been called in question. In 2007 he was forced by Mr Watts and Mr McIntyre to revise his published figures for US surface temperatures, to show that the hottest decade of the 20th century was not the 1990s, as he had claimed, but the 1930s.

Another of his close allies is Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC, who recently startled a university audience in Australia by claiming that global temperatures have recently been rising "very much faster" than ever, in front of a graph showing them rising sharply in the past decade. In fact, as many of his audience were aware, they have not been rising in recent years and since 2007 have dropped.

Dr Pachauri, a former railway engineer with no qualifications in climate science, may believe what Dr Hansen tells him. But whether, on the basis of such evidence, it is wise for the world's governments to embark on some of the most costly economic measures ever proposed, to remedy a problem which may actually not exist, is a question which should give us all pause for thought.
To resist the influence of others, knowledge of one's self is most important.

Draw from your past....... but don't let your past draw from you

Yama, The world is changed. I feel it in the water. I feel it in the earth. I smell it in the air. Much that once was..... is lost. For none now live who remember it.

For all your Computer needs www.btlogic.co.uk

User avatar
BASEL
Site Administrator
Posts: 1328
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 12:24 am
Location: dark side of the moon
Contact:

Post by BASEL » Fri Jun 12, 2009 7:28 pm

NASA Study Acknowledges Solar Cycle, Not Man, Responsible for Past Warming



http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=15310

Image

Image

Quote:
Past studies have shown that sunspot numbers correspond to warming or cooling trends. The twentieth century has featured heightened activity, indicating a warming trend. (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

Solar activity has shown a major spike in the twentieth century, corresponding to global warming. This cyclic variation was acknowledged by a recent NASA study, which reviewed a great deal of past climate data. (Source: Wikimedia Commons)Report indicates solar cycle has been impacting Earth since the Industrial Revolution


Some researchers believe that the solar cycle influences global climate changes. They attribute recent warming trends to cyclic variation. Skeptics, though, argue that there's little hard evidence of a solar hand in recent climate changes.

Now, a new research report from a surprising source may help to lay this skepticism to rest. A study from NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland looking at climate data over the past century has concluded that solar variation has made a significant impact on the Earth's climate. The report concludes that evidence for climate changes based on solar radiation can be traced back as far as the Industrial Revolution.

Past research has shown that the sun goes through eleven year cycles. At the cycle's peak, solar activity occurring near sunspots is particularly intense, basking the Earth in solar heat. According to Robert Cahalan, a climatologist at the Goddard Space Flight Center, "Right now, we are in between major ice ages, in a period that has been called the Holocene."

Thomas Woods, solar scientist at the University of Colorado in Boulder concludes, "The fluctuations in the solar cycle impacts Earth's global temperature by about 0.1 degree Celsius, slightly hotter during solar maximum and cooler during solar minimum. The sun is currently at its minimum, and the next solar maximum is expected in 2012."

According to the study, during periods of solar quiet, 1,361 watts per square meter of solar energy reaches Earth's outermost atmosphere. Periods of more intense activity brought 1.4 watts per square meter (0.1 percent) more energy.

While the NASA study acknowledged the sun's influence on warming and cooling patterns, it then went badly off the tracks. Ignoring its own evidence, it returned to an argument that man had replaced the sun as the cause current warming patterns. Like many studies, this conclusion was based less on hard data and more on questionable correlations and inaccurate modeling techniques.

The inconvertible fact, here is that even NASA's own study acknowledges that solar variation has caused climate change in the past. And even the study's members, mostly ardent supports of AGW theory, acknowledge that the sun may play a significant role in future climate changes.
To resist the influence of others, knowledge of one's self is most important.

Draw from your past....... but don't let your past draw from you

Yama, The world is changed. I feel it in the water. I feel it in the earth. I smell it in the air. Much that once was..... is lost. For none now live who remember it.

For all your Computer needs www.btlogic.co.uk

User avatar
Rossco
Roving Reporter
Posts: 452
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 1:21 pm
Location: Newtownards

Post by Rossco » Sat Jun 13, 2009 1:15 am

good...it's a load of auld Blow it out ur arse
Well you may throw your rock and hide your hand
Workin' in the dark against your fellow man
But as sure as God made black and white
What's down in the dark will be brought to the light

User avatar
BASEL
Site Administrator
Posts: 1328
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 12:24 am
Location: dark side of the moon
Contact:

Post by BASEL » Sun Jul 05, 2009 8:31 pm

[align=center]<object width="600" height="400"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/kU_AZ--tg7Y&hl ... ram><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/kU_AZ--tg7Y&hl ... 0&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="600" height="400"></embed></object>[/align]
To resist the influence of others, knowledge of one's self is most important.

Draw from your past....... but don't let your past draw from you

Yama, The world is changed. I feel it in the water. I feel it in the earth. I smell it in the air. Much that once was..... is lost. For none now live who remember it.

For all your Computer needs www.btlogic.co.uk

User avatar
BASEL
Site Administrator
Posts: 1328
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 12:24 am
Location: dark side of the moon
Contact:

Post by BASEL » Tue Jul 14, 2009 11:23 pm

The moves now being made by the world's political establishment to lock us into December's Copenhagen treaty to halt global warming are as alarming as anything that has happened in our lifetimes. Last week in Italy, the various branches of our emerging world government, G8 and G20, agreed in principle that the world must by 2050 cut its CO2 emissions in half. Britain and the US are already committed to cutting their use of fossil fuels by more than 80 per cent. Short of an unimaginable technological revolution, this could only be achieved by closing down virtually all our economic activity: no electricity, no transport, no industry. All this is being egged on by a gigantic publicity machine, by the UN, by serried ranks of government-funded scientists, by cheerleaders such as Al Gore, last week comparing the fight against global warming to that against Hitler's Nazis, and by politicians who have no idea what they are setting in train.

What makes this even odder is that the runaway warming predicted by their computer models simply isn't happening. Last week one of the four official sources of temperature measurement, compiled from satellite data by the University of Huntsville, Alabama, showed that temperatures have now fallen to their average level since satellite data began 30 years ago.


Faced with a "consensus" view which looks increasingly implausible, a fast-growing body of reputable scientists from many countries has been coming up with a ''counter-consensus'', which holds that their fellow scientists have been looking in wholly the wrong direction to explain what is happening to the world's climate. The two factors which most plausibly explain what temperatures are actually doing are fluctuations in the radiation of the sun and the related shifting of ocean currents.

Two episodes highlight the establishment's alarm at the growing influence of this ''counter consensus''. In March, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which has a key role in President Obama's plans to curb CO2 emissions, asked one of its senior policy analysts, Alan Carlin, to report on the science used to justify its policy. His 90-page paper recommended that the EPA carry out an independent review of the science, because the CO2 theory was looking indefensible, while the "counter consensus'' view – solar radiation and ocean currents – seemed to fit the data much better. Provoking a considerable stir, Carlin's report was stopped dead, on the grounds that it was too late to raise objections to what was now the EPA's official policy.

Meanwhile a remarkable drama has been unfolding in Australia, where the new Labor government has belatedly joined the "consensus'' bandwagon by introducing a bill for an emissions-curbing "cap and trade'' scheme, which would devastate Australia's economy, it being 80 per cent dependent on coal. The bill still has to pass the Senate, which is so precisely divided that the decisive vote next month may be cast by an independent Senator, Stephen Fielding. So crucial is his vote that the climate change minister, Penny Wong, agreed to see him with his four advisers, all leading Australian scientists.

Fielding put to the minister three questions. How, since temperatures have been dropping, can CO2 be blamed for them rising? What, if CO2 was the cause of recent warming, was the cause of temperatures rising higher in the past? Why, since the official computer models have been proved wrong, should we rely on them for future projections?

The written answers produced by the minister's own scientific advisers proved so woolly and full of elementary errors that Fielding's team have now published a 50-page, fully-referenced "Due Diligence'' paper tearing them apart. In light of the inadequacy of the Government's reply, the Senator has announced that he will be voting against the bill.

The wider significance of this episode is that it is the first time a Western government has allowed itself to be drawn into debating the science behind the global warming scare with expert scientists representing the "counter consensus" – and the "consensus" lost hands down.

We still have a long way to go before that Copenhagen treaty is agreed in December, and with China, India and 128 other countries still demanding trillions of dollars as the price of their co-operation, the prospect of anything but a hopelessly fudged agreement looks slim. But even a compromise could inflict devastating damage on our own economic future – all for a theory now shot so full of holes that its supporters are having to suppress free speech to defend it.

Flying in the face of reason

Even now it is not widely appreciated that in 2003 the power to regulate air safety across the EU was taken over by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). Several times I reported evidence that this new EU body in its shiny headquarters in Cologne would be too weak, incompetent and bureaucratic to do the job properly. Since then one of many problems reported to EASA has been a serious fault in the speed probes of some Airbus airliners, which can cause the automatic piloting system unexpectedly to shut down. EASA did nothing to ensure that the fault was corrected.

Last month, when Air France’s Airbus flight 447 plunged into the Atlantic, killing everyone on board, this fault was high on the list as a possible cause. So far, apart from hinting at 'pilot error’, the authorities have come up with no explanation. But last week Air France pilots demonstrated in Paris, writing a letter to EASA and its French subordinate agency, protesting that 'appropriate measures from either agency’, forcing the manufacturers to make the necessary changes, 'would have helped prevent the sequence of events that led to the loss of control of the aircraft’. The real problem with handing over to the EU the power to govern Europe is simply that it doesn’t work.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/colu ... t-lie.html
To resist the influence of others, knowledge of one's self is most important.

Draw from your past....... but don't let your past draw from you

Yama, The world is changed. I feel it in the water. I feel it in the earth. I smell it in the air. Much that once was..... is lost. For none now live who remember it.

For all your Computer needs www.btlogic.co.uk

User avatar
BASEL
Site Administrator
Posts: 1328
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 12:24 am
Location: dark side of the moon
Contact:

Post by BASEL » Mon Aug 03, 2009 11:45 pm

http://www.newswithviews.com/Morano/marc104.htm


World’s Largest Science Group Rejecting Man-made Climate Fears

Marc Morano
NewsWithViews
August 1, 2009

An outpouring of skeptical scientists who are members of the American Chemical Society (ACS) are revolting against the group’s editor-in-chief — with some demanding he be removed — after an editorial appeared claiming “the science of anthropogenic climate change is becoming increasingly well established.�

The editorial claimed the “consensus� view was growing “increasingly difficult to challenge, despite the efforts of diehard climate-change deniers.� The editor now admits he is “startled� by the negative reaction from the group’s scientific members. The American Chemical Society bills itself as the “world’s largest scientific society.�

The June 22, 2009 editorial in Chemical and Engineering News by editor in chief Rudy Baum, is facing widespread blowback and condemnation from American Chemical Society member scientists. Baum concluded his editorial by stating that “deniers� are attempting to “derail meaningful efforts to respond to global climate change.�

Dozens of letters were published on July 27, 2009 castigating Baum, with some scientists calling for his replacement as editor-in-chief.

The editorial was met with a swift, passionate and scientific rebuke from Baum’s colleagues. Virtually all of the letters published on July 27 in castigated Baum’s climate science views. Scientists rebuked Baum’s use of the word “deniers� because of the terms “association with Holocaust deniers.� In addition, the scientists called Baum’s editorial: “disgusting�; “a disgrace�; “filled with misinformation�; “unworthy of a scientific periodical� and “pap.�

One outraged ACS member wrote to Baum: "When all is said and done, and you and your kind are proven wrong (again), you will have moved on to be an unthinking urn for another rat pleading catastrophe. You will be removed. I promise."

Baum 'startled' by scientists reaction

Baum wrote on July 27, that he was "startled" and "surprised" by the "contempt" and "vehemence" of the ACS scientists to his view of the global warming "consensus."

"Some of the letters I received are not fit to print. Many of the letters we have printed are, I think it is fair to say, outraged by my position on global warming," Baum wrote.

Selected Excerpts of Skeptical Scientists:

“I think it's time to find a new editor,� ACS member Thomas E. D'Ambra wrote.

Geochemist R. Everett Langford wrote: “I am appalled at the condescending attitude of Rudy Baum, Al Gore, President Barack Obama, et al., who essentially tell us that there is no need for further research?that the matter is solved.�

ACS scientist Dennis Malpass wrote: “Your editorial was a disgrace. It was filled with misinformation, half-truths, and ad hominem attacks on those who dare disagree with you. Shameful!�

ACS member scientist Dr. Howard Hayden, a Physics Professor Emeritus from the University of Connecticut: “Baum's remarks are particularly disquieting because of his hostility toward skepticism, which is part of every scientist's soul. Let's cut to the chase with some questions for Baum: Which of the 20-odd major climate models has settled the science, such that all of the rest are now discarded? [...] Do you refer to 'climate change' instead of 'global warming' because the claim of anthropogenic global warming has become increasingly contrary to fact?"

continues with many more comments.
To resist the influence of others, knowledge of one's self is most important.

Draw from your past....... but don't let your past draw from you

Yama, The world is changed. I feel it in the water. I feel it in the earth. I smell it in the air. Much that once was..... is lost. For none now live who remember it.

For all your Computer needs www.btlogic.co.uk

User avatar
BASEL
Site Administrator
Posts: 1328
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 12:24 am
Location: dark side of the moon
Contact:

Post by BASEL » Thu Nov 12, 2009 3:27 pm

Climate change 'sceptic' Ian Plimer argues CO2 is not causing global warming
Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a natural phenomenon caused by volcanoes and is not responsible for climate change, a scientist has claimed.


By Louise Gray, Environment Correspondent
Published: 2:54PM GMT 12 Nov 2009


Professor Ian Plimer, a geologist from Adelaide University, argues that a recent rise in temperature around the world is caused by solar cycles and other "extra terrestrial" forces.

He said carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, widely blamed for global warming, is a natural phenomenon caused by volcanoes erupting.



"We cannot stop carbon emissions because most of them come from volcanoes," he said. "It is a normal element cycled around in the earth and my science, which is looking back in time, is saying we have had a planet that has been a green, warm wet planet 80 per cent of the time. We have had huge climate change in the past and to think the very slight variations we measure today are the result of our life - we really have to put ice blocks in our drinks."

Most mainstream scientists agree that the recent warming period was caused by an increase in carbon dioxide since the industrial revolution.

However Prof Plimer said the world has experienced three periods of cooling since 1850 and furthermore carbon dioxide was increasing during many of those cooler periods.

"If we had only had warming, then there would be a connect between co2 and temperature, there is not," he added.

Prof Plimer has come under attack as a "denialist poster boy" whose theories are in danger of stopping the world from tackling the grave dangers of climate change.

But he said the scientists "frightening people witless by following the party line" are motivated by politics and research funding.

"They are taking advantage of the current situation. That is understandable. In previous times people got wonderful research grants in a war against cancer and they achieved a lot of money for that. Now we have a war on climate change and we have a huge number of people out there who have their career staked on it and are beneficiaries of this process."

Vicky Pope, Head of Climate Change Advice at the Met Office, said it is widely accepted that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has doubled in the last 200 years and as a result the globe is warming.

She said there are "natural variations" in temperature caused by the weather as well as natural phenomenon like El Nino and human effects like pollution, but overall the climate has been getting hotter and has reached its warmest period in recent years.

"The basic physics is that if carbon dioxide increases then the temperature goes up," she said.

A number of "climate change sceptics" will be giving talks in the run up to a key UN Summit in Copenhagen in December when the world is expected to agree an international deal to stop global warming.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthn ... rming.html
To resist the influence of others, knowledge of one's self is most important.

Draw from your past....... but don't let your past draw from you

Yama, The world is changed. I feel it in the water. I feel it in the earth. I smell it in the air. Much that once was..... is lost. For none now live who remember it.

For all your Computer needs www.btlogic.co.uk

User avatar
BASEL
Site Administrator
Posts: 1328
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 12:24 am
Location: dark side of the moon
Contact:

Post by BASEL » Sat Nov 21, 2009 4:58 pm

If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start dumping them NOW. The conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth (aka AGW; aka ManBearPig) has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after a hacker broke into the computers at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (aka Hadley CRU) and released 61 megabites of confidential files onto the internet. (Hat tip: Watts Up With That)

When you read some of those files – including 1079 emails and 72 documents – you realise just why the boffins at Hadley CRU might have preferred to keep them confidential. As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be “the greatest in modern science�. These alleged emails – supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory – suggest:

Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.

One of the alleged emails has a gentle gloat over the death in 2004 of John L Daly (one of the first climate change sceptics, founder of the Still Waiting For Greenhouse site), commenting:

“In an odd way this is cheering news.�

But perhaps the most damaging revelations – the scientific equivalent of the Telegraph’s MPs’ expenses scandal – are those concerning the way Warmist scientists may variously have manipulated or suppressed evidence in order to support their cause.

Here are a few tasters. (So far, we can only refer to them as alleged emails because – though Hadley CRU’s director Phil Jones has confirmed the break-in to Ian Wishart at the Briefing Room – he has yet to fess up to any specific contents.) But if genuine, they suggest dubious practices such as:

Manipulation of evidence:

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up:

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

Suppression of evidence:

Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?

Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.

Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.

We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.

Fantasies of violence against prominent Climate Sceptic scientists:

Next
time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat
the crap out of him. Very tempted.

Attempts to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP):

……Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back–I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain� the putative “MWP�, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back….

And, perhaps most reprehensibly, a long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with AGW can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority.

“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature�. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research� as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?�

“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.�“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !�

Hadley CRU has form in this regard. In September – I wrote the story up here as “How the global warming industry is based on a massive lie� – Hadley CRU’s researchers were exposed as having “cherry-picked� data in order to support their untrue claim that global temperatures had risen higher at the end of the 20th century than at any time in the last millenium. Hadley CRU was also the organisation which – in contravention of all acceptable behaviour in the international scientific community – spent years withholding data from researchers it deemed unhelpful to its cause. This matters because Hadley CRU, established in 1990 by the Met Office, is a government-funded body which is supposed to be a model of rectitude. Its HadCrut record is one of the four official sources of global temperature data used by the IPCC.

I asked in my title whether this will be the final nail in the coffin of Anthropenic Global Warming. This was wishful thinking, of course. In the run up to Copenhagen, we will see more and more hysterical (and grotesquely exaggerated) stories such as this in the Mainstream Media. And we will see ever-more-virulent campaigns conducted by eco-fascist activists, such as this risible new advertising campaign by Plane Stupid showing CGI polar bears falling from the sky and exploding because kind of, like, man, that’s sort of what happens whenever you take another trip on an aeroplane.

The world is currently cooling; electorates are increasingly reluctant to support eco-policies leading to more oppressive regulation, higher taxes and higher utility bills; the tide is turning against Al Gore’s Anthropogenic Global Warming theory. The so-called “sceptical� view is now also the majority view.

Unfortunately, we’ve a long, long way to go before the public mood (and scientific truth) is reflected by our policy makers. There are too many vested interests in AGW, with far too much to lose either in terms of reputation or money, for this to end without a bitter fight.

But if the Hadley CRU scandal is true,it’s a blow to the AGW lobby’s credibility which is never likely to recover.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/james ... l-warming/


If you want to see these files to evaluate yourself the fraud that is going on here, i have uploaded them to the site so you can d/load them: http://www.ardsforum.com/btlogic/forum. ... OI2009.zip
Last edited by BASEL on Wed Dec 09, 2009 4:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
To resist the influence of others, knowledge of one's self is most important.

Draw from your past....... but don't let your past draw from you

Yama, The world is changed. I feel it in the water. I feel it in the earth. I smell it in the air. Much that once was..... is lost. For none now live who remember it.

For all your Computer needs www.btlogic.co.uk

User avatar
BASEL
Site Administrator
Posts: 1328
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 12:24 am
Location: dark side of the moon
Contact:

Post by BASEL » Wed Dec 09, 2009 4:00 pm

[align=center]<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/zZW-BF70TsI&hl ... ram><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/zZW-BF70TsI&hl ... 2=0x4e9e00" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/NHSjCulvb_o&hl ... ram><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/NHSjCulvb_o&hl ... 2=0x4e9e00" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/j6bXxC1d_rE&hl ... ram><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/j6bXxC1d_rE&hl ... 2=0x4e9e00" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/4YgEcZInveU&hl ... ram><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/4YgEcZInveU&hl ... 2=0x4e9e00" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/v0gyFXKvvFs&hl ... ram><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/v0gyFXKvvFs&hl ... 2=0x4e9e00" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>[/align]
To resist the influence of others, knowledge of one's self is most important.

Draw from your past....... but don't let your past draw from you

Yama, The world is changed. I feel it in the water. I feel it in the earth. I smell it in the air. Much that once was..... is lost. For none now live who remember it.

For all your Computer needs www.btlogic.co.uk

User avatar
BASEL
Site Administrator
Posts: 1328
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 12:24 am
Location: dark side of the moon
Contact:

Post by BASEL » Thu Dec 10, 2009 2:42 pm

International News
Is Copenhagen a sham front for a new world order agenda?
Written by Dennis Whitney

Kevin Rudd

Kevin Rudd
There might be deception now in play at the Copenhagen Climate Treaty. This podcast took place back on November 11th. and is truly shocking audio (The podcast will automatically launch when you click the link below). This was an interview with the UK's Lord Christopher Monckton, with Australian radio host, Alan Jones (bio here).

The revelatory bombshell stated by Lord Monckton, is the sudden self-seclusion of Australia's Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd (bio) It seems that this entire Copenhagen Treaty is nothing more than an absolute sham! Is this so surprising, considering the failures and inaction of the Kyoto Treaty of old? These climate treaties have gotten our world nowhere. In fact, things are even worse ecologically than they were since the Kyoto Treaty, and with endlessly and unfathomably more money going either down the drain, or to big business. So we agree on that? I thought so.

Well, it gets worse. This may be the Holy Grail of evidence for a New World Order! It seems, the wording within the treaty says a whole lot less about repairing the atmosphere from toxic levels of carbon pollution, and much more about the final protocols needed to to be instituted, to fulfill a World Government agenda. This has leaked out to the masses, Australia in particular, and they want answers from their PM! Can you blame them? This affects us all, and not just Australia, of course. So now the Prime Minister has gone silent. He hasn't got a single answer for such damning evidence. Essentially, the jig is up.

All of these public commencements on 'saving our economy' and 'saving the world from greenhouse gases' are all a pre-planned, deceptive sham. A plain and simple delusion placed on the public. So it's out there now. Copenhagen is a ruse for a private meeting to organize the final stages of a NWO. Kind of like the Bilderbergs? And with all of the great work and tenacity of guys like Alex Jones, who have relentlessly pursued and photographed members of the Bilderberg organization over the years, wherever they may try to hold their 'secret' meetings, this must've have been 'Plan B'.

So, rather than sneak around evermore, and getting caught by Jones and company anyway, why not just hold a publicly-stated conference, in plain sight, but resume the secret agenda once the doors close? Public will never be the wiser! Wrong. Plan B, now shot to hell.

If you won't awaken to something such as big as this, which is clearly not in the private sector's interest, what more can one do? They are plotting. They are deceitful. They are politicians. Copenhagen Climate Treaty, you say? Hardly.

There are huge amounts of cash to be controlled from the taxes imposed on carbon emitters. In Australia, the Labor Party has been keen to ensure that its mates, supporters, operatives like the admittedly dishonest Mike Kaiser who has been given a $450,000.00 a year job running a part of the $46,000,000,000.00 proposed National Broadband Network overseen by Labor's Senator Stephen Conroy.

The Australian opposition has refused to pass Labor's tax on carbon. Penny Wong, who ran Rudd's contribution to Copenhagen has left for the conference with nothing to offer up by way of a success.

http://2gb.com.au/index2.php?option=com ... ew&id=4998 click for Audio

Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley
To resist the influence of others, knowledge of one's self is most important.

Draw from your past....... but don't let your past draw from you

Yama, The world is changed. I feel it in the water. I feel it in the earth. I smell it in the air. Much that once was..... is lost. For none now live who remember it.

For all your Computer needs www.btlogic.co.uk

User avatar
BASEL
Site Administrator
Posts: 1328
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 12:24 am
Location: dark side of the moon
Contact:

Post by BASEL » Sat Dec 12, 2009 10:20 pm

[align=center]<embed src="http://blip.tv/play/g60lgbX7FgI%2Em4v" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="590" height="380" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed>[/align]
To resist the influence of others, knowledge of one's self is most important.

Draw from your past....... but don't let your past draw from you

Yama, The world is changed. I feel it in the water. I feel it in the earth. I smell it in the air. Much that once was..... is lost. For none now live who remember it.

For all your Computer needs www.btlogic.co.uk

User avatar
BASEL
Site Administrator
Posts: 1328
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 12:24 am
Location: dark side of the moon
Contact:

Post by BASEL » Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:17 pm

http://www.washingtontimes.com/weblo...e-cap-growing/

A report from the US National Snow and Ice Data Center in Colorado finds that Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007. But didn't we hear from the same Center that the North Pole was set to disappear by now? We all deserve apologies from the global warming fanatics who wanted to reshape the world in their image and called those who objected to their wild theories ignorant deniers. They were so convinced the world was ending and only they could save it, yet now they have been exposed as at best wildly idealistic and at worst frauds. They should have to do public penance for their hubris. I suggest they sit on blocks of melting ice and ponder their limitations. Either that or let the polar bears deal with them.




http://www.iloveco2.org/2009/01/ice-...ng-around.html

Ice caps and glaciers growing around the world, penguins looking for warmth!

30 years later, Arctic and Antarctic ice has actually increased, and is growing at fastest rate in recorded history.

Next time you see the news reports of "catastrophic" ice loss at the poles, try to remember you're watching a ratings-oriented entertainment program driven by hysteria and propaganda. Ditto for the Greenpeace rallies chock full of 'climate change' propaganda to secure their funding. Ditto for Al Gore's un-scientific Star Trek film, now proven to be bursting with junk science. Now, check the facts for yourself. Why do we continue to hear the scare stories about Antarctic ice vanishing when it is, in fact, breaking records for ice growth? Well, it's simple. Your local media outlet always shows you seemingly amazing images of massive melting and chunks of ice breaking away -- but always neglect to mention that it is normal, and happens every single year during the spring/summer melt. Oh, and it's been happening since forever began, by the way.

Be aware when they show the "before" and "after" pictures on your 6 o'clock news. The "before" pictures are always from the winter season and the "after" are summer images. So, to properly educate you, take a look at actual images of ice concentrations from the same time of year in comparison, spread out over three decades. Not only is the interior growing but so is the sea ice. Sea ice levels are higher now than when satellite records began.

Antarctic Ice Extent and Concentration for October 1979 and October 2008


From the National Snow and Ice Data Center, University of Colorado

Note that the ice extent for October 1979 (when satellite measurements began) is 18 million sq km, for October 2008 the ice extent was 18.1 million sq km. Ice concentration shows even greater increases, from 13.6 million sq km, to 13.9 million.

Not a huge increase but certainly notable since everyone in the controlled media has been screaming about Antarctic ice melt off, obviously that is not happening. Interior ice is increasing at an even greater rate. According to NOAA GISS data winter temperatures in the antarctic has actually fallen by 1°F since 1957, with the coldest year being 2004. All the while global CO2 levels have gone up and the main stream media has been reporting near catastrophic warming conditions, all while global temperatures have been falling for a long time now. The MSM and certain segments of the scientific* community truly must have no shame. (JC's note: *Scientific, meaning the IPCC & Al Gore - of which very few are real scientists, compared to the over 31,000 real scientists who have signed a petition clearly stating that man-made climate change is totally non-existant, the globe is not warming unnaturally, and creating more CO2 emissions would be very positive for the environment, not negative!)

�While the penguins would normally turn back when they hit the warmer Benguela waters, the current has been "exceptionally cold" this year� - The Washington Post


The Antarctic penguins must not be enjoying all of this cold and ice too much as hundreds, perhaps thousands, are migrating to the warm beaches of Brazil. More than they've ever seen. Hey, wouldn't you migrate to Brazil if you lived in Antarctica and it started getting even colder than normal?!?

HERE'S SOME MORE REALLY FUN STUFF YOU PROBABLY WON'T SEE ON THE NEWS!

In the mid 1960s, ITT built a power transmission line in Antarctica. The transmission towers stood 115 feet tall. As you can see in this photo, all but the top 30 feet of the towers are now buried in ice.

Worldwide glaciers growing....but heaven forbid the media will inform you of this fact.

An Associated Press article written by Samantha Young admits that all seven glaciers on California’s Mount Shasta are growing. The article then goes on to rhapsodize about "global warming".

The seven tongues of ice creeping down Mount Shasta's flanks “are the only known glaciers
in the continental U.S. that are growing,� the article says.

How convenient. Let’s ignore Crater Glacier on Mount
St. Helens, which is not only growing, but is now larger
than it was prior to the 1980 eruption that entirely
obliterated it.

How convenient. Let’s ignore the fact that the Nisqually
Glacier on Mount Rainier is growing. Let’s ignore the
most continuously monitored glacier in the northern
hemisphere. How convenient. Let’s ignore the fact that the glaciers
are growing on Washington’s Mount Shuksan.

How convenient. Let’s limit our discussion to the
continental U.S. That way we can ignore the glaciers
in Alaska that are advancing a third of a mile per year!

Oh, the article does throw a bone to Alaska. “Glaciologists say most glaciers in Alaska and
Canada are retreating, too,� the article says, “but there are too many to study them all.�

How convenient. Let’s make sure to study only the ones that are retreating. And forget to mention that it's normal for them to retreat, while others grow. Musta learned that trick from Al Gore himself.

“Although Mount Shasta's glaciers are growing, researchers say the 4.7 billion cubic feet of
ice on its flanks could be gone by 2100,� the article continues.

Let me see if I understand this. The glaciers on Mount
Shasta are growing (one has doubled in size) … but they’re
going to be gone by 2100?

“Climate change is causing roughly 90 percent of the world's mountain glaciers to shrink,�
the article continues.

How convenient. Let’s restrict our conversation to
mountain glaciers. Let’s ignore the East Antarctic Ice
Sheet, which covers almost five million square miles, and
is growing. Growing! The East Antarctic Ice Sheet is
almost 100 times bigger than all of the rest of the world's
glaciers put together, which means that 90 percent of the world’s glaciers are growing.

-IceAgeNow

Please let your local news sources and Greenpeace activists know that you don’t appreciate the kind of disinformation they keep shoving down our throats. Eh? Not everyone has the time to go out and research the actual facts for themselves!

This concludes my weekly LOL in Al Gore's face.






Opinion: Antarctic ice cap 'growing' and aren’t theories misunderstood?

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/271218

This is one for the thinkers: The Antarctic is losing big amounts of ice through calving, but the ice is being more than replaced by cooling elsewhere. It’s basic thermodynamics of ice, really. The surprise is that nobody’s making a big deal about it.
I'm not actually offering an opinion here. The simplistic non global warming, and the simple global warming theories are so simple they can't be anything but wrong. I prefer to look at facts and possibilities.
The current situation is that the Wilkins ice shelf has been acting like fridge defrosting, while other sectors have in fact been cooling. The net effect is that the Antarctic sea ice situation is stable, or a bit bigger, after the last few decades.
There are some technical elements in this situation which need explanation here.
One of the Global Warming scenarios is that desalination of ocean waters will increase ice cap sizes, a sort of “reverse cycle.� Because ambient and water temperatures are slower to warm, the seasonal “snap freeze.�
This effect is considered to have the potential to trigger climate change of another kind: A northern Ice Age, caused by the failure of the Gulf Stream, as the thermal properties of the warm currents on the eastern seaboard change.
The Antarctic effect, however, is sending mixed signals. Unlike the Arctic, the Antarctic is a land mass. It contains 90 per cent of the world’s ice, and 80 per cent of the world’s fresh water. A desalination effect takes place during the calving of ice.
However, despite some spectacular calvings, drilling of ice cores at Australia’s Antarctic base Davis has established that the “fast ice� is in fact thicker than the average since the 1950s.
This is where the mixed signals cut in.
(This case demonstrates where agenda based theory always fails. I think that the problem with the debate has been too many people offering opinions where the tendency is to elevate opinions above facts that haven’t been fully studied. This is much too complex for guesswork, let alone mindless political point scoring among the rubble of the global environment.)
Both poles have shown a tendency to produce local effects which are outside the models. The Arctic produced a sudden series of local events which were later shown to be a result of movements of pack ice, not a melt. Thick sea ice opened up areas which have been frozen in human records. The actual melt in the north is also producing the apparent contradiction of opening up open sea areas, while land based ice is behaving much like the Antarctic ice, with some increases. The correlation is that the thermal patterns of ice on land masses are naturally different from ice in the open sea.
The Antarctic, however, is also producing some oddities. An increase in ice depth, not all that surprisingly, requires more water. The figures given by the Davis research indicate that ice thickness is 1.89 metres, as distinct from the average of 1.67 recorded since the 1950s.
Meaning that:
(a) Either more freezing is occurring over time, a cumulative increase, although that hasn’t been suggested by the scientists at Davis as a behavioral key. Obviously it’s possible.
(b) The Antarctic currents have been transporting fresh water from the Wilkins and similar high melt areas and refreezing them away from the melt zones.
(c) An unknown cycle is creating a freeze boom and bust over periods like 50 years in Antarctica. (In which case Greenland, being a land mass, should show some similar results, you’d think.)
(d) Thermodynamics of freezing around land masses are capable of producing macro effects like this, which haven’t been previously recorded, and are therefore outside the scope of existing theory. (Not unlikely, because nobody was looking for effects like this, based on the simpler modes of dealing with melts.)
You see why I’m in no hurry to come up with an opinion. Nor should anybody else rush to judgment, because in point of fact this phenomenon proves both sides wrong.
Yes, there is melt, no, it's not behaving the way anyone thought it would.
Yes, there are climatic effects, no, they're not following predictions, except in the most general sense, like "severe weather", etc.
This is “How long is all the string produced by the string factory?�, as climate science. What this illustrates beyond doubt is that the macrocosm of the ice melts is highly complex, and local factors have roles which aren’t fully understood.
It seems that even the desalination theory, which is one of the more fundamental concepts of the ice melts, will now have to be reworked.
Anyway, this needn't bother the large numbers of utterly useless people who've made profitable careers out of environmental disasters. if there's no problem, everyone can go back to dealing with the millions of tons of toxic emissions from obsolete technology which have made the whole population of Earth into passive smokers. Happy?
To resist the influence of others, knowledge of one's self is most important.

Draw from your past....... but don't let your past draw from you

Yama, The world is changed. I feel it in the water. I feel it in the earth. I smell it in the air. Much that once was..... is lost. For none now live who remember it.

For all your Computer needs www.btlogic.co.uk

User avatar
BASEL
Site Administrator
Posts: 1328
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 12:24 am
Location: dark side of the moon
Contact:

Post by BASEL » Fri Jan 22, 2010 3:14 am

[align=center]<object width="445" height="364"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/2jasZcNQqsw&hl ... ram><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/2jasZcNQqsw&hl ... 0&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="445" height="364"></embed></object>[/align]
To resist the influence of others, knowledge of one's self is most important.

Draw from your past....... but don't let your past draw from you

Yama, The world is changed. I feel it in the water. I feel it in the earth. I smell it in the air. Much that once was..... is lost. For none now live who remember it.

For all your Computer needs www.btlogic.co.uk

User avatar
BASEL
Site Administrator
Posts: 1328
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 12:24 am
Location: dark side of the moon
Contact:

Post by BASEL » Sun Jan 31, 2010 5:42 pm

http://www.physorg.com/news184127915.html

UN climate panel based claims on student essay: report

January 31, 2010 Enlarge
A glacier in the Everest region, some 140 kms (87 miles) northeast of Kathmandu. The UN climate change panel based claims about ice disappearing from the world's mountain peaks on a student essay and an article in a mountaineering magazine, a British newspaper reported Sunday.
The UN climate change panel based claims about ice disappearing from the world's mountain peaks on a student essay and an article in a mountaineering magazine, a British newspaper reported Sunday.

The claims risk causing fresh embarrassment for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which had to apologise this month over inaccurate forecasts about the melting of Himalayan glaciers.

In a recent report, the IPCC stated that observed reductions in mountain ice in the Andes, Alps and Africa was caused by global warming and it referred to two papers as the source of the information.

But The Sunday Telegraph said one of the sources quoted was actually an article published in a magazine for mountaineers which was based on anecdotal evidence about the changes they were witnessing during climbs.

The newspaper said the other source was a dissertation written by a geography student who was studying for a master's degree at the University of Bern in Switzerland that quoted interviews with mountain guides in the Alps.

The IPCC rejected as "baseless and misleading" a report this month from another British newspaper, The Sunday Times, raising doubts about the evidence behind its claim that global warming is linked to worsening natural disasters.

Scientists have defended the IPCC since it admitted to errors over the Himalayan glacier claim, insisting its work is balanced and its conclusions are sound.
To resist the influence of others, knowledge of one's self is most important.

Draw from your past....... but don't let your past draw from you

Yama, The world is changed. I feel it in the water. I feel it in the earth. I smell it in the air. Much that once was..... is lost. For none now live who remember it.

For all your Computer needs www.btlogic.co.uk

User avatar
BASEL
Site Administrator
Posts: 1328
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 12:24 am
Location: dark side of the moon
Contact:

Post by BASEL » Sat Feb 06, 2010 10:18 pm

v good. Iron Mountain Report '67: Nuclear war threat is not working, use Global Warming as the next Doomsday Scenario. ...
'Nevertheless, an effective political
substitute for war would require
"alternate enemies," some of which
might seem equally farfetched in the
context of the current war system. It
may be, for instance, that gross pollution
of the environment can eventually
replace the possibility of mass
destruction by nuclear weapons as
the principal apparent threat to the
survival of the species. Poisoning of
the air, and of the principal sources of
food and water supply, is already well
advanced, and at first glance would
seem promising in this respect;...' see below


http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Exposi.....-a0207112332


Exposing the green world order: Steve Milloy, the founder of junkscience.com, makes a case that Americans are on a "green" slide toward authoritarian regulations and pauperism.

Green Hell: How Environmentalists Plan to Control Your Life and What You Can Do to Stop Them, by Steve Milloy, Washington, D.C.: Regnery, 2009, 294 pages, hardcover, $27.95.

The environmental movement, bent on regulating America under its green thumb, has such a vast array of lobbying groups, proposed measures, and specialized terminology, that it is difficult for busy Americans who are wary of this movement to stay current with the debate. To the rescue comes Steve Milloy's Green Hell. At 294 pages, it is not encyclopedic, but just the right length to bring readers up to date on the methodologies, motives, and fallacies of this movement, and how to combat it.

Green Guilt

The core environmental "danger" greens currently discuss is global warming, allegedly caused by man-made carbon dioxide. Nevertheless, greens do not wish to tolerate debate on the subject. Many scientists have refuted the claims of global-warming alarmists. Over 31,000 scientists have signed a petition denying those claims (www.petitionproject.org). Carbon dioxide is a naturally occurring substance required by plants, and man's contributions to carbon dioxide levels are negligible. Nevertheless, greens do not wish to tolerate debate on the subject. Even Al Gore, environmentalism's leading pop guru, refuses to debate global warming.

One of the green groups Milloy points to is the Institute for Public Policy Research, a British think tank, which strategizes:

The task of climate change agencies
is not to persuade by rational
argument.... The "facts" need to be
treated as being so taken-for-granted
that they need not be spoken.... It
amounts to treating climate-friendly
activity as a brand that can be sold.
This is, we believe, the route to mass
behaviour changes.



Milloy also cites Cristine Russell, president of the Council for the Advancement of Science, who wishes to drown out critics. Russell writes that "the era of 'equal time' for skeptics who argue that global warming is just a result of natural variation and not human intervention seems to be largely over.... The he-said, she-said reporting just won't do."

David Roberts, a writer for Grist Magazine, went even further, calling for "war crimes trials" for those who deny global warming, and "some sort of climate Nuremberg," although he later retracted the proposal. Similar recommendations come from NASA's James Hansen, who said that coal- and oil-company executives who cast doubts on global warming "should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature." In short, if greens have their way, just presenting the facts refuting global warming might be classified as a hate crime against the planet.

It has been a hallmark of true science that any theory be subject to objective testing and examination. Greens' refusal to allow open discussion of global warming's validity--except by themselves--is virtually an admission that their viewpoint is indefensible. What then, is the greens' real motive?

Green Governance

Milloy insightfully notes the common denominators of all green demands: increased government regulation, reduced economic productivity, and a lower standard of living for Americans.

Greens argue that each human being has a "carbon footprint"--the amount of carbon emissions his lifestyle creates by driving cars, using electricity, etc. If a person's carbon footprint is too great, radical greens want the government to penalize that person. This, if the greens prevail, would entail energy rationing.

A proposal made by the California Energy Commission in 2007 would have required homes to have "programmable control thermostats" by which utility officials could, by remote control, regulate home thermostats, water heaters, refrigerators, and lights to ensure consumers stayed within acceptable boundaries of energy use. Though the proposal was rejected, it demonstrated the degree to which greens will go to establish a "green Big Brother."

In the meantime, the British government is conducting trials with "smart meters" that set off alarms when homes exceed allotted electricity limits. In Pennsylvania, Governor Ed Rendell has okayed a law requiring utility companies to cut their customers' annual electricity consumption by one percent by May 2011, or be fined up to $20 million. In Marburg, Germany, as of 2008, new homes are required to include solar panels or face fines of $1,500. And that same year, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsome proposed that citizens who mix recyclables with their regular trash be fined up to $1,000.

If greens were truly interested in improving energy resources, they should support viable alternatives--such as nuclear power, which creates no carbon emissions. Yet greens oppose it, and as Milloy documents, in many cases they have even obstructed the building of the highly touted "renewable energy" sources such as wind, solar, and biofuels, claiming that each has its own negative impact on the environment. What, then, is the real green agenda?

Energy is required for all activity. By opposing all forms of substantial energy development, from offshore drilling to nuclear power, greens are creating an artificial energy shortage, drastically increasing the cost of energy, and providing an excuse for the government to micro-regulate every home in Orwellian fashion. And, since global warming is seen as a "global" threat, it is also being used as an excuse for world government. Former French President Jacques Chirac said in a speech advocating the Kyoto Protocol:

For the first time, humanity is instituting
a genuine instrument of global
governance, one that should find a
place within the World Environmental
Organization which France and
the European Union would like to
see established.



Origins of the Green Iron Fist?

Though not mentioned by Milloy, Report from Iron Mountain, published in 1967 as the leaked findings of a private three-year study commissioned by the U.S. government, may shed light on this. The report made shocking recommendations, some of which are now becoming reality. The establishment press denounced the report as a hoax; five years later, the late Leonard C. Lewin proclaimed he had written it as a satire on government think tanks. For a satire, however, it was strangely devoid of humor. Many wonder if the "hoax" charge was issued for damage control.

The study chiefly discussed the implications of the world moving from the system of war--which nuclear weapons were making impractical--to disarmament. The report cited many advantages to war, one of which was allegiance by citizens to their government:

In general, the war system provides
the basic motivation for primary
social motivation. In doing so, it reflects
on the societal level the incentives
of individual human behavior.
The most important of these, for social
purposes, is the individual psychological
rationale for allegiance to
a society [read: government] and its
values. Allegiance requires a cause; a
cause requires an enemy. This much
is obvious; the critical point is that
the enemy that defines the cause must
seem genuinely formidable.



The report noted that if wars disappeared due to the advent of nuclear weapons, a new "enemy" would be required to induce citizen allegiance. Among the solutions proposed were threats to the environment:

Nevertheless, an effective political
substitute for war would require
"alternate enemies," some of which
might seem equally farfetched in the
context of the current war system. It
may be, for instance, that gross pollution
of the environment can eventually
replace the possibility of mass
destruction by nuclear weapons as
the principal apparent threat to the
survival of the species. Poisoning of
the air, and of the principal sources of
food and water supply, is already well
advanced, and at first glance would
seem promising in this respect; it
constitutes a threat that can be dealt
with only through social organization
and political power. But from present
indications it will be a generation to
a generation and a half before environmental
pollution, however severe,
will be sufficiently menacing, on a
global scale, to offer a possible basis
for a solution.

It is true that the rate of pollution
could be increased selectively for this
purpose; in fact, the mere modifying
of existing programs for the deterrence
of pollution could speed up the
process enough to make the threat
credible much sooner.



Was this the green movement's beginning? In the report's wake, numerous environmental scares were raised: acid rain, overpopulation, ozone depletion, toxic waste, deforestation, endangered species, global warming, etc. Establishment foundations began pouring billions of dollars into environmental groups. (For a listing, see "Behind the Green Curtain" in the April 4, 2005 issue of THE NEW AMERICAN.) Indeed, as Milloy notes, "The ten largest green groups had revenues of more than $1.36 billion in 2007 and net assets in excess of $7.1 billion." Contrary to media spin, environmentalism is not a "grass-roots movement."

And as Milloy observes, the restricted living standards greens advocate are not meant for the green elite, but for the rest of us. Just two of the examples he gives: although Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has stated that "California will be a leader in the fight against global warming," he spends three hours a day commuting to and from work in his own private jet--which, according to the Los Angeles Times, "does nearly as much harm to the environment in one hour as a small car in one year." Al Gore's Nashville mansion, which includes a heated pool house, consumes more than 20 times the electricity used by the average American home. And while Gore has belatedly added some environmentally friendly energy sources, such as solar panels and wind turbines, this is easily affordable for him since his net worth had grown to over $100 million by 2007.

Broad Destruction

Milloy documents a host of other harmful aspects to the green movement. Examples:

* Green opposition to DDT has led to millions of malaria deaths in Africa.

* Greens advocate population reduction since each person has a "carbon footprint" and is seen as a liability to the planet.

* Greens want cars to run on alternative energy. This not only drives up the cost of automobile ownership, but since the easiest way for car manufacturers to meet new, higher mileage standards is to make cars lighter, car safety is also reduced.

* Greens have opposed forest cleanups, resulting in costly, deadly forest fires.

* Although water is the Earth's most abundant substance, greens want even its use restricted and regulated. As Milloy notes: "There's World Toilet Organization founder Jack Sims, who pronounced the flushing toilet to be 'unsustainable' at the 2008 World Toilet Summit. Conference attendees called for various solutions such as ... a 'toilet tax' to discourage flushing."

* Even national defense is not exempt. In 2005, the Natural Resources Defense Council sued the U.S. Navy for conducting exercises using sonar--vital for detecting enemy subs--based on the unsupported claim that the exercises disturbed whales and other marine animals. The Supreme Court sided with the Navy, but only by a 5-4 majority.

* Many American school children, heavily indoctrinated in environmental "doomed planet" scenarios, are growing depressed about the future.

And Milloy projects that, under Barack Obama, the "green president," things are apt to get much worse.

Answers

Milloy doesn't just report the problem; he also presents solutions: educating the public (most of whom are more concerned about rising energy costs than global warming); lobbying legislators; shareholder activism to press corporations into reversing green compliance that reduces shareholder value; letters to the editor; Internet activism; and more. Milloy's own website, www.junkscience.com, is one of the best out there for debunking the greens.

We wouldn't necessarily agree with every point in Milloy's book. For example, he criticizes greens who have opposed vaccinations. However, growing numbers of individuals completely outside the green movement also oppose mandatory vaccinations, believing that their risks outweigh their alleged benefits and that they constitute an unwelcome intrusion of government into private life. Many outside the green movement would also not share Milloy's confidence in genetically altered foods.

Nevertheless, Steve Milloy has written a clear, concise, up-to-date refutation of the green movement that belongs in any home library.

James Perloff is the author of The Shadows of Power: The Council on Foreign Relations and the American Decline and Tornado in a Junkyard: The Relentless Myth of Darwinism.
To resist the influence of others, knowledge of one's self is most important.

Draw from your past....... but don't let your past draw from you

Yama, The world is changed. I feel it in the water. I feel it in the earth. I smell it in the air. Much that once was..... is lost. For none now live who remember it.

For all your Computer needs www.btlogic.co.uk

Post Reply