Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Should We Believe The Latest Un Climate Report?
02-06-2007, 05:07 PM,
#1
Should We Believe The Latest Un Climate Report?
From American Daily:


Quote:By Dennis Avery (02/05/07)

The UN Climate Change panel is asserting - again - that humans are overheating the planet. Again, they have no evidence to support their claim - but they want the U.S. to cut its energy use by perhaps 80 percent just in case. Stabilizing greenhouse gases means no personal cars, no air-conditioning, no vacation travel. Nancy Pelosi says one-third of the Senate want this too.

It’s a remarkably sweeping demand, given that the earth has warmed less than 1 degree C, over 150 years. This on a planet where the ice cores and seabed sediments tell us the climate has been either warming abruptly or cooling suddenly for the past million years.

The first long ice cores from Greenland and Antarctic were brought up in the 1980s. The ice layers showed the earth warming 1–2 degrees roughly every 1,500 years—usually suddenly. The natural warmings often gained half their total strength in a few decades, then waffled erratically for centuries—rather like our planet’s temperature pattern since 1850.

History tells us the coolings, not the warmings, have been the bad part. After the Medieval Warming ended about 1300, Europe was hit by huge storms, gigantic sea floods, crop failures, and plagues of disease.

My big gripe with the IPCC is that they’re still keeping this climate cycle a virtual secret from the public.

What does the IPCC say about hundreds of long-dead trees on California’s Whitewing Mountain that tell us the earth was 3.2 degrees C warmer in the year 1350 than today? In that year, seven different tree species were killed—while growing above today’s tree line—by a volcanic explosion. The trees’ growth rings, species and location confirm that the climate was much warmer that of today, says C. I. Millar of the U.S. Forest Service, reporting in Quaternary Research, Nov. 27, 2006.

The new IPCC report warns us it can’t explain the recent surge of warming from 1976–1998. Therefore, it claims the surge must have been caused by human-emitted CO2. But the IPCC also can’t explain why more than half of the current warming occurred before 1940, before the Industrial Revolution improved global living standards and increased CO2 emissions.

Look at this interesting coincidence: The “inexplicable” l976–1998 surge in global temperature looks very much like the warming surge from 1916–1940. After 1940, we had a 35-year cooling—which the IPCC also can’t explain. But in 1996, researchers discovered a 50–60 year Pacific-wide climate cycle they call the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. This cycle caused the salmon decline in the Columbia River after 1977. It also causes shifts in sardine and anchovy catches all around the Pacific.

The PDO shifted into a cool phase in 1940, with lots of salmon in the Columbia, until 1977. That’s almost exactly the period of the 1940–76 global cooling. Then the PDO turned warmer and the Columbia salmon declined—until about 1999. That closely matches the 1976–98 surge in global temperatures.

Does the Pacific climate cycle explain the last two short-term blips on the world’s temperature chart better than humanity’s small contribution to the CO2 that makes up only 0.03 percent of the atmosphere? It is certainly worth exploring more carefully before we make huge changes in our standards of living world-wide.

Past climate warmings haven’t correlated with CO2 changes. The Antarctic ice cores show that after the last four Ice Ages, the temperatures warmed 800 years before the CO2 levels increased in the atmosphere. The Warming produced more CO2 in the atmosphere, not the other way around.

It’s worth noting that the environmental movement and the politicians also blamed human activity for the salmon decline. Farming, fishing, and logging were reined in, sending the Pacific Northwest’s rural economies into despair. Now we’ve found the PDO. Is a natural cycle also the answer for the UN climate change panel?


DENNIS T. AVERY was a senior policy analyst for the U.S. State Department, where he won the National Intelligence Medal of Achievement. He is the co-author, with atmospheric physicist Fred Singer, of the book Unstoppable Global Warming—Every 1500 Years, available from Rowman & Littlefield. Readers may write him at the Center for Global Food Issues (http://www.cgfi.org) Post Office Box 202, Churchville, VA 24421.


http://www.americandaily.com/article/17564
Reply
02-06-2007, 06:42 PM,
#2
Should We Believe The Latest Un Climate Report?
UN's push for the unnecessary ban of DDT.

UN's 1970'S global cooling.

China and other tyrannical nations endorsing UN Human Rights Conventions.

UN Sanctions on Iraq.

UN action in installing communism in various african nations.

UN's General and Complete Disarmament.

UN's New International Economic Order.

Kyoto Protocol really only hinders developed countries which will lead to the transfer of even more industry (and wealth) to the developing nations (and China).





Should we believe the latest UN Climate Report??

Does Jack Bauer support a Constitution Republican government and the rule of law??
Reply
02-06-2007, 06:59 PM, (This post was last modified: 02-06-2007, 07:00 PM by ozlo.)
#3
Should We Believe The Latest Un Climate Report?
We should believe and support everything the UN does. They are holy gods and we should worship them and lavish their feet with rose petals.:rolleyes:
“Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary.”
Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306.
Reply
02-08-2007, 05:28 PM,
#4
Should We Believe The Latest Un Climate Report?
From the Canada Free Press:

Quote:Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide
Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?

By Timothy Ball

Monday, February 5, 2007

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

What would happen if tomorrow we were told that, after all, the Earth is flat? It would probably be the most important piece of news in the media and would generate a lot of debate. So why is it that when scientists who have studied the Global Warming phenomenon for years say that humans are not the cause nobody listens? Why does no one acknowledge that the Emperor has no clothes on?

Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.

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

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

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

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

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

I once received a three page letter that my lawyer defined as libellous, from an academic colleague, saying I had no right to say what I was saying, especially in public lectures. Sadly, my experience is that universities are the most dogmatic and oppressive places in our society. This becomes progressively worse as they receive more and more funding from governments that demand a particular viewpoint.

In another instance, I was accused by Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki of being paid by oil companies. That is a lie. Apparently he thinks if the fossil fuel companies pay you have an agenda. So if Greenpeace, Sierra Club or governments pay there is no agenda and only truth and enlightenment?

Personal attacks are difficult and shouldn't occur in a debate in a civilized society. I can only consider them from what they imply. They usually indicate a person or group is losing the debate. In this case, they also indicate how political the entire Global Warming debate has become. Both underline the lack of or even contradictory nature of the evidence.

I am not alone in this journey against the prevalent myth. Several well-known names have also raised their voices. Michael Crichton, the scientist, writer and filmmaker is one of them. In his latest book, "State of Fear" he takes time to explain, often in surprising detail, the flawed science behind Global Warming and other imagined environmental crises.

Another cry in the wildenerness is Richard Lindzen's. He is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology - especially atmospheric waves. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has held positions at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. Linzen frequently speaks out against the notion that significant Global Warming is caused by humans. Yet nobody seems to listen.

I think it may be because most people don't understand the scientific method which Thomas Kuhn so skilfully and briefly set out in his book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." A scientist makes certain assumptions and then produces a theory which is only as valid as the assumptions. The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law.

As Lindzen said many years ago: "the consensus was reached before the research had even begun." Now, any scientist who dares to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a sceptic, when in fact they are simply being good scientists. This has reached frightening levels with these scientists now being called climate change denier with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The normal scientific method is effectively being thwarted.

Meanwhile, politicians are being listened to, even though most of them have no knowledge or understanding of science, especially the science of climate and climate change. Hence, they are in no position to question a policy on climate change when it threatens the entire planet. Moreover, using fear and creating hysteria makes it very difficult to make calm rational decisions about issues needing attention.

Until you have challenged the prevailing wisdom you have no idea how nasty people can be. Until you have re-examined any issue in an attempt to find out all the information, you cannot know how much misinformation exists in the supposed age of information.

I was greatly influenced several years ago by Aaron Wildavsky's book "Yes, but is it true?" The author taught political science at a New York University and realized how science was being influenced by and apparently misused by politics. He gave his graduate students an assignment to pursue the science behind a policy generated by a highly publicised environmental concern. To his and their surprise they found there was little scientific evidence, consensus and justification for the policy. You only realize the extent to which Wildavsky's findings occur when you ask the question he posed. Wildavsky's students did it in the safety of academia and with the excuse that it was an assignment. I have learned it is a difficult question to ask in the real world, however I firmly believe it is the most important question to ask if we are to advance in the right direction.

Dr. Tim Ball, Chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (http://www.nrsp.com), is a Victoria-based environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. He can be reached at letters@canadafreepress.com


http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm
Reply
02-08-2007, 10:36 PM,
#5
Should We Believe The Latest Un Climate Report?
some years ago I read in a German magazine that the CO2-greenhouse-effect is not possible, for CO2 is not a greenhouse-gas. The author made a simple exemple: two black balloons, one filled with air, the other filled with CO2. Now, the one filled with air heats up, but the other does not.
I didn't try it out myself, but I became suspicious when the "global warming" discussion got more intense, and after Al Gore went to the movies. And I remember the threat of the coming ice age in the late 70's. This is true, they tried to tell you that we were all doomed in a few decades, because the average temperature was something 0.1 degrees below. And now we should have the contrary, global warming. It's stupid.

Around 2 years ago appeared an article in the NZZ about accuracy of scientific publications. The article came to the conclusion that about 50% of all published scientific work is not entirely accurate. Last year, another article said that the results of a study become generally better when they are sponsored by the company who produce the test substance.
Of course, this is no surprise, but these articles appear in the Neue Zürcher Zeitung (NZZ), one of the most important commerce papers in Europe and the world. A lot of this commerce is directly related to this corrupted science community, so we have an enourmous contrast here. And again, the same. Nobody seems to care, nobody seems to listen.
I am my savior
Reply
02-09-2007, 01:27 AM,
#6
Should We Believe The Latest Un Climate Report?
I believe the Iron Mountain document. For me it makes perfect sense of everything the UN says - past, present, and future. If YOU were a cabal of bankers intent on ruling the world (i.e. taxing the world), what environmental report would you put out there? Would it have to be true? Doesn't matter, just so long as it forwards the agenda.

"The power to tax involves the power to destroy." ~ John Marshall, 1819.
[Image: 13703654.jpg][Image: rock1.jpg]
Reply
02-10-2007, 04:41 AM,
#7
Should We Believe The Latest Un Climate Report?
First of all dont ask other people what you should believe.
Second of all dont listen to the UN, look at the facts yourselfs and decide on your own.
TahoeforTruth.org

911dvdProject.com

&All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.& --Thomas Jefferson

“There is nothing to fear except the persistent refusal to find out the truth, the persistent refusal to analyze the causes of happenings.”
-- Dorothy Thompson quote

Reply
02-13-2007, 08:55 PM,
#8
Should We Believe The Latest Un Climate Report?
Quote:An experiment that hints we are wrong on climate change


Nigel Calder, former editor of New Scientist, says the orthodoxy must be challenged

When politicians and journalists declare that the science of global warming is settled, they show a regrettable ignorance about how science works. We were treated to another dose of it recently when the experts of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued the Summary for Policymakers that puts the political spin on an unfinished scientific dossier on climate change due for publication in a few months’ time. They declared that most of the rise in temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to man-made greenhouse gases.

The small print explains “very likely” as meaning that the experts who made the judgment felt 90% sure about it. Older readers may recall a press conference at Harwell in 1958 when Sir John Cockcroft, Britain’s top nuclear physicist, said he was 90% certain that his lads had achieved controlled nuclear fusion. It turned out that he was wrong. More positively, a 10% uncertainty in any theory is a wide open breach for any latterday Galileo or Einstein to storm through with a better idea. That is how science really works.

Twenty years ago, climate research became politicised in favour of one particular hypothesis, which redefined the subject as the study of the effect of greenhouse gases. As a result, the rebellious spirits essential for innovative and trustworthy science are greeted with impediments to their research careers. And while the media usually find mavericks at least entertaining, in this case they often imagine that anyone who doubts the hypothesis of man-made global warming must be in the pay of the oil companies. As a result, some key discoveries in climate research go almost unreported.

Enthusiasm for the global-warming scare also ensures that heatwaves make headlines, while contrary symptoms, such as this winter’s billion-dollar loss of Californian crops to unusual frost, are relegated to the business pages. The early arrival of migrant birds in spring provides colourful evidence for a recent warming of the northern lands. But did anyone tell you that in east Antarctica the Adélie penguins and Cape petrels are turning up at their spring nesting sites around nine days later than they did 50 years ago? While sea-ice has diminished in the Arctic since 1978, it has grown by 8% in the Southern Ocean.

So one awkward question you can ask, when you’re forking out those extra taxes for climate change, is “Why is east Antarctica getting colder?” It makes no sense at all if carbon dioxide is driving global warming. While you’re at it, you might inquire whether Gordon Brown will give you a refund if it’s confirmed that global warming has stopped. The best measurements of global air temperatures come from American weather satellites, and they show wobbles but no overall change since 1999.

That levelling off is just what is expected by the chief rival hypothesis, which says that the sun drives climate changes more emphatically than greenhouse gases do. After becoming much more active during the 20th century, the sun now stands at a high but roughly level state of activity. Solar physicists warn of possible global cooling, should the sun revert to the lazier mood it was in during the Little Ice Age 300 years ago.

Climate history and related archeology give solid support to the solar hypothesis. The 20th-century episode, or Modern Warming, was just the latest in a long string of similar events produced by a hyperactive sun, of which the last was the Medieval Warming.

The Chinese population doubled then, while in Europe the Vikings and cathedral-builders prospered. Fascinating relics of earlier episodes come from the Swiss Alps, with the rediscovery in 2003 of a long-forgotten pass used intermittently whenever the world was warm.

What does the Intergovernmental Panel do with such emphatic evidence for an alternation of warm and cold periods, linked to solar activity and going on long before human industry was a possible factor? Less than nothing. The 2007 Summary for Policymakers boasts of cutting in half a very small contribution by the sun to climate change conceded in a 2001 report.

Disdain for the sun goes with a failure by the self-appointed greenhouse experts to keep up with inconvenient discoveries about how the solar variations control the climate. The sun’s brightness may change too little to account for the big swings in the climate. But more than 10 years have passed since Henrik Svensmark in Copenhagen first pointed out a much more powerful mechanism.

He saw from compilations of weather satellite data that cloudiness varies according to how many atomic particles are coming in from exploded stars. More cosmic rays, more clouds. The sun’s magnetic field bats away many of the cosmic rays, and its intensification during the 20th century meant fewer cosmic rays, fewer clouds, and a warmer world. On the other hand the Little Ice Age was chilly because the lazy sun let in more cosmic rays, leaving the world cloudier and gloomier.

The only trouble with Svensmark’s idea — apart from its being politically incorrect — was that meteorologists denied that cosmic rays could be involved in cloud formation. After long delays in scraping together the funds for an experiment, Svensmark and his small team at the Danish National Space Center hit the jackpot in the summer of 2005.

In a box of air in the basement, they were able to show that electrons set free by cosmic rays coming through the ceiling stitched together droplets of sulphuric acid and water. These are the building blocks for cloud condensation. But journal after journal declined to publish their report; the discovery finally appeared in the Proceedings of the Royal Society late last year.

Thanks to having written The Manic Sun, a book about Svensmark’s initial discovery published in 1997, I have been privileged to be on the inside track for reporting his struggles and successes since then. The outcome is a second book, The Chilling Stars, co-authored by the two of us and published next week by Icon books. We are not exaggerating, we believe, when we subtitle it “A new theory of climate change”.

Where does all that leave the impact of greenhouse gases? Their effects are likely to be a good deal less than advertised, but nobody can really say until the implications of the new theory of climate change are more fully worked out.

The reappraisal starts with Antarctica, where those contradictory temperature trends are directly predicted by Svensmark’s scenario, because the snow there is whiter than the cloud-tops. Meanwhile humility in face of Nature’s marvels seems more appropriate than arrogant assertions that we can forecast and even control a climate ruled by the sun and the stars.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece
Reply
02-16-2007, 03:11 AM,
#9
Should We Believe The Latest Un Climate Report?
Amazing how people love to criticize the U.N. for this study and yet none of the facts of the study are even posted.

Quote:"The evidence for warming having happened on the planet is unequivocal," says Susan Solomon, an atmospheric scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in Boulder, Colo. "We can see that in rising air temperatures, we can see it in changes in snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere, we can see it in global sea rise," she says. Solomon and her colleagues on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released their latest assessment of recent warming trends at a press conference in Paris on Feb. 2.

The average temperatures at Earth's surface for 11 of the past 12 years rank among the dozen highest values recorded since the mid-1800s. Over the past 100 years, global average temperature has risen about 0.74°C, the IPCC researchers report. With 90 percent certainty, scientists link that increase to the rising concentrations of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases that human activities have released into Earth's atmosphere.

Carbon dioxide concentrations measured 379 parts per million (ppm) in 2005, far in excess of the fractions inferred from ice-core data representing periods going back 650,000 years. The concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide is now growing at around 1.9 ppm per year, the largest rate of increase ever measured. Accordingly, scientists suggest in the IPCC report that over the next 20 years, the average global temperature will rise by an additional 0.4°C.

And anyone who thinks DDT spraying should continue; why don't you start bathing in it? We'll see how long you last.
&Having raised the earth's temperature 1 degree Fahrenheit in the last three decades, we're facing another increase of 4 degrees over the next century. That would imply changes that constitute practically a different planet. It's not something we can adapt to. We can't let it go on another 10 years like this.& - NASA's Goddard Space Institute Director James Hansen

ConspiracyCentral Tracker Style Mod
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Climate Engineering Weather Warfare, and the Collapse of Civilization mexika 0 219 02-13-2014, 02:21 AM
Last Post: mexika
Information A Geo-Engineered World - Controlling the Weather with Climate Engineering FastTadpole 12 6,198 02-08-2014, 02:17 AM
Last Post: mexika
  Britain's £85 billion bill for climate policies stiffy 2 304 12-03-2013, 10:27 PM
Last Post: CharliePrime
  Elite blame the peons for Climate Change mexika 0 303 09-27-2013, 10:57 PM
Last Post: mexika
  CIA Funding Climate Manipulation Study mexika 0 362 07-17-2013, 11:06 PM
Last Post: mexika
  SOPA creator’s latest bill proposes stripping peer-review from science funding thokling 4 616 05-01-2013, 05:28 AM
Last Post: Watchdog
  Twenty-year hiatus in rising temperatures has climate scientists puzzled SiLVa 3 840 04-10-2013, 10:24 PM
Last Post: Watchdog
  "Climate Deniers" - the myth of consensus macfadden 10 2,252 03-20-2013, 08:50 PM
Last Post: fujiinn
  Energy's Latest Battleground: Fracking For Uranium Frank2 0 389 02-19-2013, 07:37 PM
Last Post: Frank2
  Error found in climate modelling: Too many droughts: We foretold 8 of the last 2 h3rm35 0 472 09-18-2012, 10:14 PM
Last Post: h3rm35

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)