Anti man-made global warming manifesto.

Discussion in 'IntroSpectrum' started by menaz, May 12, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. menaz

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807
    I spent countless hours reseaching and typing this manifesto up for my skeptical comrades. I've learned alot and I hope you do as well.

    I have held my finger tips on this subject far too long. Whether you agree with what I have to say or not, I had to bring it to attention. See, There comes a point in time every mans life when he must stand up. This is that point in time. The movement behide man made global warming is a political agenda not scientific. It is Junk science. It's a truth of convenience. Now allow me to show you all how you're being duped by more people than just Al gore. This man-made Global warming religiosity must be destoried at all costs.
    test
  2. menaz

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807
    - Ipcc, Is funded by the Politcal UN body, The intergovernmental Group therefore controls everything. The media is manipulating global warming to inflict global scare. The following is quotes from Scientist who are exposing the shadyness of IPCC.

    - professor Nir shaviv: There were peroids for example in earth's history we had three times as much co2 than we have today. or periods were we had 10 times as much co2 than we have today. If co2 has a large effect on climate than we should see temperature reconstruction.

    - professor john christ: I've often heard it said that there is consensus of thousands of scientist on the global warming issue that humans are causing catastrophic change to the climate system... Well I am one scientist and there are many which think that is not true.

    - professor philip stott: IPCC is like any UN body it is political, The final conclusions are politically driven. It's become a great industry in itself and if the whole global warming farrago collapse there would be a awful lot of people out of jobs and looking for work.

    - professor richard lindzen: And to build the number up to 2,500 they have to start taking reviewers and government people and so on. And anyone who ever came close to them. And none of them are asked to agree... many of them disagree.

    - professor pual reiter: This claim that the IPCC is the worlds top 1,500 or 2,500 scientists. You look at the bibliographies of the people in it and it's simplely not true. There are quite a number of nonscientists. Those people who are specialist, but don't agree with the polemic and resign... and there have been a number that I know of, They are simplely put on the authors list and become apart of this 2,500 top world scientists.

    - Patrick moore (co-founder of green peace): It's not a enviromental movement any more it has become a political activist movement. And they have become hugely influential at a global level.

    - Roy spencer (nasa weather satellite team): Climate scientist need there to be a problem inorder to get funding.

    - Professor patrick michaels: tens of thousands of jobs depend on global warming right now.

    - Dr. piers corbyn: none of the major climate changes in the last thousand years can be explained by co2.

    - professor Ian clark: If we look at climate through the geological time frame we would never suspect co2 as a major climate driver. You can't say co2 will drive climate, it sure didn't in the past.
    test
  3. menaz

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807
    As you have just witnessed, Man-made Global warming is a political campaign turned into a political band wagon. The enviromental movements are also suppressing developing countires like Africa. ( i'll come back and explain this more thoroughly in the conclusion.) But right now I have Tons of actual scienific explainations to provide for what is actually causing this socalled global warming scare... But First lets look at the historic Climate changes (after all the earth climate is always changing without any help from us humans)... We can trace the persent warming trend back to at least 200 years to a very cold peroid in the earths history...

    [​IMG]

    - The Little ice age: In the 13th century europe plunged into the little ice age. Besides the Temp - 1000 years chart I will provide, You can also find this evidence of the in illustrations of old father thames... Because during those hardest and toughest winters of that little ice age the thames froze over.

    Now lets look further back than the little ice age to a zestful golden era when tempatures were much higher than they are today...

    - medevil warm period: This was a wonderfully rich time of wealthy prosperity during an age of cathedrals builders when even little vineyards flurished in the north of england.

    Going back in time even further before the medevil warm period there are more warm spells. Including a very prelonged period during the brozen age known as...

    [​IMG]

    - The holocene maximum: These tempatures were significantly higher than they are now for more than three millennia (millennium is equal to one thousand years) Now going back 8,000 years in the holocene period, our current interglacial, it was much wamer than it was than it is today. And unquestionably the polar bears survived that period because they're with us today. How? because they are very adaptable creatures. And those warm periods in the past what we call Hypsi-thermals posed not a problem for them. So nexttime you see a propaganda picture of a polar bear on a piece of ice that has broken off from one of the outter edges of the glaciers don't be alarmed that is normal. Infact, that is how polar bears travel, on a piece of broken off ice from glaciers.
    test
  4. menaz

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807
    Has Industrial progress changed not only our lives, but our earth's climate as well... According to the Junk science of man-made global warming industrial growth should be the culprit for causing the tempature to rise... but, does it?

    According to professor patrick michaels: Anyone who goes around and says co2 is responsible for most of the warming of the 20th century hasn't looked at the basic numbers.

    key Facts:

    - industrial production in the earily decades of the 20th century were in its infancy.
    - industrial production was restricted to only a few countries.
    - industrial production was handicapped by war and econmical depression.

    Post ww2...

    key fact:

    - industrial production changed Thing with consumer goods like refrigerators, and washing machines, and Tv's, and cars begain to be mass produced for international market.

    This global explosion of industrial activity is what historians refer to as The Post War Economic Boom... But How does the industrial story compare with the temperature record...

    [​IMG]

    key facts:

    - Since the mid 19th century the earth's temperature has risen by just a 1/2 degree celsius.
    - This warming begain long before cars and planes were even invented.
    - Most of the rise in temperature occured before 1940, During a period when industrial production was relatively insufficient.
    - And After the second world war during the post war economic boom tempatures in theory should have shot up, But they didn't, they fell. And not for one or two years, but for four decades. To recap, Most global warming over the past century occurred between 1900 and 1940 and the period of cooling took place between 1940 and 1975 when the post-war economic boom occurred.
    - Paradoxically it wasn't until the worlds recession in the 1970's that tempatures stopped falling.

    Why do we even suppose co2 is responsible for our changing climate? Espically when co2 forms a very small part of the earth's atmosphere. Infact, we measure changes in the level of atmospheric co2 in tens of parts per million. Atomsphere is made up of a multitude of gases.

    Key facts:

    - If you take co2 as a percentage of all the gases in the atomsphere, The oxygen, the nitrogen, etc... it's 0.054% ... which is a incredibly small protion. Then when we take that protion which humanes are adding, to cause all this irrational hysteria, and it gets even smaller.
    - co2 is a green house gas. out of the multitude of gases, co2 is a relatively minor green house gas.
    - And Of that very small percentage of green house gases 95% of it is water vapor... Which is the most important green house gas.
    So How do we check if the recent warming was due to a increasing green house gas? Only one way to tell by looking at the earth's troposphere.

    key fact:

    - If it's green house warming you get more warming in the middle of the troposphere the first 10 - 12 kilometers of the atomsphere than you do at the Surface. (one kilometer = 0.62 miles)

    The green house effect works like this... The sun sends its heat down to earth if it weren't for green houses gases this solar radiation would bounce back into space leaving the planet cold and uninhabitable. Green house gas traps the escaping heat in the earth's troposphere a few miles above the surface. And it's here according to the climate Modles that the rate of warming should be the highest if it's the green house gas causing it. All the modles everyone of them calculates that the warming should be faster as you go up from the surface into the atomsphere. And infact, the maximum warming over the equator should take place at an altitude of about 10 kilometers.

    There are two ways to take the tempature in the earth's atomsphere... Satellites and weather ballons.

    A scientist largely responsible for measuring the temperature in the earth's Atomsphere is professor John christy.

    key facts:

    - What was found consistently is that in a great part of the planet... that the bulk of the atomsphere is not warming as much as seen at the surface... Yet the junk science theory say's if the surface warms the upper atomsphere should warm rapidily.
    - Infact, The rise in temperature of that part of the Atomsphere is not very dramatic at all. And really does not match the theory that climate modles are expressing.
    - The observations do not show an incress with altitude. Infact most observations show a slight decress in the rate of warming in altitude. So in a sense the hypotheise of man made global warming is falsified by the evidence.
    - So In other words, That data gives you a handle on the fact that what you are seeing is warming not do to green house gases.
    - To recap: The recent warming of the earth happend in the wrong place and at the wrong time. Most of the warming took place in the earily part of the 20th century and occured mostly at the earth's surface, the very opposite of what should have happend according to the Junk science theory of man made global warming.
    test
  5. menaz

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807
    Al gore says the relationship between co2 and temperature is complicated... But how come he never says what those complications are?

    Infact, According to professor ian clark (who looks back into the earths temperature records tens of millions of years) there is something very important in the Ice core data which Al gore failed to mention. Inorder to look at climate on long scales, You're looking for geological materal which actually records climate. For example: Ice samples. They would use isotopes to reconstruct temperature, But the atomsphere that's imprisoned in that ice they liberate then look at the co2 content. What clark and others have discovered like Al gore did, is that there is a link between co2 and temperature, but What Al gore doesn't say is that the link is the wrong way around.

    [​IMG]

    Here you'll see, The Temperature in blue goes up first then it is followed by the co2 in red coming up.

    Key facts:

    - temperature went up from early time to later time at a very key interval when we came out of a glaciation.
    - Temperature is leading co2 by 800 hundred years, co2 has a 800 year lag.
    - Several major ice core surveys have shown the same thing... The temperature rises or falls and then after a few hundred years co2 follows.

    - co2 is not the cause of that warming. Infact, The warming produced the increase in co2.
    - co2 can not be causing temperature changes, its a product of temperature, its following temperature changes.
    - See, the ice core record goes to the very heart of the problem we have here. They said if the co2 increases in the atomsphere because of green house gases than the temperature will go up, But the ice core records show exactly the opposite. So the whole fundamental assumptive theory of climate change do to humans is shown to be wrong here. Al gore produced junk science.
    - For example, three Mars summers in a row, deposits of frozen carbon dioxide near Mars south pole have shrunk from the previous year's size, suggesting a climate change in progress. The images, documenting changes from 1999 to 2005, suggest the climate on Mars is presently warmer, and perhaps getting warmer still, than it was several decades or centuries ago.
    - co2 is a natural gas produced by all living things. ( its not a pollutant)
    co2 is how living things grow... DUH! Perhaps Al gore needs co2 enlightenment. lol!
    - humans produce a small fraction in the single digits percentage wise of the co2 that is produced into the earths atomsphere.
    - volcanos produce more co2 each year than all the factors, and cars, and planes, and all other sources of man made co2 put together.
    - More still comes from animals and bacteria -- which produce about 150 gigatons of co2 each year. Compared to a mere 6 1/2 gigatons of co2 from humans. (gigaton is a metric unit of mass... equal to one billion)
    - and even larger source of co2 comes from dying vegetation; from falling leaves for example in the fall.
    - but the biggest source of co2 by far is the oceans.

    Which brings us to co2 & oceanography.

    According to professor carl wunsch: The ocean is the main reservoir into which co2 goes when it comes out of the atomsphere or to from which it is remitted into the atomsphere. If you heat the surface of the ocean it tends to emit co2, so similarly if you cool the ocean surface... the ocean can ocean can deslove more co2.

    key fact:

    - The wamer the oceans the more co2 they produce, and the coolier they are the more they suck in.

    So why is there a time lag of hundreds of years between a change in temperature and a change in the amount of co2 going into or out of the sea?

    key facts:

    - The reason for the time lag is that oceans are so big and so deep they take literally hundreds of years to warm up and cool down. This time lag means the oceans have what scientist call a memory of temperature changes.
    - the ocean has a memroy of past events running out as far as ten thousand years. So when someone says: i'm seeing changes in the north atlantic... this must mean that the climate system is changing. What this really means is something happend in a remote part of the ocean decades or hundreds of years ago whose effects are now beginning to show up in the north atlantic.
    - To reiterate: The current warming begain long before people had cars or electric lights. In the past 150 years the temperature has risen just over 1/2 degree celsius, but most of that rise occured before 1940, since that time the temperature has fallen for four decades and risen for three, there is no evidence at all from earth's long climate history that co2 has ever determined global temperatures. (see: global temp graph again)

    Which brings us too... If co2 doesn't drive earth's climate what does?
    test
  6. menaz

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807
    Accroding to professor philip stott: isn't it bizzar to think that it's humans, when we're filling up our cars, turning on our lights, that we're the ones controlling the climate? Just look in the sky... Look at the massive thing the sun! even humans at our present 6 1/2 billion are inferior relative to that.

    Dr. piers corbyn, is publically Hailed as thee Super weather man.
    And According to Dr. corbyn the secert of his success was: The origin of solar weather techique for long rage forecasting... came originally from the study of sun spots and the desire to predict those... and then I realized it was actually much more interesting to use the sun to predict the weather. (In otherwords: the sun)

    brief fact on Sun spots...

    - They are intense magnetic fields which appear at higher times of solar activity.

    However, millions of hundreds of years long before this was properly understood astromers around the world use to count the number of sunspots in the belief that more spots heralded warmer weather.
    In 1893, astronomer Edward maunder observed during the little ice age observed there were barely any spots visible on the sun... This period of solar inactivity became known as the Maunder minimum.

    [​IMG]

    Just how reliable are suns spots as an indacator of the weather?

    Well, Dr. piers corbyn had this to say: I decided to test it by gambling on the weather through william hill aginst what the met office said was a normal expectation... and I won money month after month after month. Last winter the meth office said it could be or would be a exceptionally cold winter. We said no that's nonesense it's going to be very close to normal and we specifically said when it would be cold. right after christmas and february... We were right they were wrong.

    Sunspots compared to the temperature record:

    [​IMG]

    The figure shows how the solar cycle length (red) is related to the global temperature (blue). (100 years)

    Key fact:

    - Solar activity rose sharply to 1940 fell back four decades until 1975 and then rose again after that. ( Global temp graph correlates with temp & solar activity graph)

    To show you the temperature and correlation of solar activity (sunspot cyclings) is not conidence... How do you prove it not to be a just a conidence, simple by running a longer/different time series. (So lets go 400 years back in time)

    [​IMG]

    As you can observe the Solar activity and Temperature are indeed linked.

    key facts:

    - they found verations in Solar activity were intimately linked to temperature veration on earth.
    - It was the Solar activity (the sun) not co2 or anything else driving changes in climate.

    Does this suprise you? It shouldn't because The Sun effects us directly when it sends down it's heat. What we also know now is that the sun effects indirectly through clouds.

    Key facts:

    - Clouds have a powerful cooling effect.
    - Here is how clouds were formed... In the early 20th century scientists discovered the earth was constantly being bombarded by subatomic particals
    which they called cosmic rays originated it was believed from exploding super novey, (far beyond our solar system.)
    - And when these particals falling down meet water vapors rising up from the sea they form water droplets and made clouds.
    - However, when the sun is more active and the solar wind is strong fewer particals get through and fewer clouds are formed.

    Just how powerful is this effect?

    Well, Just recently an astrophysist Decided to compare cloud forming cosmic rays with the temperature record created by geologist going back six hundred million years...

    Here's what was found!

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]


    The correlation between cosmic ray flux (red) measured in low magnetic latitudes and low-altitude cloud cover (blue) using ISCCP satellite data.

    Key facts:

    - When cosmic rays went up the temperature went down.
    - When cosmic rays with down the temperature went up.
    - Clouds and the earths climate were very closly linked.
    (To exame how close they just filp the lines or in other words put each graph on top of each other.)
    - The climate was controlled by the clouds -- the clouds were controlled by the cosmic rays -- and the cosmic rays were controlled by the sun.

    According to Nigel calder: If you had xray eyes what appears as a nice friendly yellow ball would appear like a raging tiger. The sun is an Incredibly violent beast.

    Key facts:

    - The sun is throwing out great explosions.
    - The sun is throwing out puffs of gas
    - The sun is throwing out endless solar wind that is forever rushing passed the earth.
    - In a certain sense we're inside the Atomsphere of the sun.
    - Infact, The intensity of the sun's magnetic field more than doubled during the 20th century.
    test
  7. menaz

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807
    In 2005 astrophysist from harvard unviserity published a graph in the offical journal geophysical Union:
    [​IMG]
    The Sun is fluxuating the earth's temperature not co2.
    Notice how the graph points out perfectly...
    That co2 and temp do not correlate,
    but Sun and temp do correlate.

    Key Facts:

    - Solar activity over the past hundred years correlates very nicely on a decadal bases with sea ice and artic temperature.
    - The sun is driving climate change.
    - co2 is irrelevant.

    Now if co2 is irrelevant to warming, then why have we been bombarded with news by the media of man made global warming? To understand the power of Global warming junk science theory... One must explain how the Global warming Junk science theory came about.

    Weather machine: Global cooling - New ice age.
    an inconvient truth: Global warming - New Heat age.

    Key Facts:

    - In 1974, BBC warned everyone of impending disasters which are sort of quite similar.Such as flim reels showing: American midwest suffering its worst drought since the 1930's. And tornado's on the rampage.
    - In the weather machine, They reported the mainstream opinion of the time which was global cooling. (threating a new ice age.)
    - After four decades of falling temperatures, experts warned that a cooler world would have catastrophic consequences. (SUCH AS A NEW ICE AGE)

    However, among the impending doom and melancholy apprehension was
    a swedish scientist named bret bolden who suggested that: Man made co2 might help to warm the world if we continue to do this over a 50 years time the planet maybe a few degrees warmer than today, we just don't know.

    Key facts:

    - The weather machine, Was the first to put bert bolden on Tv talking about the dangers of co2.
    - The weather machine was bitterly criticized by top experts for indulging Bert bolden in his fantasy.
    - Of the height of the cooling scare in the 1970's, Bert bolden's eccentric idea of man made global warming was considered absurd.

    Two things changed that...

    Key facts:

    - Number 1.) temperatures started to rise.
    - Number 2.) The minors went on strike.
    - To margaret thatcher energy was a political problem.
    - In the earily 1970's oil crisis had plunged the world into recession, And the minors brought down Ted Heath's conservative government.
    - Mrs. thatcher was determined the same would not happen to her. (Meaning: She set out to break their power.)
    - Thus, The Politizing of man made Global warming started with Margert thatcher.
    - Thatcher was obsessed with pushing for Nuclear power long before climate change came up, because she was concerned about energy security.
    - Number 1.) she didn't trust the middleeast.
    - Number 2.) she didn't trust the national union of mine workers.
    - Thus, She didn't trust oil or coal.
    - However, Once the (climate change) global warming came up she thought how wonderful here is another argument because doesn't have any co2 emissions. Thus, giving thatcher the argument that directed everyone towards her Nuclear energy program.
    - Thatcher then went to the scientists and paid them off to prove it, And course they took the money and did that.
    - research facilities started to bubble up which were going to be researching climate but with a particular emphasis on the relationship of "Co2 & temperature"
    - At the request of Mrs. thatcher the UK met office set up a climate modling unit which provided the bases for a new international community called: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change... OR, The IPCC!
    - IPCC then came out with the First big report which predicted climatic disaster as a result of global warming.
    - According to nigel calder two things at the scientific press conference amazed him.
    - Number 1.) The simplicity IPCC'S message and the vigor inwhich it was delivered.
    - Number 2.) The total disregard for all climate science up til that time. Including incidentally... the role of the sun which had been the subject of a major meeting at the royal society (promotes scientific discussion) just a few months eariler.

    The midevil envormentalist: People who want to go back to the way things were in midevil times by Getting rit of cars and machines... Because co2 was for them an emblem of industrialization. (Three Communist cheers for anti-development!)

    Key facts:

    - They Loved margaret thatcher's political idea, because co2 is a industrial gas.
    - They tie co2 in with economical growth condeming it as bad.
    - Everthing to do with civilization they are against.
    - They use it to ligitimize a whole sweet of myth that already existed, Anti-car, anti-growth, anti-developement, and above all anti that great satan AMERICA!

    Patrick moore, cofounder of greenpeace: The shft to climate being the major vocial point came about for two very distinct reasons.

    - Number 1.) By the mid 80's the majority of people now agreed with all the reasonable things Enviromentalist movements were saying they should do. And now when a majority of people agree with you it's pretty hard to remain polemicist with them. So the only way to remain anti-establishment was to adpot ever more extreme positions.
    - Number 2.) Enviromental extremism emerged was because world Communism failed the wall came down and alot of peacenicks and political activist moved into the enviromental movement bring their neo-marxism with them. And learned to use green language in a very clever way to cloke agendas that actually have more to do with Anti-captialism and anti-globalization than they do anything with ecology or science.

    Key facts:

    - They wanted to band chlorine world wide, and Cholrine is in the periodic table.
    They pretty much wanted to try an band a whole element.
    - The left have been slightly disoriented since Socialism and Communism failed, But they still stay as Anti-captialist as they once were through the new guise for their anti-captialism. (thus, enviromental movements.)
    - What we have is this... An amazing Alliance... Margaret thatcher on the RIGHT through to very LEFT wing anti-capitalist enviromentalist... which created this kind of momentum behind a loony idea.
    - By the early 1990's man made global warning was nolonger a slightly eccentric idea about climate... it had became a full blown political campaign.
    - prior to Bush sr., the level of funding for climate and climate related sciences was around hundred and seventy million dollars a year, Which is fine, But then it jumped to two billion a year, Which is more than a factor of ten. Which brought a lot of jobs to people who wouldn't have normally been interested. Thus, It delevoped whole cadres of people whose ONLY interest in the feild was that there was Global warming.
    test
  8. menaz

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807
    According to Nigel calder: If I wanted to do research on the squirrels of sciurus what I would do, and this is anytime from 1990 on wards. I would write my grant application saying I want to investigate the nut gathering behavior of squirrels with special reference to the effects of global warming. And that way I get my money. If I forget to mention global warming I might not get my money.

    As Mr.calder has truthfully pointed out most scientists actually don't want anything to do with global warming, but they must go along with Global warming to collect their money inorder to continue their actual research. And that is just yet another way global warming is attached to everything.

    By the 1990's tens of billions of dollars of government funding in the US, UK, and else... were being diverted into research related to global warming. A large portion of those funds went into building computre models to forecaste what the climate will be in the future.

    Now, I'm going to Point out how Computre models predicting the future climate is completely bogus and nothing but junk science.

    Weather satellite team leader of NASA, Dr. Roy spencer, had this to say about the computre models predictions: Climate models are only as good as the assumptions that go into them (In other words: Garbage in, Garbage out.)

    Key facts:

    - Computre models of hundreds of assumptions, all it takes is one wrong assumption for the forecast to be way off.
    - In the weather machine, scientists said when it comes to making decisions that effect people a bad prediction as to what the climate of the future might be is far worse than none at all.
    - In the Weather machine, modest scientists concluded Climate models just aren't reliable enough to make a prediction into the future. (Just for reminder, the weather machine is a Documentary on Global cooling.)
    All Models assume man-made co2 is the main cause of climate change... rather than the SUN or the CLOUDS.

    Professor Tim ball used this analogy to explain: My cars not running very well so i'm going to ignore the engine which is the (SUN) and i'm going to ignore the transmission which is the (water vapor) and i'm going to look at one nut on the right rear wheel which is the (human produced co2) The science is that terrible.

    Key Facts:

    - One must understand the whole Climate system.
    - One must account for all the components such as, Cosmic ray, the solar, the co2, the water vapor, the clouds, if one hasn't accounted for all that than the model is worthless.
    - In mathematical modeling if you tweak Parameters one could model anything... one could make it get wamer or one could make it get colder... simplely just by changing things.

    Now, Since all the models assume man-made co2 causes warming, One obvious way to produce an impressive forecast is to incress the amount of imagined man-made co2 going into the earths atomsphere.

    I'm using professor Patrick michaels as my Reference.

    Key facts:

    - modelers put an incress of co2 into modles which is 1% per year.
    - It's been .49% per year for the last ten years.
    - .42% for the ten years before that.
    - and .43% for the ten years before that.
    - Thus meaning, The models have twice as much greenhouse warming radiation going in them than is known to be happening. (Noone should not be shocked that models are predicting more warming than is occuring.)

    Modles perdict what the weather might be in 50 or 100 years time, it is one of their peculiar features that long range climate forecast are only proved wrong long after people have forgotten about them. As a result forecasters care less about predicting a forecast which is accurate and more about one that is interesting.

    Key facts:

    - According to professor carl wunsch: If I run a complicated model and I do something to it like melt ice and nothing happens it's not likely to get printed. But if I run the same model and adjust it in such a way that something dramatic happens to the ocean circulation like the heat transport turns off it will be published. (Heat transport is, how the ocean currents carry and transport heat from ocean to ocean and from equator to poles to maintain Earth's temperature.)

    - And there is a very powerful bias within the media and science community itself towards results which are dramatizable.
    - If the earth freezes over that is more interesting than saying it fluxuates around.
    - Sometimes The mass flux goes up by 10%, sometimes it goes down by 20%, but eventually it comes back. (If you were the Media which would you choose to do a stroy on the Earth freezing over or it Fluxuating?) That's not retorical!

    Man-made Global warming is purely propaganda zealously postulated by eviromental journalist.

    key facts:

    - If the Global warming story goes in the trash-can so does their Jobs.
    - Therefore the reporting has to get more and more Hysterical.
    - Fortunately there are still a few harden news editors around who will say isn't this what you were postulated 5 years ago? Thus is why these reporters have to keep making man-made global warming more Hysterical and Hysterical.

    It is common in the media now to blame every strom on global warming
    However, lets check if there is any scientific bases for these zealously postulated claims.

    I'm using professor carl wunsch as my Reference.

    Key Fact:

    - Every text book in meterology tells us the main source of weather disturbances is the temperature difference between the tropics and the pole... Yet we're told in a warmer world this difference will get less. Now that would tell us... We'll have less storminess, We'll have less variability, but for some reason that isn't considered catastrophic... So Instead we're told the opposite.
    test
  9. menaz

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807
    News reports also argue that even a mile incress in global temperature could lead to a catastrophic melting of the polar ice caps. However, What does earth's historic climate tell us?

    I'm using, professor Syun-Ichi Akasofu, professor John christy, and professor philip stott as my References.

    [​IMG]
    (Here is a still image of the Historic record of sea ice expanding and contracting naturally in 1996.)
    http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a003300/a003372/a003372_256x144.mpg
    http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a003300/a003372/a003372_NTSC.m2v
    (Here is video satellite of the recent historic record of Sea ice expanding and contracting naturally in 2005 to 2006)

    Key facts:

    - There are temperature records of greenland that go back thousands of years.
    - Greenland has been much wamer just thousand years ago.
    - Greenland was much wamer than it is today, yet it didn't have a dramatic melting event.
    - Even discussing something like permafrost, A great deal of the premafrost (that icey layer under the forest of russia for example) seven or eight thousand years ago melted far more than we're having any evidence about it melting now.
    - In otherwords, This is a historical pattern again, and no reason for the world to come to a crunching holt because of it.
    - Over time the ice caps are always naturally expanding and contracting. (see: nasa videos I provided)
    - Ice is always moving. (see: nasa videos I provided)
    - News reports frequently show ice breaking away from the edge of the arctic, What they don't mention is... this is as ordinary an event in the arctic as falling leaves on an autumn day.
    - The Ice falling from the edge of the glaciers is just spring break up... However, it doesn't happen every year.
    - The press asked Syun-Ichi Akasofu if they could see something greenhouse gasses have done... He replied: There is none!

    So What causes the sea level to change and how fast does it happen?
    I'm using professor Philip Stott as my reference.

    Key facts:

    - Sea level changes over the world in general, are governed fundumentally by two factors...

    - Number 1.) Local factors: The relationship of the sea to the land, which often by the way has to do with the land rising or falling than anything to do with the sea.
    - Number 2.) eustatic factors: eustatic changes of sea, world wide changes of sea, that's through the thermal expansion of the oceans, nothing to do with melting ice. And that's an enormously slow and long processes.

    According to Professor carl Wunsch: People say I see the ocean doing this last year that means that something changed in the atomsphere last year. And this is not necessarily true at all. Infact, it's actually quite unlikely.

    Key fact:

    - The reason this is not true: Is because it can take the deep ocean hundreds of thousands of years to respond to forces and changes that are taking place at the surface.

    Global warmest also make suggestive propaganda that even a mile rise in temperature will lead to the spread northward of deadly insect born tropical diseases like malaria. Lets find out if this is true.

    i'm using professor paul reiter as my reference.

    Key facts:

    - mosquitoes thrive in cold temperatures. (They're not specifically tropical.)
    - Infact, mosquitoes are extremely abundant in the Arctic.
    - The most devastating epidemic of malaria was in the soviet union in the 1920's,
    - soviet union had something like 13 million cases a year.
    - soviet union had something like six hundred thousand deaths.
    - The soviet union epidemic of malaria was tremendous catastorphy which reached up to the Arctic cricle.
    - Archangel had about thirty thousand cases.
    - Archangel had about ten thousand deaths. (Archangel: is a port on the Arctic Sea)
    - Thus, it's not a tropical disease... infact, Global warmest just like to invent the idea that malaria will move northwards.
    test
  10. menaz

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807
    (Read professor Fredick seitz letter to the wall street journal about IPCC censoring the comments of scientists.)

    Here are a few of seitz statements:

    - This report is not what it appears to be -- it is not the version that was approved by the contributing scientists listed on the title page.
    - none of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we attribute the observed "climate" changes to the specific cause of increases in green house gases.
    - no study to date has positively attributed all or part of climate change observed to date -- to Anthropogenic -- man made causes.
    - I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report.

    According to paul reiter: When I resigned from the IPCC I thought that was the end of it, but when I saw the final draft my name was still there. So I asked for it to be removed, well they told me I had contributed so it would remain there. So I said no I haven't contributed because they haven't listened to anything i've said. Finally, I threatend legal action against them and they removed my name. This happens a great deal.

    key facts:

    - Research relating to Man made global warming is now one the best funded areas of science.
    - U.S government spends four billion dollars a year on man made global warming.
    - Thus, Scientist who speak out against man made global warming have alot to lose.

    According to Dr. roy spencer: It's generally harder to get research proposals funded because of the stands we've taken publically. You'll find very few of us who are willing to take a public stand because it does cut into their research funding.

    What is a common lacklustering prejudice? Scientist who do not agree with the junk science theory of man made global warming must be funded by private industries to spew fabrications...

    Key facts:

    According to Philip Stott: I get it all the time... "You must be in the pay of the Multinationals!" Sadly, like most of the scientists you will talk to I haven't seen a penny from the multinationals.

    According to tim ball: I'm always accused of being paid by the oil and gas companies, I've never received a nickle from the oil and gas companies.
    I joke about it... I wish they would pay me then I could afford their product.

    According to nigel calder: whenever anybody says that I am in the pay of an oil company, I say... My bank manager would wish.

    patrick michaels: Had once done research which was partly funded by the coal industry in the past. He has also not published very much in the professional literature. However, He is a Research professor of enviromental sciences at the university of Virginia. He was also chair of the commity on applied Climatology of the american meteorological society, President of the american association of state Climatologist, the author of three books on meteorology, And a author and reviewer on the UN's intergovernmental panel on climate change.
    test
  11. menaz

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807
    (The Global warming Alarm debate)
    This is my main reason for fighting against the rethoric of political activist.
    (you know who i'm talking about, The enviromentalist hypocrites)

    Key facts:

    - As international public policy bears down on industrial emissions of co2 the developing world is soming under intense pressure not develope.
    The UN sponers... Civil servants, professional ngo campaingers, carbon offset fund managers, enviromentalist journalist. There are over 6,000 delegates who attend the UN conference which lasts for ten days.

    What are they all congregating together to promote?

    Key facts:

    - Solar panels in africa.
    - The relationship to global warming & sexism.

    What does this mean?

    According to Professor John christy: Billions of dollars invested in climate science means theres a huge constituency of people who are dependant upon those dollars. And they will want to see that carried foward. It happens in any bureaucracy.

    According to nigel calder: where I live we have local consul global warming officers.

    According to Lord lawson of blaby: Anyone who stands up and says wait a minute lets look at this coolly and rationally and carefully and see exactly how much this stands up. They will be Osterized. (hence: me)
    According to tim ball: If you stand up in the coconut shie, their going to throw at you. But it gets too nasty and personal they even make death threats. So i'm not doing it for my health.

    According to patrick moore (The co-founder of green peace): These days if your skeptical about the litany around climate change you're suddenly like if your a holocuast denier. The enviromental movement is really a politcal activist movement and they have become hugely influential at a global level. And every politician is aware of that today. Wether your on the left in the middle or on the right you have to pay homage to the enviroment.

    As the result...
    Key facts:

    - The american government once a major resistor of man made global warming has now subsumed to it. (democracy is being used inorder to push agendas)
    - George bush is now an Ally.
    - Western governments have also embraced the need for international argeements to restrain industrial production in the developed and developing world.

    But at what cost?

    According to paul driessen (A formal enviromental campaigner): My big concern with global warming is that the policies being pushed supposedly to prevent global warming are having a disastrous effect on the worlds poorest people.

    The global warming campaigners will say: It does no harm to be on the safe side even if the Junk science theory of man made climate changes is wrong. We should propose draconian measures to cut carbon emissions just incase. And what do they call this harmful retoric -- The precautionary principal.

    According to paul driessen: The precautionary principal is a interesting beast basically used to promote a particular agenda and ideology.

    Key facts:

    - It's always used in one direction only.
    - It talks about the risk of using a particular technology, for example: fossil fuels.
    - Their principal never talks about the risks of not using it.
    - Their principal never talks about the benefits of having that technology.

    There are 2 billion people a thrid of the worlds population who have no access to electricity. Instead they must burn wood or dry animal dung in their homes.

    key fact about rural life:

    - The indoor smoke this creates is the deadliest form of polution in the world.
    - According to the world health organization: four million children under the age of five die each year from respiratory diseases caused by indoor smoke.
    - many millions of women die earlier from cancer and lung diseases for the same reasons.

    According to james shikwati: If you were to ask a rural person to define developement, They'll tell you yes and no I'll move to the next level when
    I have electricity. Not having electricity causes a long chain of problems, because the first thing you would miss is the light. So there is no reason to stay awake. I mean you can't talk to each other in darkness.

    Key facts about rural life:

    - No refrigeration or modern packaging means no food can be keept.
    - The fire in huts becomes much to smokey and consumes too much wood to be used for heating.
    - There is no hot water
    - life expectancy is alarmingly short, their existence impoverished in everyway.
    - Thus, People in the west can't even begin to imagine how hard life is without electricity.

    Meanwhile back at the lavish gated headquarters the UN delegates (mentioned eariler) are discussing how to promote sustainable forms of electoral generation.

    Key facts about Africa:
    - Africa has coal.
    - Africa has oil.

    However, Enviromental groups are campaigning against the use of these cheap sources of energy.

    Key facts on what they proposed instead:

    - Instead they're saying Africa and the rest of the developing world should use solar and wind power. ( Which is actually more expensive than oil or coal)

    How Good of an Idea is solar power? Well in Nairobi (the capital and largest city of kenya) there is a clinic which utilizes two solar panels and serves several villages. However, the only electrical implaments in the clinic are the electric lights and refrigerator. (The refrigerator stores: vaccines, blood samples, medicine.)

    key facts about solar power:

    - The solar power allows doctor to use either the lights or the refrigerator, but not both at the same time.
    - If the doctor does utilze the solar energy inorder to power both at the sametime, the electricity completely shuts down.
    - Wind and solar power are notoriously unreliable as a source of electricity.
    - And at least three times more expansive than conventional forms of electrical generation.
    - Thus, if we are telling the 3rd world that you can have wind & solar power... what we are really telling them is they can not have electricity.
    test
  12. Yahunyahti

    Yahunyahti New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,016
    Looks like you did your research. I doubt I'll read all of that because I never bought into the Global Warming nonsense in the first place, but yea.

    I'll be surprised if anybody actually reads this.
    Ghet might.
    test
  13. menaz

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807
    I was hoping the thread would get stickied.
    I told you I was busy.

    I'm sure teq or ghet will enjoy this.

    Regardless I had fun doing the research.
    plus I learned a great deal.

    I broke it up in sections, So you can read the specific parts that you want to know about.
    test
  14. musicisvanity

    musicisvanity New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2006
    Messages:
    275
    Wow. Dude that's long.
    test
  15. menaz

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807
    yet informative.
    test
  16. I've long suspected that a mere two hundred years of industrial carbon consumption was unable to trigger global catalystic processes. Perhaps if the Industrial age was a thousand years ago, that argument would be much more plausible.

    However, we can never forget the repeatability of this sort of "romanticizing nature". Every so often, a movement to "return to nature" sweeps up Industrial Societies. Neo-Tribalism, the concept of a Noble Savage, Back-To-Africa theories, Thoreau, even the Nazi's did it in Germany at the end of the 1930s as a means to fight against Communism having power in their nation by preventing unchecked urbanization, these attempts at "loving trees" and "protecting our environment from ourselves" shows all of the signs of a religious movement.

    The Left has had a very, very long infatuation with convincing a population that there is a problem so that they can mobilize said population to "fight against it." It is blatently obvious what the political stakes are with the scope of Environmentalism. As this religious spreads amongst simple people who can't comprehend global affairs of civilizational infrastructure, other nations will eventually be forced into accepting these laws. There are already Leftists more than willing to talk a good game about creating global policies to enforce such ideological qualms on -developing- nations.

    Tell me, if you are a -developing- nation... say.. Cambodia... or Vietnam... nations that has been forced into rural economic stangation/disaster thanks to 70 years of the last Leftist chicken-little claim of "Communism will take over the world!", how exactly do you hope to increase your national economic conditions if it is illegal to even consider entering your nation's Industrial Era?

    I know my voice alone isn't enouhg to sway these neohippies to actually use their brains for the first time in their useless lives. Whatever the reasoning will be for this sort of drive to make Environmentalism the global religion of man, post-Colonial intellects will notice patterns, and will begin to see these international attempts of basically making industrial advancement incredibly expensive as an intentional means to limit that countries economic potential, position, and clout.

    And I'm all for it. I told you all that I will do like every other great dictator in history has done: Be a Democrat. The more people you kill, the more viciously liberals will defend you.
    test
  17. Rich Dullwasp

    Rich Dullwasp New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2003
    Messages:
    1,367
    The Great Global Warming Swindle
    test
  18. BeEgEe

    BeEgEe El Warm Shot

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2001
    Messages:
    18,151
    glen beck?

    is that you?



    hhahahhahha.


    and if your wrong?
    test
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Users Viewing Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 0)