The mammoth global warming scam Options

[Timothy Osman]

It looks like the CO2 induced global warming paradigm is a scietific dead duck, whether that is enough to change the political reality what with all the cash they can rake in with carbon taxes, offset trades and such will remain to be seen. I'm tipping they will still run with the beer bubbles kill the planet paradigm simply because they have too much invested in this to ditch it altogether. Plus there is the fear factor.
Here we have a broadsheet paper giving it a broadside with NASA as amunition.

CATASTROPHIC predictions of global warming usually conjure with the notion of a tipping point, a point of no return.
Last Monday - on ABC Radio National, of all places - there was a tipping point of a different kind in the debate on climate change. It was a remarkable interview involving the co-host of Counterpoint, Michael Duffy and Jennifer Marohasy, a biologist and senior fellow of Melbourne-based think tank the Institute of Public Affairs. Anyone in public life who takes a position on the greenhouse gas hypothesis will ignore it at their peril.

Duffy asked Marohasy: "Is the Earth stillwarming?"

She replied: "No, actually, there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of reference. If you take 2002 as your point of reference, then temperatures have plateaued. This is certainly not what you'd expect if carbon dioxide is driving temperature because carbon dioxide levels have been increasing but temperatures have actually been coming down over the last 10 years."

Duffy: "Is this a matter of any controversy?"

Marohasy: "Actually, no. The head of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has actually acknowledged it. He talks about the apparent plateau in temperatures so far this century. So he recognises that in this century, over the past eight years, temperatures have plateaued ... This is not what you'd expect, as I said, because if carbon dioxide is driving temperature then you'd expect that, given carbon dioxide levels have been continuing to increase, temperatures should be going up ... So (it's) very unexpected, not something that's being discussed. It should be being discussed, though, because it's very significant."

Duffy: "It's not only that it's not discussed. We never hear it, do we? Whenever there's any sort of weather event that can be linked into the global warming orthodoxy, it's put on the front page. But a fact like that, which is that global warming stopped a decade ago, is virtually never reported, which is extraordinary."

Duffy then turned to the question of how the proponents of the greenhouse gas hypothesis deal with data that doesn't support their case. "People like Kevin Rudd and Ross Garnaut are speaking as though the Earth is still warming at an alarming rate, but what is the argument from the other side? What would people associated with the IPCC say to explain the (temperature) dip?"

Marohasy: "Well, the head of the IPCC has suggested natural factors are compensating for the increasing carbon dioxide levels and I guess, to some extent, that's what sceptics have been saying for some time: that, yes, carbon dioxide will give you some warming but there are a whole lot of other factors that may compensate or that may augment the warming from elevated levels of carbon dioxide.

"There's been a lot of talk about the impact of the sun and that maybe we're going to go through or are entering a period of less intense solar activity and this could be contributing to the current cooling."

Duffy: "Can you tell us about NASA's Aqua satellite, because I understand some of the data we're now getting is quite important in our understanding of how climate works?"

Marohasy: "That's right. The satellite was only launched in 2002 and it enabled the collection of data, not just on temperature but also on cloud formation and water vapour. What all the climate models suggest is that, when you've got warming from additional carbon dioxide, this will result in increased water vapour, so you're going to get a positive feedback. That's what the models have been indicating. What this great data from the NASA Aqua satellite ... (is) actually showing is just the opposite, that with a little bit of warming, weather processes are compensating, so they're actually limiting the greenhouse effect and you're getting a negative rather than a positive feedback."

Duffy: "The climate is actually, in one way anyway, more robust than was assumed in the climate models?"

Marohasy: "That's right ... These findings actually aren't being disputed by the meteorological community. They're having trouble digesting the findings, they're acknowledging the findings, they're acknowledging that the data from NASA's Aqua satellite is not how the models predict, and I think they're about to recognise that the models really do need to be overhauled and that when they are overhauled they will probably show greatly reduced future warming projected as a consequence of carbon dioxide."

Duffy: "From what you're saying, it sounds like the implications of this could beconsiderable ..."

Marohasy: "That's right, very much so. The policy implications are enormous. The meteorological community at the moment is really just coming to terms with the output from this NASA Aqua satellite and (climate scientist) Roy Spencer's interpretation of them. His work is published, his work is accepted, but I think people are still in shock at this point."

If Marohasy is anywhere near right about the impending collapse of the global warming paradigm, life will suddenly become a whole lot more interesting.

A great many founts of authority, from the Royal Society to the UN, most heads of government along with countless captains of industry, learned professors, commentators and journalists will be profoundly embarrassed. Let us hope it is a prolonged and chastening experience.

With catastrophe off the agenda, for most people the fog of millennial gloom will lift, at least until attention turns to the prospect of the next ice age. Among the better educated, the sceptical cast of mind that is the basis of empiricism will once again be back in fashion. The delusion that by recycling and catching public transport we can help save the planet will quickly come to be seen for the childish nonsense it was all along.

The poorest Indians and Chinese will be left in peace to work their way towards prosperity, without being badgered about the size of their carbon footprint, a concept that for most of us will soon be one with Nineveh and Tyre, clean forgotten in six months.

The scores of town planners in Australia building empires out of regulating what can and can't be built on low-lying shorelines will have to come to terms with the fact inundation no longer impends and find something more plausible to do. The same is true of the bureaucrats planning to accommodate "climate refugees".

Penny Wong's climate mega-portfolio will suddenly be as ephemeral as the ministries for the year 2000 that state governments used to entrust to junior ministers. Malcolm Turnbull will have to reinvent himself at vast speed as a climate change sceptic and the Prime Minister will have to kiss goodbye what he likes to call the great moral issue and policy challenge of our times.

It will all be vastly entertaining to watch.

THE Age published an essay with an environmental theme by Ian McEwan on March 8 and its stablemate, The Sydney Morning Herald, also carried a slightly longer version of the same piece.

The Australian's Cut & Paste column two days later reproduced a telling paragraph from the Herald's version, which suggested that McEwan was a climate change sceptic and which The Age had excised. He was expanding on the proposition that "we need not only reliable data but their expression in the rigorous use of statistics".

What The Age decided to spare its readers was the following: "Well-meaning intellectual movements, from communism to post-structuralism, have a poor history of absorbing inconvenient fact or challenges to fundamental precepts. We should not ignore or suppress good indicators on the environment, though they have become extremely rare now. It is tempting to the layman to embrace with enthusiasm the latest bleak scenario because it fits the darkness of our soul, the prevailing cultural pessimism. The imagination, as Wallace Stevens once said, is always at the end of an era. But we should be asking, or expecting others to ask, for the provenance of the data, the assumptions fed into the computer model, the response of the peer review community, and so on. Pessimism is intellectually delicious, even thrilling, but the matter before us is too serious for mere self-pleasuring. It would be self-defeating if the environmental movement degenerated into a religion of gloomy faith. (Faith, ungrounded certainty, is no virtue.)"

The missing sentences do not appear anywhere else in The Age's version of the essay. The attribution reads: "Copyright Ian McEwan 2008" and there is no acknowledgment of editing by The Age.

Why did the paper decide to offer its readers McEwan lite? Was he, I wonder, consulted on the matter? And isn't there a nice irony that The Age chose to delete the line about ideologues not being very good at "absorbing inconvenient fact"?

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story...99-7583,00.html

Can't get a bloody spell checker to work with firefox, It exposes my dizlexear.

This post has been edited by Timothy Osman: Mar 24 2008, 11:42 PM

[lunk]

Ice age?

If the ice sheets are returning...
polar bears may become the greater danger.

imo, lunk

[Nunyabiz]

Marohasy is employed by the right wing think tank "Institute of Public Affairs" which are well known oil shills same place Bob Carter crawled out from under.

You people need to stop spreading right wing big oil propaganda as if its fact.

[lunk]

"Influence of Cosmic Rays on the Earth's Climate

Henrik Svensmark

Danish National Space Center, Juliane Maries Vej 30, DK-2100 Copenhagen.

About twice a second an energetic subatomic particle whizzes through your head. It is a secondary cosmic-ray particle, made when primary cosmic rays coming from exploded stars far away in the Milky Way Galaxy hit the Earth’s atmosphere. The air is a very good shield, and the cosmic rays are more intense on high mountains or in jet planes.
Our team at the Danish National Space Center has discovered that the relatively few cosmic rays that reach sea-level play a big part in the everyday weather. They help to make low-level clouds, which largely regulate the Earth’s surface temperature.
In 1900 the cosmic rays were generally more intense than now and most of the warming during the 20th Century can be explained by a reduction in low cloud cover. Going back to 1700 and the even higher intensities of cosmic rays, the world must have seemed quite gloomy as well as chilly, with all the extra low-level clouds.
William Herschel, a famous astronomer in England, suggested in 1801 that the price of wheat was high when there were few sunspots. That link is now explained – a shortage of sunspots implies more cosmic rays and cloudy, cool summers. The recent discovery by
our team in Copenhagen of the chemical mechanism of cosmic-ray action on cloud formation thus brings to a climax a scientific quest that has lasted two centuries."

Snipped from the peer revued original document.

Carbon-dioxide is a greenhouse gas
if you live on Mars!

imo, lunk

[Timothy Osman]

Who is Jennifer Marohasy?

I have a Batchelor of Science and a PhD from the University of Queensland – my thesis was in insect ecology. I worked as a field biologist for many years and then in the late 1980s started critiquing environmental campaigns while I was environment manager for Canegrowers – I was concerned, in particular, that the World Wild Fund for Nature (WWF) was falsely suggesting science supported various unproven allegations relating to farming and the Great Barrier Reef. I then worked on Murray River water issues, again comparing allegations from environmentalists with the official statistics. I was forced to take an interest in global warming when Professor Tim Flannery made various public statements suggesting that the drought which gripped southern Australia for much of this century was unlikely to ever break because of carbon dioxide emissions. The issue of climate change now dominates much of the discussion at my weblog.

I have applied my training in the scientific method to understanding this issue. In particular I am only interested in the data – not what may or may not motivate commentary. Furthermore I am much more interested in observational data, rather than modelled output.

There are some people who may feel I am unqualified to comment in the area of climatology because my thesis topic was in ecology, however, much of my work for many years has simply been about understanding raw data/numbers and communicating this information in an honest and meaningful way – a PhD in a science discipline is a good formal training for this. I now describe myself as a biologist and a writer. Perhaps I could be best described as a science writer - but I have no formal training as a journalist, my training is as a scientist.

I don't know about her being with the oil lobby, she was definately with the farm lobby. The fact is in this instance she is just the messenger, the science is Spencers via NASA.

http://www.heartland.org/newyork08/audio/Tuesday/spencer.mp3

[Nunyabiz]

Sadly like most you are asking the wrong question.

What you should be asking is "Who is the Institute of Public Affairs" in Australia?

They are whom employ her and pay her, you learn a lot about a person by who they work for.

The IPA.au is a Right Wing think tank is tied to Australia's Conservative Party & very close ties to the US Reich wing nut bags the "American Enterprise Institute" and who are fellows of AEI? Here is a partial list of AEI fellows.
John R. Bolton, former U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations.
Lynne Cheney, wife of U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney, AEI senior fellow.
Ted Frank, serves on the Executive Committee of the Federalist Society's Litigation Practice Group
David Frum, an author and former speechwriter for Bush, is a resident fellow.
Jeffrey Gedmin, former resident scholar and Executive Director of AEI’s New Atlantic Initiative, current President of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.
Reuel Marc Gerecht is a resident fellow. He is the director of the Project for the New American Century's Middle East Initiative and a former Middle East specialist at the CIA.
Newt Gingrich, member of the Republican Party and Speaker of the United States House of Representatives between 1995 and 1999, is a senior fellow at AEI focusing on health care (he has founded the Center for Health Transformation), information technology, the military, and politics.
James K. Glassman, author of Dow 36,000, is a resident fellow.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a fellow, is a former Dutch politician, women's rights activist and critic of Islamism & Shar'ia Law.
Frederick Kagan is a military historian and signatory of Project for the New American Century manifesto titled Rebuilding America's Defenses (2000) along with his brother Robert (co-founder of the PNAC) and his father and fellow neo-conservative, Donald Kagan.
Alan Keyes, former Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs, was an AEI resident scholar.
Jeane Kirkpatrick was the former U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations and was an AEI senior fellow until she died in 2006.
Michael Ledeen was previously involved in the transfer of arms to Iran during the Iran-Contra affair — an adventure that he documented in his book, Perilous Statecraft: An Insider's Account of the Iran-Contra Affair.
Allan Meltzer is one of the foremost academics studying monetary policy and the Federal Reserve Bank. He, along with economist Milton Friedman, pioneered monetarism, the now widely accepted theory that inflation is entirely the result of the growth of the money supply. Meltzer is currently working on the second volume of his History of the Federal Reserve.
Joshua Muravchik is a resident scholar. He researches Middle East politics, democracy, neoconservatism and the history of socialism.
Charles Murray, an influential policy writer and a researcher, is the W.H. Brady Scholar in Culture and Freedom. He is best known as the co-author of the controversial 1994 book, The Bell Curve.
Michael Novak is the George Frederick Jewett Scholar in Religion, Philosophy and Public Policy and Director of Social and Political Studies at the institute. He has written extensively about the role of faith in government.
Norman Ornstein has been a Congressional analyst and political commentator for more than thirty five years.
Richard Perle served on the United States Defense Policy Board and is a former Assistant Secretary of Defense.
Danielle Pletka, Vice President, her research areas include the Middle East
Sally Satel is a psychiatrist and author of PC, M.D.: How Political Correctness is Corrupting Medicine.
Christina Hoff Sommers is a critic of the feminist movement. She is the author of Who Stole Feminism and The War Against Boys.
Fred Thompson, Television and film actor, currently appearing on the television show Law & Order, former U.S. Senator, and former Republican presidential primary candidate, is a visiting fellow.
Ben Wattenberg, a speechwriter for President Lyndon B. Johnson, is a senior fellow.
Paul Wolfowitz (Visiting Scholar), A "major architect of President Bush's Iraq policy and, within the [George W. Bush] Administration, its most passionate and compelling advocate."
John Yoo, formerly of the Office of Legal Counsel, and a professor at Boalt Hall, is a visiting scholar.

and Lee Raymond the ExCEO of Exxonmobil is Vice Chair of board of trustees

This is like a who's who list of many of the most vile, disgusting, insanely Reich wing neofascist POS on the planet and these people have control of what she says, they pay her, and she is just fine working for them.
Now who am I going to believe? 1000s upon 1000s of accredited scientist around the world with no agenda other than gathering data & interpreting it the best they can or a bunch of oil soaked shills with ties to the freaking PNAC?

"All three organizations, AEI, IPA and the Federalist Society, are ideologically aligned with the Bush Administration: that is, they are well to the right of traditional mainstream conservatism."
"On June 11, 2003, AEI and an Australian think tank, Institute for Public Affairs (IPA), cosponsored a conference titled "Non-governmental Organizations: The Growing Power of an Unelected Few," held at the AEI offices in Washington, D.C. The conference laid the ground for the launch of "NGO Watch"-a website and political campaign cosponsored by AEI and The Federalist Society."
Public Eye.org

The bastards (IPA & AEI) are doing everything they can to destroy as many NGOs as they possibly can, and who are these NGOs?

Here are just a few.

American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
Freedom House
Global Policy Forum
Green Cross International
International Planned Parenthood Federation
Margaret Sanger Center
National Organization for Women (NOW)
National Wildlife Federation
Open Society Institute
Planned Parenthood Federation of America
Population Council, The
Population Institute
Sierra Club
United Nations Foundation
United Nations Association of the United States of America
United Nations Watch
World Business Council for Sustainable Development
World Resources Institute

Basically ANY "Non-Government Organization" that is trying to help that bottom 98%.

"In our continuous quest to debunk the debunkers, the DeSmogBlog has uncovered another questionable connection between an oil company funded front group and the Alberta-based Friends of Science.

Thanks to a helpful tip from one of our fans, and a little of our own digging, we have found that one of the signatories to a recent Friends of Science letter to PM Harper is Australian climate change “skeptic” Dr. Bob Carter. Dr. Carter is connected to the energy sector funded think tank, the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA).

Under the guidance of Dr. Carter, the Australian-based IPA has been running a long-time disinformation campaign in an attempt to discredit the science behind climate change. With the backing of companies like the Western Mining Corp., Mosanto, Caltex, Esso Australia and Woodside Petroleum, the IPA has put out numerous reports that have every appearance of being authoritative in the area of climate change science, but are just another slick PR front group bringing into question the science backing man-made global warming."

Another questionable friend of the Friends of Science

Most of these people are fairly well known in scientific circles for the shills they are but they have 100s of Billions backing them so who are most people going to even get to listen to the well paid & funded Big Oil shill or the scientist just doing his job working on grant money?

[Omega892R09]

Sadly like most you are asking the wrong question.

..............

Another questionable friend of the Friends of Science

Most of these people are fairly well known in scientific circles for the shills they are but they have 100s of Billions backing them so who are most people going to even get to listen to the well paid & funded Big Oil shill or the scientist just doing his job working on grant money?

With you all the way there Nunya.

Unfortunately these things are not always clear to those who have only recently entered the debate on this issue.

How many have checked out Fred Singer for innstance?

[lunk]

Do you think that clouds don't influence the temperature?
What controls the clouds?
Whether you drive a hummer and drink lots of fizzy beer,
won't make a hill of beans of difference if it's overcast world wide.

Producing more CO2, if it's cloudy everywhere,
wont warm up the planet one iota.
We will go into another ice age... if that happens.

I don't even hear the words "global warming" anymore,
it's now called "climate change."

If you think that BIG OIL is the problem here, you are probably right.
They want a carbon tax, not for themselves, but for the consumer who are kept dependent on their wares.
It would be in their interest, to promote the concept of global warming to accomplish this.
Heck, it would even be in their interest to support people to promote this nonsense.

A lunk prediction;
It will be a cloudy summer in the Northern hemisphere on Earth, if there are few sunspots on the sun, indicating a weaker magnetic field and heliosphere, allowing more cosmic rays to hit our atmosphere and causing greater low cloud cover.

From NASA
"Very few sunspots were seen on the Sun from about 1645 to 1715 (IMG:http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/ssn_yearly.jpg) Although the observations were not as extensive as in later years, the Sun was in fact well observed during this time and this lack of sunspots is well documented. This period of solar inactivity also corresponds to a climatic period called the "Little Ice Age" when rivers that are normally ice-free froze and snow fields remained year-round at lower altitudes. There is evidence that the Sun has had similar periods of inactivity in the more distant past. "

imo, lunk

This post has been edited by lunk: Mar 25 2008, 09:45 PM

[Timothy Osman]

Nunyabiz

You stated in the Judy Wood thread that it is impossible for 1000's and 1000's of scientists to be involved in some kind of cover up or conspiracy regarding AGW.

"Global Warming is no lie and 1000s upon 1000s of climatologist etc are not in on some evil scheme that is utterly absurd.

So by your own logic 1000's and 1000's of scientists that argue against AGW are involved in this clandestine movement to deny AGW. That means all the names on the petition project belong to this army of Oil shills.

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm

Here are just a few.

American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
Freedom House
Global Policy Forum
Green Cross International
International Planned Parenthood Federation
Margaret Sanger Center
National Organization for Women (NOW)
National Wildlife Federation
Open Society Institute
Planned Parenthood Federation of America
Population Council, The
Population Institute
Sierra Club
United Nations Foundation
United Nations Association of the United States of America
United Nations Watch
World Business Council for Sustainable Development
World Resources Institute

This looks like a list of the other factions HQ's. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/laughing1.gif) That's what we're looking at here IMO the far right with their agenda and the far left with theirs. Both are equally destructive, ones solution to the third world is depleted uranium the others is starvation. The truth about this whole affair is somewhere in the middle, somewhere with real scientists not led by the Club Of Rome or big oil.

“…we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination…. So we have to offer up scary scenarios,
make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts…. Each of us has to decide what the right balance
is between being effective and being honest.“
- Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology
lead Author of many IPCC reports

“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
- Christine Stewart,
fmr Canadian Minister of the Environment

And from Maurice Strong - Mr. Kyoto himself

“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the
industrialized civilizations collapse?
Isn’t it our responsiblity to bring that about?”
- Maurice Strong, former Secretary General of UNEP

I believe honestly that they reached their tipping point with bullshit, these phony's have alienated enough real scientists to give us a glimpse of the truth. We know already that we are using way beyond our share of resources in the first world and that the Neocon agenda of corporate dictatorship backed by war to perpetuate the empire is unraveling as we watch. We need real solutions to real problems not more lies to force another agenda.

[mrodway]

You people need to stop spreading right wing big oil propaganda as if its fact.

I see the whole debate about Global Climate Change as just a distraction from the truth that we are under the control of big oil.

If there were no alternatives to burning fossil fuels, then I might be prepared to take a gamble that Global Climate Change was just a hoax or that the scientists were just plain wrong about it, however I can think of plenty of other good reasons besides GCC for wanting to break away from our oily overlords.

You will get no arguments from me that sharks like Al Gore shouldn't be trusted or that schemes such as carbon trading are scams. No doubt The Powers That Be will use GCC as an excuse for anything from new taxes to having everyone microchipped, but that does not mean that climate change cannot occur.

Personally, I would like to break free from the oil companies...

Who killed The Electric Car - part 1
Part 2 Part 3 Part 4 Part 5
Part 6 Part 7 Part 8 Part 9

[Omega892R09]

Do you think that clouds don't influence the temperature?
What controls the clouds?
Whether you drive a hummer and drink lots of fizzy beer,
won't make a hill of beans of difference if it's overcast world wide.

As the UK Met office Myths section is having a re-vamp have a look at:

http://environment.newscientist.com/channe...-change/dn11652

I don't even hear the words "global warming" anymore,
it's now called "climate change."

Global warming was a good enough term until the MM perverted its meaning and simplified the idea which confused the uninformed.

Thus climate change is now used as better representing the idea behind the original use of global warming, i.e. global warming does not rule out local cooling effects.

I know by the increase in individual number of some bird species, e.g. goldfinch, that visit our garden and stay around all year that there is a net warming effect here. There are other indicators.

The data that is fed into the climate change science is drawn from a vast number of fields of study. Just as the scientific evidence supporting the theory (note the difference between a theory and a hypothesis) of evolution comes from paleo-geology, chemistry, biology and physics (radio carbon dating and other dating techniques) amongst numerous other fields.

[Sanders]

According to this

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/column...012&k=39580

Monitors in the oceans called Argos have shown no rise in temperature since they were deployed in 2003.

...When they were first deployed in 2003, the Argos were hailed for their ability to collect information on ocean conditions more precisely, at more places and greater depths and in more conditions than ever before. No longer would scientists have to rely on measurements mostly at the surface from older scientific buoys or inconsistent shipboard monitors.

So why are some scientists now beginning to question the buoys' findings? Because in five years, the little blighters have failed to detect any global warming. They are not reinforcing the scientific orthodoxy of the day, namely that man is causing the planet to warm dangerously. They are not proving the predetermined conclusions of their human masters. Therefore they, and not their masters' hypotheses, must be wrong.

In fact, "there has been a very slight cooling," according to a U.S. National Public Radio (NPR) interview with Josh Willis at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, a scientist who keeps close watch on the Argo findings...

[Nunyabiz]

'That means all the names on the petition project belong to this army of Oil shills."

Basically yes

"In the spring of 1998, mailboxes of US scientists flooded with packet from the "Global Warming Petition Project," including a reprint of a Wall Street Journal op-ed "Science has spoken: Global Warming Is a Myth," a copy of a faux scientific article claiming that "increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide have no deleterious effects upon global climate," a short letter signed by past-president National Academy of Sciences (NAS), Frederick Seitz<-(A notorious scum bag shill for both teh Tobacco companies and Oil Companies), and a short petition calling for the rejection of the Kyoto Protocol on the grounds that a reduction in carbon dioxide "would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind."

The sponsor, little-known Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, tried to beguile unsuspecting scientists into believing that this packet had originated from the National Academy of the Sciences, both by referencing Seitz's past involvement with the NAS and with an article formatted to look as if it was a published article in the Academy's Proceedings, which it was not.

The NAS quickly distanced itself from the petition project, issuing a statement saying, "the petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy."

The petition project was a deliberate attempt to mislead scientists and to rally them in an attempt to undermine support for the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was not based on a review of the science of global climate change, nor were its signers experts in the field of climate science. In fact, the only criterion for signing the petition was a bachelor's degree in science. The petition resurfaced in early 2001 in a renewed attempt to undermine international climate treaty negotiations.

--from the Union for Concerned Scientists of the USA"

As someone that has spent the majority of my life in teh Scientific community I thought this bogus bullshit petition was flushed down the proverbial toilet years ago, yet thanks to the Internet and those that have no clue what they are talking about it just keeps on being re-circulated.

This looks like a list of the other factions HQ's

Yeah the ACLU, Seirra Club, planned parenthood etc are just a bunch of commie pinko liberal scum right? Jeebus dude get a grip.


Think about this, when you make these claims about Global Warming what you are posting is exactly what such brain trust as Rush Limbaugh, Bill OReilly, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage and freak sites like Red State.com FreeRepublic, Littlegreenfootballs and known Neofascist war criminals (Bush Administration) etc are all saying.
Basically you are parroting what these known lying Reich wing shillls are saying, think about that for a second and let it sink in.

I hope that should make you wonder if the BS you are swallowing is Reich wing propaganda or not.

Anytime you see George Marshall Institute, Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (Petition Project), Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP), Greening Earth Society, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide & Global Change, Global Climate Coalition, Institute of Public Affairs au, American Enterprise Institute, just to name a few there are about 35 more that are "known" ALL of these are set up by oil companies mostly Exxonmobil to spread propaganda.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/scien...anizations.html

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/scien...irrors-hot.html

[Quest]

Letters from Sixth Grade Students Reveal Global Warming Indoctrination

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march...0308Letters.htm

Bill Haymin
American Chronicle
Wednesday, March 26, 2008

By: Maureen Martin

Published In: Environment News

The Heartland Institute

www.heartland.org

If you doubt teachers across the country are trying to brainwash schoolchildren with global warming alarmism, take a look inside the sixth grade classroom of teacher Michael Steria at David A. Brown Middle School in Wildomar, California.

Twenty-five sixth graders teamed up to write eight letters to The Heartland Institute describing what they had been taught about global warming. Steria sent the letters to the institute in March.

(The letters themselves are posted here.) [GO TO HEARTLAND.ORG AND CLICK ON TO THIS ARTICLE TO READ THIS LINK]

The students said they learned about global warming by reading 10 articles about it. None of the articles, however, was about the science of global warming. Many described terrifying consequences that supposedly will result, convincing the students all living things--including all human beings--will be dead in 10 years.

(Article continues below)


Steria´s Teachings

Global warming "means that if we don´t fix the climate, everything will be destroyed and we won´t be able to survive," two students wrote. Others found their global warming lessons similarly frightening (all transcriptions are as the students wrote and sent them, uncorrected):

"I think your fools for denying G.W. you know it could kill us all & you´re just adding to it. I want you to help stop G.W. not increase it."

"We are going to tell you about global warming. I don´t care if you don´t want to read, but I´m making you read it you horrible people."

"We feel that it is wrong what you are doing. We know that you know that global warming is NOT we repeat NOT a myth, And we think it is selfish that you would take money over yours and your peers lives."

"We feel upset because you are making Global Warming worse instead of helping it. We know that almost half of the country knows that G.W. is a crisis. We know that you could help the environment with the $800,000 you have."

"We feel that they are destroying our planet by saying G.W. is not a crisis. You think GW is not a crisis but it is; you know deep down that it´s a real thing that´s happening. Everyone has a part in helping GW, and you´re making worse."

"I do not think that what you are doing is right because you are telling people that global warming is not a crisis. If this is not a crisis, how come floods have occurred in asia, Mexico, and India. Plus, how can you explain why the glacier glaciers are melting. they can´t melt themselves, because they are in the coldest region in the world."

"Air pollution shrinks fetus size, 31 states target global warming, World must fix Climate in 10 years-UNDP, National disasters have quadrupled in two decades, and Global Warming Denier Group funded by Big Oil Hosting Climate Change Denial conference."

Off-Topic Articles

The students say they read 10 articles about global warming; their letters describe and identify seven of them.

Three of the articles have nothing to do with global warming or greenhouse gases. Two are dire predictions from non-scientists at the United Nations disaster relief agency, the U.N. Development Programme, and nongovernmental organizations engaged in disaster aid. One article relates state efforts at monitoring greenhouse gases.

Antarctic Ice Melt Scare Lacks Scientific Support

By: Patrick J. Michaels

The Heartland Institute

www.heartland.org

The Washington Post recently ran a shocking above-the-fold article warning us of "Escalating Ice Loss Found in Antarctica." A new paper by Eric Rignot of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory shows a net loss of ice where most scientists thought the opposite would occur, the story noted.

The Post went full-bore with this one, spreading the article on to an entire interior page. The piece ends by noting that Rajenda Pachauri, head of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), is so concerned that he is personally going down to inspect the situation.

Record Sea Ice

He should. Before he even gets to Antarctica, Pachauri is going to see something even more surprising than Rignot's finding. Despite a warming Southern Ocean, the amount of ice surrounding Antarctica is now at the highest level ever measured for this time of the year, since satellites first began to monitor it almost 30 years ago. This represents a continuation of the record set last winter (our summer).

Thanks to the miracles of modern technology, we can also look at the departure from the average for ice mass in a given month. At present, the coverage of ice surrounding Antarctica is almost exactly two million square miles above where it is historically supposed to be at this time of year. It's farther above normal than it has ever been for any month in climatologic records.

Around now, because it's summer down there and the ice is headed toward its annual low point, there should be about seven million square miles of it. That means, as data in University of Illinois' Web publication Cryosphere Today shows, there is nearly 30 percent more ice down in Antarctica than usual for this time of the year.

IPCC Predicts Growing Ice

All of the IPCC's models of Antarctica in the twenty-first century forecast a gain in ice, as a warmer surrounding ocean evaporates more water, which subsequently falls in the form of snow when it hits the continent. It's simply too cold for rain in Antarctica, and it'll stay that way for a very long time.

Concerning Antarctica as a whole, the IPCC's new climate compendium notes "the lack of warming reflected in atmospheric temperatures averaged across the region." Other studies, such as Peter Doran's in Nature in 2003, show actual cooling in recent decades. (There is a small area of significant warming in the peninsula that points towards South America, but this is less than 2 percent of Antarctica's total land mass.)

There's brand new evidence, just published in mid-January in Geophysical Research Letters, of a striking increase in snowfall over that peninsula. The few snowfall records that are available elsewhere in Antarctica show considerable variation from decade to decade, so discriminating the "signal" of increased snowfall caused by global warming from all the rest of the "noise" may be very difficult indeed.

We see the same problem with hurricanes and global warming. Their strength and numbers vary considerably from year to year. The year 2005 was the most active ever measured in the Atlantic Basin, while 2007 was one of the weakest in history. How do you find the fingerprint of global warming amid such variation?


Putting Facts in Context

So it's not warming up, and the snowfall data are equivocal, yet the continent is experiencing a net loss of ice. How can this be, and is it even important? The current hypothesis is that warmer waters beneath the surface are somehow loosening the ice. That's plausible, but again, there's precious little proof of it.

And further, the bottom line is that there is more ice than ever surrounding Antarctica.

One of the tired tropes that reverberate throughout global warming reporting is that inconvenient facts get left out. In this case, it's blatant. Midway through the Post's page-long article comes a statement that "these new findings come as the Arctic is losing ice at a dramatic rate." Wouldn't that have been an appropriate place to note that, despite a small recent loss of ice from the Antarctic landmass, the ice field surrounding Antarctica is now larger than ever measured?

Patrick J. Michaels (pmichaels@cato.org) is senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute and author of Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media. This article first appeared in the American Spectator on February 5, 2008.

San Francisco Regulators Seek Greenhouse Fee

By Tom Tanton

Published In: Environment News

The Heartland Institute

www.heartland.org

San Francisco-area air quality regulators are proposing to charge a fee to most businesses based on the amount of greenhouse gases they emit.

The fee--4.2 cents per metric ton of carbon dioxide--would affect everything from oil refineries to power plants and would include landfills, factories, and small businesses such as restaurants and bakeries.

The largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the Bay Area, the Shell oil refinery in Martinez, would pay $186,475 a year for its 4.4 million annual metric tons of emissions. The largest emitter in Santa Clara County, the Hanson Permanente Cement Plant in Cupertino, would pay $44,507 a year for its 1.05 million tons.

Foot in Door

The levy proposed by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District would replace voluntary local measures that have recently slowed local greenhouse gas emissions. If the fee is successfully implemented, supporters of greenhouse gas fees are likely to seek similar ones in other cities and states.

"The climate is changing, and we think that everybody needs to help with the solution and pay their fair share to reduce greenhouse gases," said Jack Broadbent, executive officer of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District in San Francisco, according to the February 9 San Jose Mercury News.

Taxes in Disguise?

The Bay Area Air Quality Management District has regulated smog for the past 50 years in nine counties around San Francisco Bay. The air district's board could take a final vote on the proposed greenhouse gas fee by May. Broadbent said the proposal is designed to raise $1.1 million a year, the Mercury News reported.

"It is not a 'carbon tax' but a cost recovery fee," Broadbent said, according to the article, "because the money would not go into a general fund, but would be used instead to pay for the air district's global warming reduction programs."

"California, regrettably, has taken the lead in obfuscating the differences between a tax and a true fee," responded Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, in an interview for this story.

"The proposed global warming 'fee' is clearly a tax," said Coupal. "There is little if any nexus between fee payers and the alleged harm sought to be addressed, and there is clearly no direct benefit to the fee payers."

Successful Current Programs

The proposal is being closely watched around the state because it would represent the first time companies have been hit with direct levies based on their greenhouse gas emissions. Businesses already pay various surcharges on energy use to fund greenhouse gas emissions programs, but this is the first time a fee would be charged per unit of such emissions.

To date, most greenhouse gas reduction programs in the U.S. have been voluntary. The voluntary programs have been much more successful than the mandatory ones put in place in other developed nations.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration reports the greenhouse gas intensity of the U.S. economy has been declining for the past 10 years and U.S. greenhouse gas emissions are slowing faster than emissions in the European Union, which relies on mandatory restrictions.

Chasing Businesses Away

Consumer groups and business officials reacted warily to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District's proposed new fee. Tupper Hull, a representative for the Western States Petroleum Association in Sacramento, said hitting oil refineries and power plants with fees could end up hitting consumers in the pocketbook.

"This proposal will raise the cost of producing energy and fuel for California consumers, and at a time when consumers have concerns about what they are paying," said Hull, according to the February 9 San Jose Mercury News. "We can't say how much that is, but it is a significant concern."

Hull also said if some of the other 30 air districts in California begin copying the idea, the state will have a confusing patchwork of rules right at the time government is trying to craft a statewide implementation plan for Assembly Bill 32, the greenhouse gas reduction law signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger ® two years ago.

The proposed fee would be especially harmful because costs and tax burdens on California businesses are already significantly higher than in the rest of the country, critics note. The neighboring states of Arizona, Nevada, and Oregon each have much lower energy costs and tax burdens, and therefore are better able to attract new business development.

"Other states, such as Florida, Nevada, and Arizona, are cheering the proposal," Coupal said. "They will welcome with open arms those businesses operating in California whose tolerance for nuttiness has run out."

Tom Tanton (ttanton@fastkat.com) is a senior fellow at the Pacific Research Institute.

Disclaimer: Posting articles does not necessarily endorse or agree with every opinion expressed in every article. All articles that are posted are aimed at getting people to think & consider the various issues, ideas & factual research presented.

[Timothy Osman]

I see the whole debate about Global Climate Change as just a distraction from the truth that we are under the control of big oil.

If there were no alternatives to burning fossil fuels, then I might be prepared to take a gamble that Global Climate Change was just a hoax or that the scientists were just plain wrong about it, however I can think of plenty of other good reasons besides GCC for wanting to break away from our oily overlords.

I agree to a point, we know the oil cartels are behind most of the crap that has gone down in the last 70 years to some degree. I don't believe It's a good idea to swap them for another bunch of bullshit artists from the extreme left, you can't even reason with the ones saving the planet, they manipulate the data with their favorite Club of Rome tool the computer model and ignore anything that might dispute an Armageddon brought on by the human cancer.
The fact is their agenda has been exposed, real scientists are now disputing the CO2 agenda.

[Omega892R09]

According to this

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/column...012&k=39580

Monitors in the oceans called Argos have shown no rise in temperature since they were deployed in 2003.

Be that as it may, recall that satellites were telling us that the sun was increasing its input into the atmosphere, that was until somebody twigged that the data was not that simple and that the effects varied hugely at different altitudes. Once this had been accounted for the increase vanished.

I am not saying that the gist of that report is wrong, just that I don't take such things at face value without more digging.

[dMz]

I'm still waiting for people to realize that the Earth has doubled in its' size over the last 70 million years!

I laughed when I first heard of this, I thought, what I was taught in school (at a very young age) was true about the continents drifting around bumping into each other, sometimes subducting under the Earth. It isn't.

Well lunk,

I'm not laughing yet (trying to keep my objective Aristotelian perspective), but considering the "conservative" 'k'm1m2/r^2 constantly ATTRACTIVE, Newtonian gravitational field of Earth, and having seen countless [often Perseid] "meteor showers" across the lifespan that I mostly remember, I find myself asking where all that meteor/meteoroid/meteorite mass is going exactly.?? (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/dunno.gif)

Adding the frequent comet(s') "tail" mass in a never-sleeping, relatively-'massive' gravitational field, I see a considerable Earth "mass increase" over the span of say just a decade or so... Now short of a neutron star/white dwarf [theoretical] Earth mass density increase, I'd expect the physical size of Earth to increase with the corresponding [countless] mass increase(s).

I suppose you and I have thrown our scientific "credibility" "to the wolves" here, but I'm beginning to catch your gravitational "drift" on this one subject... (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[Timothy Osman]

Letters from Sixth Grade Students Reveal Global Warming Indoctrination

It's the same here in Austraylya, my son who was in the sixth grade last year was asked by his teacher to describe AGW in a sentence, He informed her that he only needed two words. I was informed by his mother who blamed me of course.
Believe it or not I would not let him watch the global warming swindle or things like that, he either picked it up by looking at what I was reading or from the playground. He might have heard me yelling at the weatherman on the TV news who every night blamed some damn thing on GW when in reality it was just the f*cking weather. I think I'm guilty.

[lunk]

Well lunk,

I'm not laughing yet (trying to keep my objective Aristotelian perspective), but considering the "conservative" 'k'm1m2/r^2 constantly ATTRACTIVE, Newtonian gravitational field of Earth, and having seen countless [often Perseid] "meteor showers" across the lifespan that I mostly remember, I find myself asking where all that meteor/meteoroid/meteorite mass is going exactly.?? (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/dunno.gif)

Adding the frequent comet(s') "tail" mass in a never-sleeping, relatively-'massive' gravitational field, I see a considerable Earth "mass increase" over the span of say just a decade or so... Now short of a neutron star/white dwarf [theoretical] Earth mass density increase, I'd expect the physical size of Earth to increase with the corresponding [countless] mass increase(s).

I suppose you and I have thrown our scientific "credibility" "to the wolves" here, but I'm beginning to catch your gravitational "drift" on this one subject... (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

The amount of meteoric dust hitting the Earth
every year is insignificant and not a valid explanation
for the observed growth, that is from within.

Let me throw this wrench into physics.
"For your consideration"

For a better understanding of what things are made out of
that is slightly different than what present day science explains:

http://www.continuitystudios.net/prime.html

"A New Model of the Universe

by Neal Adams

This is the important part of the growing Earth/Growing universe theory.

The “standard model” says…” 4 particles (at this stage), make the whole (matter) universe.

1. The Electron
2. The Electron-neutrino
3. The Up Quark
4. The Down Quark

“This new model says, there is only one Particle, the Prime Matter particle.

1. The Prime Matter (the “Ocean” that is our universe.)
Which is 1 whole particle (the other two are thrust from this.)
2. The Electron. 1/2 particle
3. The Positron. 1/2 particle

These single particles fill the universe from edge to edge. An ocean of Prime Matter particles."

In other words, the aether, exists.

Sort of makes the mammoth global warming scam look like a little
white lie by comparison.

imo, lunk

[Omega892R09]

Well lunk,

I'm not laughing yet (trying to keep my objective Aristotelian perspective), but considering the "conservative" 'k'm1m2/r^2 constantly ATTRACTIVE, Newtonian gravitational field of Earth, and having seen countless [often Perseid] "meteor showers" across the lifespan that I mostly remember, I find myself asking where all that meteor/meteoroid/meteorite mass is going exactly.?? (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/dunno.gif)

Adding the frequent comet(s') "tail" mass in a never-sleeping, relatively-'massive' gravitational field, I see a considerable Earth "mass increase" over the span of say just a decade or so... Now short of a neutron star/white dwarf [theoretical] Earth mass density increase, I'd expect the physical size of Earth to increase with the corresponding [countless] mass increase(s).

I suppose you and I have thrown our scientific "credibility" "to the wolves" here, but I'm beginning to catch your gravitational "drift" on this one subject... (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

Firstly do not confuse an increase in physical size with an increase in mass. Thus an increase in size on its own will have little effect on the gravitational pull of the body. Sure, the slight increase in distance between surface objects and the centre will have a slight effect on the gravitational force on those objects.

The major mass increases of the earth have been through impacts with meteorites and asteroids. The more massive of these e.g. those considered the most likely the base cause of a mass extinction at the K-T boundary in Chicxulub (Yucatan) and Shiva (near the Seychelles coast of India) would have caused new currents in the earth’s mantle.

The physical size of these, by volume, was however insufficient to cause a major change in earth’s volume. Note that doubling the radius of a sphere multiplies the volume by about 8.

The earth’s atmosphere was first formed from a heated mix of hydrogen and helium which was blasted away by a large asteroid impact. Photochemical reactions created a new atmosphere and oceans from outpourings of volcanic gases, with the earth at the time being a seething mass of geophysical activity with only short lived islands of crust breaking the oceanic surface.

Replicators (based on perhaps RNA first then DNA) on earth have, since its origin in the Proterozoic (going back as far as the Archean may be necessary if human science knowledge continues to accrue into the distant future) used the elements present in and on the earth to delay the onset of complete entropy in order to organise (create from surrounding material) life forms that evolve and diverge over time. Much of the energy to make the required negative entropy comes of course from the sun but as we now know black smokers at the oceans floor can support life.

Over time, and after much drifting of islands as the hot spots moved on, much as they are at present with the Galapagos, Hawaii and numerous other Pacific island groups, substantial accretions of crust formed to allow life on earth to move out onto land and begin new processes for the interaction of sunlight and the earth’s elements.

Geophysical and biological processes continue to create gaseous molecules which drift up through the atmosphere and eventually escape the earth’s gravitational pull and thus leave the body mass of the earth’s biosphere.

In short, it is unlikely that the mass of the earth has increased significantly over time.

But then I guess you knew most of that. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/dunno.gif)

This post has been edited by Omega892R09: Mar 27 2008, 04:23 PM