The mammoth global warming scam Options

[Quest]

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march.../110308scam.htm

The mammoth global warming scam

AP
Tuesday, March 11, 2008

More evidence from the International Conference on Climate change last month which produced the Manhattan Declaration (see post below) of the way in which scientists who are sceptical about man-made global warming find their work is suppressed. A detailed piece on the website of the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works reports:

During the conference, scientists revealed the lack of tolerance science journals and institutions have exhibited for skeptical climate views.

‘We [fellow skeptical scientists] talked mostly of work and upcoming papers and went through the standard ritual of griping about journal editors and the ridiculous hoops we sometimes have to jump through to get papers published. But some of the guys had absolute horror stories of what happened to them when they tried getting papers published that explored non-‘consensus’ views. Really outrageous and unethical behavior on the parts of some editors. I was shocked,’ wrote conference participant Dr. William M. Briggs, a climate statistician who serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review, on his blog on March 4. (LINK)

(Article continues below)


Prominent Hungarian Physicist Dr. Miklós Zágoni, a former global warming activist who recently reversed his views about man-made climate fears and is now a skeptic, presented scientific findings at the conference refuting rising CO2 fears. Zágoni’s scientific mentor Hungarian scientist, Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi, an atmospheric physicist, resigned from his post working with NASA because he was disgusted with the agency’s lack of scientific freedom. Miskolczi, who also presented his peer-reviewed findings at the conference, said he wanted to release his new research that showed "runaway greenhouse theories contradict energy balance equations," but he claims NASA refused to allow him. ‘Unfortunately, my working relationship with my NASA supervisors eroded to a level that I am not able to tolerate. My idea of the freedom of science cannot coexist with the recent NASA practice of handling new climate change related scientific results,” Miskolczi said according to a March 6 Daily Tech article. (LINK) [Note: Clarification from original posting. Miskolczi worked with NASA, not Zágoni.]

Meteorologist Joseph D'Aleo, the first Director of Meteorology at The Weather Channel and former chairman of the American Meteorological Society's (AMS) Committee on Weather Analysis and Forecasting, noted that many of his scientific colleagues did not attend the conference because they “feared their attendance might affect their employment.” D’Aleo described the fear of retribution many skeptics face as a “sad state of affairs.” But D’Aleo noted that he believes there is ‘very likely a silent majority of scientists in climatology, meteorology, and allied sciences who do not endorse what is said to be the ‘consensus’ position.’ Other scientists have echoed these claims. Atmospheric scientist Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, author of almost 70 peer-reviewed studies, asserted in December 2007 that skeptics have a much harder time publishing in peer-reviewed literature. ‘Many of my colleagues with whom I spoke share these views and report on their inability to publish their skepticism in the scientific or public media,’ Paldor, who was not in attendance at the New York conference, wrote in December.
From this post, and in particular if you follow the links, you will find a wealth of other information which illuminates the mind-blowing scale of the global warming scam and how it has been perpetrated — for example, that proponents of MMGW have been funded over the past decade to the tune of $50 BILLION whereas the sceptics have received a meagre $19 MILLION. In other words, MMGW is a giant cash cow for scientific researchers, while those who refuse to latch onto the poisoned udder find they risk professional suicide. Even so, the number of scientists now ‘coming out’ to declare that MMGW is a monumental fraud is growing by the day.

[Quest]

Weather Channel Founder Wants To Sue Al Gore For Global Warming Fraud
Coleman says man-made climate change advocates would lose landmark court case

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march...rming_fraud.htm

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Friday, March 14, 2008


A landmark court case that would destroy the so-called "consensus" behind man-made global warming could be in the works after Weather Channel founder John Coleman expressed his intention to sue Al Gore for fraud.

Companies that sell "carbon credits" on the basis that they offset carbon emissions could also be in the firing line as Coleman stated his conviction that man-made advocates would lose the case if a fair debate, something that the establishment is loathe to allow, was allowed to take place.

"Since we can't get a debate, I thought perhaps if we had a legal challenge and went into a court of law, where it was our scientists and their scientists, and all the legal proceedings with the discovery and all their documents from both sides and scientific testimony from both sides, we could finally get a good solid debate on the issue," Coleman said. "I'm confident that the advocates of 'no significant effect from carbon dioxide' would win the case."

Coleman said that any degree of warming that has taken place over the last 25 years is beginning to be offset by a recent cooling trend. China, the largest emitter of carbon dioxide, has just experienced its coldest winter for 100 years.

"I think if we continue the cooling trend a couple of more years, the general public will at last begin to realize that they've been scammed on this global-warming thing," said Coleman.

Coleman questioned whether carbon dioxide caused temperature increase, a point borne out by ice core samples that show increases in carbon dioxide in the environment are a result and not a cause of higher temperatures, lagging behind by as much as 800 years.

"Does carbon dioxide cause a warming of the atmosphere? The proponents of global warming pin their whole piece on that," he said.

"The compound carbon dioxide makes up only 38 out of every 100,000 particles in the atmosphere."

"That's about twice as what there were in the atmosphere in the time we started burning fossil fuels, so it's gone up, but it's still a tiny compound," Coleman said. "So how can that tiny trace compound have such a significant effect on temperature?

"My position is it can't," he continued. "It doesn't, and the whole case for global warming is based on a fallacy."

Coleman's call for a court case to take on the global warming orthodox comes in the same week that the Carnegie Institute urged the need to reduce carbon emissions to zero within decades, a move that would devastate the third world and likely end human civilization as we know it, returning man back to the stone age.

[Omega892R09]

Coleman said that any degree of warming that has taken place over the last 25 years is beginning to be offset by a recent cooling trend. China, the largest emitter of carbon dioxide, has just experienced its coldest winter for 100 years.

"I think if we continue the cooling trend a couple of more years, the general public will at last begin to realize that they've been scammed on this global-warming thing," said Coleman.

Please note.

Climate change rather than global warming - implies some places could get cooler.

The warming trends in atlantic waters and also the high number of years in the last 10 that have seen higher than average temperatures in many areas including Europe. Despite slight increase in rainfall (associated with a big increase in flooding mostly down to land use change and poor infrastructure provision) in the UK last summer that year was the warmest on record here.

The rising temperature is proven by the melting of polar ice and of the ice on the Andes and Himalayas and the migration or extinction of climate sensitive species. Read the books cited previously.

I consider the idea of trading carbon offsets a very bad idea (probably basis for one of Gore's motives) as is the idea of promoting the growth of bio-fuels (probably another Gore family benefactor) - unless these latter are grown in areas otherwise of little use to agriculture, i.e. either crop growing or grazing.

Also remember that other changes in the complex system that is the earth ecosystem can bring on cooling or mask a warming trend. Sulphate particulates and other volcanic ejecta can cause this. Hence the brake on warming in the early-mid 1990's.

This post has been edited by Omega892R09: Mar 14 2008, 11:43 AM

[Quest]

Please note.

Climate change rather than global warming - implies some places could get cooler.

The warming trends in atlantic waters and also the high number of years in the last 10 that have seen higher than average temperatures in many areas including Europe. Despite slight increase in rainfall (associated with a big increase in flooding mostly down to land use change and poor infrastructure provision) in the UK last summer that year was the warmest on record here.

The rising temperature is proven by the melting of polar ice and of the ice on the Andes and Himalayas and the migration or extinction of climate sensitive species. Read the books cited previously.

I consider the idea of trading carbon offsets a very bad idea (probably basis for one of Gore's motives) as is the idea of promoting the growth of bio-fuels (probably another Gore family benefactor) - unless these latter are grown in areas otherwise of little use to agriculture, i.e. either crop growing or grazing.

Also remember that other changes in the complex system that is the earth ecosystem can bring on cooling or mask a warming trend. Sulphate particulates and other volcanic ejecta can cause this. Hence the brake on warming in the early-mid 1990's.

Also important to remember that the biggest determining factor of the earth's temperature is the sun which we have no control of whatsoever. This is my biggest fear; that unfounded claims of global warming - something that has occurred naturally for THOUSANDS of years, like unfounded claims of "terror", and the phoney "war on drugs", will be used to control the masses and literally tax us to death.

This post has been edited by Quest: Mar 14 2008, 11:52 AM

[Omega892R09]

Also important to remember that the biggest determining factor of the earth's temperature is the sun which we have no control of whatsoever. This is my biggest fear; that unfounded claims of global warming - something that has occurred naturally for THOUSANDS of years, like unfounded claims of "terror", and the phoney "war on drugs", will be used to control the masses and literally tax us to death.

From:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/

Myth 2 - Solar activity is the main driver of climate change
There are many factors which may contribute to climate change. For example, over the last million years most of the long-term changes in climate were probably due to small but well understood changes in the Earth's orbit around the Sun. Over much of the last 1,000 years most of the variability can probably be explained by cooling due to major volcanic eruptions and changes in solar heating.

However, the situation in the 20th century is more complicated. There is some evidence that increases in solar heating may have led to some warming early in the 20th century, but direct satellite measurements show no appreciable change in solar heating over the last three decades. Three major volcanic eruptions in 1963, 1982 and 1991 have led to short periods of cooling. Throughout the century, CO2 increased steadily and has been shown to be responsible for most of the warming in the second half of the century.

The final piece of the jigsaw is that as well as producing CO2, burning fossil fuels also produces small particles called aerosols which cool the climate by reflecting sunlight back into space. These have increased steadily in concentration over the 20th century, which has probably offset some of the warming we have seen. Only when all of these factors are included do we get a satisfactory explanation of the magnitude and patterns of climate change over the last century.

The bottom line is that changes in solar activity do affect global temperatures. However, what research also shows is that increased greenhouse gas concentrations have a much greater effect than changes in the Sun’s energy over the last 50 years.

Many contrarian's mentioned with glee the fact that satellite data from the 1980s demonstrated an increase in temperature from solar activity. This was true but then it was realised that the instumentation was not differentiating altitudes of data collection. When this was realised and allowed for the increase vanished. This is a matter mentioned by Corefield in his 'Architects of Eternity' cited earlier.

To be sure we should avoid being manipulated by those driven by greed, however this debate has become rather like the 9/11 scenario with agenda drivers pusing out dissinformation so as to enable those agendas.

[Quest]

To be sure we should avoid being manipulated by those driven by greed, however this debate has become rather like the 9/11 scenario with agenda drivers pusing out dissinformation so as to enable those agendas.

Not sure I understand this statement. Can you please explain?