The mammoth global warming scam
Mar 11 2008, 11:13 AM
Group: Valued Member
Joined: 23-October 06
Member No.: 145
The mammoth global warming scam
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.
Mar 27 2008, 10:23 PM
Group: Global Mod
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294
I think you may have missed the "Short of a ... mass density increase" part of my post above (I've often heard that I have a predilection to smuggle excessive meaning in my too-often-Faulkneresque writing). I contend that an increase (in either mass or radius), however small, remains an increase nonetheless. This is a very useful fact when making "sweat" or friction "welds" on things like flywheel drive gears. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)
I also am not so certain that meteoric Earth mass increases (and other space-wandering "compounds") are entirely "insignificant," as the [often water] vapor generated by "burning" meteors/meteoroids/meteorites/comets SHOULD be captured by Earth's gravitational field, no? At least one NASA astrobiologist seems to think that is how earth got its water.
http://discovermagazine.com/2003/jul/breakwater (article is now off-server though)
I'm just pondering Lunk's proposal in a "what if" fashion, and I don't have the luxury of having lived 70 million years to know for certain what size Earth once was. A lot can happen in 7E07 years though... (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)
As to escaping atmospheric gases, I haven't seen much evidence yet of Earth "depleting" there. Earth is rumored to have taken Mars' (and very remotely possibly) the Moon's atmospheres, but I wasn't there to witness it, so who knows. If Earth's atmospheric gases went anywhere, I'd expect them to be headed for our Sun (due to the much higher gravitational field). Maybe these "escapee" gas atoms and molecules would eventually be sent back to Earth in a "solar wind cycle." (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/dunno.gif)
Lunk did bring up an interesting point about CO2. If we assume that atmospheric gases "distill" based upon their molecular mass (living much of my life at "high altitude" and observing the plant distributions, I'm reasonably certain that at least oxygen behaves this way), it is interesting to compare the masses of "common" Earth gases.
Nitrogen ( N2 ) ~78.1%, ~28.0133991241 amu
Oxygen ( O2 ) ~20.9%, ~31.9988002777 amu
Argon ( Ar ) ~0.9%, ~39.9480018616 amu
Carbon dioxide, Methane, Rare (inert) gases, ~0.1% (see relevant masses below)
Ozone (O3 ), ~47.9982004166 amu
Hey, this is much easier:
Common Gases at Room Temperature
Element or Compound Atomic or Molecular Weight [amu]
H2 (hydrogen) 2.02
He (helium) 4.00
CH4 (methane) 16.04
NH3 (ammonia) 17.03
Ne (neon) 20.18
HCN (hydrogen cyanide) 27.03
CO (carbon monoxide) 28.01
N2 (nitrogen) 28.01
NO (nitrogen oxide) 30.01
C2H6 (ethane) 30.07
O2 (oxygen) 32.00
PH3 (phosphine) 34.00
H2S (hydrogen sulfide) 34.08
HCl (hydrogen chloride) 36.46
F2 (fluorine) 38.00
Ar (argon) 39.95
CO2 (carbon dioxide) 44.01
N2O (dinitrogen oxide) 44.01
C3H8 (propane) 44.10
NO2 (nitrogen dioxide) 46.01
O3 (ozone) 48.00
C4H10 (butane) 58.12
SO2 (sulfur dioxide) 64.06
BF3 (boron trifluoride) 67.80
Cl2 (chlorine) 70.91
Kr (krypton) 83.80
CF2Cl2 (dichlorodifluoromethane) 120.91
SF6 (sulfur hexafluoride) 146.05
Xe (xenon) 131.30
OK, let's "normalize" on Nitrogen gas, as it is the most abundant, at 28.01 amu (just like Carbon Monoxide, which is quite a good fuel for combustion engines and furnaces by the way, especially when combined with hydrogen/hydroxy gas in a "biomass gasifier"- http://www.green-trust.org/woodgas.htm ).
Nitrogen [defined as] 1.000
Oxygen = 32.00/28.01 = 1.1424491253
Argon = 39.95/28.01 = 1.4262763299
Carbon dioxide ( CO2 ) = 44.01/28.01 = 1.5712245627 (also just like N2O 'greenhouse' "laughing"/racing gas)
Now for the interesting one,
Ozone ( O3 ) = 48.00/28.01 = 1.713673688
Ummm, so why is the "ozone layer" up in the cold stratosphere 20-40 km high, if it is "heavier" than "air" (78% Nitrogen/21% Oxygen)? The likely answer might not lie where one expects though.
Lunk is correct that the dreaded CO2 is "heavier than air," hanging out below the nefarious carbon monoxide, or oxygen for that matter.
EDIT: The "heavier than air" is why carbon dioxide fire extinguishers work- they displace the oxygen from the fire, yes? Then off to feed some carbon-based plants (I think I read that opinion around here somewhere (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/thumbsup.gif) ).
We also need to remember that air density is a function of pressure and temperature, but we have discussed air density and the speed of sound at some length elsewhere. If we assume the same temperature and pressure, the gases should tend to organize themselves as above (from nitrogen on down). This page actually looked reasonably good at Wikipedia:
OK, now for the crux of my question- where exactly are all those "global warming" CO2 sensors located? At sea level? Next to an arboretum or busy freeway (which will likely change CO2 levels considerably)? Over a green lawn or lush produce field? Inside a greenhouse perhaps? (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/whistle.gif)
My point here being that statistics (even if actual valid data correctly taken by properly-calibrated equipment) can be used to skew "studies" in several ways. I believe that O892 alluded to this "political hijacking" above, and I've seen it firsthand in NSF-funded academic setting(s) in various sciences. Don't even get me started on the military-industrial "science-" I think most of you here can guess how that works.
My final point being that we should look critically at any "scientific study," regardless of the level of trust we elect to donate to our respective "experts." After all- we just might have "agendas" in our own minds that we are still unaware of (like Gore spending Daddy's petroleum mining money perhaps, but I personally believe that Al is smarter and more duplicitous than that).
P.S. We may want to take a closer look at that gasifier thing- that is "sequestered" carbon fuel produced by biomass NOT in the Middle East, and it ran tens of thousands of automobiles, trucks, and tractors during WW2. Woodgas is reported to be the cleanest "carbon" combustion reaction known in a gasifier. I've got a little gasifier campstove that runs on pine cones, grass, twigs, etc. and 2AA batteries to drive the fan, and I haven't bought fuel for it once. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/thumbsup.gif)
Large PDF of above is at:
Ironically, FEMA has a manual you can download:
Then again, hydrogen actually cleans the intake air when burned in a combustion engine, and releases ONLY water vapor (no carbon invited to or released by the reaction, but carbon monoxide will get converted to carbon dioxide very efficiently- HINT: small hydrogen "boosters" are a quick, easy way to clean up engine emissions considerably, since hydrogen burns at around 10x the flame velocity of gasoline vapor (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/whistle.gif) ).
This post has been edited by dMole: Mar 28 2008, 01:47 PM
|Lo-Fi Version||Time is now: 21st May 2013 - 08:32 AM|