Archive for the ‘greenhouse gas’ Category

Global Warming It's a Good Thing

July 16, 2009

Are the deserts getting greener?

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warned recently that rising global temperatures could cut West African agricultural production by up to 50% by the year 2020.

But satellite images from the last 15 years do seem to show a recovery of vegetation in the Southern Sahara, although the Sahel Belt, the semi-arid tropical savannah to the south of the desert, remains fragile.

Full story at the BBC

Advertisements

PRESS RELEASE-Space and Science Research

January 15, 2009

Editor:

I want to thank Norma, one of our readers,  for sending this important press release.

Since I started this blog, over two years ago, I’ve been saying that Global Warming is a scam and so are wind farms. The idea of wind farms was to save us from Global Warming/Climate Change caused by CO2 emissions.

CO2 never was a problem, therefore, there is no need for wind farms – CO2 was chosen as the “bogey man” to scare the populace into accepting the NEW WORLD ORDER!

Global Warming/Climate Change is and was a false fear cooked up by the Club of Rome and the IPCC, both arms of the UN.

Global Warming/Climate Change, pushed by the many NGO’s, all spawned by the UN or UN affiliated agencies, is the vehicle being used to gain ‘Control of the World’ and put in place the “New World Order” where everything and everyone will be ruled by a group of unelected elites, if they are successful.

If you haven’t noticed, it has been getting cooler not warmer for a long time now.

Please read the PRESS RELEASE and understand the scope of the SCAM that is being perpetrated upon you and your families.

The time has come for everyone, and I mean everyone, to call, write, fax. e-mail and visit your elected officials and demand a stop to this FRAUD.

It’s time to fill your local halls and churches and make plans to take back your communities and countries.

The  dangerous gas is not CO2 – it’s the gas being emitted every time one of the “GREEN CULT” members open their mouths.

The choice is yours – Live free – or accept the FRAUD  as reality!

Read the Green Agenda – NOW!

.

Space and Science Research Center 4700 Millenia Blvd. Ste. 175 Orlando, FL 32839 Tel: 407-835-3635 Fax: 407-210-3901 http://www.spaceandscience.net PRESS RELEASE SSRC 1-2009 Thursday, January 8, 2009 8:00 PM Obama Climate Change Advisers Holdren and Lubchenco Are Told Global Warming Is Over Time to Prepare the US for the New Cold Era The Space and Science Research Center (SSRC), today releases a letter mailed on January 1, 2009 to President-elect Barrack Obama’s nominated science adviser Dr. John Holdren and nominated NOAA administrator Dr. Jane Lubchenco clearly stating that “…global warming is over; a new cold climate has arrived.” In this letter, SSRC Director John Casey calls on Dr. Holdren to immediately reverse course on global warming programs and start preparing the country for the next climate change. Since the early 2007 discovery of the solar cycles that according to Casey drive our climate over a period of about 200 years, he and later the SSRC have been on a mission to get the word out to government leaders and media representatives in order to prepare the US for the coming bitter cold era. In explaining the reason for this first press release of 2009, Mr. Casey says,” There can no longer be any doubt that the Sun has entered an historic period of dramatically reduced activity which will bring us many long years of deep cold weather. This was predicted by me and a few other scientists around the globe but of course we were not taken seriously because of the politics of global warming and the refusal of many media outlets to print or telecast alternatives to the now discredited man made global warming concept. According to national and international sources that monitor the Sun, what is happening on and in the Sun is nothing short of record setting, astounding, and at the same time worrisome. The solar wind is at its lowest level in fifty years. The surface movement on the Sun has slowed to record rates and according to NASA’s previous announcements is ‘off the bottom of the charts.’ Most telling is the current prolonged lack of sunspots between the normal 11 year solar cycles 23 and 24 which is about to set a one hundred year record for time without sunspots. NASA also has long since forecast that cycle 25 will be ‘one of the weakest in centuries.” All of these events in combination leave little doubt that a ‘solar hibernation’ lasting several decades delivering the coldest weather in over two centuries has in fact arrived.” In its last press release of 2008, the SSRC had warned President-elect Obama in its sternest language to date, of the coming cold and genuine apprehension about climate change campaign promises and recent appointments. The release expressed that such actions in support of anthropogenic global warming would create a punitive and restrictive atmosphere for scientists who oppose the belief that greenhouse gas emissions were the primary agents of climate change and that the ill-effects of the new cold weather without government assistance and preparation, would lead to a ‘worst case scenario’ for the American people. Director Casey repeated his long standing position on the next climate change with the comment, “The longer we delay the necessary nation-wide preparations for the coming cold era the more difficult it will be. If the extremist rhetoric of man made climate change advocacy takes hold in the Obama administration which at this point is at fever pitch, then the stage will be set for the new cold climate to catch us completely off guard and unprepared. This will cause many Americans to suffer needlessly.” He added further, “The Earth has been in a long term cooling trend technically for eleven years. The significant drop in global temperatures that also occurred between January 2007 and much of 2008 should have been enough for most observers to finally accept that global warming is over, except that this information was intentionally not passed on to the American people. Also and unfortunately, the Presidential campaign where both major parties continued to beat the drum of global warming and man made climate change only helped to cement in the flawed concept that mankind was more powerful and had more influence on the Earth’s climate than the Sun itself. This unbelievable idea has been pushed heavily by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This and the previous press release are intended to be no nonsense, to the point pleadings for some sanity in our government and the main stream media that have failed to accept the new climate reality. Specifically, it was the Sun and not man that caused the past twenty years of peak heating and it is the same Sun that through a dramatic decline in its activity will now bring us decades of extreme cold climate.” In a closing statement Casey reiterated, “The global warming of the past decades was caused by the Sun. It is now over. It will not return based upon the SSRC’s research, for at least thirty years. It will then return only because the Sun’s repeating cycles of activity are scheduled to pick up again at that time. We should not waste another minute, another penny in controlling something that simply does not exist, namely man made climate change and global warming. It is essential for the welfare of all Americans if not the world, that in light of these new and startling changes in the Earth’s temperature and the profound changes in the Sun, that the next administration initiate a top-down review and redirection of climate change policy as soon as President Obama takes office.” Letter to Dr. Holdren

To visit Space and Science Research Center and other press releases

I Was Fired by Al Gore!

December 25, 2008

Prominent Scientist Fired By Gore Says Warming Alarm ‘Mistaken’

Marc Morano
EPW.Senate.Gov
Tuesday, Dec 23, 2008

WASHINGTON, DC – Award winning Princeton University Physicist Dr. Will Happer, who was reportedly fired by former Vice President Al Gore in 1993 for failing to adhere to Gore’s scientific views, has now declared man-made global warming fears “mistaken.”

“I am convinced that the current alarm over carbon dioxide is mistaken,” Happer, who has published over 200 scientific papers, told EPW on December 22, 2008. Happer made his remarks while requesting to join the 2008 U.S. Senate Minority Report from Environment and Public Works Ranking Member James Inhofe (R-OK) of over 650 (and growing) dissenting international scientists disputing anthropogenic climate fears. [Note: Joining Happer as new additions to the Senate report, are at least 10 more scientists, including meteorologists from Germany, Netherlands and CNN, as well as a professors from MIT and University of Arizona. See below for full quotes and bios of the new skeptical scientists added to the groundbreaking report, which includes many current and former UN IPCC scientists.]

“I had the privilege of being fired by Al Gore, since I refused to go along with his alarmism. I did not need the job that badly,” Happer said this week. Happer is a Professor at the Department of Physics at Princeton University and former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy from 1990 to 1993, has published over 200 scientific papers, and is a fellow of the American Physical Society, The American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the National Academy of Sciences.

Senator Inhofe said that the continued outpouring of prominent scientists like Happer — who are willing to publicly dissent from climate fears — are yet another strike to the UN, Gore and the media’s claims about global warming. “The endless claims of a ‘consensus’ about man-made global warming grow less-and-less credible every day,” Inhofe said.

Happer, who served as the Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy in 1993, says he was fired by Gore in 1993 for not going along with Gore’s scientific views on ozone and climate issues. “I was told that science was not going to intrude on policy,” Happer explained in 1993.

“I have spent a long research career studying physics that is closely related to the greenhouse effect, for example, absorption and emission of visible and infrared radiation, and fluid flow,” Happer said this week. “Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science. The earth’s climate is changing now, as it always has. There is no evidence that the changes differ in any qualitative way from those of the past,” he added.

“Over the past 500 million years since the Cambrian, when fossils of multicellular life first became abundant, the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have been much higher than current levels, about 3 times higher on average.  Life on earth flourished with these higher levels of carbon dioxide,” he explained. “Computer models used to generate frightening scenarios from increasing levels of carbon dioxide have scant credibility,” Happer added.

Below are the full entries of the scientists just added to the 2008 U.S. Senate Minority Report: “More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims”: (Updated December 22, 2008)

Professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Dr. W. M. Schaffer, Ph. D., of the University of Arizona – Tucson, past member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, who has authored more than 80 scientific publications and authored the paper “Human Population and Carbon Dioxide,” dissented in 2008. “My principal objections to the theory of anthropogenic warming are as follows: 1) I am mistrustful of ‘all but the kitchen sink’ models that, by virtue of their complexity, cannot be analyzed mathematically. When we place our trust in such models, what too often results is the replacement of a poorly understood physical (chemical, biological) system by a model that is similarly opaque,” Schaffer told EPW on December 19, 2008. “2) I am troubled by the application of essentially linear thinking to what is arguably the mother of all nonlinear dynamical systems – i.e., the climate. 3) I believe it likely that “natural climate cycles” are the fingerprints of chaotic behavior that is inherently unpredictable in the long-term. As reviewed in a forthcoming article (Schaffer, in prep), these cycles are “dense” on chaotic attractors and have the stability properties of saddles. Evolving chaotic trajectories successively shadow first one cycle, then another. The result is a sequence of qualitatively different behaviors – what climatologists call “regime shift” – independent of extrinsic influences. Tsonis and his associates discuss this phenomenon in terms of network theory and synchronized chaos, but these embellishments are not necessary. To be chaotic is to dance the dance of the saddles,” Schaffer explained. “The recent lack of warming in the face of continued increases in CO2 suggests (a) that the effects of greenhouse gas forcing have been over-stated; (b) that the import of natural variability has been underestimated and (c) that concomitant rises of atmospheric CO2 and temperature in previous decades may be coincidental rather than causal,” he added. “I fear that things could easily go the other way: that the climate could cool, perhaps significantly; that the consequences of a new Little Ice Age or worse would be catastrophic and that said consequences will be exacerbated if we meanwhile adopt warmist prescriptions. This possibility, plus the law of unintended consequences, leads me to view proposed global engineering ‘solutions’ as madness. ‘First do no harm’ should be the watchword of those who propose policy; the fate of Icarus, the example uppermost in their minds,” he continued. “I believe that the enthusiasm of many of my colleagues for the ‘consensus’ view of climate change is partly motivated by considerations outside of science. If I am correct, the truth of the matter will inevitably become widely known and the consequences to science, severe. Think Lysenko and the demise of Soviet genetics,” he concluded. (LINK) (LINK)(LINK)

CNN Meteorologist Chad Myers, an meteorologist for 22 years, certified by the American Meteorological Society, spoke out against anthropogenic climate claims in 2008. “You know, to think that we could affect weather all that much is pretty arrogant,” Myers said during a December 18, 2008 appearance on CNN’s “Lou Dobbs Tonight.” “Mother Nature is so big, the world is so big, the oceans are so big – I think we’re going to die from a lack of fresh water or we’re going to die from ocean acidification before we die from global warming, for sure,” Myers explained. “But this is like, you know you said – in your career – my career has been 22 years long. That’s a good career in TV, but talking about climate – it’s like having a car for three days and saying, ‘This is a great car.’ Well, yeah – it was for three days, but maybe in days five, six and seven it won’t be so good. And that’s what we’re doing here,” he added. “We have 100 years worth of data, not millions of years that the world’s been around,” Myers concluded. (LINK) (LINK)

Engineer and Physicist J.K. “Jim” August, formerly of the U.S. Navy nuclear power program, and former chair of professional standard committees in both the American Nuclear Society and the American Society of Mechanical Engineering, dissented from climate fears in 2008. “Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth is not scientifically based, August wrote in a December 15, 2008 analysis titled “An Inconvenient Truth, or a Calculating Deception.” “The book denies the legitimacy of science for review.  The irony is, of course, the treatise that Mr. Gore uses to make his points, which could only have any value based on some scientific certainty basis, is not based on science nor the scientific method – nor can scientists even use science to review it, or follow its logic,” August explained. “Gore argues we’re morally obliged to support his conclusions, precluding objective review with the same scientific methods that he claims to have supported his work. Presenting consequences as facts, he categorically rejects their testing with the same scientific method.  Should we be surprised, then when Mr. Gore says that anyone who doubts this must be morally corrupt?” August added. “Fighting religion with reason, we scientists sadly can’t contest. Mr. Gore even shared a Nobel Prize with the IPCC.  So, isn’t it ironic? The only truth that’s inconvenient here is that Mr. Gore’s successfully sold his message as if it were science!” he added. (LINK)

Biologist and Neuropharmacologist Dr. Doug Pettibone, who has authored 120 scientific publications and holds ten patents and is a past member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, dissented in 2008. “There is currently no satisfactory answer to the central question: ‘What is the actual proof that humans are causing catastrophic global warming?’ All of the climate computer models in the world do not provide the proof,” Pettibone wrote to EPW on December 11, 2008. “It boils down to a matter of faith that the 30-year positive correlation between man-made CO2 and global temperature provides the proof.  But correlations are not proof of cause-and-effect. Blaming global warming on human activity is terribly premature and any legislation designed to curtail CO2 will likely be misguided, costly and ineffective based on the available evidence. Since there has not been any significant increase in global temperatures in the last decade, it is not even clear where temperatures are going to go from here,” Pettibone explained. (LINK)

Meteorologist Tom Wysmuller, former weather forecaster at Amsterdam’s Royal Dutch Weather Bureau whose “Polynomial Regression algorithm is embedded in every high-end Texas Instruments calculator sold today,” dissented from man-made global warming fears and predicted a coming global cooling in 2008. Wysmuller said during his two-hour presentation of his latest scientific research titled “The colder side of global warming on December 6, 2008. Wysmuller believes that temperature increases of today are distinct from carbon dioxide levels. “Carbon dioxide is increasing but not dragging the temperatures up,” Wysmuller said. “If we controlled pollution now, we still wouldn’t stop the ice cap from melting,” he explained. “The largest contributor to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is the warming oceans,” he continued. The December 11, 2008, article explained, “Wysmuller argues that the current spike in temperature and carbon dioxide levels are approaching levels that existed just prior to the most recent ice age. What that means, he said, is that we are nearing a period when temperatures will actually start to decrease and weather patterns dramatically change.”  Wysmuller’s research shows that open water at the Arctic will generate an abundance of “ocean effect” snow, similar to the lake effect snow that hits the upstate New York area. “[The Arctic] will have massive amounts of ocean effect snow,” Wysmuller said. “The accumulated snowfall increases reflecting light, so temperatures will cool.” (LINK) (LINK) (LINK)

MIT Scientist Dr. Robert Rose, a professor of Materials Science and Engineering at MIT with approximately 50 years of experience teaching various scientific, linked warming and cooling cycles to the “orbit and the tilt and wobble of the axis of the Earth’s spin.” Rose also questioned climate model predictions on July 8, 2008, by stating, “Clearly, these are not ‘facts.’ They are computer models. They may be correct or at least lead us to the correct answer, but the earliest model appears to be incorrect,” Rose wrote. “Cooler heads [are] needed in global warming debate,” Rose wrote. “Global warming is occurring as it has many times in the past; and it will continue for some years before the cooling cycle begins and the glaciers take over, also as they have in the past. We are trying very hard to develop computer simulations to predict the contribution our activities are making to the warming, and the going has been difficult. These models can’t be tested experimentally (unless we can find another planet on which to conduct our experiments) and are tested mostly by fitting them to past behavior, pretty much the same approach as handicapping horse races. (LINK)

Climate researcher Dr. Craig Loehle, formerly of the Department of Energy Laboratories and currently with the National Council for Air and Stream Improvements, who has published more than 100 peer-reviewed scientific papers, attended the skeptical 2008 International Conference on Climate Change in New York City in March 2008. “The 2000-year [temperature] trend is not flat, so a warming period is not unprecedented,” Loehle said during the skeptical conference in March 2008. “The 1500-year [temperature] cycle as proposed by [Atmospheric physicist Fred] Singer and [Dennis] Avery is consistent with Loehle climate reconstruction,” Loehle explained. “The 1500-year cycle implies that recent warming is part of natural trend,” he added.  (LINK) (LINK) (LINK) Loehl published a November 2007 study in Energy & Environment that found the Medieval Warm Period to be “0.3C warmer than the 20th century.” The study was titled “A 2000-year global temperature reconstruction based on non-treering proxies.” (LINK) & (LINK)

German Meteorologist Dr. Gerd-Rainer Weber, a Consulting Meteorologist, attended the skeptical 2008 International Conference on Climate Change in New York City in March. “Most of the extremist views about climate change have little or no scientific basis. The rational basis for extremist views about global warming may be a desire to push for political action on global warming,” Weber said during the conference. (LINK) Weber also endorsed the Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change, sponsored by the International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC) in 2008. The declaration reads in part, “There is no convincing evidence that CO2 emissions from modern industrial activity has in the past, is now, or will in the future cause catastrophic climate change.”

Atmospheric Scientist Robert L. Scotto, who has more than 30 years air quality consulting experience, served as zone-wide QA Manager on a $300 million EPA Superfund contract, is co-founder of Minnich and Scotto, Inc., a full-service air quality consulting firm and a past member of the American Meteorological Society (AMS). Scotto, a meteorologist who has authored or co-authored numerous technical publications and reports, joined the 650 international scientists dissenting from man-made warming claims in 2008. “Proponents of AGW (anthropogenic global warming) analyses of recent surface temperature records which are suspect at best, as they clearly contradict much more reliable satellite data,” Scotto told EPW on December 22, 2008. According to satellite data, “the Earth has been cooling since 1998,” Scotto wrote. “This discrepancy is due principally to the spatially unrepresentative nature of the surface records, owing first to the fact that rural stations are increasingly being replaced by urban stations and, second, to the frequent failure of these new urban stations to meet basic siting criteria,” Scotto explained. “Based on the laws of physics, the effect on temperature of man’s contribution to atmospheric CO2 levels is minuscule and indiscernible from the natural variability caused in large part by changes in solar energy output. Acknowledgment of this true science is critical to implementation of much-needed practical measures for increasing domestic energy and world food supplies,” he added. (LINK) (LINK)

Atmospheric Scientist Timothy R. Minnich, who has more than 30 years experience in the design and management of a wide range of air quality investigations for industry and government, specializes in the application of optical remote sensing (ORS) to a wide range of air-related issues. Minnich has worked with EPA as a Superfund contractor, is co-founder of Minnich and Scotto, Inc., a full-service air quality consulting firm. Minnich, who holds a masters degree in meteorology and taught courses at Rutgers University and University of Michigan, is a past member of the American Meteorological Society, specializes in issues like acid rain and ozone and has authored or co-authored numerous technical publications and reports. “I choose to take President-elect Obama at his word when, upon his appointment of John Holdren as director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, he promised to “[protect] free and open inquiry . . . ensuring that facts and evidence are never twisted or obscured by politics or ideology,’” Minnich told EPW on December 22, 2008. Clearly the best means to fulfill on this commitment is to appoint to the Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, over which Dr. Holdren will preside, several of the more than 650 distinguished and renowned scientists who have openly questioned the “consensus” on AGW in Senator Inhofe’s 2008 U.S. Senate Minority Report,” Minnich explained. “The late Michael Crichton said it well: ‘Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. . . . Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus [which] is the business of politics. . . . What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus,’” Minnich added. (LINK) (LINK)

Award Winning Physicist Dr. Will Happer, Professor at the Department of Physics at Princeton University and Former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy from 1990 to 1993, who has published over 200 scientific papers, and is a fellow of the American Physical Society, The American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the National Academy of Sciences, dissented from warming fears and requested to be added to Senate dissenting scientist report in 2008. “I had the privilege of being fired by Al Gore, since I refused to go along with his alarmism. I did not need the job that badly,” Happer told EPW on December 22, 2008. Happer, who was awarded the Alexander von Humboldt Award, the Broida Prize and the 1999 Davisson-Germer Prize of the American Physical Society, says he was fired by Gore in 1993 for not going along with Gore’s environmental agenda. “I was told that science was not going to intrude on policy,” Happer said in 1993. In 2008, Happer publicly dissented from man-made warming fears. “I have spent a long research career studying physics that is closely related to the greenhouse effect, for example, absorption and emission of visible and infrared radiation, and fluid flow. Based on my experience, I am convinced that the current alarm over carbon dioxide is mistaken,” Happer explained. “Mistakes are common in science and they can take a long time to correct, sometimes many generations. It is important that misguided political decisions do not block science’s capacity for self correction, especially in this instance when incorrect science is being used to threaten our liberties and wellbeing,” Happer added. “Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science. The earth’s climate is changing now, as it always has. There is no evidence that the changes differ in any qualitative way from those of the past. We are currently in a warming cycle that began in the early 1800’s, at the end of the little ice age. Much of the current warming occurred before the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere were significantly increased by the burning of fossil fuels. No one knows how long the current warming will continue, and in fact, there has been no warming for the past ten years,” he continued. “Carbon dioxide is a natural constituent of the atmosphere, and calling it a ‘pollutant’ is inaccurate.  Humans exhale air containing 4 to 5 per cent carbon dioxide or 40,000 to 50,000 parts per million. Plants grow better with more carbon dioxide. The current levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are about 380 parts per million, exceptionally low by the standards of geological history. Over the past 500 million years since the Cambrian, when fossils of multicellular life first became abundant, the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have been much higher than current levels, about 3 times higher on average.  Life on earth flourished with these higher levels of carbon dioxide,” he added. “Computer models used to generate frightening scenarios from increasing levels of carbon dioxide have scant credibility. There is little debate that the direct effects of doubling carbon dioxide concentrations would be very small, perhaps 1 to 2 C of warming. To generate alarming scenarios, computer modelers must invent positive feedback mechanisms that increase the greenhouse effect of water vapor, which is responsible for over 90 percent of greenhouse warming. Observations indicate that the feedback is very small and may actually be negative. Changes in atmospheric water vapor and cloud cover may diminish, not increase, the small direct effects of carbon dioxide,” he concluded.

There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None.

July 18, 2008

Editor: The real cause of the Global warming scare can be found by reading the Global Green Agenda.

Man made global warming is real, but only in the sense that it was “made up” by a few psychopaths, including Al Gore, to help facilitate the NEW World Order.
It does not matter whether you vote right or left, because the goal is power by unelected officials.

No smoking hot spot



David Evans
| July 18, 2008

I
DEVOTED six years to carbon accounting, building models for the
Australian Greenhouse Office. I am the rocket scientist who wrote the
carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia’s compliance
with the Kyoto Protocol, in the land use change and forestry sector.

FullCAM
models carbon flows in plants, mulch, debris, soils and agricultural
products, using inputs such as climate data, plant physiology and
satellite data. I’ve been following the global warming debate closely
for years.

When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions
caused global warming seemed pretty good: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the
old ice core data, no other suspects.

The evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until we were certain
when it appeared we needed to act quickly? Soon government and the
scientific community were working together and lots of science research
jobs were created. We scientists had political support, the ear of
government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well,
I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet.

The world has spent $50 billion on global warming since 1990, and we
have not found any actual evidence that carbon emissions cause global
warming. Evidence consists of observations made by someone at some time
that supports the idea that carbon emissions cause global warming.
Computer models and theoretical calculations are not evidence, they are
just theory.

What is going to happen over the next decade as global temperatures
continue not to rise? The Labor Government is about to deliberately
wreck the economy in order to reduce carbon emissions. If the reasons
later turn out to be bogus, the electorate is not going to re-elect a
Labor government for a long time. When it comes to light that the
carbon scare was known to be bogus in 2008, the ALP is going to be
regarded as criminally negligent or ideologically stupid for not having
seen through it. And if the Liberals support the general thrust of
their actions, they will be seen likewise.

The onus should be on those who want to change things to provide
evidence for why the changes are necessary. The Australian public is
eventually going to have to be told the evidence anyway, so it might as
well be told before wrecking the economy.

Dr David Evans was a consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005.

Full article

THE GLOBAL WARMING HOAX

July 12, 2008

Editor:
News and links from The Global Warming Hoax – June 2nd to July12
Rap your mind around the global warming scam.

The official position of the World Natural Health Organization in regards to global warming is that there is NO GLOBAL WARMING!
Global warming is nothing more than just another hoax, just like Y2K
and the global freezing claims in the 1960’s and 70’s were. Global
warming is being used to generate fear and panic. Those behind this
movement are using it to control people’s lives and for financial gain.

There are not a lot of individuals, groups, or organizations willing to
stand up against this fraud that is being perpetuated for fear of being
persecuted, harassed, and ostracized by those that support global
warming the scientific and other communities. But fortunately, a few
have decided to do the right this and take a stand against this evil,
proving just how unscientifically sounded global warming is and
exposing those who are behind it. Below, you will find links to
information and articles showing the proof that global warming is nothing more than just a bunch of hot air (pun intended).

12 July 2008 – Doomed To A Fatal Delusion Over Climate Change

12 July 2008 – Doomed To A Fatal Delusion Over Climate Change [Yes it has the same name as the above article]

11 July 2008 – The Enviros And Greens Want Control Not A Healthier Planet

11 July 2008 – Late-Breaking Letters: The Global Warming Hoax

11 July 2008 – Global Swarming Exposed!

10 July 2008 – EnviroNnut News Roundup [Also has an embedded video on the web page]

10 July 2008 – Mt. Shasta’s Glaciers Growing: No Warming On My Mountain

10 July 2008 – The UN Climate Change Numbers Hoax

10 July 2008 – June Satellite Data Shows That Antarctic Sea Ice Continues To Set Records

08 July 2008 – Alarmists Use Weather To Promote Global Warming Hoax

08 July 2008 – Why Do the Global Warming Hoaxers Have Any Credibility Left?

07 July 2008 – First Yellow Journalism, Now Yellow Science

07 July 2008 – Greenology Is A Bankrupt Philosophy

07 July 2008 – Americans Will Be Taxed For Their Carbon Emissions

05 July 2008 – Alleviate World Hunger Produce More Clean Carbon Dioxide

05 July 2008 – Wall Street Journal Warms To The Argument

05 July 2008 – Arctic Ice Concentration For May 1980 And May 2008

03 July 2008 – Bring On The Umbrellas

03 July 2008 – Change: Progressive War On Energy

02 July 2008 – North Pole Ice Melting Fear Mongers Strike Out

01 July 2008 – Stop US Senate Bills S2191 & S3036 – Climate Security Act Shams

01 July 2008 – Global Warming Nothing But A Hoax

01 July 2008 – The Truth About RealClimate.org

01 July 2008 – IPCC Hoax

30 June 2008 – Chicken Little And Global Warming

30 June 2008 – Enough Sea Level Hysteria

30 June 2008 – State Frees Teachers To Criticize Evolution: Global Warming, Origins Of Life, Cloning Also May Be Scrutinized

30 June 2008 – Climate Hoax: The “Imperfect Storm”

27 June 2008 – The Cult Of Extreme Environmentalism Is Destroying Everything In Its Path

27 June 2008 – Fear-Mongering Gore Causes High Gas Prices

26 June 2008 – Discovery Institute: The Global Warming Myth – Dr Noah Robinson – Telecosm 2007 [Embedded video on web page]

26 June 2008 – Global Warming Is The Biggest HOAX Ever To Be Played And It Has A Purpose…

25 June 2008 – Global Warming Deniers – Get Ready For The Coming Inquisition

25 June 2008 – More Points On Why Global Warming Is A Hoax

25 June 2008 – Al Gorean James Hansen Wants Non Warmists Tried And Condemned [Can we say “Witch Hunt” or “Salem Which Trials?”]

25 June 2008 – Global Warming Hoax Revealed

24 June 2008 – Globe Shirks Off Warm, Holy Mantle

24 June 2008 – People Doubt Global Warming Hoax, Government Lovers Want To Jail Oil Execs

24 June 2008 – Next 365 Days: The Global Warming Hoax Agenda Outlined

23 June 2008 – Global Hoax

23 June 2008 – Going Green = $4 Per Gallon

21 June 2008 – The Science Of The U.N.

21 June 2008 – CBS And AP Fall For More Global Warming BS

20 June 2008 – U.N. ‘Scaring Planet Earth’ Into Global Tax For Climate: Scientist Challenges Procedures For Agenda-Driven Proclamations

20 June 2008 – Surviving Global Warming Alarmism In Florida

20 June 2008 – 30,000 Scientists Sign Petition On Global Warming

20 June 2008 – Maryland House and Senate Reject Global Warming Measure

18 June 2008 – Man-Made Global Warming A Hoax, All Because Of The MONEY

18 June 2008 – An Explanation Of “Going Green”

18 June 2008 – Al Gore`s Hypocrisy Continues

17 June 2008 – Meteorologist
Says Money Behind Warming Alarmism ‘Can Corrupt Anybody’: Cullen
Adversary Argues He Knows Only One Broadcast Meteorologist Who Is ‘On
The Global Warming Bandwagon.’

16 June 2008 – Al Gore Crowd Blames Tornados, Floods On Global Warming Hoax

16 June 2008 – 10 Questions Al Gore Can’t Answer

16 June 2008 – It’s About Time: Permission To Harass The Polar Bear

16 June 2008 – Mother Nature And Man’s Foolish Games

16 June 2008 – Global Warming Hoax Round-Up; Late Edition

16 June 2008 – Six Questions To Ask A Global Warming Hoaxer

16 June 2008 – Global Warming Hoax Week-In-Review 06/15/2008

16 June 2008 – John Coleman Vs Al Gore

13 June 2008 – Climate Change And The Oil Crisis

12 June 2008 – New Hampshire Officially Joins Global Warming Hoax

12 June 2008 – UN Chimes In On Global Warming

11 June 2008 – You Can Believe It Or Not: Global Warming Is A Hoax

11 June 2008 – Recent Climate Facts

11 June 2008 – Hey Greenies! Move To Another Continent!

11 June 2008 – The Incredible Hulk And The Climate Of Fear

10 June 2008 – Weekly Reader Brainwashing Kids On Cause Of Global Warming

10 June 2008 – Good Morning America Guest Blames Heat Wave On Greenhouse Gas

09 June 2008 – Global Warming Hoax [Really good article! A must read!]

09 June 2008 – Pinkham: Déjà Vu Oil Over Again

09 June 2008 – Canada: Global Warming A Hoax

09 June 2008 – The Politics Of Carbon Footprints

09 June 2008 – Tell The Politicians To Listen

09 June 2008 – The Real Danger Of “Global Warming”

06 June 2008 – Global Warming: What Is Endangered – Climate Or Freedom?

06 June 2008 – Seattle
May Ban Beach Bonfires To Save Planet: Another Example Of How The
Global Warming Hoax Is Designed To Manipulate Your Lifestyle To Fit In
With Their Agenda

06 June 2007 – The Myths And Lies Of Global Warming Hoaxers

05 June 2008 – What Price Liberty

05 June 2008 – Solution To Global Warming And Disappearing Polar Bears

04 June 2008 – Congress Ignores The Will Of The People Again: Once Again Congress Ignores The Will Of The People To Further A Deceptive Global Warming Agenda

04 June 2008 – About That Global Warming Bill….

03 June 2008 – Starvation
Scapegoat: Blaming Population For A Green Problem: Costs Twice As Much
To Make Gallon Of Ethanol From Corn As It Does For Gallon Of Gasoline

02 June 2008 – Global Warming Hoax Enthusiasts: Running Out of Steam

02 June 2008 – Food Report Critical Of Biofuels

02 June 2008 – Newt Gingrich: Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less

02 June 2008 – GreeenIsm Item: The Greenpeace Scam

02 June 2008 – The Global Warming Hoax Of Godless Evolutionists

From the Global Warming Hoax

The New World Order

March 15, 2008

Love the picture

The reality you believe is – isn’t.

The New World Order

Is this scheme to establish a New World Order in fact a reality? Yes it is. If you do not believe this I encourage you to study the United Nations documents and also the treaties which, once ratified by individual nations, become INTERNATIONAL LAW. The United Nations created the Commission for Global Governance, if you don’t believe this, visit the United Nations website and look it up.

The Commission for Global Governance released a report: Our Global Neighbourhood, that predicates a world court, a global tax, and global police force. And the U.S. State Department Publication 7277 outlines a one world police force under the United Nations. So many prominent world leaders are calling for a one world government the intention is obvious. Yet most people are so occupied by life’s responsibilities, careers, sports and television, they have little time to study what’s going on in the corridors of power.

The coming one world government is being set up in the political arena under the flag of the United Nations, through organizations such as the Trilateral Commission, Council of Foreign Relations, the Royal Institute of International Affairs, the Bilderbergers, and the Club of Rome whose members include many world leaders, media personalities and other influential people. The published goal of the Council of Foreign Relations for example is a one world government. And although most have never heard of many of these groups, they do exist, and they are very influential. The core of these groups hold to “illuminist” philosophy.

A second focus is economics with free trade agreements, the International Monetary Fund, World Bank and the Bank of International Settlements. The coming global monetary crisis is intended to institute a universal debt-based currency controlled by the International Financiers and issued to individuals against biometric identification cards. This is all about control!

The third area of focus is religion. Organizations like the World Council of Churches and the Parliament of World Religions were established to introduce a new world religion. It is based on a pantheistic/humanist philosophy. Pay careful attention when you study the documents and reports published by the United Nations and related organizations. This philosophy is now being taught in the education system and has been implemented under programs such as Goals 2000.

The New World Order will be SOCIALISM. Read the United Nations declarations and treaties for proof of this fact. The individual will be subservient to the state. Rights and power reside in and derive from the state, not the individual.

United Nations documents all speak of collectivism. They claim that private ownership and management of property is not to the benefit of the human race. These things are cloaked in a pleasant language, and most people are taken in and deceived. Yet few bother to study these documents.

In the New World Order you will be in serfdom to the controlling elite! You will have no liberty, and no rights. The State will look after you for your best interests. Do you see how the governments of the free world are slowly becoming more involved in everyday life? This is exactly what socialism is. The government becomes involved in every aspect of personal life. Today we require a license for so many things. In Australia, farmers now require permission to farm the land they own. This is not freedom.

In the New World Order, private ownership of property will be abolished. You will only own what you need “after all this is best for the world.” “We need to be looked after.”

Terms such as ‘sustainable development’ mean depopulation and serfdom. The masses continue to fall for lie after lie after lie. Study history and you will discover that there have been very few free societies. Those that were free were either overthrown or fell into the trap of socialism, totally unaware of the dangers until it was too late. Socialism (communism) is always implemented through deception. History portrays a repetitive phenomenon . . . enslavement-revolt-freedom-apathy-enslavement. Enslavement frequently followed revolution because the people did not realize that socialism was slavery, not freedom.

Today environment is being used to make people feel guilty, enticing them to accept socialism as necessary. The environmental movement has been co-opted to strip private ownership of control and exploitation of resources. Many environmental ‘facts’ are lies, exaggerations and unscientific claims to manipulate the masses in the classic Hegelian Dialectic: create the problem, create opposition to the problem, then present your own predetermined solution. Global warming is a perfect example.

Source 

 This next story from the BBC
 Blair wants ‘climate revolution’  These elitists want you living as serfs. Your life will be ruled by a small unelected group of lunatics and psychopaths. It’s time to wake up folks. The UN is one EVIL CLUB

Tony Blair
Mr Blair believes the UN is the key to reaching a climate agreement

Former Prime Minister Tony Blair has called for a “global environment revolution” to tackle climate change.

Mr Blair is on a visit to Japan to discuss global greenhouse gas targets.

In a speech to a meeting of G8 ministers building on the 2005 Gleneagles summit, he stressed the need for a “global deal”.

He suggested it should be led by the UN and that failure to act on climate change “would be deeply and unforgivably irresponsible”.

During his visit, organised by Climate Group, Mr Blair is due to meet climate change experts from China, Japan, Europe and the US.

The UN and the UN alone is the right forum to reach the global agreement
Tony Blair

He is attempting to guide attempts to secure a deal involving China and the US to slash emissions by 50% by 2050, on the first part of a trip that will also take him to China and India.

He said: “Unfortunately the source of the emissions is irrelevant. It is the fact and amount of them that matters.

“The UN machinery is valiantly striving to put this deal together. The UN and the UN alone is the right forum to reach the global agreement.

“What I found, whilst still in office as prime minister, was that countries had their own environmental policy. They talked to other nations of course, but there was no centre where it was brought together.”

Varied roles

He also said that he could “see no way of tackling climate change without a renaissance of nuclear power”.

The Big Club and you’re not in it by George Carlin 

Green House Conspiracy

March 3, 2008
The hoax of Global Warming / Green House was exposed 17 years ago by CH 4 UK in this documentary entitled Green House Conspiracy.

Carbon tax flim-flam

February 26, 2008

Carbon tax flim-flam

Terence Corcoran, Financial Post  Published: Tuesday, February 26, 2008

Mark Jaccard’s one-man crusade to hook Canada up to a monster new global warming policy nightmare popped up again yesterday. This time he emerged in Ottawa with David Suzuki at a news conference that offered Canadians an economic miracle: Big new carbon taxes, lower income taxes, reduced carbon emissions, more government revenue, and a growing economy.

The all-in-one package is in a report by Prof. Jaccard, of Simon Fraser University, for the David Suzuki Foundation. Titled Pricing Carbon: Saving Green, the report ran through some economic modelling exercises to see what might happen if Canada were to impose a tax on all carbon emissions of between $75 and $200 a tonne by 2020. Before any government gets to assessing the report — which doesn’t mention that a $200-a-tonne tax would raise the price of gasoline by about 50% to $1.60 a litre; nor does it do much to highlight the $45-billion in annual lost growth by 2020 — we suggest a tracking device be attached to Mr. Jaccard to monitor his role in the rise of carbon tax on the Canadian agenda.

When B.C. Finance Minister Carole Taylor’s budget last week announced a version of a carbon tax, Mr. Jaccard and his private research company, M.K. Jaccard and Associates, were the only authorities named. The B.C. plan, moreover, contained all the propaganda tricks Mr. Jaccard raised in the Suzuki version. The tax would raise billions, but voters should not worry because it would be “revenue neutral” and would be “recycled” back in tax cuts or direct payments. As a marketing ploy, the B.C. government said it would immediately send out $440-million in Carbon Tax Credit cheques to citizens, before the carbon tax was even imposed.

In his Suzuki report, Mr. Jaccard begins with a pithy epigraph: “The atmosphere can no longer be considered a carbon dump.” Turns out Mr. Jaccard is quoting himself and his coauthors, including one Jeffrey Simpson, from their book Hot Air. While short and emphatic, the quote is also pure rhetoric unhindered by fact. The atmosphere will continue to used as a dump so long as humans are allowed to exist.

Then the Suzuki report says that “several recent studies” show that a price on carbon is the best way to cut carbon emissions. Of two studies cited, one is from Mr. Jaccard. Reference is later made to recent carbon-tax research by the National Round Table on the Environment — research Mr. Jaccard had a hand in.

The progress of the carbon tax idea to yesterday, including the joint conference with Mr. Suzuki and the B.C. budget carbon tax gimmick, shows Mr. Jaccard has a way with policy makers, politicians and activists. So far he’s made no headway with the Harper Tories or Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, whose budget today was clearly the focal point behind the timing of these events.

The Jaccard carbon tax studies are gigantic exercises in economic modelling. Using models Mr. Jaccard controls, the study asks what would happen to the economy 12 years from now under different levels of carbon taxation and methods of government disposal of the cash raised. If the tax were $100 a tonne, governments would raise $62.5-billion; at $200, the tax take is $100-billion a year — three times what the government collected last year in GST. That would be bad for the economy, depending on how the government spent it. It would reduce carbon-based energy consumption, hurting growth. But if the government took that money and “recycled” it back into the economy in beneficial ways, the bad impact of the tax would be neutralized.

Well, not quite. Even Mr. Jaccard’s black box couldn’t come up with that much of a miracle. Different things happen, depending on the policy. If the government used 14% of the carbon tax money to subsidize green energy and carbon capture technology, gave 40% to industry and used the remaining 46% to reduce payroll or income or other taxes, then there might be offsetting benefits. But not enough to offset the losses from the tax, which would still leave the economy in the red by upwards of $45-billion a year, a figure that increases annually with the loss of compounding growth.

The Suzuki report spends a lot of time ventilating the idea that there might be a “double dividend” in a carbon tax. Bring in a tax, the government recycles it back to taxpayers, and then everybody collects an environmental dividend. In the end, though, the report concedes (most clearly in a footnote) that there is a growing consensus in economics that the prospect of such a double dividend is “weak.”

The Suzuki-Jaccard study is premised on the theories of Arthur C. Pigou, a 20th-century economist who believed you could use taxes to change behaviour. Mr. Jaccard calls his tax the “Pigovian carbon price.” The trouble with Pigovianism is that it requires revival of the ancient and discredited economic art of central planning, using taxes as substitute for prices. But a tax is not a market price. It’s a bureaucratic planning device–as Mr. Jaccard’s elaborate economic modellings prove. And it’s no way to run a market economy.

 The National Post

Biofuels emissions may be 'worse than petrol

February 7, 2008

 Biofuels emissions may be ‘worse than petrol’

Biofuels, once seen as a useful way of combating climate change, could actually increase greenhouse gas emissions, say two major new studies.

And it may take tens or hundreds of years to pay back the “carbon debt” accrued by growing biofuels in the first place, say researchers. The calculations join a growing list of studies questioning whether switching to biofuels really will help combat climate change.

Biofuel production has accelerated over the last 5 years, spurred in part by a US drive to produce corn-derived ethanol as an alternative to petrol.

The idea makes intuitive environmental sense – plants take up carbon dioxide as they grow, so biofuels should help reduce greenhouse gas emissions – but the full environmental cost of biofuels is only now becoming clear.

Extra emissions are created from the production of fertiliser needed to grow corn, for example, leading some researchers to predict that the energy released by burning ethanol is only 25% greater than that used to grow and process the fuel.

Carbon debt

The new studies examine a different part of biofuel equation, and both suggest that the emissions associated with the crops may be even worse than that.

One analysis looks at land that is switched to biofuel crop production. Carbon will be released when forests are felled or bush cleared, and longer-term emissions created by dead roots decaying.

This creates what Joseph Fargione of The Nature Conservancy and colleagues call a “carbon debt”. Emissions savings generated by the biofuels will help pay back this debt, but in some cases this can take centuries, suggests their analysis.

If 10,000 square metres of Brazilian rainforest is cleared to make way for soya beans – which are used to make biodiesel – over 700,000 kilograms of carbon dioxide is released.

The saving generated by the resulting biodiesel will not cancel that out for around 300 years, says Fargione. In the case of peat land rainforest in Indonesia, which is being cleared to grow palm oil, the debt will take over 400 years to repay, he says.

Missing corn

The carbon debts associated with US corn are measured in tens rather than hundreds of years. But the second study suggests that producing corn for fuel rather than food could have dramatic knock-on effects elsewhere.

Corn is used to feed cattle and demand for meat is high, so switching land to biofuel production is likely to prompt farmers in Brazil and elsewhere to clear forests and other lands to create new cropland to grow the missing corn.

When the carbon released by those clearances is taken into account, corn ethanol produces nearly twice as much carbon as petrol.

Tories oppose carbon tax

January 7, 2008

Editor:
Why the big push from the advisory committee? The scam that is global warming is starting to fall apart. Talk of global cooling is starting to appear. Carbon tax has nothing to do with global warming. Never did. It’s about control and cash.
That’s what it should be called, “Control and Cash” not “Cap and Trade”.

I’m not a big fan of Stephen Harper or his govt, I am however, a big fan of Canada and it’s people. Carbon trading will have adverse affects on the economy and the jobs people depend on and therefore it should not be implemented. I am therefore asking that you encourage Mr. Harper to base his policy on up to date science.

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

Tories oppose carbon tax

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has flatly opposed the idea of a carbon tax in the past, as has Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion.

On Monday, the federal Liberals seemed to be more receptive to the idea.

At a press conference in Ottawa, long-time Liberal and environmental activist John Godfrey said his party currently favours a carbon trading system, but will keep an open mind about carbon taxes and is waiting to see what research emerges on the topic.

The Conservatives, however, stuck to their position.

Environment Minister John Baird said Monday that he welcomes the report’s call for fixing a price on carbon, but would not consider a carbon tax. He said his government is instead working to regulate industry emissions by pushing for major polluters to significantly reduce their emissions by 2010 and encouraging an eventual carbon trading system in North America.

“What we’re not going to do is be like Stéphane Dion and the Liberals who constantly change their position and their policy,” Baird told reporters outside the House of Commons, referring to the Liberal’s apparent softening stance on a carbon tax.

“I understand the Liberals are now entertaining dumping their current policy — policy No. 8 by my count — and adopting a completely new policy. Every time a report comes out, you can’t change your mind.”

Murray said he is optimistic that Parliament will support carbon prices and measures like carbon taxes and carbon trading.

“It’s time to move the discussion forward because there isn’t a realistic case that we have seen yet where we can achieve reductions without a price [on carbon],” Murray said.

“You’ll now quietly hear people talking very seriously about cap and trade systems,” he added. “Our job [as an advisory panel] is to push government, not just the governing party, but Parliament and Canadians.”

‘Significant’ impact on Ontario, Alberta

Murray noted that the costs of a carbon tax or cap-and-trade system could particularly be “significant” on Alberta’s oil producers and Ontario’s manufacturing sector.

But he stressed that in the development of any new policy, there would be investments in green technologies that would ultimately benefit both provinces significantly.

He said any policy would have to be created to ensure all regions are treated fairly, and that Canada’s industry as a whole doesn’t suddenly find itself on an “unlevel playing field” with the rest of the world.

Murray said the development of a carbon tax or cap-and-trade system must include industry officials, environmentalists and representatives from all regions of the country.

Representatives from all sectors were already involved in the creation of the panel’s report, he said, noting that 65 groups were consulted and extensive economic modelling was done.

GDP wouldn’t be seriously affected

David McLaughlin, CEO of the advisory panel, said the report has concluded that Canada can feasibly reach its 2050 target of a 65 per cent emissions reduction, and that reaching this target will not be detrimental to the Canadian economy as a whole.

Canada has enough green technology in place to meet the goals, although the development of more technology would be encouraged, according to the panel’s findings.

“Our findings suggest in the long run the overall effect on Canada’s gross domestic product will not be significant, amounting to the equivalent of approximately one to two years of lost growth of GDP between now and 2050,” McLaughlin said at the press conference with Murray.

While the Liberals applauded parts of the report, they accused the Conservatives of putting constraints on the advisory panel, giving it a mandate to work with the Conservative government’s environmental targets, instead of the targets proposed under the international Kyoto Protocol.

“The report reminded us once again that this Conservative government has unilaterally abandoned Canada’s international legal obligations,” Godfrey said.

The Kyoto Protocol, which Canada signed under a Liberal government in 1998, requires that the country reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by six per cent from 1990 levels by 2012.

The Conservative government created new environmental goals in April 2007 that see Canada meeting its Kyoto commitments years behind schedule. Under the new plan, Canada’s overall emissions will be cut by up to 65 per cent by 2050 and 20 per cent cut by 2020, all based on 2006 levels.

McLaughlin said the panel used the new targets because they are feasible and focused on the long-term, giving Canada enough time to make necessary changes.

Kyoto’s targets are too focused on the short-term, McLaughlin said.

CBC