Archive for the ‘National Academy of Sciences’ Category

Global Warming as Mass Neurosis

July 2, 2008
Editor:
One of the goals of the global elitists is
to ruin the economies of the industrialized nations. The other is mass depopulation.
All to take place under the guise of saving the world from global warming. Courtesy of the UN and Agenda 21

GLOBAL VIEW

By BRET STEPHENS

Last week marked the 20th anniversary of the mass
hysteria phenomenon known as global warming. Much of the science has
since been discredited. Now it’s time for political scientists,
theologians and psychiatrists to weigh in.

What, discredited? Thousands of scientists insist
otherwise, none more noisily than NASA’s Jim Hansen, who first banged
the gong with his June 23, 1988, congressional testimony (delivered
with all the modesty of “99% confidence”).

[Global Warming as Mass Neurosis]
AP
The New True Believers

But mother nature has opinions of her own. NASA now
begrudgingly confirms that the hottest year on record in the
continental 48 was not 1998, as previously believed, but 1934, and that
six of the 10 hottest years since 1880 antedate 1954. Data from 3,000
scientific robots in the world’s oceans show there has been slight
cooling in the past five years, never mind that “80% to 90% of global
warming involves heating up ocean waters,” according to a report by
NPR’s Richard Harris.

The Arctic ice cap may be thinning, but the extent of
Antarctic sea ice has been expanding for years. At least as of
February, last winter was the Northern Hemisphere’s coldest in decades.
In May, German climate modelers reported in the journal Nature that
global warming is due for a decade-long vacation. But be not
not-afraid, added the modelers: The inexorable march to apocalypse
resumes in 2020.

This last item is, of course, a forecast, not an
empirical observation. But it raises a useful question: If even slight
global cooling remains evidence of global warming, what isn’t
evidence of global warming? What we have here is a nonfalsifiable
hypothesis, logically indistinguishable from claims for the existence
of God. This doesn’t mean God doesn’t exist, or that global warming
isn’t happening. It does mean it isn’t science.

So let’s stop fussing about the interpretation of ice
core samples from the South Pole and temperature readings in the
troposphere. The real place where discussions of global warming belong
is in the realm of belief, and particularly the motives for belief. I
see three mutually compatible explanations.

The first is as a vehicle of ideological convenience.
Socialism may have failed as an economic theory, but global warming
alarmism, with its dire warnings about the consequences of industry and
consumerism, is equally a rebuke to capitalism. Take just about any
other discredited leftist nostrum of yore – population control, higher
taxes, a vast new regulatory regime, global economic redistribution, an
enhanced role for the United Nations – and global warming provides a
justification. One wonders what the left would make of a scientific
“consensus” warning that some looming environmental crisis could only
be averted if every college-educated woman bore six children: Thumbs to
“patriarchal” science; curtains to the species.

Full Story

The media snowjob on global warming

March 10, 2008

 Editor
Is the National post is the last paper in Canada?

The media snowjob on global warming

Lorne Gunter, National Post  Published: Monday, March 10, 2008

Al Gore won a Nobel Peace Prize, not a science award.Ronaldo Schemidt, AFP, Getty ImagesAl Gore won a Nobel Peace Prize, not a science award.

Just how pervasive the bias at most news outlets is in favour of climate alarmism — and how little interest most outlets have in reporting any research that diverges from the alarmist orthodoxy — can be seen in a Washington Post story on the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), announced last week in New York.

The NIPCC is a counter to the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC. The group was unveiled this week in Manhattan at the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change, along with its scientific report claiming that natural factors — the sun, El Ninos and La Ninas, volcanoes, etc, — not human sources are behind global warming.

The Washington Post’s first instincts (not just on its opinion pages, but in its news coverage, too) were cleverly to sew doubt of the group’s credibility by pointing out to readers that many of the participants had ties to conservative politicians, such as former British prime minister Margaret Thatcher, and that the conference sponsor — the Heartland Institute — received money from oil companies and health care corporations.

That’s standard fare, and partly fair, so that’s not what I am talking about.

The insidiousness I am referring to is the unfavourable way the Post compared the NIPCC report to the IPCC’s famous report of last year.

After reminding readers that the IPCC and former U.S. vice-president Al Gore shared the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 for their work on climate change, the paper then, sneeringly, added: “While the IPCC enlisted several hundred scientists from more than 100 countries to work over five years to produce its series of reports, the NIPCC document is the work of 23 authors from 15 nations, some of them not scientists.”

First of all, the IPCC and Mr. Gore won the Peace Prize, not a science prize, which only proves they are good at politics. They didn’t win the Physics Prize, for instance.

Also, while the former vice-prez may have invented the Internet (by his own admission), he is demonstrably not a scientist. Yet in the same paragraph as the Washington Post lionizes Mr. Gore for his work saving the planet, it backhands non-scientists for meddling in the climate change debate, never once showing any hint it recognized its own hypocrisy.

And the paper displays its utter lack of intellectual curiosity, too.

Full Story at the National Post 

Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change

March 9, 2008

Editor
I want to thank the Heartland Institute and the scientists for their dedication and hard work involved in exposing the scam that is global warming.

Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change

“Global warming” is not a global crisis

We, the scientists and researchers in climate and related fields, economists, policymakers, and business leaders, assembled at Times Square, New York City, participating in the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change,

Resolving that scientific questions should be evaluated solely by the scientific method;

Affirming that global climate has always changed and always will, independent of the actions of humans, and that carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant but rather a necessity for all life;

Recognising that the causes and extent of recently observed climatic change are the subject of intense debates in the climate science community and that oft-repeated assertions of a supposed ‘consensus’ among climate experts are false;

Affirming that attempts by governments to legislate costly regulations on industry and individual citizens to encourage CO2 emission reduction will slow development while having no appreciable impact on the future trajectory of global climate change. Such policies will markedly diminish future prosperity and so reduce the ability of societies to adapt to inevitable climate change, thereby increasing, not decreasing, human suffering;

Noting that warmer weather is generally less harmful to life on Earth than colder:

Hereby declare:

That current plans to restrict anthropogenic CO2 emissions are a dangerous misallocation of intellectual capital and resources that should be dedicated to solving humanity’s real and serious problems.

That 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.

That attempts by governments to inflict taxes and costly regulations on industry and individual citizens with the aim of reducing emissions of CO2 will pointlessly curtail the prosperity of the West and progress of developing nations without affecting climate.

That adaptation as needed is massively more cost-effective than any attempted mitigation and that a focus on such mitigation will divert the attention and resources of governments away from addressing the real problems of their peoples.

That human-caused climate change is not a global crisis.
Now, therefore, we recommend —

That world leaders reject the views expressed by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as well as popular, but misguided works such as “An Inconvenient Truth.”

That all taxes, regulations, and other interventions intended to reduce emissions of CO2 be abandoned forthwith.

Agreed at New York, 4 March 2008

The Heartland Institute

Forget global warming: Welcome to the new Ice Age

February 25, 2008

Forget global warming: Welcome to the new Ice Age

Lorne Gunter, National Post  Published: Monday, February 25, 2008

Snow cover over North America and much of Siberia, Mongolia and China is greater than at any time since 1966.

The U.S. National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) reported that many American cities and towns suffered record cold temperatures in January and early February. According to the NCDC, the average temperature in January “was -0.3 F cooler than the 1901-2000 (20th century) average.”

China is surviving its most brutal winter in a century. Temperatures in the normally balmy south were so low for so long that some middle-sized cities went days and even weeks without electricity because once power lines had toppled it was too cold or too icy to repair them.

There have been so many snow and ice storms in Ontario and Quebec in the past two months that the real estate market has felt the pinch as home buyers have stayed home rather than venturing out looking for new houses.

In just the first two weeks of February, Toronto received 70 cm of snow, smashing the record of 66.6 cm for the entire month set back in the pre-SUV, pre-Kyoto, pre-carbon footprint days of 1950.

And remember the Arctic Sea ice? The ice we were told so hysterically last fall had melted to its “lowest levels on record? Never mind that those records only date back as far as 1972 and that there is anthropological and geological evidence of much greater melts in the past.

The ice is back.

Gilles Langis, a senior forecaster with the Canadian Ice Service in Ottawa, says the Arctic winter has been so severe the ice has not only recovered, it is actually 10 to 20 cm thicker in many places than at this time last year.

OK, so one winter does not a climate make. It would be premature to claim an Ice Age is looming just because we have had one of our most brutal winters in decades.

But if environmentalists and environment reporters can run around shrieking about the manmade destruction of the natural order every time a robin shows up on Georgian Bay two weeks early, then it is at least fair game to use this winter’s weather stories to wonder whether the alarmist are being a tad premature.

And it’s not just anecdotal evidence that is piling up against the climate-change dogma.

According to Robert Toggweiler of the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory at Princeton University and Joellen Russell, assistant professor of biogeochemical dynamics at the University of Arizona — two prominent climate modellers — the computer models that show polar ice-melt cooling the oceans, stopping the circulation of warm equatorial water to northern latitudes and triggering another Ice Age (a la the movie The Day After Tomorrow) are all wrong.

“We missed what was right in front of our eyes,” says Prof. Russell. It’s not ice melt but rather wind circulation that drives ocean currents northward from the tropics. Climate models until now have not properly accounted for the wind’s effects on ocean circulation, so researchers have compensated by over-emphasizing the role of manmade warming on polar ice melt.

But when Profs. Toggweiler and Russell rejigged their model to include the 40-year cycle of winds away from the equator (then back towards it again), the role of ocean currents bringing warm southern waters to the north was obvious in the current Arctic warming.

Last month, Oleg Sorokhtin, a fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, shrugged off manmade climate change as “a drop in the bucket.” Showing that solar activity has entered an inactive phase, Prof. Sorokhtin advised people to “stock up on fur coats.”

He is not alone. Kenneth Tapping of our own National Research Council, who oversees a giant radio telescope focused on the sun, is convinced we are in for a long period of severely cold weather if sunspot activity does not pick up soon.

The last time the sun was this inactive, Earth suffered the Little Ice Age that lasted about five centuries and ended in 1850. Crops failed through killer frosts and drought. Famine, plague and war were widespread. Harbours froze, so did rivers, and trade ceased.

It’s way too early to claim the same is about to happen again, but then it’s way too early for the hysteria of the global warmers, too.

National Post 

Global Warming – Settled Science?

February 24, 2008

Usually a scientific theory takes many decades to become established, and only after the most rigorous testing under many different scenarios, does it achieve ‘scientific consensus’. However, when it comes to Global Warming its proponents claim that there is no argument or debate to be had. Their current crusade is to turn Global Warming into something that supposedly no honest and decent person can disagree about, as they have already done with ‘environmental sustainability’. Al Gore often says “Climate change is a moral issue.” In other words it is all about you, and your destructive behaviour.

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has confidently announced ‘the science is settled’ on man-made Global Warming. Their most recent set of reports declares that “the debate over the science of climate change is well and truly over. Unified international political commitment is now urgently required to take action to avoid dangerous climate change.

However, the science is not settled. Many renowned climatologists strongly disagree with the IPCC’s conclusions about the cause and potential magnitude of Global Warming. More than 20,000 scientists have now signed the Oregon Petition which criticises it as ‘flawed’ research and states that “any human contribution to climate change has not yet been demonstrated.” Dr Chris Landsea resigned from the IPCC because he “personally could not in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound.”

The IPCC claims that more than 2,500 respected scientists and policy makers collaborate to write its climate change assessments but less than a tenth of these ‘experts’ actually hold qualifications in climatology, most were in fact educated in the political and social sciences. The panel that edits and approves the reports are appointed by the United Nations, and more than half are actually UN officials. Dr Richard Lindzen, who is a genuine climate expert, resigned from the IPCC process after his contributions were completely rewritten by the panel.

It’s not 2,500 people offering their consensus, I participated in that. Each person who is an author writes one or two pages in conjunction with someone else. They travel around the world several times a year for several years to write it and the summary for policymakers has the input of a handful of scientists, but ultimately, it is written by representatives of governments, and of environmental organizations, each pushing their own agenda.” – MIT’s Professor of Atmospheric Science Dr. Richard Lindzen on the IPCC report.

Czech President Klaus stated “It is not fair to refer to the UN panel as a group of scientists. The IPCC is not a scientific institution. It’s a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavour. It’s neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists, and UN bureaucrats, who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment.”

Asserting ‘the science is settled’ ignores the debate that still rages, and the constant shrieking by alarmists like Al Gore reveals that Global Warming is being used to push a hidden agenda. They are not really interested in the science at all. Proclaiming that “climate change is real” ignores the Earth’s constant, natural warming and cooling cycles.

Vikings settled in Greenland and raised crops and cattle 1000 years ago, while Britons grew grapes in England. Four hundred years later, Greenland froze and the Vikings starved. Europe was gripped in a Little Ice Age. The Thames froze all the way up to London. Another surge in temperatures saw widespread global droughts in the mid-1600s. Temperatures plunged again around 1700’s. The globe warmed in 1800-1940, cooled for the next 35 years, then warmed again. The 1940-1975 cooling period occurred despite the fact that industrial production and release of CO2 vastly accelerated during this time. This led to political and media scaremongering about Global Cooling, and the threat of a new ice age.

Again, this arose out of a misunderstanding of long term temperature fluctuations. Scientists have discovered that the sun not only has a regular 11 year cycle of sunspot activity. They have now discovered a significant 200 year cycle. Sunspot and solar radiation activity almost exactly parallel temperature changes on the Earth. It correlates well with the anomalous post-war temperature dip, when global carbon dioxide levels were rising very fast. The increase in solar radiation prevents the formation of clouds, which have a cooling effect on the planet, therefore the temperature rises.

Full Article 

Dr.Pierpont on radio show

February 17, 2008
Editor:
Dr. Pierpont has worked very hard to get the word out about  health problems caused by wind turbine noise.  To find out more about the radio show please use the contact information below.

choices4wellness.ca

We are having Dr.Pierpont on our radio show
thursday feb 28th,
contact me for more info
health@choices4wellness.ca

Frey & Hadden, Wind turbines and health

Posted on March 4, 2007.

From the editor
It appears from all the research that has been done on wind turbines and wind farms that not only is the wind industry not telling you the truth, neither is your govt. When I say your govt., I am talking about all govt. bodies that are involved in the promotion and licensing […]

Read Full Post

Testimony before the New York State Legislature Energy Committee

Posted on January 11, 2007.

Testimony before the New York State Legislature Energy Committee
March 7, 2006
Nina Pierpont, MD, PhD
MD, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 1991
PhD, Population Biology, Princeton University, 1985
BA, Biology, Yale University, 1977
Fellow of the American Academy of Pediatrics
http://www.ninapierpont.com

I am here to talk to you today as a physician-scientist about a clinical phenomenon […]

Read Full Post |

Kirby Mountain: French Academy of Medicine warns of wind turbine noise

Posted on November 26, 2006.

Kirby Mountain: French Academy of Medicine warns of wind turbine noise
Setback
Based on these health effects and hazards, turbines should not be placed within 1700 feet of any road or dwelling. Those living within ½ mile (2640 ft) should be apprised that they are likely to experience very bothersome levels of noise and flicker, which continue […]

choices4wellness.ca

We are having Dr.Pierpont on our radio show
thursday feb 28th,
contact me for more info
health@choices4wellness.ca

Winter sea ice could keep expanding

February 16, 2008

Recent cold snap helping Arctic sea ice, scientists find

There’s an upside to the extreme cold temperatures northern Canadians have endured in the last few weeks: scientists say it’s been helping winter sea ice grow across the Arctic, where the ice shrank to record-low levels last year.

Temperatures have stayed well in the -30s C and -40s C range since late January throughout the North, with the mercury dipping past -50 C in some areas.

Satellite images are showing that the cold spell is helping the sea ice expand in coverage by about 2 million square kilometres, compared to the average winter coverage in the previous three years.

“It’s nice to know that the ice is recovering,” Josefino Comiso, a senior research scientist with the Cryospheric Sciences Branch of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Centre in Maryland, told CBC News on Thursday.

“That means that maybe the perennial ice would not go down as low as last year.”

Canadian scientists are also noticing growing ice coverage in most areas of the Arctic, including the southern Davis Strait and the Beaufort Sea.

“Clearly, we’re seeing the ice coverage rebound back to more near normal coverage for this time of year,” said Gilles Langis, a senior ice forecaster with the Canadian Ice Service in Ottawa.

Winter sea ice could keep expanding

The cold is also making the ice thicker in some areas, compared to recorded thicknesses last year, Lagnis added.

“The ice is about 10 to 20 centimetres thicker than last year, so that’s a significant increase,” he said.

If temperatures remain cold this winter, Langis said winter sea ice coverage will continue to expand.

The Fluid Envelope – A Case Against Climate Alarmism

February 11, 2008

Source EcoWorld

Editor’s Note: Our charter to report on clean technology and the status of species and ecosystems seems to always bring us back to one overriding distraction – global warming alarm – and small wonder. We are in the midst of one of the most dramatic transformations of political economy in the history of the world – and nobody is watching. “The debate is over on global warming,” goes the consensus, and even if that were a healthy or accurate notion, why has this consensus translated into hardly any vigorous debate over what would be a rational response?

Despite ongoing rhetoric to the contrary from virtually every environmental nonprofit in existance, the United States has been an extraordinarily responsible nation. We listened to our environmental movement; we institutionalized it. On every front there has been huge progress over the past 30-40 years. Our air and water are orders of magnitude cleaner even though our population has doubled. Our landfills our ultra-safe. We have set aside vast tracts of wilderness, rescued countless endangered species. Our food supply is scrupulously monitored. And every year our technology and our prosperity delivers new options to eliminate more pollution and live healthier lives. So what happened?

In the rest of the world there is also reason for great optimism, despite some discouraging challenges that continue to grip humanity. Human population is voluntarily leveling off, so that within 25-30 years the number of people on planet earth will peak at around 8.5 billion – and every time the projection is revisited, that estimate drops. At an even faster pace, humanity is urbanizing – and this voluntary movement is taking people out of the vast and potentially endangered forests and other biomes faster than population increase replaces them. Land is becoming abundant again. So what’s wrong?

Technology promises abundant energy within a few decades, using clean fossil fuel as we systematically replace it with solar, nuclear, run-of-river hydroelectric, enhanced geothermal, wind, possibly biofuel. Technology promises abundant water within a few decades, as we learn how to recycle every drop of water used in the urban environment, convert many crops to drip irrigation, and develop massive desalination capacity. So why don’t we get to work?

The reason is because of global warming alarm. The bells of warning are ringing so loud that CO2 is all that matters anymore. Want to stop using petroleum? Then burn the rainforests for biofuel. Want to stop using coal? Then forget about installing affordable scrubbers to remove the soot that billows from coal fired power plants across burgeoning Asia – why clean up something that needs to be shut down? Want to save allegedly scarce open space? Then cram everyone into ultra-high density “infill” and destroy every semi rural neighborhood in the western world. Make housing unaffordable, then mandate taxpayer-subsidized affordable housing. And do it all in the name of reducing CO2 emissions.

Today, after reading two documents from the website of the Attorney General of California, “Mitigation Measures,” and “Global Warming Contrarians and the Falsehoods they Promote,” I became so alarmed at what we are willingly, blindly bringing upon ourselves because of all this CO2 alarm that I contacted Dr. Richard Lindzen, who has already contributed two lengthy articles to EcoWorld, “Current Behavior of Global Mean Surface Temperature,” and “Is There a Basis for Global Warming Alarm?” I asked Dr. Lindzen if he still held the views he does. He replied emphatically in the affirmative, and sent me the article that follows. Dr. Lindzen, along with Dr. Roger Pielke, Sr., with whom EcoWorld recently published the exclusive “Interview with Dr. Roger Pielke, Sr.,” are both internationally respected atmospheric scientists. And both of them, in somewhat different ways, are quite concerned about the overemphasis on CO2.

Anyone who is championing extreme measures to reduce anthropogenic CO2 should attempt for themselves to understand the science. As Dr. Lindzen wrote me earlier today, policymakers such as Jerry Brown and Arnold Schwarzenegger “can be excused given the degree to which the environmental movement has taken over the professional societies.”

“Science” has become the trump card that drowns out reason – what great irony. And the scientific establishment itself has become politicized. And if you read the mitigation measures being proposed, just imagine if there was nothing we could do to affect global warming – which even some of the lead authors of the IPCC studies themselves acknowlege – and see if you want to live in the brave new world we are leading ourselves into by our own gullible noses.

Dramatic and positive global economic and technological developments, along with voluntary and irreversible global demographic trends, are about to deliver us a future where we enjoy unprecedented environmental health, abundance and prosperity. But to do this we need to preserve our economic and personal freedoms. Will the measures being proposed – especially in trendsetting California – fruitlessly combat a problem that doesn’t exist, crush economic growth and trample on individual freedom, and rob humanity of this hopeful destiny?
– Ed “Redwood” Ring

The Fluid Envelope – A Case Against Climate Alarmism
by Dr. Richard Lindzen, February 2008

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
What will be his legacy?

The notion of a static, unchanging climate is foreign to the history of the earth or any other planet with a fluid envelope. The fact that the developed world went into hysterics over changes in global mean temperature of a few tenths of a degree will astound future generations.

Such hysteria simply represents the scientific illiteracy of much of the public, the susceptibility of the public to the Goebbelian substitution of repetition for truth, and the exploitation of these weaknesses by politicians, environmental promoters, and, after 20 years of media drum beating, many others as well.

Climate is always changing. We have had ice ages and warmer periods when alligators were found in Spitzbergen. Ice ages have occurred in a hundred thousand year cycle for the last 700 thousand years, and previous warm periods appear to have been warmer than the present despite CO2 levels being lower than they are now. More recently, we have had the medieval warm period and the little ice age. During the latter, alpine glaciers advanced to the chagrin of overrun villages.

Since the beginning of the 19th Century these glaciers have been retreating. Frankly, we dont fully understand either the advance or the retreat. For small changes in climate associated with tenths of a degree, there is no need for any external cause. The earth is never exactly in equilibrium. The motions of the massive oceans where heat is moved between deep layers and the surface provides variability on time scales from years to centuries. Recent work (Tsonis et al, 2007), suggests that this variability is enough to account for all climate change since the 19th Century. Supporting the notion that man has not been the cause of this unexceptional change in temperature is the fact that there is a distinct signature to greenhouse warming: surface warming should be accompanied by warming in the tropics around an altitude of about 9km that is about 2.5 times greater than at the surface.

Measurements show that warming at these levels is only about 3/4 of what is seen at the surface, implying that only about a third of the surface warming is associated with the greenhouse effect, and, quite possibly, not all of even this really small warming is due to man. This further implies that all models predicting significant warming are greatly overestimating warming. This should not be surprising. According to the UNs Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the greenhouse forcing from man made greenhouse gases is already about 86 % of what one expects from a doubling of CO2 (with about half coming from methane, nitrous oxide, freons and ozone), and alarming predictions depend on models for which the sensitivity to a doubling for CO2 is greater than 2C which implies that we should already have seen much more warming than we have seen thus far, even if all the warming we have seen so far were due to man.

This contradiction is rendered more acute by the fact that there has been no significant global warming for the last ten years. Modelers defend this situation by arguing that aerosols have cancelled much of the warming, and that models adequately account for natural unforced internal variability. However, a recent paper (Ramanathan, 2007) points out that aerosols can warm as well as cool, while scientists at the UKs Hadley Centre for Climate Research recently noted that their model did not appropriately deal with natural internal variability thus demolishing the basis for the IPCCs iconic attribution. Interestingly (though not unexpectedly), the British paper did not stress this. Rather, they speculated that natural internal variability might step aside in 2009, allowing warming to resume. Resume? Thus, the fact that warming has ceased for the past decade is acknowledged.

Whether or not someone is a climate alarmistᅠshould have no
bearing on the strength or purity of their environmentalist convictions.
(Read “Global Warming Questions“)

Given that the evidence (and I have noted only a few of many pieces of evidence) strongly suggests that anthropogenic warming has been greatly exaggerated, the basis for alarm due to such warming is similarly diminished.

However, the really important point is that the case for alarm would still be weak even if anthropogenic global warming were significant. Polar bears, arctic summer sea ice, regional droughts and floods, coral bleaching, hurricanes, alpine glaciers, malaria, etc. etc. all depend not on some global average of surface temperature, but on a huge number of regional variables including temperature, humidity, cloud cover, precipitation, and direction and magnitude of wind.

The state of the ocean is also often crucial. Our ability to forecast any of these over periods beyond a few days is minimal. Yet, each catastrophic forecast depends on each of these being in a specific range. The odds of any specific catastrophe actually occurring is almost zero. This was equally true for earlier forecasts: famine for the 1980’s, global cooling in the 1970’s, Y2K and many others. Regionally, year to year fluctuations in temperature are over four times larger than fluctuations in the global mean. Much of this variation has to be independent of the global mean; otherwise the global mean would vary much more.

This is simply to note that factors other than global warming are more important to any specific situation. This is not to say that disasters will not occur; they always have occurred and this will not change in the future. Fighting global warming with symbolic gestures will certainly not change this. However, history tells us that greater wealth and development can profoundly increase our resilience.

Given the above, one may reasonably ask why there is the current alarm, and, in particular, why the astounding upsurge in alarmism of the past 2 years. When an issue like global warming is around for over twenty years, numerous agendas are developed to exploit the issue.

California Attorney General
Jerry Brown
What is his dream?

The interests of the environmental movement in acquiring more power and influence are reasonably clear. So too are the interests of bureaucrats for whom control of CO2 is a dream-come-true.

After all, CO2 is a product of breathing itself. Politicians can see the possibility of taxation that will be cheerfully accepted because it is necessary for saving the world. Nations have seen how to exploit this issue in order to gain competitive advantages. But, by now, things have gone much further.

The case of ENRON is illustrative in this respect. Before disintegrating in a pyrotechnic display of unscrupulous manipulation, ENRON had been one of the most intense lobbyists for Kyoto. It had hoped to become a trading firm dealing in carbon emission rights. This was no small hope. These rights are likely to amount to over a trillion dollars, and the commissions will run into many billions. Hedge funds are actively examining the possibilities. It is probably no accident that Gore, himself, is associated with such activities . The sale of indulgences is already in full swing with organizations selling offsets to ones carbon footprint while sometimes acknowledging that the offsets are irrelevant.

The possibilities for corruption are immense. Archer Daniels Midland (Americas largest agribusiness) has successfully lobbied for ethanol requirements for gasoline, and the resulting demand for ethanol is already leading to large increases in corn prices and associated hardship in the developing world (not to mention poorer car performance).

And finally, there are the numerous well meaning individuals who have allowed propagandists to convince them that in accepting the alarmist view of anthropogenic climate change, they are displaying intelligence and virtue For them, their psychic welfare is at stake.

With all this at stake, one can readily suspect that there might be a sense of urgency provoked by the possibility that warming may have ceased. For those committed to the more venal agendas, the need to act soon, before the public appreciates the situation, is real indeed.

About the Author: Richard S. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology(http://web.mit.edu).

Source

Green Agenda Quotes

January 4, 2008

Editor: And you were worried about Global Warming. Maybe you should start worrying about other things, like the reality that these people envision for you. Enjoy the quotes


We all want to be wise and careful stewards of the beautiful planet we call home. However, many aspects of the modern green movement that is permeating every segment of our society are not about saving the environment. You don’t have to dig very deep to discover the true beliefs and agenda of the influential leaders who are attempting to impose their vision of a New Green Order on the world. Please carefully consider the implications of the opinions that they so openly and freely express:
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill …All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome.
The real enemy, then, is humanity itself
.”

Club of Rome,
The First Global Revolution,
consultants to the UN.

“…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


We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.
Timothy Wirth,
fmr US Under Sec of State,
current Head of the UN Foundation


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


The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.”
– emeritus professor Daniel Botkin



We are on the verge of a global transformation.
All we need is the right major crisis
…”
David Rockefeller,
Club of Rome executive member


We are close to a time when all of humankind will envision a global agenda that encompasses a kind of Global Marshall Plan to address the causes of poverty and suffering and environmental destruction all over the earth.
Al Gore, from Earth in Balance


We need a new paradigm of development in which the environment will be a priority… World civilization as we know it will soon end… We have very little time and we must act… If we can address the environmental problem, it will have to be done within a new system, a new paradigm. We have to change our mindset, the way humankind views the world.
Mikhail Gorbachev, State of the World Forum

The concept of national sovereignty has been immutable, indeed a sacred principle of international relations. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly tothe new imperatives of global environmental cooperation.
UN Commission for Global Governance report (1999)



“Democracy is not a panacea. It cannot organize everything and
it is unaware of its own limits. These facts must be faced squarely.
Sacrilegious though this may sound, democracy is no longer well
suited for the tasks ahead. The complexity and the technical nature
of many of today’s problems do not always allow elected
representatives to make competent decisions at the
right time.

Club of Rome, The First Global Revolution



The emerging ‘environmentalization’ of our civilization and the need for vigorous action in the interest of the entire global community will inevitably have multiple political consequences.
Perhaps the most important of them will be a gradual change in the status of the United Nations. Inevitably, it must assume some aspects of a world government.

Mikhail Gorbachev,
Club of Rome member,
State of the World Forum, 1996


A New World Order is required to deal with the Climate Change crisis.”
Gordon Brown, British Prime Minister



In my view, after fifty years of service in the United Nations system, I perceive the utmost urgency and absolute necessity for proper Earth government. There is no shadow of a doubt that the present political and economic systems are no longer appropriate
and will lead to the end of life evolution on this planet. W
e must therefore absolutely and urgently look for new ways.

Dr Robert Muller,
UN Assistant Secretary General



Regionalism must precede globalism. We foresee a seamless system of governance from local communities, individual states, regional unions and up through to the United Nations itself.”
UN Commission for Global Governance report (1999)



The alternative to the existing world order can only emerge
as a result of a new human dimension of progress….
We envision a revolution of the mind, a new way of thinking
….”
Mikhail Gorbachev, State of the World Forum, 1996



We require a central organizing principle – one agreed to voluntarily. Minor shifts in policy, moderate improvement in laws and regulations, rhetoric offered in lieu of genuine change – these are all forms of appeasement, designed to satisfy the public’s desire to believe that sacrifice, struggle and a wrenching transformation of society will not be necessary.”
Al Gore, from Earth in the Balance


Adopting a central organizing principle… means embarking on an all-out effort to use every policy and program, every law and institution… to halt the destruction of the environment.
Al Gore, from Earth in the Balance


Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound
reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world
has ever experienced a major shift in the priorities of both
governments and individuals and an unprecedented
redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift
will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences
of every human action be integrated into individual and
collective decision-making at every level.

– excerpt, UN Agenda 21


The current course of development is thus clearly unsustainable.
Current problems cannot be solved by piecemeal measures.
More of the same is not enough. Radical change from the
current trajectory is not an option, but an absolute necessity.
Fundamental economic, social and cultural changes that
address the root causes of poverty and environmental
degradation are required and they are required now.

– from the Earth Charter website


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

Visit The Green Global Agenda

Divorce Pollutes the Environment

December 6, 2007

From the Editor
Take a good look at your partner. A real good LOOK. Do you want to spend the rest of your life with this person. If your answer is no or I’m not sure, get a divorce as soon as possible. Getting divorced will have a huge impact on GLOBAL WARMING and you will carry that knowledge for the rest of your life. But, if you hurry and get divorced now you will likely avoid the impending carbon tax on your divorce. So, don’t delay, call your divorce lawyer today. I’m glad the media keeps me so well informed on Global Warming. The same clowns that write this crap think wind farms will save the day.

What a bunch of asses


Environment Reporter

If you thought divorce wreaked havoc on your family life, your children and your finances, now you can add another victim to the list – the environment.

A new scientific study deduces divorce pollutes the environment, because it splits households in two, doubling the demand for electricity and even water.

“More households mean more houses,” said Jianguo Liu, professor of fisheries and wildlife at Michigan State University, who co-authored the report published in this week’s Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

“To build more houses, you need more land, more construction material and more energy.”

Four people living under one roof will share light, heat, air conditioning and a humming fridge, Liu said. One person living alone needs all those things too.

In the United States, divorced households required an extra 38.5 million rooms in 2005, costing the country an additional 73 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity – more than Ontario households use in a year, the report states.

They also used an extra 627 billion gallons of water – more than four times what Toronto uses in a year, according to Liu’s research.

The study analyzed data from 12 countries, including Cambodia and Greece, but not Canada.

While no country had the U.S. rate of 14.8 per cent divorced households, all showed a climbing number – a trend that presents a “global challenge,” according to Liu, who began studying the issue while researching the impact of humans on a panda reserve in China.

“If people really can’t get along and have to get divorced, maybe they could consider getting remarried with somebody else, or staying together with somebody they like – their relatives, or whatever,” said Liu.

“There are some potential solutions to this problem.”

Separation, prolonged singledom and empty nesters present the same environmental challenges, Liu said.

But they won’t have wasted electricity and consumer goods on a big wedding.

Liu’s next study is on the increased waste divorced households send to landfill, and their carbon emissions.

Toronto Star