Posts Tagged ‘Global Warming’

Czech President Vaclav Klaus sharply criticized a U.N. meeting on climate change

September 24, 2009

Czech President Vaclav Klaus sharply criticized a U.N. meeting on climate change on Tuesday at which U.S. President Barack Obama was among the top speakers, describing it as propagandistic and undignified.

“It was sad and it was frustrating,” said Klaus, one of the world’s most vocal skeptics on the topic of global warming.

“It’s a propagandistic exercise where 13-year-old girls from some far-away country perform a pre-rehearsed poem,” he said. “It’s simply not dignified.”

At the opening of the summit attended by nearly 100 world leaders, 13-year-old Yugratna Srivastava of India told the audience that governments were not doing enough to combat the threat of climate change.

Read entire article

Advertisements

Greenpeace Choking on its Own Bullshit!

August 20, 2009

Greenpeace leader Gerd Leipold has been forced to admit that his organization issued misleading and exaggerated information when it claimed that Arctic ice would disappear completely by 2030, in a crushing blow for the man-made global warming movement.

In an interview with the BBC’s Stephen Sackur on the “Hardtalk” program, Leipold initially attempted to evade the question but was ultimately forced to admit that Greenpeace had made a “mistake” when it said Arctic ice would disappear completely in 20 years.

The claim stems from a July 15 Greenpeace press release entitled “Urgent Action Needed As Arctic Ice Melts,” in which it is stated that global warming will lead to an ice-free Arctic by 2030.

Sackur accused Leipold and Greenpeace of releasing “misleading information” based on “exaggeration and alarmism,” pointing out that it was “preposterous” to claim that the Greenland ice sheet, a mass of 1.6 million square kilometers with a thickness of 3 km in the middle that has survived much warmer periods in history, would completely melt when it had stood firm for hundreds of thousands of years.

Full story at Infowars

Greenpeace leader Gerd Leipold has been forced to admit that his organization issued misleading and exaggerated information when it claimed that Arctic ice would disappear completely by 2030, in a crushing blow for the man-made global warming movement.

In an interview with the BBC’s Stephen Sackur on the “Hardtalk” program, Leipold initially attempted to evade the question but was ultimately forced to admit that Greenpeace had made a “mistake” when it said Arctic ice would disappear completely in 20 years.

The claim stems from a July 15 Greenpeace press release entitled “Urgent Action Needed As Arctic Ice Melts,” in which it is stated that global warming will lead to an ice-free Arctic by 2030.

Sackur accused Leipold and Greenpeace of releasing “misleading information” based on “exaggeration and alarmism,” pointing out that it was “preposterous” to claim that the Greenland ice sheet, a mass of 1.6 million square kilometers with a thickness of 3 km in the middle that has survived much warmer periods in history, would completely melt when it had stood firm for hundreds of thousands of years.

Playing politics with global warming

June 12, 2009

Editor:

One more reason to question global warming.

We are being manipulated into accepting a global carbon tax propagated by dubious science.

If they succeed in their “EVIL” scheme, your life and the lives of your children will be negatively impacted forever.

Think about it!  A tax on ever aspect of your life because without carbon NOTHING exists.

Playing politics with global warming

Mark W. Hendrickson

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is widely regarded in the media as the ultimate authority on climate change. Created by two divisions of the United Nations, and recipient of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize, its pronouncements are received as if they come down from Mount Olympus or Mount Sinai. The common presumption is that the IPCC has assembled the best scientific knowledge.

Let’s take a closer look at this organization to see whether it merits such uncritical deference.

The IPCC’s Feb. 2007 report stated: It is “very likely” that human activity is causing global warming. Why then, just two months later, did the vice chair of the IPCC, Yuri Izrael, write, “the panic over global warming is totally unjustified;” “there is no serious threat to the climate;” and humanity is “hypothetically … more threatened by cold than by global warming?”

IPCC press releases have warned about increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in Earth’s atmosphere, yet Dr. Vincent Gray, a member of the IPCC’s expert reviewers’ panel asserts, “There is no relationship between warming and [the] level of gases in the atmosphere.”

A 2001 IPCC report presented 245 potential scenarios. The media publicity that followed focused on the most extreme scenario, prompting the report’s lead author, atmospheric scientist Dr. John Christy, to rebuke media sensationalism and affirm, “The world is in much better shape than this doomsday scenario paints … the worst-case scenario [is] not going to happen.”

Clearly, the IPCC does not speak as one voice when leading scientists on its panel contradict its official position. The solution to this apparent riddle lies in the structure of the IPCC itself.

What the media report are the policymakers’ summaries, not the far lengthier reports prepared by scientists. The policymakers’ summaries are produced by a committee of 51 government appointees, many of whom are not scientists.

The policymakers’ summaries are presented as the “consensus” of 2,500 scientists who have contributed input to the IPCC’s scientific reports. “Consensus” does NOT mean that all of the scientists endorse the policymakers’ summaries.

In fact, some of the 2,500 scientists have resigned in protest against those summaries. Other contributing scientists, such as the individuals quoted above, publicly contradict the assertions of the policymakers’ summaries.

To better understand the “consensus” presented in the policymakers’ summaries, it is helpful to be aware of the structure of the IPCC. Those who compose the summaries are given considerable latitude to modify the scientific reports.

Page four of Appendix A to the Principles Governing IPCC Work states: “Changes (other than grammatical or minor editorial changes) made after acceptance by the Working Group of the Panel shall be those necessary to ensure consistency with the Summary for Policymakers or the Overview Chapter.”

In other words, when there is a discrepancy between what the scientists say and what the authors of the policymakers’ summaries want to say, the latter prevails.

Here is a specific example: One policymakers’ summary omitted several important unequivocal conclusions contained in the scientists’ report, including, “No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of observed climate change] to anthropogenic [i.e., man-made] causes,” and “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.”

These significant revisions were made, according to IPCC officials quoted in Nature magazine, “to ensure that it [the report] conformed to a policymakers’ summary.”

Elsewhere, Rule 3 of IPCC procedures states: “Documents should involve both peer review by experts and review by governments.”

In practice, IPCC sometimes bypasses scientific peer review, and the policymakers’ summaries reflect only governmental (political) review.

This shouldn’t be surprising. After all, the IPCC is a political, not a scientific, entity. It is the “Inter-GOVERNMENTAL Panel on Climate Change,” not a “global SCIENTISTS’ panel.”

Also, “consensus” is a political phenomenon, a compromise, whereas scientific truth is not subject to obtaining a political majority.

(Actually, 31,000 scientists have signed a petition protesting the “consensus” that human activity is dangerously altering the Earth’s climate. Consider that against the 2,500 scientists cited by IPCC — many of whom publicly refute IPCC’s press releases.)

To its credit, the IPCC debunks many of the alarmist exaggerations of radical greens. However, its scientific authority remains irreparably compromised by political tampering.

When a U.S. State Department official writes to the co-chair of the IPCC that “it is essential that … chapter authors be prevailed upon to modify their text in an appropriate manner,” the political character of IPCC is plain.

The sponsors of the IPCC, the United Nations, and liberal American politicians all share the goal of reducing Americans’ wealth by capping our consumption of energy with a binding international climate change treaty. They are willing to resort to scientific fraud to further their goal.

In the words of Al Gore’s ally, former Under-Secretary of State Tim Wirth, “Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing” by reducing Americans’ consumption of fossil fuels. Keep that in mind whenever the IPCC is cited in support of a climate treaty.

[Dr. Mark W. Hendrickson is an adjunct faculty member, economist, and contributing scholar with The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City (Penn.) College.]

The Citizen

Global Warming Crisis?

March 2, 2009

Hundreds protest Global Warming

Pic was found at Asia Academy

Carbon Offsets for Dummies

January 4, 2009

The Carbon Credit Offset Scam Explained

I’ve been waiting for someone to make a video like this. This, is how much sense Al Gore’s Carbon Credit scam makes. Tom Nelson found it.

In the Do As I Say Cult, all that matters is that you feel good about yourself. They don’t seem to understand, a fart is a fart. And just because some other guy is paid not to fart in another country, it doesn’t cover up the fact that you farted here. (and probably a lot more than the normal person)

Earth Day 2008

April 22, 2008

Happy Earth Day!

Editor:
To all you people celebrating Earth Day – enjoy the day. Now open your eyes and understand who you are following. Your leaders are Psychopaths.

There is no other way to describe them. Understand the real meaning of sustainability.

Biofuels = the burning of food = starvation for millions.

Global warming is a complete fraud used to scare the sheep. Don’t be one.

I don’t want to come across as being rude but – if you truly believe and want to follow these madmen, then you must be ready to sacrifice yourself so they can realize their dreams. Are you prepared to die for their beliefs?

This is not fun and games, this is the reality of the situation. By all means do what you can to keep your nest clean, but you must also fight against the Tyranny that is about to befall mankind. Read Agenda 21 now

Happy Earth Day!

.

The big threat to the planet is people: there are too many,
doing too well economically and burning too much oil.

Sir James Lovelock,
BBC Interview (2002)

.

My three main goals would be to reduce human population to
about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure
and see wilderness, with it’s full complement of species,
returning throughout the world
.”
Dave Foreman,
Earth First! co-founder

.

“… current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the
affluent middle class – involving high meat intake,
use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning,
and suburban housing – are not sustainable.
A shift is necessary which will require a vast strengthening
of the multilateral system, including the United Nations
.”
Maurice Strong,
opening speech of the 1992 Rio Earth Summit

.

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

.

Mankind is the most dangerous, destructive, selfish
and unethical animal on the earth
.”
Michael Fox,
vice-president of The Humane Society

.
Humans on the Earth behave in some ways like a
pathogenic micro-organism, or like the cells of a tumo
r.“
Sir James Lovelock,
Healing Gaia

.

The Earth has cancer
and the cancer is Man
.”
Club of Rome,
Mankind at the Turning Point

.

A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells;
the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people.
We must shift our efforts from the treatment of the symptoms to
the cutting out of the cancer. The operation will demand many
apparently brutal and heartless decisions
.”
Prof Paul Ehrlich,
The Population Bomb

.

I don’t claim to have any special interest in natural history,
but as a boy I was made aware of the annual fluctuations in
the number of game animals and the need to adjust
the cull to the size of the surplus population
.“
Prince Philip,
preface of Down to Earth

.

A reasonable estimate for an industrialized world society
at the present North American material standard of living
would be 1 billion. At the more frugal European standard
of living, 2 to 3 billion would be possible
.”
United Nations,
Global Biodiversity Assessment

.
A total population of 250-300 million people,
a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal
.”
Ted Turner,
founder of CNN and major UN donor

.
“… the resultant ideal sustainable population is hence
more than 500 million but less than one billion
.”

Club of Rome,
Goals for Mankind

.

One America burdens the earth much more than
twenty Bangladeshes. This is a terrible thing to say.
In order to stabilize world population,we must eliminate
350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say,
but it’s just as bad not to say it
.”
Jacques Cousteau,
UNESCO Courier (1991)

.

If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth
as a killer virus to lower human population levels
.”
Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh,
patron of the World Wildlife Fund

.

I suspect that eradicating small pox was wrong.
It played an important part in balancing ecosystems
.”
John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal

.

The extinction of the human species may not
only be inevitable but a good thing
.”
Christopher Manes, Earth First!

.

Childbearing should be a punishable crime against
society, unless the parents hold a government license.
All potential parents should be required to use
contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing
antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing
.”
David Brower,
first Executive Director of the Sierra Club

Agenda 21

Agenda 21

Agenda 21

Agenda 21

Agenda 21

Agenda 21

Agenda 21

Read Agenda 21

Glenn Beck and NewsBusters Expose Global Warming Bullies

April 12, 2008

Editor:
The old saying, “the first casualty of war is truth” rings true in the global warming scam. The New World Order, is using global warming as the front to get you and I to willingly give up our rights under the guise of helping the planet.

.

Newsbusted

Last week, the BBC ran an article talking about how global temperatures haven’t increased since 1998–an objective fact. But facts don’t matter to the environmentalist wacko crowd. Angry about the …

.

Newsbusted

U.N. IPCC scales back climate change report

April 9, 2008
Editor:
Another damning article about Global Warming and Al, “Snake Oil Salesman”, Gore. How much longer will the media push the “Big Lie”?
.
U.N. IPCC scales back climate change report
Pete Chagnon – OneNewsNow – 4/8/2008 10:45:00 AM

United Nations flag bigMarc Morano, a spokesperson from the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee minority staff, says the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is scaling back on its previous dire predictions of catastrophic climate change.

The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (EPW) says that with each successive report from the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), there is less cause for alarm than previously thought. Morano points out that in the recent 2007 report, man’s alleged impact on “global warming” was scaled back by 25 percent while ocean-level rise was also reduced.

According to Morano, this is the 13th year that rapid warming has been predicted and advertised in the media by Al Gore and the U.N., but it has failed to occur. “So at some point, they’re getting worried — and now you have record winter in the Northern Hemisphere and record winter in the Southern Hemisphere, [as well as] global cooling to the extent from 2007 to 2008 that was rather significant and surprised a lot of scientists,” Morano contends.

He also says the U.N. is realizing and acknowledging that there is continually less cause for alarm on the subject.

“And now you have a cooling …. [But] NASA scientist James Hansen [is] trying to say ‘well, warming will resume soon, but this is just [a] natural factor [with] the ocean circulation,’ but the fact of the matter is the head of the U.N. [IPCC] Rajendra Pachauri came out recently and said we have to investigate this apparent temperature plateau,” Morano notes.

The Senate committee staff member contends Al Gore is currently trying to sidestep the issue.

Source OneNewsNow

Where did the Big Lie come from int the first place? Here it is. The entire Global Warming movement is the front being used by the elites to push the One World Govt. Agenda. The planet is not in trouble. We are.

The First Global Revolution

In a report titled “The First Global Revolution” (1991) published by the Club of Rome, a globalist think tank, we find the following statement: “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… The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.”

Full article at Global warming hysteria serves as excuse for world government

.

The history of the global Warming Fraud is not hard to come by. I think this is probably the most important quote that I have read.

“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.

It says, we came up with idea of global warming. Scientists didn’t say “WE HAVE A GLOBAL WARMING PROBLEM” No, the Club of Rome came up with the idea. The same thing they did in 1972

In the past, the Club of Rome has resorted to deceptive tactics in order to support their plans. In 1972, the Club of Rome, along with an MIT team released a report called “Limits to growth.” The report stated that we were to reach an environmental holocaust by the year 2000 due to overpopulation and other environmental problems. Support for their conclusions was gathered by results from a computer model. Aurelio Peccei, one of the founders of the Club of Rome, later confessed that the computer program had been written to give the desired results.

.

David Rockefeller

Consider more words from one of the world’s most influential and diabolical characters representing the world’s banking cabal in charge of the prophetic one world government movement,
“… it would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government …”
– David Rockefeller in Baden-Baden, Germany 1991, thanking major media for keeping secret for decades the movement of the prophetic one world government.

Wind Company Pays a Visit

April 9, 2008

Editor:
I’d like to thank Canadian Hydro Developers for dropping by. CHD are going to build the Wolfe Island wind farm and the Melancthon II Wind Project. They have completed Melancthon l. Melancthon l resulted in people having problems with noise, both from the wind turbines and the substation. At least one family was bought out. Forced from their home. The fight continues in Melancthon.

We can only hope that CHD will be more considerate of people and their property in the future. Just because the MOE says the setbacks are adequate, doesn’t mean the MOE knows what they are talking about. If they did there wouldn’t be so many complaints.

CHD spent 21 minutes looking at 13 posts. Hope they found it insightful.

Have a question for CHD?


Steve O’Gorman
Manager, Marketing & Communications

Ph: (403) 298-0262

or

Lindsey Moen
Communications Coordinator
Ph: (403) 802-2099

E-mail: canhydro@canhydro.com

After hours or weekends, call us at:
Cell: (403) 818-4001

We will provide accurate and timely information that meets your deadlines. We are happy to help you with story ideas or background information.

Visit their site http://www.canhydro.com

.

Domain Name terago.ca ? (Canada)
IP Address 66.225.132.# (Canadian Hydro Developers)
ISP TeraGo Networks
Location
Continent : North America
Country : Canada (Facts)
State/Region : Alberta
City : Calgary
Lat/Long : 51.0833, -114.0833 (Map)
Distance : 1,440 miles
Language unknown
Operating System Microsoft WinXP
Browser Internet Explorer 6.0
Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727)
Javascript disabled
Time of Visit Apr 9 2008 5:34:24 pm
Last Page View Apr 9 2008 5:55:44 pm
Visit Length 21 minutes 20 seconds
Page Views 13
Referring URL unknown
Visit Entry Page http://windfarms.wordpress.com/2007/11/
Visit ExitPage http://windfarms.wordpress.com/2008/04/

Kyoto supporters have no idea

April 3, 2008

 Editor
Happy to see Mr. Goldstein finally taking the gloves off. He should have been saying this a long time ago. Better late than never I guess.

The National Post has been telling it’s readers for quite some time that global warming is a fraud, and it is.

 The Toronto Star- enough said.

I would hope by now these papers would have some understanding of the wind energy situation. It is part of the global warming – Kyoto fraud. 

The govt. says it must put up wind farms to save the environment from global warming and to meet our Kyoto commitments. 

What they are doing, is running over the rights of the citizens of Ont. 

It’s ironic that the very people that say the windmills must be installed to save the environment, have no problem trashing the environment of the people already living there.

Global warming is a fraud as is Kyoto and the wind farms.

It’s time the papers got on board and starting stating the truth about wind farms. 

 l

Lorrie Goldstein

Thu, April 3, 2008
Kyoto supporters have no idea
It’s time for an adult discussion about our continued participation in the Kyoto Accord and it’s not the one we’ve been having.

Our politicians have been talking to us as if we were children. It’s time we put a stop to it.

Kyoto isn’t about turning off the lights during Earth Hour.

It’s not about buying hybrid cars, or installing solar panels on your roof or replacing your incandescent lightbulbs with fluorescents.

Those are all environmentally worthy activities on their own merits.

fctAdTag(“bigbox“,MyGenericTagVar,1);

But they are insignificant compared to what is required for Canada to comply with Kyoto.

This isn’t about David Suzuki making cutesy commercials with children, while calling for politicians he disagrees with to be jailed.

It’s not about Liberal Leader Stephane Dion’s empty boast we can make megatonnes of money by cutting megatonnes of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

It’s not about Prime Minister Stephen Harper paying lip service to Kyoto, while his actions suggest he doesn’t believe a word he’s saying.

It’s about this. Are you willing to dramatically lower your standard of living, and that of your children and grandchildren, to comply with Kyoto?

Are you willing to pay much more, directly in carbon taxes and indirectly for almost everything you do, use or consume, to effect a sudden, dramatic drop in Canada’s GHG emissions?

BILLIONS LATER

Are you willing to have Canada ship billions of dollars every year to the Third World for GHG mitigation projects, the success of which won’t be known until you’re dead?

Finally, if we do all that, do you trust every other country, from China to the United States, to do the same?

This isn’t about vilifying Alberta for developing the oilsands — just as every province wants to develop its natural resources.

It’s about realizing if we comply with Kyoto, our standard of living will fall.

It’s not going to be easy. People who suggest it is are making long-range predictions about our economy they cannot possibly know. What their studies actually suggest is that it’s easy to pretend to comply with Kyoto.

Finally, if you publicly nod your head in agreement when environmentalists preach we have no choice because the alternative is the Earth’s destruction — but privately don’t believe it, or don’t believe we should make enormous sacrifices now for something that may or may not happen decades or centuries from now — then get off the Kyoto train, because you won’t have the stomach for it once it really gets rolling.

My view is the previous Liberal government of Jean Chretien irresponsibly ratified Kyoto in 2002, at a time when even his top aide, Eddie Goldenberg, has since acknowledged the Liberals knew Canadians weren’t ready for the sacrifices it would require.

NORTHERN NATION

I’d go further. I’d argue Chretien and the Liberals had no idea what they were signing, no idea of its implications for a huge, cold, northern country like our own that relies on using fossil fuels for its standard of living.

For all their self-righteous rhetoric now, if implementing Kyoto was easy, why didn’t the Liberals do it when they had the chance?

As for Harper and the Conservatives, they should stop telling us they agree with Kyoto, while doing nothing to implement it.

The adult question is: Are we in, or are we out?

My vote’s out. What’s yours?