Anti-Global Warming Propaganda Goes Here

as pressed rat said, the UN panel is NOT a scientific panel. it is a political one.

 

again, WHO CARES if it's a political statement or a scientific one. shitting where you eat is a BAD thing. i mean, c'mon. i don't even know why this is still a problem.

 

the earth has gone through numerous warming and cooling phases and we're still here. i'm sure we'll still be here by the time this one is said and done with too.
people worry way too much. the sun is supposed to eventually go into red giant phase and dry up the oceans anyways. that won't be for awhile though. i think my biggest problem with global warming promoters is that they're very bull headed when it comes to any other possible ideas or scientific theories about it and are always quick to dismiss anything else as propaganda. seems to me that what the mainstream media and liberals push about global warming is also propaganda.the UN is not to be trusted as far as i'm concerned.

 

it's also interesting that with the increasing acidity of the water and introduction of pollutents that the crown of thorns parasite is breeding like crazy and leaching the life out of our coral reefs, which are also imperative in cleaning our air.

 

Yes, Skip, and all dissenting voices had their findings excluded from the final report, while their names were included in the report anyway.

 

But how many of the scientists on the IPCC are funded by big foundation grants and lobby groups, who are paid to come to the desired conclusion that global warming is manmade? How come so many of those speaking out against manmade global warming are non-governmental and not working for any of the global warming lobby groups? Also, what solid evidence do you have that any of the names mentioned below are in the pockets of the oil industry?

From an article taken from LewRockwell.com (Click here for the complete article.)

Dissenting voices

Without delving into the scientific aspects of global warming, I’d like to buttress these remarks by providing a small sample of press reports and quotes from reputable scientists who take issue with the global warming lobby.

(1) From the Canada Free Press:

"Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: ‘Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention.’

"But surely Carter is merely part of what most people regard as a tiny cadre of ‘climate change skeptics’ who disagree with the ‘vast majority of scientists’ Gore cites?

"No; Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change. ‘Climate experts’ is the operative term here. Why? Because what Gore's ‘majority of scientists’ think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field.

"Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, ‘There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years.’ Patterson asked the committee, ‘On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?’

"Patterson concluded his testimony by explaining what his research and ‘hundreds of other studies’ reveal: on all time scales, there is very good correlation between Earth's temperature and natural celestial phenomena such as changes in the brightness of the Sun.

"Dr. Boris Winterhalter, former marine researcher at the Geological Survey of Finland and professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, takes apart Gore's dramatic display of Antarctic glaciers collapsing into the sea. ‘The breaking glacier wall is a normally occurring phenomenon which is due to the normal advance of a glacier,’ says Winterhalter. ‘In Antarctica the temperature is low enough to prohibit melting of the ice front, so if the ice is grounded, it has to break off in beautiful ice cascades. If the water is deep enough icebergs will form.’

"Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden, admits, ‘Some small areas in the Antarctic Peninsula have broken up recently, just like it has done back in time. The temperature in this part of Antarctica has increased recently, probably because of a small change in the position of the low pressure systems.’

"But Karlen clarifies that the 'mass balance' of Antarctica is positive – more snow is accumulating than melting off. As a result, Ball explains, there is an increase in the 'calving' of icebergs as the ice dome of Antarctica is growing and flowing to the oceans. When Greenland and Antarctica are assessed together, ‘their mass balance is considered to possibly increase the sea level by 0.03 mm/year – not much of an effect,’ Karlen concludes.

"The Antarctica has survived warm and cold events over millions of years. A meltdown is simply not a realistic scenario in the foreseeable future."

(2) Henry Lamb is the executive vice president of the Environmental Conservation Organization. He wonders:

"Now suppose Al Gore lived a hundred years ago, with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid in control of Congress, and any one of the current Democrat candidates in the White House. Had all this collected genius lived in 1907, they would have, no doubt, convinced the nation that growth in atmospheric carbon dioxide had to be stopped to prevent Florida and half of New York from being flooded by a 20-foot sea-level rise. Suppose they had succeeded in enacting legislation to virtually stop the growth in CO2 in the atmosphere.

"Using the value of a dollar in 2000 as a basis, per capita GDP in 1907 was $5,649, compared to $37,232 in 2005. This means that even with population expanding from 87 million to nearly 300 million over the period, the per capita GDP increased $4,512 every time the global mean temperature increased one-tenth of one degree.

"Had our current collection of national leaders been in power in 1907, they could have spared us this horrible fate. Ninety-two percent of the nation's households and buildings would not be puffing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, because they would not be using any electricity.

"There would certainly be no traffic problems in any of our cities, except, perhaps, dodging the exhaust from the two-and-four real-horsepower conveyances."

(3) In 2001, Dr. Richard S. Lindzen criticized the politicization of the IPCC:

"Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and one of the world's leading atmospheric scientists, told a standing-room only audience at a briefing sponsored by the Cooler Heads Coalition in the U.S. Senate Environment Committee Room, that the IPCC process is driven by politics rather than science.

"What are some of the problems with the IPCC process, according to Lindzen? It uses summaries to misrepresent what scientists say. It uses language that means different things to scientists and laymen. It exploits public ignorance over quantitative matters. It exploits what scientists can agree on, while ignoring disagreements, to support the global warming agenda. And it exaggerates scientific accuracy and certainty and the authority of undistinguished scientists."

In February, of this year, Lindzen renewed his criticism:

"The IPCC Summary for Policymakers, roughly 20 pages long, is primarily the work of political appointees, not of scientists, according to Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric science at MIT."

(4) "These people are openly declaring that they are going to commit scientific misconduct that will be paid for by the United Nations," according to Harvard University physicist Lubos Motl.

"If they find an error in the summary, they won't fix it," Motl said. "Instead, they will 'adjust' the technical report so that it looks consistent."

(5) From the same article:

"Christopher Landsea, who is now science and operations officer at the National Hurricane Center in Miami, resigned from the IPCC's fourth assessment team two years ago.

"In his resignation letter, Landsea expressed concern over statements by the IPCC to the media, which he said were ‘far outside current scientific understandings.’

"Landsea told Cybercast News Service his primary concern was with how lead authors representing the IPCC were interacting with the public and the media.

"The hurricane activity Landsea has observed over the past 12 years is not, in his estimation, out of proportion with what was experienced in the mid-20th century during the last active hurricane cycle."

Also from the same article:

"According to Sterling Burnett, senior fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis, the IPCC draws from experts in fields that don't necessarily have the best perspective to properly assess the factors behind warming and cooling periods."

(6) Dr. S. Fred Singer is another dissenter:

"‘Some cite the fact that the climate is currently warming and the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing. This is true, but correlation is never proof of causation. In Europe, the birth rate is decreasing and so is the number of storks. Does this correlation prove that storks bring babies? Besides, the climate cooled for much of the 20th century, between 1940 and 1975, even while carbon dioxide was increasing rapidly.’

"Singer also dismissed the true value of ‘consensus,’ were one to actually exist on the subject:

"‘But even if a majority of scientists had voted for human-caused global warming, that's not how science works. Unlike in politics, the majority does not rule. Rather, every advance in science has come from a minority that found that observed facts contradicted the prevailing hypothesis. Sometimes it took only one scientist; think of Galileo or Einstein.’

"Singer's book suggests that the sun is the cause of the warming and cooling cycles."

(7) William Gray, 78, and a respected meteorologist was outspoken about the Gore win:

"CHARLOTTE, N.C. — One of the world's foremost meteorologists Friday called the theory that helped Al Gore win a share of the Nobel Prize ‘ridiculous’ and the product of ‘people who don't understand how the atmosphere works.’

"William Gray, a pioneer in the science of seasonal hurricane forecasts, spoke to a packed lecture hall at UNC Charlotte and said humans are not responsible for the warming of the Earth.

"‘The human impact on the atmosphere is simply too small to have a major effect on global temperatures,’ Gray said. ‘It bothers me that my fellow scientists are not speaking out against something they know is wrong,’ he said. ‘But they also know that they'd never get any grants if they spoke out. I don't care about grants.’"

(8) From an October 1 editorial in the Investor’s Business Daily:

Robert Giegengack, chairman of the Department of Earth and Environmental Science, University of Pennsylvania says of Gore’s claim that temperatures are increasing solely because of manmade CO2: "That's plain wrong...It's a natural interplay. As temperature rises, CO2 rises, and vice versa. It's hard for us to say CO2 drives temperature. It's easier to say temperature drives CO2."

R. Timothy Patterson, professor of geology and director of the Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Centre at Carleton University says that "CO2 variations show little correlation with our planet's climate on long, medium and even short time scales...It is global cooling, not warming, that is the major climate threat to the world, especially Canada."

"Patterson says he and his colleagues ‘are consistently finding excellent correlations between the regular fluctuations of the sun and earthly climate...by 2020, the sun will be starting into its weakest Schwabe cycle of the past two centuries, likely leading to unusually cool conditions on Earth. Solar activity has overpowered any effect that CO2 has had before, and it most likely will again.’"

"Reid Bryson, founding chairman of the department of meteorology at University of Wisconsin says the new study shows ‘you can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide.’

"Bryson agrees that the Earth’s temperature is rising, but says man has little to do with it: ‘Of course it's going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, because we're coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we're putting more carbon dioxide into the air.’"

"In his new book, Cool It, economist Bjorn Lomborg reckons Kyoto would have cost...$9 trillion to lower the Earth's temperature by a mere one-third of a degree by 2100."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

EDIT: added 6:47 PM EST

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200711/NAT20071115a.html

Climate Scientist Survey Reveals Little Consensus
By Nathan Burchfiel
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
November 15, 2007

(CNSNews.com) - A new survey of American members of the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) suggests that there is not firm scientific consensus on global warming, as proponents of swift action to curb carbon emissions have suggested.

DemandDebate.com, a Web site skeptical of global warming "alarmism" that advocates more debate on the topic, released the results of its poll on Nov. 8. The group attempted to survey the 345 American scientists affiliated with the IPCC.

Of the 54 scientists who completed the survey, less than half said a 1-degree Celsius increase is "flatly undesirable." Sixty-one percent of the respondents said there is no such thing as an "ideal climate."

While as many as 90 percent of respondents said man-made carbon emissions "are driving or helping to drive global climate change," only 20 percent said human activity is the "principle driver of climate change." Sixty-three percent said human activity is a driver but that "natural variability is also important."

Former Vice President Al Gore and other leading proponents of strong government action to reduce carbon emissions - who cite catastrophic predictions of the effects of climate change - have repeatedly said that "the debate is settled" and that there is "scientific consensus" on the causes and potential effects of warming.

But Steve Milloy, the writer of the blog Junk Science and the executive director of DemandDebate.com, told Cybercast News Service Wednesday that his survey casts doubt on that claim.

The 2007 IPCC Assessment Report, published in three sections by three separate working groups, is written by selected IPCC members. Some members who have criticized the reports complain that their objections to some of its claims are ignored.

"There's reason to ask these people more questions," Milloy said. "I don't think the debate is over. Al Gore is rushing to close the debate because the more data we get ... the flimsier the science gets."

Milloy acknowledged that his survey, which received responses from only 54 of the 345 American members of the several thousand-member IPCC, is "a little small for a reliable sample," but added, "I'm surprised ... I got that many responses from them."

While the survey's size was small, Milloy said, "I certainly think that it's large enough to indicate that the IPCC members really ought to be probed as to what they think."

Requests for comment from Gore's Alliance for Climate Protection and Climate Project groups were not answered Wednesday.

 

Pressed_Rat wrote:

"But how many of the scientists on the IPCC are funded by big foundation grants and lobby groups, who are paid to come to the desired conclusion that global warming is manmade? How come so many of those speaking out against manmade global warming are non-governmental and not working for any of the global warming lobby groups? Also, what solid evidence do you....."

Here we are again, doing just what the corporate-sponsored
psuedo-environmental movemnet wants us to do: Arguing about
whether global warming is a fact or not, or whether it is of human
origin or not.

And while we chase this green herring, the planet is being trashed.

Truth is, if all greenhouse gas emissions were curtailed, we'd still
be trashing the planet.

Anyone who participates in this sort of debate is a pawn of the
corporations.

You are doing exactly what they want you to do.

Littlefoot

 

No, I am doing what they DON'T want me to do, which is questioning what they want people to automatically believe. That's why anyone who disagrees with the orthodoxy of manmade global warming is equated with Holocaust denial. This isn't a grassroots tactic, but one coming from the very top, which is being promoted by the media. It's no different than being called an anti-Semite for questioning the agenda behind neoconservatism. These people want to squash any debate that goes against what they want people to automatically believe without question. If I was doing what they want me to do, then I would be blindly going along with what the global warming propagandists are telling me.

 

Oh, and I am all for solutions to the REAL ecological problems that do exist (deforestation, pollution, etc), as long as the government isn't involved. Governments have shown that they don't care about the environment, but will USE the environment to forward their own agendas, which never have the people's (or nature's) best interests in mind.

The government is USING and HYPING ecological crisis in order to further their own globalist agendas, but many of you are either too naive or too arrogant to admit it.

Once again, here is a very revealing passage taken from the Club of Rome's The First Global Revolution (1991), where they openly admit they would use the threat of environmental crisis to further the goals of creating a one world government.

"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."

Mikhail Gorbachev, who is a member of the Club of Rome (along with such names as Al Gore, Ted Turner, Queen Beatrix and Henry Kissinger), stated in 1996:

"The threat of environmental crisis will be the international disaster key that will unlock the New World Order"

Daniel Taylor outlines in his article, entitled Global Warming Hysteria Serves as An Excuse for World Government, the exploitation of the natural phenomenon of global warming, equating it with being a creation of the Club of Rome and CFR. Regarding he CFR, he says:

"Richard Haass, the current president of the Council on Foreign Relations, stated in his article "State sovereignty must be altered in globalized era," that a system of world government must be created and sovereignty eliminated in order to fight global warming, as well as terrorism. "Moreover, states must be prepared to cede some sovereignty to world bodies if the international system is to function," says Haass. "Globalization thus implies that sovereignty is not only becoming weaker in reality, but that it needs to become weaker. States would be wise to weaken sovereignty in order to protect themselves..."

 

i wonder how many of these 2,000 plus "scientists" have some kind of financial incentive for going along with this nonsense? probably plenty of them. the more the pbulic buys into what you are doing, the more grant money you can get for funding. this thread is not about ocean acidity skip, it's about global warming. the UN has proven itself to be crooked many times over. therefore why should i or anyone else believe the things they say? and you skip have not commented upon how the founder of the weather channel thinks this is all rubbish to suit leftist political agenda.

 

correctamondo..

governments love global warming thory because it creates tax revenue...

 

You are on the right track. The environmental movement was coopted long
ago by the Establishment.

If you think about it, the only way to preserve the health of the planet is to
leave it alone. And that's something that the corporations simply cannot do.

Who finances the environmental orgs? The corporations. That's how charitable
foundations make money to give out: By owning stocks and bonds.

So, instead of telling us tor radically cut back on consumption and accept the
fact that we have to set aside vast areas of the planet that are protected from
exploitation of any kind, they are telling us that we can go on living just as
we are and that industrial technology will save us.

So every year since the first Earth Day, we have done more damage to
the planet than we did the year before, and the rate is increasing.

But you'd never know it from reading the websites of the environmental
orgs. According to them, they are saving the planet.

Of course, according to them, Al Gore is an environmental hero, which
is utterly absurd. He is just the opposite. His kind are the Earth's
worst enemies: Elitists who produce nothing and consume more than
a European king did a hundred years ago.

Littlefoot

 

i agree, how are we going to let people who are rich andf famous that are connected to earth exploiting and earth damaging entities such as globalist corporations tell us that they are saving the planet?

 

We can't let them do that. Nor can we pretend to be completely innocent ourselves.

We are all connected to the globalist corporations. We consume their products, and
no corporation can exist without people doing that.

What we have to do, and the elitists would have us believe we cannot do,
is live without trading with those corporations.

They want us to believe that there are only two choices: Live like we do now,
or cower in mud huts wearing rotting animal skins and working ourselves to
death.

That's complete nonsense. Many different cultures have achieved excellent
lifestyles, before the Industrial Revolution in every case, that offered a
considerably higher quality of life to the average person than this one does.

But that's how they trap us: By controlling our minds. Once you believe
that it's living like this or in hell, then they have you by the balls.

LIttlefoot

"The greatest fine art of the future will be the making of a
comfortable living from a small piece of land."

-- Abraham Lincoln

 

hehe skip i came back to this thread to say about what you did! it dont take a brain surgen to build a hospital !!!!

 

I find it interesting that most of the same people that fell for the invented fear of Sadaam's WMD are falling for the threat of immediate inhilation by global warming. Just the next fear train to hop on.