April 12, 2007

  • Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth”Invonvenient FACTSAl Gore Don’t Want You To Know

        Hollywood & the Oscar’s make me sick, in fact nothing else makes me sicker. Over-Inflated Al Gore & millionaire movie star cronies living in extravagance telling me what I must do to save the environment. How smug. How benevolent. How convenient.  How arrogant they are, reinforcing their self-delusional superiority by telling us what we need to do (because we are too stoopid to live w/out their guidance) to save the world.    

       Why can’t we have politician’s like Czech Republic President Vaclav Klaus  who recently said in The Washington Times, March 10, 2007, that ”global warming is a false myth and every serious person and scientist says so. It is not fair to refer to the U.N. panel. The IPCC is not a scientific institution: it’s a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavor. It’s neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment…other top-level politicians” do not express their global warming doubts because “a whip of political correctness strangles [their] voice.”  If you think Klaus is just some stoopid eastern european dictator, think again and read what he wrote about transforming his country out of 3rd worldism via the installation of a  free market economy here  http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj14n2/cj14n2-1.pdf, in the Cato Journal, Vol 4, #2, Fall 1994. 

        My suggestion to bloated Al Gore. First, let’s deal with all the extra weight his over-inflated body  is carrying around.   What about his “food footprint”?  He might wanna donate some of his caloric allowance to feed a small African nation or two. A diet might do him some good. You don’t’ need to be a doctor to tell that he’s on the fast track to a heart-attack anyway. Isn’t he eating more than his “fair share” (a clinton-gore slogan) of food anyway?   But he, and those like him, can tell us we need to cut out the transfats and force us to by making laws that tell private property owners (restaurant owners) what they can and can’t serve (transfatty oils) in their own restaurants.   Gore is more filled with hot air than our Co 2 filled globally over-heated atmosphere.  And if he, or anyone else don’t like certain fried foods (and you know Gore must), who the fudge is forcing them down their (or anyones) throats?  In otherwords, they dont’ have any self control, or don’t believe you have any, so they force rules and laws on the rest of us to assuage their guilt.  Why can’t grown adults decide for themselves what to eat or what to serve at their own restaurants?  Why?  Because Al Gore knows better, that is why. 

        And didn’t you just love the video playing behind Melissa Etheridge’s performance telling us that we should ride a bike to work.  Did any of these rich, arrogant asshole rock or movie stars ride their bikes to the Oscars instead of taking jets (a major waste of oil, since other more efficient means of transportation are readily available) and limos? Hasn’t anybody noticed that most of them have half a dozen or so fancy cars and one or two multi-million dollar houses, yet they have the nerve to tell me i need to set my thermostat lower? What arrogance. What horseshit. When they give up their luxuries (they ain’t living in log cabins at the end of dirt paths in the woods growing their own tomatoes fertilized with goat dung) I’ll think about trying to sacrifice some of my luxuries too, like the recommended lowering of 2 degrees on my thermostat from 70 to 68 degrees, when Melissa Etherige rides a bike to the Emmys or Oscar’s or whatever the heck the name of that crappy show was. 

        What about all the extra resources used and the pollution created in the production of all their fancy limos, extra cars, oversized mansions and swimming pools, jets and things that these *sswipes have no guilt over enjoying?  What about the waste and resources used in the creation of that stoopid show?  If this show wasn’t a waste then I dont’ know what is.   Why should the average American family that has one or two cars, one house of normal size and square footage have to conserve so the extra resources can be used (and pollution created) to allow the Gore-Set to take limos, fly around in jets, have multiple large (vacation) houses and pools and expensive cars?   The answer is obvious and President Klaus of the Czech Republic said it as well as anyone.

      ”Environmentalism only pretends to deal with environmental protection, the global warming movement was just the latest environmental scare campaign, following on the short-lived fears of a population explosion in the 1970s and the expanding ozone hole in the 1980s.  They keep shooting at a moving target.  Behind the terminology is really an ambitious attempt to radically reorganize the world.”   .” Mr. Klaus said this in an address for the libertarian Cato Institute.

        The Czech president is right.  They want to control your lives in a very total and complete way, and this is the foot in the door, and they’ll use any excuse necessary.  The pattern has always been the same, create a crisis, get everyone scared, proclaim yourself the enlightened savior and use this as the excuse to seize power.  Remember “the beast” in the Lord of the Flies?  Remember WMD’s?  Remember only 10 years left of oil supplies in the 70′s?   Remember the red scare and the domino theory?  Remember Fascism?  That’s too far?  It is?  Did you read what Gore has done to intimidate opponents of his theories?  If not read on.  The fact is that this is nothing new, and that’s what’s so scary.

    “Scientists who want to attract attention to themselves, who want to attract great funding to themselves, have to (find a) way to scare the public . . . and this you can achieve only by making things bigger and more dangerous than they really are.”

    Petr Chylek
    (Professor of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia)
    Commenting on reports by other researchers that Greenland’s glaciers are melting.
    (Halifax Chronicle-Herald, August 22, 2001) at the…
     First International Conference on Global Warming and the Next Ice Age; Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, sponsored by the Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society and the American Meteorological Society, August 21-24, 2001.



    Image Hosted by ImageShack.us Yes, the divinity school dropout tells us to conserve energy while his gas and electric bills for his 20-room home and pool house devoured nearly 221,000 kilowatt-hours in 2006, more than 20 times the national average of 10,656 kilowatt-hours.  Make of this what you want, but let’s be real, Al Gore feels he’s an exception to the rules that he wants us all to follow. 

    Al Gore also has multiple natural gas lanterns in his yard, a large heated pool, and electric gates. In 2006 the Gores averaged a monthly electricity bill of $1,359 for using 18,414 kilowatt-hours, and $1,461 per month for using 16,200 kilowatt-hours in 2005. During that time, Nashville Gas Company billed the family an average of $536 a month for the main house and $544 for the pool house in 2006, and $640 for the main house and $525 for the pool house in 2005. That averages out to be $29,268 in gas and electric bills for the Gores in 2006, $31,512 in 2005.  

    [Source for the above is TennseePolicy.org .]

    Make what you want out of this information.  But the truth is that Al gore doesn’t exactly live by the rules he sets for others whether or not you feel that is fair.  Sure, the Gore people say that he buys “green” energy and that is more expensive (actually for Gore it isn’t as the figures from Gore’s power bill, reported by the AP, show Gore paying about 7.5 cents a kilowatt-hour – pretty much exactly what he’d be paying if he bought his juice from the big coal-fired plant up the road).  But does that account for a bill that is 20 times what the average family has?  And, did you know that Gore just happens to be the Chairman of the company from which he buys this “green” energy, Generation Investment Management?  So, he pays a bit more for his energy from a company in which he is heavily invested in, in essence buying the electricity from himself.    And what is “green” energy anyway?  Well, basically it means the company (and remember Gore is the chairman) gets it’s energy from some higher percentage of  solar, wind or hydroelectric sources and plants some trees (but Gore’s electric company is  NES, which gets its electricity from TVA, and  most of TVA’s electricity is from the fossil fuel and Co2 emitting coal).  Does this justify his excessive use of utilities?  Well, Gore still uses lots of energy and the fact that a higher percentage of his electricity comes from “renewable” resources than the average person does not excuse or change this fact.  His excessive use means he creates a shortage for others that in turn drives up the price.  Is he a hypocrite?  I’ll leave that up to you to decide, but he uses a hell of a lot more energy than the average family, whom he tells to conserve, does.





    Inconvenient FACTS:

    (Gathered by me with the sources at end of list)


    1.  Rises in CO2 and the activities of man DO NOT cause global warming.


    a. More Co2 does NOT lead to warming.  The global average rise in temperature is roughly one degree Celsius or less at equilibrium for a doubling of the air’s carbon dioxide concentration.That is meager warming for so profound a change in the air’s carbon dioxide content. Indeed, it is within the range of climate’s natural variability.(1) 


    b. Any warming from the growth of greenhouse gases is likely to be minor, difficult to detect above the natural fluctuations of the climate, and therefore inconsequential. (2)


    c. The last ice age ended approximately 10,000 years ago. This was followed by a period of significant global warming that lasted —5,000 years. The average temperature in this time frame was 2 to 3 degrees Celsius HIGHER THAN WE FIND TODAY. (4)

    d.  A whole study showing a completely insignificant relationship between C02 and global warming can  be found here (  http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm ).  This research has numerous graphs of climate and Co2 rates documenting it’s findings.  It also has temperature and climate graphs showing the fact that NO WARMING has generally occured that can be significantly linked to the “unatural activities” of man. (12)

    e. Rises in CO2 FOLLOW rises in temperature.  An EXCELLENT presentation by Dr. Lee C. Gerhard, State Geologist and Director of the Kansas Geological Survey showing information gathered by Khilyuk, L.F. and Chilingar, G.V. 2006 shows that spikes in CO2 in the atmosphere FOLLOW rises in the climate temperature, and DO NOT PRECEED it! (14)

    Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

    Find it Here —->

    http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/Gerhard_Climate_Change.pdf or

    Here http://www.warwickhughes.com/geol/index2.htm

    2. Global warming if it does exist, is most like the result of natural phenomenon.


    a. 98% of the Co2 put into the air is put there by NATURE. (3)


    b. In July 2004, the London Telegraph reported on a study by Swiss and German scientists suggesting increased radiation from the SUN – not human activity – was to blame for climate changes. (2)


    c. Twentieth century temperature changes show a strong correlation with the sun’s changing energy output. (1)
    d. The main greenhouse effect is natural and is caused by water vapor and clouds. (1)

    e. “Man-made greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance.” (7)


    3.  Global Warming & GLOBAL COOLING has intemittantly and alternately been predicted repeatedly by the “experts” for over a century. (5)   Popular magazines like Time, Newsweek, Fortune and other magazines carried articles in the 1970′s that fortold of a coming ice age the result of manmade atmospheric pollution blocking out the sun. (5)



    4.  Al Gore’s home electric bill is 20 times more than the average American household. (6)  

    Like it or not, it is what it is.  Draw your own conclusions. 

    5. TWO BILLION years of earth’s temperature (looks like we’re in a very COLD period):
    globaltemp2 (8)


    Earth’s temperature/climate over the last few THOUSANDS of years:
    (9)


    Last 100 Years of Earth’s temperature (not too many trends here):
    (9)

    The temperature has gone DOWN for the last last few decades:

    Image Hosted by ImageShack.us (14)

    6. Scientists Do/Don’t Agree! 

    a. “The basic agreement frequently described as representing scientific unanimity concerning global warming is entirely consistent with there being virtually no problem at all.” and, “Intimidation has mostly, but not exclusively, been used against those questioning alarmism.” by none other than Al Gore. (9).

    b. One of the most heavily publicized “proof” of scientific consensus in the last decade concerning climate change has been the Oreskes Study [Oreskes, Naomi. “The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change” Science Vol.306, 3 December 2004 Vol. 1686] as stated by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). But, when results of  a surveys used in these study are looked at IN DETAIL, they suggest just the OPPOSITE.  For example, one question on the survey asked “To what extent do you agree or disagree that climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes?  This question had a  mean score of 3.62 (on a scale of 1 to 7 with 1=strongly agree and 7=strongly disagree).  THIS is NOT consensus especially when you find out that ONLY 9.4% of the respondents “strongly agree”. with that statement.  In other words, 10% is consensus as far as the Oreskes study has been represented. 

    Detailed results of the (above/Oreskes) study published in Science, Vol 306, Issue 5702, 1686 , 3 December 2004 here .

    c. The letter about the above results sent to  Science Magazine that it refused to publish Here.

    d. Czech Republic President Vaclav Klaus  recently said in The Washington Times, March 10, 2007, that ”global warming is a false myth and every serious person and scientist says so”.

    e.  During the past 2 years, more than 17,100 basic and applied American scientists, two-thirds with advanced degrees, have signed the Global Warming Petition which states that “the environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that increases during the 20th Century have produced no deleterious effects upon global weather, climate, or temperature. Increased carbon dioxide has, however, markedly increased plant growth rates. Predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in minor greenhouse gases like CO2 are in error and do not conform to current experimental knowledge.” (12) 

    f. Opposition is suppressed.

    “A final aspect of politicization is the explicit intimidation of scientists. It is essential

    to discuss this unsavory subject – albeit briefly and incompletely. Intimidation has mostly,

    but not exclusively, been used against those questioning alarmism. Victims of such

    intimidation generally remain silent for reasons that will become evident. Thus, prior to

    1992, then Senator Gore ran at least two hearings in order to pressure scientists who

    questioned his views.” (13)

    g. “the theory of currently observed global atmospheric warming as a result of increasing anthropogenic carbon dioxide emission is a myth,” and  has “proved to be an enduring one.” Khilyuk, L.F. and Chilingar, G.V. 2006. On global forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate. Are humans involved? Environmental Geology 50: 899-910. (14).

     

    Sources:

    1-Sallie Baliunas, an astrophysicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and deputy directory of Mount Wilson Observatory, received her M.A. and Ph.D. degrees in astrophysics from Harvard University.
    http://www.hillsdale.edu/imprimis/2002/march/default.htm


    2- Dr Sami Solanki, the director of the renowned Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Gottingen, Germany – http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/18/wsun18.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/07/18/ixnewstop.html


    3- NASA
    http://oco.jpl.nasa.gov/science.


    4.  Michael Heberling (heberl_m@corpfl.baker.edu) is president of the Baker College Center for Graduate Studies in Flint, Michigan. He is also on the Board of Scholars with the Mackinac Center for Public Policy in Midland, Michigan.
    http://www.fee.org/publications/the-freeman/article.asp?aid=3059


    5. Newsweek, Time & Fortune Magazines.
    http://www.glennbeck.com/2006news/newsweek-coolingworld.pdf
    http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,944914,00.html
     
    6-http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/

    7-Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of the St. Petersburg’s Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia/NationalGeographic.com http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming_2.html

    8. Christopher R. Scotese, Univ. of Chicago 1976 – 1983 1985 (Ph.D.), Univ. of Tx. at Arlington Full Professor 2002-present, http://www.scotese.com/ScoteseCV.htm
    http://www.scotese.com/paleocli.htm

    9. RICHARD S. LINDZEN,
    Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences
    Massachusetts Institute of Technology
    http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/Lindzen_2005_Climate_Claims.pdf

    10. Bray, D. and Hans von Storch “The Perspectives of Climate Scientists on Global Climate Change, 2003”

    Professor Dennis Bray, GKSS Forschungszentrum, Geesthacht, Germanyhttp://w3g.gkss.de/G/mitarbeiter/bray/BrayGKSSsite/BrayGKSS/WedPDFs/Science2.pdf

    11. Benny J Peiser, Faculty of Science – Henry Cotton Campus – Liverpool John Moores University – 15-21 Webster Street – Liverpool L3 2ET UNITED KINGDOM – b.j.peiser@livjm.ac.uk – Phone: 0151 231 4338 Fax: 0151 231 4353 http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/Scienceletter.htm

    12. Petition Project
    PO Box 1925
    La Jolla CA 92038-1925
     .

    Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, 2251 Dick George Rd., Cave Junction, Oregon 97523 info@oism.org

    George C. Marshall Institute, 1730 K St., NW, Ste 905, Washington, DC 20006 info@marshall.org January 1998

    http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm
    Much More Here  —> http://www.sitewave.net/news/

    Signers of this petition so far include 2,660 physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, and environmental scientists (select this link for a listing of these individuals) who are especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide on the Earth’s atmosphere and climate.

    Signers of this petition also include 5,017 scientists whose fields of specialization in chemistry, biochemistry, biology, and other life sciences (select this link for a listing of these individuals) make them especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide upon the Earth’s plant and animal life.

    Nearly all of the initial 17,100 scientist signers have technical training suitable for the evaluation of the relevant research data, and many are trained in related fields. In addition to these 17,100, approximately 2,400 individuals have signed the petition who are trained in fields other than science or whose field of specialization was not specified on their returned petition.

    Of the 19,700 signatures that the project has received in total so far, 17,800 have been independently verified and the other 1,900 have not yet been independently verified. Of those signers holding the degree of PhD, 95% have now been independently verified.

    By the way, “The costs of this petition project have been paid entirely by private donations. No industrial funding or money from sources within the coal, oil, natural gas or related industries has been utilized. The petition’s organizers, who include some faculty members and staff of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, do not otherwise receive funds from such sources. The Institute itself has no such funding. Also, no funds of tax-exempt organizations have been used for this project.

    13. RICHARD S. LINDZEN,Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences

    Massachusetts Institute of Technology

    http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/Lindzen_2005_Climate_Claims.pdf

    14. Khilyuk, L.F. and Chilingar, G.V. 2003. Global warming: are we confusing cause and effect? Energy Sources 25: 357-370.

    http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V9/N48/C2.jsp

    *****************************************

    Real global warming charts and truths Here.

    Great article here  —> http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams082901.asp

    If you see or read just one thing on Global warming, let this be it: http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/Gerhard_Climate_Change.pdf

    or here http://www.warwickhughes.com/geol/index2.htm

    by Dr. Lee C. Gerhard, State Geologist and Director of the Kansas Geological Survey.

Comments (32)

  • I researched all this myself, all the sources are there and are on the net.

    Don’t believe me, check ‘em.

    Even NASA in a pro-global warming left wing article said 98% of all CO2 emissions are from NATURAL sources.  Ain’t it funny how Gore and all the rest just make up all these statistics?  Check their sources!

    BTW, did you know that the Amazon rain forests aren’t the “lungs of the earth”.  Nope, not even close.  The lungs of the earth are the oceans and seas which, depending on what source you use, supply 80-90% of the earths oxygen.  The oceans also consume more than half of the CO2 as well.

    Gore is a big wooden pricker.

  • ore detailed source information below:
     
    Natural sources of CO2 emit approximately 300 Gigatons of CO2 each year. Human activities are responsible for about 6 Gigatons, or a mere 2% of that total. Measurements from a global network of surface stations over the past 40 years indicate an average annual increase of CO2 in the atmosphere of about 1%.
    the biosphere and oceans are absorbing almost half of the carbon that has been emitted into the atmosphere.
    NASA
    http://oco.jpl.nasa.gov/science.html
    ——————–
    the global average rise in temperature is roughly one degree Celsius or less at equilibrium for a doubling of the air’s carbon dioxide concentration.That is meager warming for so profound a change in the air’s carbon dioxide content. Indeed, it is within the range of climate’s natural variability.
    Sallie Baliunas, an astrophysicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and deputy directory of Mount Wilson Observatory, received her M.A. and Ph.D. degrees in astrophysics from Harvard University.
    http://www.hillsdale.edu/imprimis/2002/march/default.htm
    The main greenhouse effect is natural and is caused by water vapor and clouds
    The main greenhouse effect is natural and is caused by water vapor and clouds.
    Sallie Baliunas, an astrophysicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and deputy directory of Mount Wilson Observatory, received her M.A. and Ph.D. degrees in astrophysics from Harvard University.
    http://www.hillsdale.edu/imprimis/2002/march/default.htm
    ————-

    <LI class=MsoNormal style=”MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list .5in”>
    Fear about dramatic sea levels rising is similarly unfounded. The high end of the IPCC’s latest projection for their mid-range emission scenario is about 40% lower than the same projection from its last report. Further, low-end temperature projections are associated with similarly low-end rises in the sea level. If these models are accurate, we can expect an increase of fewer than 12 inches in the sea level by 2100.
    <LI class=MsoNormal style=”MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-list: l1 level1 lfo1; tab-stops: list .5in”>
    While it appears that ice has been melting in Greenland due to recently warm temperatures, the lost ice is equivalent to .0004% per year of all of the ice in Greenland per year, or a mere .4% per century. We will have exhausted natural fossil fuel resources long before a substantial portion of Greenland’s ice melts. The yearly ice loss contributes to a rise in sea level of about 0.01 inches per year—an amount that is undetectable even over long periods of time. Furthermore, it is well-known that temperatures in Greenland averaged warmer than now for several decades in the early and mid-20th century.
    In Antarctica, virtually all climate models project that warming temperatures lead to increased snowfall, which leads to the accumulation of ice mass, which in turn counters the effects of rising sea levels.
    The earth has been warming at a rate of about .18ºC (0.32ºF) per decade. This rate has been remarkably constant since it began around 1975, and suggests a cumulative warming of 1.8ºC (3.2ºF) between the years 2000 and 2100.
    http://www.cato.org/homepage_item.php?id=473
    Patrick Michaels, the Cato Institute’s Senior Fellow in Environmental Studies and author of Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media:
     
    ————————–
     
     
    The last ice age ended approximately 10,000 years ago. This was followed by a period of significant global warming that lasted —5,000 years. The average temperature in this time frame was 2 to 3 degrees Celsius higher than we find today.This caused the sea level to rise over 100 feet. The warmer climate also made it possible for broad-leafed forests to grow in latitudes much farther north than they do currently. In the most recent 5,000-year period, there have been numerous periods of distinct global warming and global cooling.4 However, the overall long-term climatic trend indicates that the earth has been getting cooler, not warmer.
     
    During the last 150 years there has been another fairly sustained period of global warming amounting to an increase of about 0.7 degree Celsius. In spite of rhetoric to the contrary, the majority of this warming took place naturally before 1940. This warming trend was interrupted by a 35-year cooling period from 1940 to 1975. This caused many climatologists to actually predict that we were entering another ice age.8 At that time the public was obsessed with “global cooling.” Today, our obsession is “global warming.”

    This review of the post–ice-age epoch shows that global warming is, in reality, both common and natural. In fact, for most of this period, the temperatures were much warmer than we see today.
     
    Michael Heberling (heberl_m@corpfl.baker.edu) is president of the Baker College Center for Graduate Studies in Flint, Michigan. He is also on the Board of Scholars with the Mackinac Center for Public Policy in Midland, Michigan.
    http://www.fee.org/publications/the-freeman/article.asp?aid=3059
     
    ——————–
    Way back in the 1970s it wasn’t global warming that was going to kill us all – it was a new global ice age. At least that was the consensus of the best science of the day, as touted by Time magazine.
    Craige McMillan is a commentator for WorldNetDaily.
    http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54036
     
    —————————-
     
    The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down.
    Newsweek, April 28th 1975.
    http://www.glennbeck.com/2006news/newsweek-coolingworld.pdf
     
     
    ———————-
     
     
    Time – June 24th, 1974
    http://www.junkscience.com/mar06/Time_AnotherIceAge_June241974.pdf
    Said theice age was coming. The article is literally titled, “Another Ice Age.” Now, just 30 years (and no ice age) later, they say the earth is heating up and the ice caps are melting.
    Melanie Morgan is chairman of the conservative, pro-troop non-profit organization Move America Forward and is co-host of the “Lee Rodgers & Melanie Morgan Show” on KSFO 560 AM in San Francisco. Morgan is co-author of “American Mourning,” which tells the stories of American heroism in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Her personal website is http://www.MelanieMorgan.com.
    http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53738
     
    —————————-
    In fact, in the 1970s, Blakemore’s colleagues were telling us the real threat was global cooling. The hysteria then was about an impending ice age.
    That was also true from 1885 through the late 1920s, when slightly warmer weather prompted the New York Times to report “the earth is steadily growing warmer.”
    Then in 1954, Fortune magazine was back promoting the cooling theory. The New York Times changed its mind in 1975, reporting “A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable.”
    Newsweek predicted an impending ice age. Some of the same activists today who are preaching doom from warmer weather were telling us then to expect global famines as a result of the cooler temperatures.
    It wasn’t until the early 1980s that the scientists, most of whom earn their keep from government contracts, and their shills in the media decided the real scare – and the real payoff – was in global warming. So they switched gears again.
    On Aug. 22, 1981, the New York Times, once again leading the pack, reported seven – count ‘em, seven – government atmospheric scientists were predicting global warming of an “almost unprecedented magnitude.”
    So, we’re talking about four changes of direction on climate change in one century.
    Joseph Farah is founder, editor and CEO of WND and a nationally syndicated columnist with Creators Syndicate. His latest book is “Taking America Back.” He also edits the weekly online intelligence newsletter Joseph Farah’s G2 Bulletin, in which he utilizes his sources developed over 30 years in the news business.
    http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52748
     
     
    ————————-
     
     
     
     
     
     
    Last year, 60 prominent scientists signed a letter saying, “Observational evidence does not support today’s computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future. … Significant [scientific] advances have been made since the [Kyoto] protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases. If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary.”
    Walter E. Williams, Ph.D., is the John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va.
    http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53902
     
     
     
    ———–
     
     
     
     
     
     
    In July 2004, the London Telegraph reported on a study by Swiss and German scientists suggesting increased radiation from the sun – not human activity – was to blame for climate changes.
    “The sun is in a changed state,” said Dr. Sami Solanki of the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Gottingen, Germany. “It is brighter than it was a few hundred years ago and this brightening started relatively recently – in the last 100 to 150 years.”
    The research adds credence to the beliefs of British professor David Bellamy, president of the London-based Conservation Foundation.
    “Global warming – at least the modern nightmare version – is a myth,” Bellamy told the Telegraph. “I am sure of it and so are a growing number of scientists. But what is really worrying is that the world’s politicians and policy-makers are not.
    “Instead, they have an unshakeable faith in what has, unfortunately, become one of the central credos of the environmental movement: humans burn fossil fuels, which release increased levels of carbon dioxide – the principal so-called greenhouse gas – into the atmosphere, causing the atmosphere to heat up. They say this is global warming, I say this is poppycock.”
    Dr Sami Solanki, the director of the renowned Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Gottingen, Germany – http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/18/wsun18.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/07/18/ixnewstop.html
    ——————-
     
    March 2002, Sallie Baliunas, an astrophysicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and deputy directory of Mount Wilson Observatory, received her M.A. and Ph.D. degrees in astrophysics from Harvard University. http://www.hillsdale.edu/imprimis/2002/march/
    a new area of research centers on the effects of the sun. Twentieth century temperature changes show a strong correlation with the sun’s changing energy output. Although the causes of the sun’s changing particle, magnetic and energy outputs are uncertain — as are the responses of the climate to solar changes — the correlation is pronounced.
     
    As WND previously reported, another NASA-funded study noted some climate forecasts might be exaggerating estimations of global warming.
    The space agency said climate models possibly were overestimating the amount of water vapor entering the atmosphere as the Earth warms.
    The theory many scientists work with says the Earth heats up in response to human emissions of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, causing more water to evaporate from the ocean into the atmosphere.
    WND also reported that Dr. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, maintains there has been little or no warming since about 1940.
    “Any warming from the growth of greenhouse gases is likely to be minor, difficult to detect above the natural fluctuations of the climate, and therefore inconsequential,” Singer wrote in a climate-change essay. “In addition, the impacts of warming and of higher CO2 levels are likely to be beneficial for human activities and especially for agriculture.”
    By Joe Kovacs World Net Daily http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51992
    ————————
    the global average rise in temperature is roughly one degree Celsius or less at equilibrium for a doubling of the air’s carbon dioxide concentration. That is meager warming for so profound a change in the air’s carbon dioxide content. Indeed, it is within the range of climate’s natural variability.
    The main greenhouse effect is natural and is caused by water vapor and clouds. But the impacts of these greenhouse factors are for now greatly uncertain. In other words, the reliability of even the most sophisticated computer simulations of the climate impacts of increased carbon dioxide concentration rests heavily on the use of factors that science does not understand.
    In the twentieth century, the global average surface temperature rose about 0.5 degrees Celsius. At first glance, one might think this attributable to human fossil fuel use, which increased sharply over the past 100 years. But a closer look at twentieth century temperatures shows three distinct trends: First, a strong warming trend of about 0.5 degrees Celsius began in the late nineteenth century and peaked around 1940. Then, oddly, there was a cooling trend from 1940 until the late 1970s. And a modest warming trend occurred from the late 1970s to the present.
    How do we interpret this data? We know that about 80 percent of the carbon dioxide from human activities was added to the air after 1940. Thus increased carbon dioxide in the air cannot account for the pre-1940 warming trend. That trend had to be largely natural. Then, as the air’s carbon dioxide content increased most rapidly, temperatures dropped for nearly 40 years. And it seems that human effects amount at most to about 0.1 degree Celsius per decade — the maximum increase in warming seen after the 1970s.
    Finally, it should be mentioned that in looking for natural factors influencing the climate, a new area of research centers on the effects of the sun. Twentieth century temperature changes show a strong correlation with the sun’s changing energy output. Although the causes of the sun’s changing particle, magnetic and energy outputs are uncertain — as are the responses of the climate to solar changes — the correlation is pronounced.
    onclusion
    Two conclusions can be drawn about global warming and human energy use:
    No catastrophic human-made global warming effects can be found in the best measurements of climate that we presently have.

    <LI class=MsoNormal style=”MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo2; tab-stops: list .5in”>
    The longevity, health, welfare and productivity of humans have improved with the use of fossil fuels for energy, and the resulting human wealth has helped produce environmental improvements beneficial to health as well.
    In light of some of the hysterical language surrounding the issue of greenhouse gases, it is also worth noting that carbon dioxide, the primary greenhouse gas produced by burning fossil fuels, is not a toxic pollutant. To the contrary, it is essential to life on earth. And plants have flourished — agricultural experts estimate a ten percent increase in crop growth in recent decades — due directly to the fertilization effect of increased carbon dioxide in the air.

    March 2002, Sallie Baliunas, an astrophysicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and deputy directory of Mount Wilson Observatory, received her M.A. and Ph.D. degrees in astrophysics from Harvard University. http://www.hillsdale.edu/imprimis/2002/march/

  • Hey your #3 reference says that even if we are only responsible for 2% of the CO2 output, and that causes a 1% annual increase in CO2, “ A 1% annual increase in CO2 concentration seems small. Over a sufficient period of time, however, this rate of increase may generate an imbalance in the global carbon cycle. Such an imbalance could seriously exacerbate climate change. “  Wanna join our new blogring ~Global Warming Forum~ where we can discuss, debate and learn?

  • That might be true if Co2 raises the temperature of the earth.  This is a BIG assumption on which the whole theory of global warming is built on but there is one BIG problem with this assumption….

    THERE’S IS NEVER BEEN ANY EVIDENCE OF THIS

    and, 17,000 scientists signed a petition claiming just this;

    Petition Project
    PO Box 1925
    La Jolla CA 92038-1925
     .

    It’s also been shown, and it’s on one of the graphs above, that rises in temperature PRECEED rises in Co2 which complete reverses this false assumption.

    It’s just too bad the people simply accept on faith the “facts” put forth by politicians and never bother to really question them or research them.  You must examine the motives of these people to understand why the perpetuate these theories, and it is simply that it makes us need them.  Inventing a phony crisis as a means to gain power is as old politics and government and is nothing new.

    Thanks for reading and replying.

  • this kind of blog always useful for blog readers, it helps people during research. your post is one of the same for blog readers.

  • Many institutions limit access to their online information. Making this information available will be an asset to all.
    Custom Research Paper
    College Research Paper
    Buy Research Paper

  • I don’t know exactly what is what causes the global warming, well I know but only a partial part of it. I know fossil gasses create this problem but what in the case of exhaust gasses from cars? is that fossil? or is it another way to contaminate the earth that it doesn’t have to do with fossil?. The global warming is a matter that should concern all of us as well as important things like Cheap Viagra.

  • I have been visiting various blogs for my research papers writing assignment. I have found your blog to be quite useful. Keep updating your blog with valuable information… Regards

  • You’re right, it’s not fair to refer to the United Nations Framework. The IPCC is a scientific institution, but a political body, a sort of non-governmental green flavor.
    Online Business Directory

  • Ceci est juste l’information que je recherche partout. Merci pour votre blog, je viens de souscrire votre blog. Ceci est un blog sympa. honda accord

  • Article très important pour nous, je pense que la représentation de cet article est réellement superbe. C’est ma première visite à votre site. car for sale

  • You have a great blog,this is will help us to promote our business about Los Angeles party bus.
    seo companies in phoenix

  • You have a great blog,this is will help us to promote our business about Los Angeles party bus.
    seo companies in phoenix

  • marvelous posting! I actually enjoyed reading Garrett Ace 350
    it, you happen to be a great author.I will ensure that I bookmark your blog and definitely will come back at some point. I want to encourage Garrett Ace 250

  • Danke für diesen informativen Post! Gruß aus DE

    PC Notdienst Essen

  • Excellent post. I was checking continuously this blog and I’m inspired! Extremely useful information specifically the closing part I deal with such info a lot. I was looking for this certain information for a long time. Thanks and best of luck.

    cialis generico

  • Your site is for sure worth bookmarking.

    Kliplist Bookmarks

  • I’m flattened for your blogs writings and blogs as well.
    Bookmark It

  • Many thanks for making the sincere effort to explain this. I feel fairly strong about it and would like to read more. If it’s OK, as you find out more in depth knowledge, would you mind writing more posts similar to this one with more information?

  • Not many people would say this. You’ve got some guts. I will say this, though. If you don’t want to alienate any readers, you’re going to have to stop generalizing so much. Maybe you should try seeing both sides of this issue instead of assuming that yours is the only valid opinion.click here

  • There are true offence bolgs which are pestering to cater this nurturant of plausive increase, your production is the somebody of all. i appriciate your compliments.
    ph.d proposal

  • There are true offence bolgs which are pestering to cater this nurturant of plausive increase, your production is the somebody of all. i appriciate your compliments.
    ph.d proposal

  • There are true offence bolgs which are pestering to cater this nurturant of plausive increase, your production is the somebody of all. i appriciate your compliments.
    how to write a good research paper

  • There are true offence bolgs which are pestering to cater this nurturant of plausive increase, your production is the somebody of all. i appriciate your compliments.

    how to write a good research paper

  • I like the helpful information you provide in your articles. I’ll bookmark your blog and check again here regularly. I am quite sure I will learn plenty of new stuff right here! Best of luck for the next! belleville boots

  • I think when India Approaches One Year of the Notification of the Right to Education Act, Indian children will have more opportunities to go to school. Good news. Thanks. belleville boots

  • I counsel this web site to my friends thus it might be helpful & informative for them conjointly nice effort. Brighton Tiles

  • I am glad that I found your site. I wanted to thank you for this great read!! I definitely enjoying every bit of it and I have you bookmarked to check out the new stuff you post.
    Schluter Ditra Matting

  • I am very thankful to all your team for sharing such inspirational information.
    Solar Companies in california

  • This is my first time to visit your blog and I found very informational knowledge you done a great job, Keep more posting like this. Gemini Tiles

  • There are true offence bolgs which are pestering to cater this nurturant of plausive increase, your production is the somebody of all. i appriciate your compliments.luxury dog cushions

Post a Comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *