Close

Page 10 of 11 FirstFirst ... 10 ... LastLast
Results 271 to 300 of 313

Thread: Global Warming?

  1. #271
    Moderator belgareth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Lower Slovobia
    Posts
    7,961
    Rep Power
    7664

    Default

    visit-red-300x50PNG
    Hey Netghost!

    You are right

    to be concerned about pollution. I hope you never got the idea that I wasn't concerned about it myself. It is an

    important issue. We humans are stupid enough to crap in our own nest then not able to figure out why it smells so

    bad.

    Yes and no regarding solar cycles. Some correlations have been noted but the research has been harshly

    suppressed and funding denied. In my opinion, it is because it could refute parts of the global warming theory.

    Without any real funding it is hard to do any real research though. I entioned it a couple times some pages back but

    don't blame you for not wanting to dig for it. I didn't either.
    To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

    Thomas Jefferson

  2. #272
    Moderator idesign's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Middle Kingdom
    Posts
    2,398
    Rep Power
    5530

    Default

    Telegraph.co.uk

    Article here

    In

    a startling new book, Christopher Booker reveals how a handful of scientists, who have pushed flawed theories on

    global warming for decades, now threaten to take us back to the Dark Ages


    "Next Thursday marks the first

    anniversary of one of the most remarkable events ever to take place in the House of Commons. For six hours MPs

    debated what was far and away the most expensive piece of legislation ever put before Parliament.

    The

    Climate Change Bill laid down that, by 2050, the British people must cut their emissions of carbon dioxide by

    well over 80 per cent. Short of some unimaginable technological revolution, such a target could not possibly be

    achieved without shutting down almost the whole of our industrialised economy, changing our way of life out of

    recognition.

    ...no one has put the reality of the situation more succinctly than Prof Richard Lindzen of

    the Massachusetts Institute of Technolgy, one of the most distinguished climatologists in the world, who has done

    as much as anyone in the past 20 years to expose the emptiness of the IPCC’s claim that its reports

    represent a “consensus” of the views of “the world’s top climate scientists”.



    In words quoted on the cover of my new book, Prof Lindzen wrote: “Future generations will wonder in

    bemused amazement that the early 21st century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally

    averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly

    exaggerated computer predictions combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a

    rollback of the industrial age.”


    Such is the truly extraordinary position in which we find

    ourselves. Thanks to misreading the significance of a brief period of rising temperatures at the end of the

    20th century, the Western world (but not India or China) is now contemplating measures that add up to the most

    expensive economic suicide note ever written.

    How long will it be before sanity and sound science break in

    on what begins to look like one of the most bizarre collective delusions ever to grip the human race?"


  3. #273
    Moderator belgareth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Lower Slovobia
    Posts
    7,961
    Rep Power
    7664

    Default

    Does anybody here have any

    thoughts on the subject of climate change and the emails that were hacked? I'm downloading the full file to my

    computer right now and will not have a firm opinion until I get it read. It's 61 meg so will take me some time to

    look it over.

    On a first review of information I would guess that it is pretty devastating to the climate change

    proponents. I'm not ready yet to say anything other than that it sure sounds like my arguments were correct right

    along. It doesn't feel all that great to be right on something this big. It frankly scares the crap out of me.



    If anybody wants a copy of the file I will be happy to put it on an FTP site where you can download it.
    To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

    Thomas Jefferson

  4. #274
    Phero Dude
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Bainbridge Island Washington
    Posts
    580
    Rep Power
    6355

    Default

    Wow...it's been a while since I

    have lurked among these threads.Hi everybody! Global warming may or may not be happening.On the plus side of

    the whole kerfuffle,it's all been done befor.recently in one of the Scandanavian countries(sorry I dont remember

    which one) the uncovered an ancient copper mine that had been burried by a glacier for at least 1500 to 2000

    years.The mine had apperantly been abandoned with tools left in place.Apperantly whoever was mining there had

    expected the spring thaw would reveal the mine and they would go back to work...well...better late than never.



    In the city of Pisa Italy an ancient dock was found complete with the remains of several small fishing boats near

    La Bugnotta.Miles from the nearest shoreline(I heard about that one on NPR.)Sea levels have not always been what

    they are today...nor have temperatures.Oxygen content in the atmosphere has changed considerably in the last several

    thousand years as well.Did mankind do it?

    We humans have a real knack for crapping where we eat and climate

    change would be no exception to that old habbit.We have successfuly managed to contaminate many rivers and lakes and

    mow down many forests.In the central pacific, biologists find that a cubic meter of water contains more plastic

    residue than micro -oganisms.But are we the sole reason behind climate change?We give ourselves way too much credit

    if we say yes.We may be helping but I think that learning how to live with our environments natural tendancy to

    change is just as important as mitigating our impact uppon it.

  5. #275
    Moderator belgareth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Lower Slovobia
    Posts
    7,961
    Rep Power
    7664

    Default

    Hey Tim! Good to see you.



    Mostly I was looking for opinions on the ramifications of releasing all those documents showing evidence that

    climate change is not as real or as urgent as the proponents claim it to be. Collusion, misrepresentation of facts,

    attacks on other scientists and other issues casts a bad light on the researchers of AGW. It brings all their work

    into question, something I have believed was an issue right along.

    I do not claim the climate is not changing,

    to expect it to remain static is foolish. However, most of their predictions have been wrong as to what will happen.

    In my opinion, it is due to poor modelling and use of unreliable tools and incorrect data. This belief seems to be

    born out by the documents hacked from the university servers.

    I spent several hours last night looking through

    a lot of mundane stuff to find a few tidbits but have only scratched the surface. Nonetheless, what I have seen so

    far seems to point to a conspiracy to mislead and frighten the general public. Since it is only my opinion, I am

    offering the entire file to anybody else interested in reviewing it.

    EDIT: Just a note on sea level variations.

    The Saraha Desert was once a vast swamp and at another time was a great forest. Most of Texas, where I now live, was

    under the ocean. The world changes and always will. There is no dispute about that.
    To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

    Thomas Jefferson

  6. #276
    Phero Guru Rbt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Midwest US
    Posts
    1,579
    Rep Power
    6344

    Default

    Perhaps not as much to "mislead and

    frighten the general public" but to distract the general public from other issues. And to find ways to "sell" pet

    pork programs, and other goods and services (think insurance). (Am going to avoid the political motivations for

    war... my heart wouldn't take it.)

    Plus people in general seemed to get bored unless they get frightened and

    excited once in a while. Witness movies like 2012. Little fact, much fiction, but it sure beats raking leaves or

    mopping the floor or other mundane everyday tasks...
    The opposite of love isn't hate.
    It's apathy
    .

  7. #277
    Moderator idesign's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Middle Kingdom
    Posts
    2,398
    Rep Power
    5530

    Default

    The AGW question has less to do

    with science than it does money, ideology and politics. There has been a growing trend of scientists defecting from

    the alleged "consensus" for quite some time now, and the media and ideologues do their best to either discredit or

    ignore them. Why? Because AGW is just a vehicle that carries an agenda.

    To your question Bel, I think this

    email/document heist is potentially pretty damaging, but perhaps the AGW establishment is "too big to fail", to draw

    an analogy to other failed institutions. There is a heck of a lot of real and political capital at stake here,

    and a lot of vested interests will do all in their power to control the damage. It'll be interesting to watch.


  8. #278
    Phero Dude
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Bainbridge Island Washington
    Posts
    580
    Rep Power
    6355

    Default

    Well...lets look at another

    example of fear mongering for profit.The CDC and the WHO once uppon a time warned us about a pending global pandemic

    in regard to the avian flu.They pointed to a number of people in China that had died from "resperatory distress" and

    found antibodies of the avian influenza in thier blood stream and concluded..."BIRD FLU DID IT!" Later, several

    imunologists got together and announced that having the antibodies in thier blood meant effectively nothing and they

    also pointed out that one of the leading causes of death in China is...you guessed it...resperatory arrest.

    Fast

    forward to today.H1N1 or swine flu is all the rage.There is an absolute lack of evidence showing that it is any

    worse than the average run of the mill flu.There are periodicly strains of influenza that realy kick alot of peoples

    asses and kill alot of elderly and young people.That happens quite often actualy.But by blowing the issue out of

    proportion to its real threat, the CDC can go to congress and demand money for "research" and safely tell congress

    that if they dont kick down the cash there will be a world wide pandemic of biblical proportions.If that happens and

    people find out it was because congress wouldnt pay up then what do you suppose thier odds of reelection are?No

    congressman in his or her right mind would say no for fear of being crucified by the press and loosing a very

    lucrative position.

    Threats regarding the end of the world as we know it are a great way to get lots of federal

    dollars.They did a very simmilar thing a decade ago with the near earth object project.The scientific community told

    congress that we might get hit by a rock from space that could chip millions of windshields and they needed money to

    study the problem.With alittle arm twisting and movies like Deep Impact and Armageddon congress decided that funding

    should be provided.A great many starving astronomers now have beautiful homes, trophy wives and nice cars.And we

    dont have a defence plan in place to stop an asteroid.Global warming is just another in a long list of scary stories

    meant to motivate the uneducated to put pressure on the politicians to give money to the scientific community
    "The wages of sin is death.But after taxes it's just sort of a tired feeling realy." -Ellen DeGeneres

  9. #279
    Phero Guru Rbt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Midwest US
    Posts
    1,579
    Rep Power
    6344

    Default

    At one time it was

    "halitosis."


    Then diabetes.


    Then cholesterol.


    But now, let's not forget the

    global pandemic of "erectile dysfunction" now lurking around every corner.


    Be sure to ask your

    doctor.
    The opposite of love isn't hate.
    It's apathy
    .

  10. #280
    Moderator idesign's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Middle Kingdom
    Posts
    2,398
    Rep Power
    5530

    Default

    Hey Belgareth, you turn up

    anything interesting in your reading? I've read what's been printed in the few media stories I've found, and in

    typical fashion the MSM is burying the story on page 11 or not covering it at all.

    Also in true fashion, the

    culprits are admitting no wrongdoing.

    Here's a good opinion piece:



    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...googlenews_wsj

    A

    couple of quotes:

    "The tribalism that some of the leaked emails display is something more usually associated

    with social organization within primitive cultures; it is not attractive when we find it at work inside science."



    "The response from the defenders of Mr. Mann and his circle has been that even if they did disparage

    doubters and exclude contrary points of view, theirs is still the best climate science. The proof for this is

    circular. It's the best, we're told, because it's the most-published and most-cited—in that same

    peer-reviewed literature. The public has every reason to ask why they felt the need to rig the game if their science

    is as indisputable as they claim.
    "

    And a view from the UK

    here.

    "Joe Public, coast-to-coast, now knows, thanks to the clowns

    at East Anglia’s CRU, just how royally he has been screwed."




  11. #281
    Moderator belgareth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Lower Slovobia
    Posts
    7,961
    Rep Power
    7664

    Default

    Well, so far, not a lot. I had

    to do some digging to compare the charts in the hacked files to other charts the public saw and there are some

    pretty big differences. Some of the reports seemed to be different from what I remember but the public versions are

    no longer available so I can't say for sure.

    The emails are a lot of work to dig through. I've been importing

    them into word to make them more readable but there are thousands of documents. It is taking some time to go through

    it. I didn't do anything on them over the holiday as I had other things to do.

    Interesting reading though. Some

    pretty incriminating stuff so far.
    To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

    Thomas Jefferson

  12. #282
    Moderator idesign's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Middle Kingdom
    Posts
    2,398
    Rep Power
    5530

    Default

    I read today that they've

    thrown out all the raw data.

    Read also that some of the massaged data is going to be released, but not for

    months, after releases get signed off etc.

    Five'll get you ten that the officially released stuff differs from

    the hacked stuff.


  13. #283
    Moderator belgareth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Lower Slovobia
    Posts
    7,961
    Rep Power
    7664

    Default

    That's a bet I won't take!

    Want to bet that they don't throw out the raw data, after all? Too many years of work, they'll say. And I'll

    partially agree with them. The problem will be filtering out the fact from the made up stuff. It should be

    interesting to compare data with the raw I have now.
    To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

    Thomas Jefferson

  14. #284
    Moderator idesign's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Middle Kingdom
    Posts
    2,398
    Rep Power
    5530

    Default

    SCIENTISTS at the University

    of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of

    global warming are based.

    It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to

    show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

    The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit

    (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.


    The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of

    variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper

    and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.





    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6936328.ece

    What I was talking

    about with my comment (and bet) was just what you said. I think the hacked stuff you're reading will be far

    different than whatever gets officially released after they bend it and choke it to fit their agenda.


  15. #285
    Moderator idesign's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Middle Kingdom
    Posts
    2,398
    Rep Power
    5530


  16. #286
    Phero Guru Rbt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Midwest US
    Posts
    1,579
    Rep Power
    6344

    Default

    I can see where "Global Warming"

    could be real. We've certainly had "Global Cooling" in the form of ice ages. And I can see "Climate Change" as a

    natural state of things.

    The real "hot points" are those that center around if these changes are being affected

    by human activity or not, and by how much. And if these changes are really that detrimental. We've had climate

    swings for eons. Who is to say the end result of the current trend is all that negative? We have no experience with

    which to judge. Just "opinion" based on what little we know.

    I have no doubt humans are messing the environment

    up. But to scream that's whatever we are doing is certain doom at 12:07 on January 1st 2043 is just plain

    fearmongering (or a way to sell whatever it is they are peddling - make money off the ignorant masses). We've gone

    through crap like that before over and over again over the centuries.
    The opposite of love isn't hate.
    It's apathy
    .

  17. #287
    Moderator belgareth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Lower Slovobia
    Posts
    7,961
    Rep Power
    7664

    Default

    Global climate change is real,

    human intervention is the questionable part. From everything I've read and studied over the years, it seems most

    unlikely that it is caused by man. I think the IPCC and most the AGW researchers know that as well, otherwise they

    would not be falsifying data and suppressing research. Keep in mind that the polar bears were going to be wiped out

    but they are increasing. Hurricanes were going to increase but didn't. Greenland was named for its lush landscape,

    not for its icy current appearance. Zebras, lions and other equatoral animals used to wander northern Europe.



    The climate changes due to many factors. The fact that the other planets climates are changing in the same

    patterns and at the same rates tells us there is more to it than so called greenhouse gasses.
    To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

    Thomas Jefferson

  18. #288
    Moderator idesign's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Middle Kingdom
    Posts
    2,398
    Rep Power
    5530

    Default

    IMO its pure guesstomology to

    try to prove that humans have caused one iota of difference in the world's climate. Like you say Rbt, temp

    fluctuations have been far more severe than we're seeing now, and will continue to swing as nature sees fit.

    Its

    my understanding that science requires repeatable experimentation based on detailed data in a controlled

    environment. The earth is most certainly not a closed environment and as a result any data put into a model can

    only add up to hypothetical assumptions or, as one critic said, "implausible chains of reference". The sheer number

    of variables in current climate study is staggering. To think that one can extrapolate causes and effects over

    centuries is hubris, pure and simple.

    The AGW establishment has no real interest in science beyond the point

    where it will drive their agenda. Energy drives the world, and AGW is being used to gain control over energy

    resources in the same way that health care "reform" is being used to snuff out personal liberties. The

    redistribution of wealth and centralization of power are common threads in both of these scenarios.

    One need only

    look past what is being said and done among the governing elite, to the logical end result of their policies and

    programs. AGW is a cornerstone, and they'll never let it go. Skilled propagandists, in concert with a willing

    media, will spin their tale and most likely get away with it, all the while actually thinking no one is noticing, or

    indeed, should notice.


  19. #289
    Phero Guru Rbt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Midwest US
    Posts
    1,579
    Rep Power
    6344

    Default

    Given just how "exact" even just

    next week's weather forcasts often are, and those are based of some pretty intense, involved, constantly updated

    computer models...

    Just how accurate are "predictions" about a global weather/climate situation centuries (or

    even just a few decades) in advance going to be? I suspect the $2.99/minute Psychic Hotline may do as well at

    times...

    This is also one reason I avoid politics. Same sort of crap. I don't need the personal stress.
    The opposite of love isn't hate.
    It's apathy
    .

  20. #290
    Moderator belgareth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Lower Slovobia
    Posts
    7,961
    Rep Power
    7664

    Default

    When I was in college and in my

    previous life as a corporate computer guru I did quite a bit of computer modelling. They were business trend models

    but are conceptually pretty similar. It is an exact science provided your variables and assumptions are valid.

    That's where the problem comes in. As we know, they fudged and adjusted data (the good old hockey stick, for

    example) thus invalidating the entire model. Its kind of like the old explanation about chaos theory: A butterly

    flapping its wings in China can lead to tornadoes in Kansas. Cause and effect are very slippery things and the

    number of variable associated with climate are horrendous. A single invalid variable or incorrect assumption makes

    for huge fluctuations.

    In the end, liars figure and figures lie, so to speak. With a little nudge here and there

    you can make a model do whatever you want it to do.
    To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

    Thomas Jefferson

  21. #291
    Moderator idesign's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Middle Kingdom
    Posts
    2,398
    Rep Power
    5530

    Default

    http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/143573

    THE scientific consensus that mankind has caused

    climate change was rocked yesterday as a leading academic called it a “load of hot air underpinned by

    fraud”.

    Professor Ian Plimer condemned the

    climate change lobby as “climate

    comrades” keeping the

    gravy

    train
    ” going.
    In a controversial talk just days before the start of a

    climate

    summit
    attended by world leaders in Copenhagen, Prof Plimer said Governments were treating the public like

    “fools” and using climate change to increase taxes.
    He said carbon dioxide has

    had no impact on temperature and that recent warming was part of the natural cycle of climate stretching over

    ­billions of years.








    If you have to

    argue your science by using fraud, your science is not valid.







    Professor Pilmer



    Prof

    Plimer - author of Heaven and Earth: Global

    Warming, The Missing Science
    - told a London audience: “Climates always change. They always have and

    they always will. They are driven by a number of factors that are random and cyclical.”


  22. #292
    Moderator belgareth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Lower Slovobia
    Posts
    7,961
    Rep Power
    7664

    Default

    Its nice to see some

    rationality coming into the discussion instead of just the unsupported claims of the global warming advocates. I'd

    love to be a fly on the wall in some of the recent meetings of those groups.
    To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

    Thomas Jefferson

  23. #293
    Moderator idesign's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Middle Kingdom
    Posts
    2,398
    Rep Power
    5530

    Default

    Chris Horner, a senior fellow

    at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said NASA has refused for two years to provide information under the

    Freedom of Information Act that would show how the agency has shaped its climate data and would explain why the

    agency has repeatedly had to correct its data going as far back as the 1930s.


    "I assume that what is

    there is highly damaging," Mr. Horner said. "These guys are quite clearly bound and determined not to reveal their

    internal discussions about this."


    The numbers matter. Under pressure in 2007, NASA recalculated its

    data and found that 1934, not 1998, was the hottest year in its records for the contiguous 48 states. NASA later

    changed that data again, and now 1998 and 2006 are tied for first, with 1934 slightly cooler.





    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...-climate-data/


  24. #294
    Moderator belgareth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Lower Slovobia
    Posts
    7,961
    Rep Power
    7664

    Default

    Most of the time I laugh at

    conspiracy theorists, but in this case...
    To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

    Thomas Jefferson

  25. #295
    Moderator idesign's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Middle Kingdom
    Posts
    2,398
    Rep Power
    5530

    Default

    Here's your conspiracy: these

    AGW guys are just in it for the free sex.

    Prostitutes offer free climate summit sex

    Copenhagen

    Council and Lord Mayor Ritt Bjerregaard have sent postcards out to 160 Copenhagen hotels urging COP15 guests and

    delegates to ‘Be sustainable – don’t buy sex’.

    “Dear hotel owner, we would like to

    urge you not to arrange contacts between hotel guests and prostitutes,” the approach to hotels says.



    Copenhagen prostitutes are up in arms at the project saying that the council has no business meddling in their

    affairs, and have now offered free sex to anyone who can produce one of the offending postcards and their COP15

    identity card, according to avisen.dk.

    http://politiken.dk/newsinenglish/article851637.ece


  26. #296
    Moderator belgareth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Lower Slovobia
    Posts
    7,961
    Rep Power
    7664

    Default



    Now, that's funny!



    Maybe if the hookers keep them busy they won't create as many problems with their summit. It kind of

    makes me wonder what the climax of their meeting will be.
    To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

    Thomas Jefferson

  27. #297
    Moderator idesign's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Middle Kingdom
    Posts
    2,398
    Rep Power
    5530

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by belgareth View Post



    It kind of makes me wonder what the climax of their meeting will be.



    I found the "Be

    sustainable... don't buy sex" comment curious. What if you can only have sustainable sex with a hooker and a

    hockey stick??

    Blows like Hurricane to Climatic Climax! Global Warming? No problem, this week only!


  28. #298
    Moderator belgareth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Lower Slovobia
    Posts
    7,961
    Rep Power
    7664

    Default

    Just thought i would share this

    with you guys. All the following has been verified. While not complete proof, it sure smells bad.

    Some of the

    excerpts of emails within the archives (edited for brevity, emphasis added):

    From Michael E. Mann (witholding of

    information / data):

    Dear Phil and Gabi,
    I’ve attached a cleaned-up and commented version of the matlab code

    that I wrote for doing the Mann and Jones (2003) composites. I did this knowing that Phil and I are likely to have

    to respond to more crap criticisms from the idiots in the near future, so best to clean up the code and provide to

    some of my close colleagues in case they want to test it, etc. Please feel free to use this code for your own

    internal purposes, but don’t pass it along where it may get into the hands of the wrong people.


    From Nick McKay

    (modifying data):

    The Korttajarvi record was oriented in the reconstruction in the way that McIntyre said. I took

    a look at the original reference – the temperature proxy we looked at is x-ray density, which the author interprets

    to be inversely related to temperature. We had higher values as warmer in the reconstruction, so it looks to me like

    we got it wrong, unless we decided to reinterpret the record which I don’t remember. Darrell, does this sound right

    to you?


    From Tom Wigley (acknowleding the urban effect):

    We probably need to say more about this. Land

    warming since 1980 has been twice the ocean warming — and skeptics might claim that this proves that urban warming

    is real and important.

    From Phil Jones (modification of data to hide unwanted results):

    I’ve just completed

    Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from

    1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.


    From Kevin Trenberth (failure of computer models):

    The fact is that we

    can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in

    the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our

    observing system is inadequate.

    From Michael Mann (truth doesn't matter):


    Perhaps we'll do a simple update

    to the Yamal post, e.g. linking Keith/s new page--Gavin t? As to the issues of robustness, particularly w.r.t.

    inclusion of the Yamal series, we actually emphasized that (including the Osborn and Briffa '06 sensitivity test)

    in our original post! As we all know, this isn't about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable

    accusations.

    From Phil Jones (witholding of data):

    The skeptics seem to be building up a head of steam here!

    ... The IPCC comes in for a lot of stick. Leave it to you to delete as appropriate! Cheers Phil
    PS I’m getting

    hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don’t any of you three tell anybody that

    the UK has a Freedom of Information Act !

    From Michael E. Mann (using a website to control the message, hide

    dissent):

    Anyway, I wanted you guys to know that you’re free to use RC [RealClimate.org - A supposed neutral

    climate change website] Rein any way you think would be helpful. Gavin and I are going to be careful about what

    comments we screen through, and we’ll be very careful to answer any questions that come up to any extent we can. On

    the other hand, you might want to visit the thread and post replies yourself. We can hold comments up in the queue

    and contact you about whether or not you think they should be screened through or not, and if so, any comments you’d

    like us to include.

    From Phil Jones (witholding of data):

    If FOIA does ever get used by anyone, there is also

    IPR to consider as well. Data is covered by all the agreements we sign with people, so I will be hiding behind them.



    If the emails and documents are a forgery, it would be an extremely large one that would likely have taken

    months to setup. No doubt much more will be coming out about these emails and their possible authenticity. Stay

    tuned to the Climate Change Examiner for updates as more information becomes available.

    Update, 10:30am – Since

    the original publication of this article, the story is gaining steam and now the BBC is reporting on it. They report

    that a spokesman for the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU), "We are aware that information

    from a server used for research information in one area of the university has been made available on public

    websites.”

    Analysis of the emails and documents in the archives continues. We must stress that the authenticity

    has not been proven however there have been no denials of such by the climate center. Some of the more recent

    revelations include:

    From Phil Jones (destroying of emails / evidence):

    Mike, Can you delete any emails you

    may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis. Can you

    also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar to do

    likewise.
    To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

    Thomas Jefferson

  29. #299
    Moderator belgareth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Lower Slovobia
    Posts
    7,961
    Rep Power
    7664

    Default

    However, I found this to be

    especially disturbing.


    EXCLUSIVE – British Peer: Copenhagen Summit Has Established A World

    Government

    Amid all the mainstream media reports of the talks in Copenhagen “limping” to a close and having

    failed, Lord Christopher Monckton, reporting from the summit, has stated that the only goal of the conference was to

    implement the framework and the funding for a world government – which he asserts has been achieved.

    EXCLUSIVE

    British Peer: Copenhagen Summit Has Established A World Government 181209globe“That is the one thing that they are

    definitely going to succeed in doing here and they will announce that as a victory in itself, and they will be right

    because that is the one and only single aim of this entire global warming conference, to establish the mechanism,

    the structure, and above all the funding for a world government.” the British politician, business consultant,

    policy adviser exclusively told the Alex Jones show yesterday.

    “They are going to take from the western countries

    the very large financial resources required to do that.” Monckton said, adding “They will disguise it by saying they

    are setting up a $100 billion fund for adaptation to climate change in third world countries, but actually, this

    money will almost all be gobbled up by the international bureaucracy.”

    “The first thing they will do, and the one

    thing I think they were always going to succeed in doing at this conference is to agree to establish what will be

    delicately called ‘the institutional framework’. Now that is a code word for world government.”

    Lord Monckton

    explained that although the word “government” has been dropped from the treaty, all the interlocking bureaucratic

    features of a world government are still present in the final draft of the treaty, which also legislates for a

    global tax on financial transactions that will be paid directly to the World Bank.
    To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

    Thomas Jefferson

  30. #300
    Moderator belgareth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Lower Slovobia
    Posts
    7,961
    Rep Power
    7664

    Default

    And one last post on the

    subject for today:


    December 15 2009



    HERE are the 100 reasons, released in a dossier issued by the

    European
    Foundation, why climate change is natural and not man-made:



    1) There is "no real scientific proof"

    that the current warming is caused by
    the rise of greenhouse gases from man's activity.



    2) Man-made CO2

    emissions throughout human history constitute less than
    0.00022 percent of the total naturally emitted from the

    mantle of the earth
    during geological history.



    3) Warmer periods of the Earth's history came around 800

    years before rises
    in CO2 levels.



    4) After World War II, there was a huge surge in recorded CO2 emissions

    but
    global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940.



    5) Throughout the Earth's history, temperatures

    have often been warmer than
    now and CO2 levels have often been higher - more than ten times as high.



    6)

    Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout
    geologic time.



    7) The 0.7ºC increase in

    the average global temperature over the last
    hundred years is entirely consistent with well-established,

    long-term,
    natural climate trends.



    8) The IPCC theory is driven by just 60 scientists and favourable

    reviewers
    not the 4,000 usually cited.



    9) Leaked e-mails from British climate scientists - in a scandal

    known as
    "Climate-gate" - suggest that data has been manipulated to exaggerate global
    warming



    10) A large

    body of scientific research suggests that the sun is responsible
    for the greater share of climate change during the

    past hundred years.



    11) Politicians and activiists claim rising sea levels are a direct cause of
    global

    warming but sea levels rates have been increasing steadily since the
    last ice age 10,000 ago



    12) Philip

    Stott, Emeritus Professor of Biogeography at the School of
    Oriental and African Studies in London says climate

    change is too
    complicated to be caused by just one factor, whether CO2 or clouds



    13) Peter Lilley MP said

    last month that "fewer people in Britain than in
    any other country believe in the importance of global warming.

    That is
    despite the fact that our Government and our political
    class-predominantly-are more committed to it than

    their counterparts in any
    other country in the world".



    14) In pursuit of the global warming rhetoric, wind

    farms will do very
    little to nothing to reduce CO2 emissions



    15) Professor Plimer, Professor of Geology and

    Earth Sciences at the
    University of Adelaide, stated that the idea of taking a single trace gas in
    the atmosphere,

    accusing it and finding it guilty of total responsibility
    for climate change, is an "absurdity"



    16) A

    Harvard University astrophysicist and geophysicist, Willie Soon, said
    he is "embarrassed and puzzled" by the

    shallow science in papers that
    support the proposition that the earth faces a climate crisis caused by
    global

    warming.



    17) The science of what determines the earth's temperature is in fact far
    from settled or

    understood.



    18) Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, CO2 is a minor greenhouse
    gas, unlike water

    vapour which is tied to climate concerns, and which we can't
    even pretend to control



    19) A petition by

    scientists trying to tell the world that the political and
    media portrayal of global warming is false was put

    forward in the Heidelberg
    Appeal in 1992. Today, more than 4,000 signatories, including 72 Nobel Prize
    winners,

    from 106 countries have signed it.



    20) It is claimed the average global temperature increased at a

    dangerously
    fast rate in the 20th century but the recent rate of average global
    temperature rise has been between

    1ºC and 2ºC per century - within natural
    rates



    21) Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski, Chairman of the Scientific

    Council of the
    Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw, Poland says the
    earth's temperature has

    more to do with cloud cover and water vapor than CO2
    concentration in the atmosphere.



    22) There is strong

    evidence from solar studies which suggests that the
    Earth's current temperature stasis will be followed by

    climatic cooling over
    the next few decades



    23) It is a myth that receding glaciers are proof of global

    warming as
    glaciers have been receding and growing cyclically for many centuries



    24) It is a falsehood that

    the earth's poles are warming because that is
    natural variation and while the western Arctic may be getting

    somewhat
    warmer we also see that the Eastern Arctic and Greenland are getting colder



    25) The IPCC claims

    climate driven "impacts on biodiversity are significant
    and of key relevance" but those claims are simply not

    supported by
    scientific research



    26) The IPCC threat of climate change to the world's species does not

    make
    sense as wild species are at least one million years old, which means they
    have all been through hundreds of

    climate cycles



    27) Research goes strongly against claims that CO2-induced global warming
    would cause

    catastrophic disintegration of the Greenland and Antarctic Ice
    Sheets.



    28) Despite activist concerns over

    CO2 levels, rising CO2 levels are our
    best hope of raising crop yields to feed an ever-growing

    population



    29) The biggest climate change ever experienced on earth took place around
    700 million years

    ago



    30) The slight increase in temperature which has been observed since 1900 is
    entirely consistent with

    well-established, long-term natural climate cycles



    31) Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, rising CO2

    levels of some
    so-called "greenhouse gases" may be contributing to higher oxygen levels and
    global cooling, not

    warming



    32) Accurate satellite, balloon and mountain top observations made over the
    last three decades have

    not shown any significant change in the long term
    rate of increase in global temperatures



    33) Today's CO2

    concentration of around 385 ppm is very low compared to most
    of the earth's history - we actually live in a

    carbon-deficient atmosphere



    34) It is a myth that CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas because
    greenhouse

    gases form about 3% of the atmosphere by volume, and CO2
    constitutes about 0.037% of the atmosphere



    35) It

    is a myth that computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause
    significant global warming because computer

    models can be made to "verify"
    anything



    36) There is no scientific or statistical evidence whatsoever that

    global
    warming will cause more storms and other weather extremes



    37) One statement deleted from a UN report

    in 1996 stated that "none of the
    studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the
    observed

    climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases"



    38) The world "warmed" by 0.07 ± 0.07ºC from 1999 to 2008,

    not the
    0.20ºC
    expected by the IPCC



    39) The IPCC says "it is likely that future tropical cyclones (typhoons

    and
    hurricanes) will become more intense" but there has been no increase in the
    intensity or frequency of tropical

    cyclones globally



    40) Rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere can be shown not only to have a
    negligible effect

    on the Earth's many ecosystems, but in some cases to be a
    positive help to many organisms



    41) Researchers

    who compare and contrast climate change impact on
    civilizations found warm periods are beneficial to mankind and

    cold periods
    harmful



    42) The Met Office asserts we are in the hottest decade since records began
    but this

    is precisely what the world should expect if the climate is
    cyclical



    43) Rising CO2 levels increase plant

    growth and make plants more resistant
    to drought and pests



    44) The historical increase in the air's CO2

    content has improved human
    nutrition by raising crop yields during the past 150 years



    45) The increase of

    the air's CO2 content has probably helped lengthen human
    lifespans since the beginning of the Industrial

    Revolution



    46) The IPCC alleges that "climate change currently contributes to the
    global burden of disease

    and premature deaths" but the evidence shows that
    higher temperatures and rising CO2 levels has helped global

    populations



    47) In May of 2004, the Russian Academy of Sciences published a report
    concluding that the Kyoto

    Protocol has no scientific grounding at all.



    48) The "Climate-gate" scandal pointed to an expensive public

    campaign of
    disinformation and the denigration of scientists who opposed the belief that
    CO2 emissions were

    causing climate change



    49) The head of Britain's climate change watchdog has predicted households
    will need

    to spend up to £15,000 on a full energy efficiency makeover if the
    Government is to meet its ambitious targets for

    cutting carbon emissions.



    50) Wind power is unlikely to be the answer to our energy needs. The wind
    power

    industry argues that there are "no direct subsidies" but it involves a
    total subsidy of as much as £60 per MWh

    which falls directly on electricity
    consumers. This burden will grow in line with attempts to achieve Wind

    power
    targets, according to a recent OFGEM report.



    51) Wind farms are not an efficient way to produce

    energy. The British Wind
    Energy Association (BWEA) accepts a figure of 75 % back-up power is
    required.



    52)

    Global temperatures are below the low end of IPCC predictions not at "at
    the top end of IPCC estimates"



    53)

    Climate alarmists have raised the concern over acidification of the
    oceans but Tom Segalstad from Oslo University

    in Norway , and others, have
    noted that the composition of ocean water - including CO2, calcium, and
    water - can

    act as a buffering agent in the acidification of the oceans.



    54) The UN's IPCC computer models of

    human-caused global warming predict the
    emergence of a "hotspot" in the upper troposphere over the tropics.

    Former
    researcher in the Australian Department of Climate Change, David Evans, said
    there is no evidence of such a

    hotspot



    55) The argument that climate change is a of result of global warming caused
    by human activity is

    the argument of flat Earthers.



    56) The manner in which US President Barack Obama sidestepped Congress

    to
    order emission cuts shows how undemocratic and irrational the entire
    international decision-making process has

    become with regards to
    emission-target setting.



    57) William Kininmonth, a former head of the National

    Climate Centre and a
    consultant to the WMO, wrote "the likely extent of global temperature rise
    from a doubling of

    CO2 is less than 1ºC. Such warming is well within the
    envelope of variation experienced during the past 10,000

    years and
    insignificant in the context of glacial cycles during the past million
    years, when Earth has been

    predominantly very cold and covered by extensive
    ice sheets."



    58) Canada has shown the world targets derived

    from the existing Kyoto
    commitments were always unrealistic and did not work for the country.



    59) In the

    lead up to the Copenhagen summit, David Davis MP said of previous
    climate summits, at Rio de Janeiro in 1992 and

    Kyoto in 1997 that many had
    promised greater cuts, but "neither happened", but we are continuing along
    the same

    lines.



    60) The UK 's environmental policy has a long-term price tag of about £55
    billion, before taking

    into account the impact on its economic growth.



    61) The UN's panel on climate change warned that Himalayan

    glaciers could
    melt to a fifth of current levels by 2035. J. Graham Cogley a professor at
    Ontario Trent

    University, claims this inaccurate stating the UN authors got
    the date from an earlier report wrong by more than

    300 years.



    62) Under existing Kyoto obligations the EU has attempted to claim success,
    while actually

    increasing emissions by 13%, according to Lord Lawson. In
    addition the EU has pursued this scheme by purchasing

    "offsets" from
    countries such as China paying them billions of dollars to destroy
    atmospheric pollutants, such as

    CFC-23, which were manufactured purely in
    order to be destroyed.



    63) It is claimed that the average global

    temperature was relatively
    unchanging in pre-industrial times but sky-rocketed since 1900, and will
    increase by

    several degrees more over the next 100 years according to Penn
    State University researcher Michael Mann. There is

    no convincing empirical
    evidence that past climate was unchanging, nor that 20th century changes in
    average global

    temperature were unusual or unnatural.



    64) Michael Mann of Penn State University has actually shown that

    the
    Mediæval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age did in fact exist, which
    contrasts with his earlier work which

    produced the "hockey stick graph"
    which showed a constant temperature over the past thousand years or so
    followed

    by a recent dramatic upturn.



    65) The globe's current approach to climate change in which

    major
    industrialised countries agree to nonsensical targets for their CO2
    emissions by a given date, as it has

    been under the Kyoto system, is very
    expensive.



    66) The "Climate-gate" scandal revealed that a scientific

    team had emailed
    one another about using a "trick" for the sake of concealing a
    "decline" in
    temperatures when

    looking at the history of the Earth's temperature.



    67) Global temperatures have not risen in any

    statistically-significant
    sense for 15 years and have actually been falling for nine years. The
    "Climate-gate"

    scandal revealed a scientific team had expressed dismay at
    the fact global warming was contrary to their

    predictions and admitted their
    inability to explain it was "a travesty".



    68) The IPCC predicts that a warmer

    planet will lead to more extreme
    weather, including drought, flooding, storms, snow, and wildfires. But over
    the

    last century, during which the IPCC claims the world experienced more
    rapid warming than any time in the past two

    millennia, the world did not
    experience significantly greater trends in any of these extreme

    weather
    events.



    69) In explaining the average temperature standstill we are currently
    experiencing, the Met

    Office Hadley Centre ran a series of computer climate
    predictions and found in many of the computer runs there were

    decade-long
    standstills but none for 15 years - so it expects global warming to resume
    swiftly.



    70) Richard

    Lindzen, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at MIT, wrote: "The
    notion of a static, unchanging climate is foreign to

    the history of the
    Earth or any other planet with a fluid envelope. Such hysteria over global
    warming simply

    represents the scientific illiteracy of much of the public,
    the susceptibility of the public to the substitution of

    repetition for
    truth."



    71) Despite the 1997 Kyoto Protocol's status as the flagship of the fight
    against

    climate change it has been a failure.



    72) The first phase of the EU's Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), which

    ran
    from 2005 to 2007 was a failure. Huge over-allocation of permits to pollute
    led to a collapse in the price of

    carbon from ?33 to just ?0.20 per tonne
    meaning the system did not reduce emissions at all.



    73) The EU

    trading scheme, to manage carbon emissions has completely failed
    and actually allows European businesses to duck

    out of making their
    emissions reductions at home by offsetting, which means paying for cuts to
    be made overseas

    instead.



    74) To date "cap and trade" carbon markets have done almost nothing to
    reduce emissions.



    75)

    In the US , the cap-and-trade is an approach designed to control carbon
    emissions and will impose huge costs upon

    American citizens via a carbon tax
    on all goods and services produced in the US. The average family of four

    can
    expect to pay an additional $1700, or £1,043, more each year. It is
    predicted that the US will lose more than

    2 million jobs as the result of
    cap-and-trade schemes.



    76) Dr Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at

    the University of
    Alabama in Huntsville, has indicated that out of the 21 climate models
    tracked by the IPCC the

    differences in warming exhibited by those models is
    mostly the result of different strengths of positive cloud

    feedback - and
    that increasing CO2 is insufficient to explain global-average warming in the
    last 50 to 100

    years.



    77) Why should politicians devote our scarce resources in a globally
    competitive world to a false and

    ill-defined problem, while ignoring the
    real problems the entire planet faces, such as: poverty, hunger, disease

    or
    terrorism.



    78) A proper analysis of ice core records from the past 650,000 years
    demonstrates that

    temperature increases have come before, and not resulted
    from, increases in CO2 by hundreds of years.



    79)

    Since the cause of global warming is mostly natural, then there is in
    actual fact very little we can do about it.

    (We are still not able to
    control the sun).



    80) A substantial number of the panel of 2,500 climate

    scientists on the UN's
    IPCC, which created a statement on scientific unanimity on climate change
    and man-made

    global warming, were found to have serious concerns.



    81) The UK's Met Office has been forced this year to

    re-examine 160 years of
    temperature data after admitting that public confidence in the science on
    man-made global

    warming has been shattered by revelations about the data.



    82) Politicians and activists push for renewable

    energy sources such as
    wind turbines under the rhetoric of climate change, but it is essentially
    about money -

    under the system of Renewable Obligations. Much of the money
    is paid for by consumers in electricity bills. It

    amounts to £1 billion a
    year.



    83) The "Climate-gate" scandal revealed that a scientific team had

    tampered
    with their own data so as to conceal inconsistencies and errors.



    84) The "Climate-gate" scandal

    revealed that a scientific team had
    campaigned for the removal of a learned journal's editor, solely because

    he
    did not share their willingness to debase science for political purposes.



    85) Ice-core data clearly show

    that temperatures change centuries before
    concentrations of atmospheric CO2 change. Thus, there appears to be

    little
    evidence for insisting that changes in concentrations of CO2 are the cause
    of past temperature and climate

    change.



    86) There are no experimentally verified processes explaining how CO2
    concentrations can fall in a

    few centuries without falling temperatures - in
    fact it is changing temperatures which cause changes in CO2

    concentrations,
    which is consistent with experiments that show CO2 is the atmospheric gas
    most readily absorbed by

    water.



    87) The Government's Renewable Energy Strategy contains a massive increase
    in electricity generation

    by wind power costing around £4 billion a year
    over the next twenty years. The benefits will be only £4 to £5

    billion
    overall (not per annum). So costs will outnumber benefits by a range of
    between eleven and seventeen

    times.



    88) Whilst CO2 levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and
    otherwise, just as they have

    throughout history, the CO2 content of the
    atmosphere has increased since the beginning of the industrial

    revolution,
    and the growth rate has now been constant for the past 25 years.



    89) It is a myth that CO2 is a

    pollutant, because nitrogen forms 80% of our
    atmosphere and human beings could not live in 100% nitrogen either:

    CO2 is
    no more a pollutant than nitrogen is and CO2 is essential to life.



    90) Politicians and climate

    activists make claims to rising sea levels but
    certain members in the IPCC chose an area to measure in Hong Kong

    that is
    subsiding. They used the record reading of 2.3 mm per year rise of sea
    level.



    91) The accepted

    global average temperature statistics used by the IPCC show
    that no ground-based warming has occurred since

    1998.



    92) If one factors in non-greenhouse influences such as El Nino events and
    large volcanic eruptions,

    lower atmosphere satellite-based temperature
    measurements show little, if any, global warming since 1979, a period

    over
    which atmospheric CO2 has increased by 55 ppm (17 %).



    93) US President Barack Obama pledged to cut

    emissions by 2050 to equal
    those of 1910 when there were 92 million Americans. In 2050, there will be
    420 million

    Americans, so Obama's promise means that emissions per head will
    be approximately what they were in 1875. It

    simply will not happen.



    94) The European Union has already agreed to cut emissions by 20 percent to
    2020,

    compared with 1990 levels, and is willing to increase the target to 30
    percent. However, these are unachievable and

    the EU has already massively
    failed with its Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), as EU emissions actually
    rose by 0.8%

    from 2005 to 2006 and are known to be well above the Kyoto
    goal.



    95) Australia has stated it wants to slash

    greenhouse emissions by up to 25%
    below 2000 levels by 2020, but the pledges were so unpopular that the
    country's

    Senate has voted against the carbon trading Bill, and the
    Opposition's Party leader has now been ousted by a

    climate change sceptic.



    96) Canada plans to reduce emissions by 20% compared with 2006 levels by
    2020,

    representing approximately a 3% cut from 1990 levels but it
    simultaneously defends its Alberta tar sands emissions

    and its record as one
    of the world's highest per-capita emissions setters.



    97) India plans to reduce the

    ratio of emissions to production by 20-25%
    compared with 2005 levels by 2020, but all Government officials insist

    that
    since India has to grow for its development and poverty alleviation, it has
    to emit, because the economy is

    driven by carbon.



    98) The Leipzig Declaration in 1996, was signed by 110 scientists who said:
    "We - along

    with many of our fellow citizens - are apprehensive about the
    climate treaty conference scheduled for Kyoto, Japan,

    in December 1997" and
    "based on all the evidence available to us, we cannot subscribe to the
    politically inspired

    world view that envisages climate catastrophes and
    calls for hasty actions."



    99) A US Oregon Petition

    Project stated "We urge the US government to reject
    the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan

    in December,
    1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse
    gases would harm the

    environment, hinder the advance of science and
    technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. There is

    no
    convincing scientific evidence that human release of CO2, methane, or other
    greenhouse gasses is causing or

    will, in the foreseeable future, cause
    catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the

    Earth's
    climate."



    100) A report by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change
    concluded "We

    find no support for the IPCC's claim that climate observations
    during the 20th century are either unprecedented or

    provide evidence of an
    anthropogenic effect on

    climate."



    http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/146138





    Warmest Regards



    B0n

    oz



    "It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps
    US$50 billion since 1990, and

    the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists
    worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is

    distinct
    from natural variation."

    Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
    To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

    Thomas Jefferson

Page 10 of 11 FirstFirst ... 10 ... LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Global Warming?
    By belgareth in forum Open Discussion
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 03-31-2005, 12:51 PM
  2. GLobal Warming...interesting!
    By belgareth in forum Open Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-13-2005, 03:44 PM
  3. Global warming news
    By DrSmellThis in forum Open Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 12-04-2004, 07:58 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •