Joined: 26 Mar 2006 Posts: 707 Location: Toronto,Canada (biggest Canadian city)
Man Made Global Warming Hoax (Climate Chronology)
Quote:
A chronology of climate change
During most of the last billion years the Earth did not have permanent ice sheets. Nevertheless, at times large areas of the globe were covered with vast sheets of ice. Such times are known as glaciations. In the past 2 million to 3 million years, the temperature of the Earth has changed (warmed or cooled) at least 17 times, some say 33, with glaciations that last about 100,000 years interrupted by warm periods that last about 10,000 years.
The last glaciation began 70,000 years ago and ended about 10,000 years ago. The Earth was a lot colder than it is now; snow and ice had accumulated on a lot of the land, glaciers existed on large areas and the sea levels were lower.
15,000 years ago: The last glaciation reaches a peak, with continental glaciers that cover a lot of the sub-polar and polar areas of the land areas of Earth. In North America, all of New England and all of the Great Lakes area, most of Ohio, Indiana, Minnesota and the North Dakotas, lie under ice sheets hundreds of meters thick. More than 37 million cubic kilometers of ice was tied up in these global sheets of ice. The average temperature on the surface of the Earth is estimated to have been cooler by approximately 6 degrees Celsius than currently. The sea level was more than 90 meters lower than currently.
15,000 years ago to 6,000 years ago: Global warming begins. The sheets of ice melt, and sea levels rise. Some heat source causes approximately 37 million cubic kilometers of ice to melt in approximately 9,000 years. Around 9,500 years ago, the last of the Northern European sheets of ice leave Scandinavia. Around 7,500 years ago, the last of the American sheets of ice leave Canada. This warming is neither stable nor the same everywhere. There are periods when mountain glaciers advance, and periods when they withdraw. These climatic changes vary extensively from place to place, with some areas affected while others are not. The tendency of warming is global and obvious, but very uneven. The causes of this period of warming are unknown.
8,000 years ago to 4,000 years ago: About 6,000 years ago, temperatures on the surface of Earth are about 3 degrees warmer than currently. The Arctic Ocean is ice-free, and mountain glaciers have disappeared from the mountains of Norway and the Alps in Europe, and from the Rocky Mountains of the United States and Canada. The ocean of the world is some three meters higher than currently. A lot of the present desert of the Sahara has a more humid, savannah-like climate, with giraffes and savannah fauna species.
4,000 years ago to AD 900: Global cooling begins. The Arctic Ocean freezes over, mountain glaciers form once more in the Rocky Mountains, in Norway and in the Alps. The Black Sea freezes over several times, and ice forms on the Nile in Egypt. Northern Europe gets a lot wetter, and the marshes develop again in previously dry areas. The sea level drops to approximately its present level. The temperatures on the surface of the Earth are about 0.5-1 degree cooler than at present. The causes of this period of cooling are unknown.
AD 1000 to 1500: This period has quick, but uneven, warming of the climate of the Northern Hemisphere. The North Atlantic becomes ice-free and Norse exploration as far as North America takes place. The Norse colonies in Greenland even export crop surpluses to Scandinavia. Wine grapes grow in southern Britain. The temperatures are from 3-8 degrees warmer than currently. The period lasts only a brief 500 years. By the year 1500, it has vanished. The Earth experiences as much warming between the 11th and the 13th century as is now predicted by global-warming scientists for the next century. The causes of this period of warming are unknown.
1430 to 1880: This is a period of the fast but uneven cooling of Northern Hemisphere climates. Norwegian glaciers advance to their most distant extension in post-glacial times. The northern forests disappear, to be replaced with tundra. Severe winters characterize a lot of Europe and North America. The channels and rivers get colder, the snows get heavy, and the summers cool and short. The temperatures on the surface of the world are about 0.5-1.5 degrees cooler than present. In the United States, 1816 is known as the "year with no summer". Snow falls in New England in June. The widespread failure of crops and deaths due to hypothermia are common. The causes of this period of cooling are unknown.
1880 to 1940: A period of warming. The mountain glaciers recede and the ice in the Arctic Ocean begins to melt again. The causes of this period of warming are unknown.
1940 to 1977: Cooling period. The temperatures are cooler than currently. Mountain glaciers recede, and some begin to advance. The tabloids inform us of widespread catastrophes due to the "New Glaciation". The causes of this period of cooling are unknown.
1977 to present: Warming period. The summer of 2003 is said to be the warmest one since the Middle Ages. The tabloids notify us of widespread catastrophes due to "global warming". The causes of warming are discovered - humanity and its carbon-dioxide-generating fossil-fuel use and deforestation.
Anyone else find something fishy about the final sentence?
Joined: 22 Feb 2006 Posts: 8246 Location: Fingerlakes - NY usa
Blogger Finds Y2K Bug in NASA Climate Data
Blogger Finds Y2K Bug in NASA Climate Data
Quote:
These graphs were created by NASA's Reto Ruedy and James Hansen (who shot to fame when he accused the administration of trying to censor his views on climate change). Hansen refused to provide McKintyre with the algorithm used to generate graph data, so McKintyre reverse-engineered it. The result appeared to be a Y2K bug in the handling of the raw data.
Quote:
NASA has now silently released corrected figures, and the changes are truly astounding. The warmest year on record is now 1934. 1998 (long trumpeted by the media as record-breaking) moves to second place. 1921 takes third.
Open Letter To Climate and/or Atmosphere Scientists
Marcus Karr
Dear Climate and/or Atmosphere Scientist,
The heated debate on global warming seems to be cooling down, as, after a review of the relevant factors - including 'increasing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases'; 'global changes to land surface, such as deforestation' and urban heat islands; 'increasing atmospheric concentrations of aerosols' (1); and even some ideas that seem to be out in space, such as cosmic rays and variations in sun activity (2) - a consensus seems to have been reached that increased carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide emissions are the primary determining factor (3). It is the opinion of this author that such a consensus is premature, owing to the fact that not all the evidence has been submitted.
Certain advanced nations have been purposefully tampering with the atmosphere for some time now. Half a century ago their method of choice was the use of atomic weapons (4), but since then their arsenal has grown in sophistication to include the 'injection of chemical vapors and heating or charging via electromagnetic radiation or particle beams'. In a 1996 US Air Force review of the subject, it was emphasized that 'many techniques to modify the upper atmosphere have been successfully demonstrated experimentally' (5).
The abstract from the proceedings of a 1990 conference held on 'Ionospheric Modification and Its Potential to Enhance or Degrade the Performance of Military Systems' noted lamentably that 'interest in the [upper atmosphere] has been focused on identifying and quantifying the limitations it imposes on [military] systems, rather than on ways it might be altered, or controlled' (ed.: all italics in this paper are mine). Nevertheless, the authors go on to say that 'A variety of [atmospheric] modification techniques are being investigated, both ground- and space-based, to increase or decrease existing ionization or to create independent artificial plasmas. These techniques include high power radio waves, lasers, particle beams, and chemical releases' (6).
The Air Force review mentioned above referred to such 'independent artificial plasmas' as the 'creation of an artificial ionosphere'. One of the papers submitted to the 1990 conference - focusing on 'Theoretical and experimental research on the creation, maintenance, and control of artificial layers of ionization in the 50 to 90 km altitude range' - discusses the use of 'artificial ionospheric mirrors' (AIM) in terms of 'a specific technical approach, the use of ground-based, very high power, RF waves to breakdown the atmosphere' (7).
We find one stated purpose for creating an artificial ionosphere in the patent for artificial ionospheric mirrors (8), which reads:
In the past, the technique of using the ionosphere as a mirror to reflect radio waves, or RF energy, has given Ham Radio operators the ability to send transmissions over long distances. This technique has also provided radar systems the ability to look 'over the horizon'. Variations and fluctuations in the ionosphere, however, can render the effectiveness of such communications uncertain. Thus, the desirability of creating controllable plasma layers in the atmosphere...has been recognized.
The patent outlines quite clearly the means by which artificial ionospheres are created:
3. An apparatus for generating an AIM comprising:
(a) a phased array heater antenna which is focused at an altitude to cause an avalanche ionization area to be created in the atmosphere
There are not many 'phased array heater antennas' in the world, and those few have attracted some controversy - perhaps you know which I am talking about - so I am not going mention them here by name.
If you remember from the Air Force review I quoted above, atmospheric modification has been achieved by means of 'injection of chemical vapors and heating or charging via electromagnetic radiation or particle beams'. I have said a word about 'heating or charging via electromagnetic radiation', and now I would like to briefly mention the purposeful 'injection of chemical vapors'.
A 1990 Stanford University paper entitled 'Overview of Ionospheric Modification from Space Platforms' discusses 'non-electromagnetic methods of modifying...the terrestrial ionosphere' (9). The abstract goes on:
Of these [methods], the most well-understood is the direct injection of chemical vapors into the ambient medium. ... Modification to the ionosphere can last for up to hours from [barium] injections. Other vapors have also been released, including water vapor, SF 6 and more noxious gases, in successful efforts to alter the chemistry of the ionosphere.
In addition to the Stanford paper, a 1979 University of Alaska study entitled 'Chemical releases in the ionosphere' reported that 'Development of the thermite barium release technique enabled observation of both neutral and ion motions, the latter leading rather directly to determination of ionospheric electric fields' (10).
At this point the skeptic inside you might object that these releases were made into the upper reaches of the atmosphere, in near space, where, it seems, there is not much effect on the climate-determining processes of the lower atmosphere. However, given the existence of an artificial ionosphere in the 50 km to 90 km altitude range, it appears likely that barium and other chemical releases should be made rather closer to home, for the purposes of 'altering the chemistry' and 'determining the electric fields' of said artificial ionosphere.
Finally I would like to pose some obvious questions, which I am not qualified to answer but on which perhaps you may be able to shed some light.
1. What is the effect of an artificial ionosphere on climate and the weather?
2. What is the effect of deliberate chemical releases of barium 'and more noxious gases' into the atmosphere, on climate and the weather?
3. What is the effect of 'electromagnetic radiation and particle beams', on climate and the weather?
4. Are said effects likely to be negligible - that is, unworthy of study - in the study of climate and the weather?
5. If said effects are in fact not negligible, then why have these factors not been scrutinized or addressed?
I can't believe Gore won the Nobel prize. It's been said that his documentary "Inconvenient Truth" is not really truth at all, and I heard rumor that Gore has to SHARE the Nobel prize with UN panel, and the panel themselves have said his video contains at least 9 errors. If his video is so incorrect, then why did he win the prize?
Honestly, I think the entire thing is a total farce. Yes humans have damaged the environment, I'm not denying that. Look at all the nuclear crap, the weather manipulation, every process associated with petroleum, and on one website - "human emissions" of methane. Yep, apparently we all fart too much.
Why I think this is a farce - look at all the "Green" stuff you see today. It's a HUGE industry. Just another way to make money, and it makes consumers believe they are helping the environment by yet buying more crap they don't need. It's a huge PR campaign, styled by the same sort of "genius" from the ideas of Edward Bernays.
I'm not totally against some ideas, however. But the majority of the junk for sale out there just seems to solidify my theory. Every day I see more and more stuff for sale with the push for "green."
I also think NASA is being two-faced. They have information available to the public, but the public doesn't take the time to read it all and instead buys into what the mass media says. All the planets in our solar system, and the sun, are experiencing changes. I got the following from David Wilcock's website, with a reference to
BALI, Indonesia - An international team of scientists skeptical of man-made climate fears promoted by the UN and former Vice President Al Gore, descended on Bali this week to urge the world to "have the courage to do nothing" in response to UN demands.
Lord Christopher Monckton, a UK climate researcher, had a blunt message for UN climate conference participants on Monday.
"Climate change is a non-problem. The right answer to a non-problem is to have the courage to do nothing," Monckton told participants.
"The UN conference is a complete waste of our time and your money and we should no longer pay the slightest attention to the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,)" Monckton added. (LINK)
Monckton also noted that the UN has not been overly welcoming to the group of skeptical scientists.
"UN organizers refused my credentials and appeared desperate that I should not come to this conference. They have also made several attempts to interfere with our public meetings," Monckton explained.
"It is a circus here," agreed Australian scientist Dr. David Evans. Evans is making scientific presentations to delegates and journalists at the conference revealing the latest peer-reviewed studies that refute the UN's climate claims.
"This is the most lavish conference I have ever been to, but I am only a scientist and I actually only go to the science conferences," Evans said, noting the luxury of the tropical resort. (Note: An analysis by Bloomberg News on December 6 found: "Government officials and activists flying to Bali, Indonesia, for the United Nations meeting on climate change will cause as much pollution as 20,000 cars in a year." - LINK)
Evans, a mathematician who did carbon accounting for the Australian government, recently converted to a skeptical scientist about man-made global warming after reviewing the new scientific studies. (LINK)
"We now have quite a lot of evidence that carbon emissions definitely don't cause global warming. We have the missing [human] signature [in the atmosphere], we have the IPCC models being wrong and we have the lack of a temperature going up the last 5 years," Evans said in an interview with the Inhofe EPW Press Blog. Evans authored a November 28 2007 paper "Carbon Emissions Don't Cause Global Warming." (LINK)
Evans touted a new peer-reviewed study by a team of scientists appearing in the December 2007 issue of the International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society which found "Warming is naturally caused and shows no human influence." (LINK)
"Most of the people here [at the UN conference] have jobs that are very well paid and they depend on the idea that carbon emissions cause global warming. They are not going to be very receptive to the idea that well actually the science has gone off in a different direction," Evans explained.
[Inhofe EPW Press Blog Note: Several other recent peer-reviewed studies have cast considerable doubt about man-made global warming fears. For most recent sampling see: New Peer-Reviewed Study finds 'Solar changes significantly alter climate' (11-3-07) (LINK) & "New Peer-Reviewed Study Halves the Global Average Surface Temperature Trend 1980 - 2002" (LINK) & New Study finds Medieval Warm Period '0.3C Warmer than 20th Century' (LINK) For a more comprehensive sampling of peer-reviewed studies earlier in 2007 see "New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears" (LINK ) - For a detailed analysis of how "consensus" has been promoted, see: Debunking The So-Called "Consensus" On Global Warming - LINK ]
‘IPCC is unsound'
UN IPCC reviewer and climate researcher Dr. Vincent Gray of New Zealand, an expert reviewer on every single draft of the IPCC reports since its inception going back to 1990, had a clear message to UN participants.
"There is no evidence that carbon dioxide increases are having any effect whatsoever on the climate," Gray, who shares in the Nobel Prize awarded to the UN IPCC, explained. (LINK)
"All the science of the IPCC is unsound. I have come to this conclusion after a very long time. If you examine every single proposition of the IPCC thoroughly, you find that the science somewhere fails," Gray, who wrote the book "The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of "Climate Change 2001," said.
"It fails not only from the data, but it fails in the statistics, and the mathematics," he added.
‘Dangerous time for science'
Evans, who believes the UN has heavily politicized science, warned there is going to be a "dangerous time for science" ahead.
"We have a split here. Official science driven by politics, money and power, goes in one direction. Unofficial science, which is more determined by what is actually happening with the [climate] data, has now started to move off in a different direction" away from fears of a man-made climate crisis, Evans explained.
"The two are splitting. This is always a dangerous time for science and a dangerous time for politics. Historically science always wins these battles but there can be a lot of casualties and a lot of time in between," he concluded.
Carbon trading ‘fraud?'
New Zealander Bryan Leland of the International Climate Science Coalition warned participants that all the UN promoted discussions of "carbon trading" should be viewed with suspicion.
"I am an energy engineer and I know something about electricity trading and I know enough about carbon trading and the inaccuracies of carbon trading to know that carbon trading is more about fraud than it is about anything else," Leland said.
"We should probably ask why we have 10,000 people here [in Bali] in a futile attempt to ‘solve' a [climate] problem that probably does not exist," Leland added.
‘Simply not work'
Owen McShane, the head of the International Climate Science Coalition, also worried that a UN promoted global approach to economics would mean financial ruin for many nations.
"I don't think this conference can actually achieve anything because it seems to be saying that we are going to draw up one protocol for every country in the world to follow," McShane said. (LINK)
"Now these countries and these economies are so diverse that trying to presume you can put all of these feet into one shoe will simply not work," McShane explained.
"Having the same set of rules apply to everybody will blow some economies apart totally while others will be unscathed and I wouldn't be surprised if the ones who remain unscathed are the ones who write the rules," he added.
‘Nothing happening at this conference'
Professor Dr. William Alexander, emeritus of the University of Pretoria in South Africa and a former member of the United Nations Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, warned poor nations and their residents that the UN policies could mean more poverty and thus more death.
"My message is specifically for the poor people of Africa. And there is nothing happening at this conference that can help them one little bit but there is the potential that they could be damaged," Alexander said. (LINK)
"The government and people of Africa will have their attention drawn to reducing climate change instead of reducing poverty," Alexander added.
Contact: Marc Morano (Marc_Morano@epw.senate.gov ), Matt Dempsey (Matthew_Dempsey@epw.senate.gov )
Washington D.C. - Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), the outgoing Chairman of Environment & Public Works Committee, is pleased to announce the public release of the Senate Committee published booklet entitled “A Skeptic’s Guide to Debunking Global Warming Alarmism. Hot & Cold Media Spin Cycle: A Challenge To Journalists who Cover Global Warming.”
The color glossy 64 page booklet -- previously was only available in hardcopy to the media and policy makers -- includes speeches, graphs, press releases and scientific articles refuting catastrophe climate fears presented by the media, the United Nations, Hollywood and former Vice President turned-foreign-lobbyist Al Gore.
The “Skeptic’s Guide” includes a copy of Senator Inhofe’s 50 minute Senate floor speech delivered on September 25, 2006 challenging the media to improve its reporting.
The ‘Skeptic’s Guide’, which has received recognition by the LA Times and Congressional Quarterly, is now available free for international distribution on the Senate Environmental & Public Works Web site.
The book, which features web links to all supporting documentation, also serves as a handbook to identify the major players in media bias when it comes to poor climate science reporting. The guide presents a reporter’s virtual who’s-who’s of embarrassing and one-sided media coverage, with a focus on such reporters as CBS News “60 Minutes” Scott Pelley, ABC News reporter Bill Blakemore, CNN’s Miles O’Brien, and former NBC Newsman Tom Brokaw.
Senator Inhofe’s “Skeptic’s Guide” also includes hard hitting critiques of the New York Times, Time Magazine, Newsweek, Associated Press, Reuters, the LA Times, the Chicago Tribune, and the Washington Post.
Senator Inhofe has challenged the media in a series of speeches and hearings to stop the unfounded hype.
“The American people are fed up with the media for promoting the idea that former Vice President Al Gore represents the scientific “consensus” that SUV’s and the modern American way of life have somehow created a 'climate emergency' that only United Nations bureaucrats and wealthy Hollywood liberals can solve,” Senator Inhofe said in October.
Skepticism that human C02 emissions are creating a “climate catastrophe” has grown in recent times. In September, renowned French geophysicists and Socialist Party member Claude Allegre, converted from a believer in manmade catastrophic global warming to a climate skeptic. This latest defector from the global warming camp caps a year in which numerous scientific studies have bolstered the claims of climate skeptics.
Scientific studies that debunk the dire predictions of human-caused global warming have continued to accumulate and many believe the new science is shattering the media-promoted scientific “consensus” on climate alarmism. See: http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=264777
Last edited by edisme on Tue Jan 22, 2008 2:59 pm; edited 1 time in total
Tue Jan 22, 2008 2:36 pm
Sponsor
madthumbs
Joined: 22 Feb 2006 Posts: 8246 Location: Fingerlakes - NY usa
I actually think Global warming has been planned and is happening to help depopulate the planet, the elite will still have all the comforts they have always had, its the poor who will boil away into the ground.
There is so much debate on CO2 or solar flares, its really does not matter if its been wanted and planned for, CO2 was theorised to cause Green house gas run away almost 100 years ago by Svante Arrhenius.
Quote:
The link between CO2 and the Earth's temperature had been made years beforehand. It was the French scientist Joseph Fourier who first realised that certain atmospheric gases shrouded the planet like a bell jar, transparent to sunlight, but absorbing to infrared rays. It means the atmosphere is heated from above and below: first, by sunlight as it shines through and second by the infrared the Earth emits as it cools overnight.
Arrhenius set himself the task of working out just how much water and CO2 in the atmosphere warmed the planet. From others' work, he knew that CO2 was only part of the process. While CO2 and other gases trapped infra red radiation and so heated the atmosphere, warmer air holds more water vapour, itself the most potent contributor to the greenhouse effect. So, if atmospheric CO2 levels increased, water vapour would ensure the warming effect was seriously magnified.
There are so many factors that are making the earth hotter quicker than it has been in a long time, they earth my kick back and slow an ocean current down to cool the planet? I don't know either way.
I did read that on 9/11 there was a Global rise in temperature because of all the grounded plains, is it just there normal pollution that creates the Global Dimming Phenomena and slows down Global warming? or is it chemtrails? the oil companies would know as they make the Jet Fuels, maybe they have been told to make contrails that become clouds to shield the earth, cloud seeding is well known.
I have watched these chem contrails turn into and forum clouds, but then again I live in Rainy cloudy Scotland
TWC founder and global warming skeptic advocates suing Al Gore to expose 'the fraud of global warming.'
By Jeff Poor
Business & Media Institute
3/5/2008 9:00:18 AM
The Weather Channel has lost its way, according to John Coleman, who founded the channel in 1982.
Coleman told an audience at the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change on March 3 in New York that he is highly critical of global warming alarmism.
“The Weather Channel had great promise, and that’s all gone now because they’ve made every mistake in the book on what they’ve done and how they’ve done it and it’s very sad,” Coleman said. “It’s now for sale and there’s a new owner of The Weather Channel will be announced – several billion dollars having changed hands in the near future. Let’s hope the new owners can recapture the vision and stop reporting the traffic, telling us what to think and start giving us useful weather information.”
The Weather Channel has been an outlet for global warming alarmism. In December 2006, The Weather Channel’s Heidi Cullen argued on her blog that weathercasters who had doubts about human influence on global warming should be punished with decertification by the American Meteorological Society.
Coleman also told the audience his strategy for exposing what he called “the fraud of global warming.” He advocated suing those who sell carbon credits, which would force global warming alarmists to give a more honest account of the policies they propose.
“[I] have a feeling this is the opening,” Coleman said. “If the lawyers will take the case – sue the people who sell carbon credits. That includes Al Gore. That lawsuit would get so much publicity, so much media attention. And as the experts went to the witness stand and testified, I feel like that could become the vehicle to finally put some light on the fraud of global warming.”
Earlier at the conference Lord Christopher Monckton, a policy adviser to former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, told an audience that the science will eventually prevail and the “scare” of global warming will go away. He also said the courts were a good avenue to show the science.
Stuart James and Paul Detrick also contributed to this report.
