David icke and glabal warming

[brave_new_world]

David Icke Newsletter, July 15th 2007

ROCK STARS LAUNCH THE 'LIVE CONCERT' CONCERT ...

... TO RAISE 'CONCERT AWARENESS' ...

Hello all ...

Do you remember the days when 'rock stars' were supposed to be rebellious? When they gave the symbolic finger to all that the establishment stood for?

It seems to me, with the odd exception, that this all died outside the Dakota apartment block in New York on December 8th 1980 when a mind-controlled Mark Chapman shot John Lennon. It was Lennon who said:

Our society is run by insane people for insane objectives. I think we're being run by maniacs for maniacal ends and I think I'm liable to be put away as insane for expressing that. That's what's insane about it.

I can't think of many mainstream rock stars who would say that publicly today - or this:

I believe in everything until it's disproved. So I believe in fairies, the myths, dragons. It all exists, even if it's in your mind. Who's to say that dreams and nightmares aren't as real as the here and now?

Lennon was a unique man who had understood much about reality and the illusory 'freedom' of the 'free world'. As he said in his song, Working Class Hero:

Keep you doped with religion and sex and TV

And you think you're so clever and classless and free

But you're still ****ing peasants as far as I can see

Where is Lennon's like today in the music 'industry'? The new 'rock rebels' can be found playing at an ever-gathering stream of concerts with 'Live' in their name. I am convinced these concerts must be part of a breeding programme, so often do they now appear. They and their stooges-on-stage are dedicated to 'saving Africa' or 'saving the planet' while serving the very forces of deceit and control that Lennon so memorably identified. The spider has them glued to its web.

Rockers like 'Prince of Darkness' Ozzy Osborne and his wife have joined the club big-time and we have rock 'Sirs' like Paul McCartney and 60's 'rebel' Mick Jagger:

'Will you walk into my parlour?' said the Spider to the Fly,

'Tis the prettiest little parlour that ever you did spy.'

A profound expression of the establishment suction machine is the case of the honorary 'Sir' Bob Geldof, another royal honour-bearer, and Bono of the band, U2. For me, Bono has always been more lightweight in his presentation of global injustice, but at the time of Live Aid in 1985 Geldof was magnificently outspoken about the system's built-in bias that blights the lands and lives of billions.

What has happened to him since the surly became a 'Sir'? The construct appears to have vibrated him into line. We now have the sight of Geldof praising Boy Bush for what he has 'done' for Africa, and the same with Tony Blair and his successor as Prime Minister, Gordon Brown. Bono called them 'the John and Paul of the global development stage' in his bid to be Sycophant of the Year.

A greater insult to Lennon, though not McCartney, is hard to conceive.

Blair and Brown are architects of the very rape of Africa and its like that Geldof once so brilliantly articulated. They both supported and instigated finance and action that has led to the death or maiming of more than a million civilians in the former Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq.

They supported and campaigned for sanctions against Iraq in the 1990s which, even according to United Nations figures, cost the lives of more than half a million children. As with all 'Western' governments, their trade and finance policies have devastated countries in Africa.

Even so, Geldof told the Labour Party Conference that Blair and Brown had helped to change the political landscape by putting Africa at the top of the agenda at the 2005 G-8 summit in Gleneagles, Scotland, when, in reality, Gleneagles was all a show, a sleight of hand to which Geldof, Bono and their 'Live-8' rock concert gave essential cover.

It wasn't that they meant to, but they became so close to the manipulators they fell for the manipulation. Now Geldof and Bono rightly complain that the promises for Africa made at Gleneagles have not been delivered. Of course not, chaps. They were never meant to be.

But the Live-8 concert in London before the summit gave the impression of people power at work and the political leaders gave the impression that they succumbed to that pressure when it was just a magic trick with the rock stars of Live-8 used to pedal the deception.

Rock stars don't change anything anymore because the system has them by their guitar strings, not least because they walk or strut on the stage in ignorance of the cause they are supposed to be supporting. Anyway, a worldwide audience on live television? Crikey, can't miss out on all that PR and name-awareness. Think of the record sales. They're not all like that, but for sure many of them are.

This week came a new low in the concert circus with 'Live Earth', the global manipulation of reality to sell the lie that rising temperature is caused by human activity, thus giving the manipulators the excuse for more taxation, global laws and centralised control to 'save the world'.

The Illuminati front man for this grotesque misrepresentation of 'climate change' is the practising Satanist, the so-appropriately named, Al Gore, who was given free-range on worldwide television to deliver the deceit that human-created carbon dioxide threatens our very existence. Gore used 221,000 kilowatt hours of electricity in 2006, 20 times the American national average, but, hey, don't criticise the High Priest of the Carbon Cult or we'll dub you a 'global warming denier', you horrible person.

The official companion publication to Live Earth is the Live Earth Global Warming Survival Handbook written by David Mayer de Rothschild, son of the notorious Sir Evelyn de Rothschild, and tool of the Rothschild dynasty, one of the most central and influential of the Illuminati satanic bloodlines.

The fact that these concerts at locations across the world took place on July 7th - 7/7 - the same day as the London bombings in 2005 (the week of Live-8) is no coincidence, either. The same force ultimately behind those terrorist attacks that killed more than 50 people is ultimately behind the global warming con.

First of all the hypocrisy on display if, as the rock stars believe, carbon dioxide is the culprit. The following are figures estimated by the London Daily Mail:

* Live Earth's 'carbon footprint' was 34,722 tons (82,122 tons if you include the television audience).

* The shows generated 1,130 tons of trash, some of which will go into landfills.

* Many of the stars, through their extensive touring on private jets, have 'carbon footprints' up to 200 times higher than that of the average Briton.

* Performers travelled an estimated 222,623 air miles to take part.

Matt Bellamy, front man of the rock band Muse, called it 'private jets for climate change', but irony of ironies, while the concert was criticised for its 'carbon footprint', the real point continued to be missed:

Of course pollution is not a good thing, but it is NOT the cause of global warming - the Shadow People just want us to think it is to trigger all the benefits for them in justifying more central control of the planet.

Temperatures have been rising because the Sun has been releasing more solar radiation and this can be seen in the corresponding increase in sunspot activity - enormous explosions of energy on the Sun's surface that can be as big as the Earth, some as big as Jupiter.

Sunspots

Increased solar radiation has two main effects on the Earth's temperature. Firstly the obvious one, a 'hotter' Sun means a hotter Earth. Secondly, increased solar radiation reduces the amount of so-called cosmic rays reaching the Earth and it is the interaction of cosmic rays and water vapour that form clouds. The fewer clouds, the more heat from the Sun gets through.

The graphs of sunspot activity, high and low, and cosmic rays, high and low, to the corresponding rise or fall in the temperature on Earth are blatant confirmation of the fundamental relationship between the two.

For example, sunspot activity rose from long before the Industrial Revolution until 1940 and then fell to 1975 before increasing again from then until now. The Earth's temperature went up until 1940, fell until 1975, and has been rising ever since.

In fact, during that period up to 1975 when the temperature was falling there were television documentaries about fears of a new Ice Age!

Other planets, like Mars, Jupiter and Saturn are experiencing rising temperatures because of the increased solar radiation and how can their climate change be explained by human-generated carbon dioxide??

When this point was put to global warming 'expert' and Live Earth supporter David Mayer de Rothschild, he said that those planets were getting warmer because they were closer than the Earth to the Sun. I know, I always recommend deep breaths and a cup of sweet tea.

For David Rothschild's benefit only

These are the mind-numbing depths to which the global warming 'debate' has descended. Ask the stars on the Live Earth stage about global warming and they would just parrot the official line having done no research whatsoever of their own. To have done so would have been to tell Gore and co where to stick it.

Instead they have added their voices to the insanity that is gathering pace by the hour about the threat of extinction by global warming. I received an email the other day detailing the campaign of a group calling itself Avaaz.org: The World In Action which claims to be active in 125 countries.

It says that Live Earth reached millions of people, but now they needed to '... get started with the rest of the world'. It wants to 'turn the moment into an unstoppable global movement - the climate crisis demands nothing less'. It urges people to pledge their support for their country joining 'an international treaty within the next two years that cuts global warming pollution by 90% in developed countries and by more than half worldwide in time for the next generation to inherit a healthy earth'.

That is straight from the Illuminati wish-list.

Some sanity is breaking out here and there, though. Scott Armstrong, an international expert on forecasting methods, publicly challenged Gore this week to put his money where his manipulation is. Armstrong faxed and posted his 'Global Warming Challenge' to Gore which invited him to bet $10,000 that his alarming temperature predictions are correct over the next ten years. Armstrong would put up $10,000 in support of his contention that Gore is monumentally wrong. He said:

Gore says there are scientific forecasts that the Earth will become warmer very rapidly. But I have not found a scientific forecast that supports that view. There are forecasts made by scientists, of course, but they are very different from a scientific forecast.

The only way Armstrong can lose his bet is if the technology exists, as with the HAARP project in the United States, to influence Earth temperature artificially. HAARP, or the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program, based in Alaska, targets the ionosphere, the uppermost part of the atmosphere. HAARP certainly has the potential to change the weather; the question is to what extent?

One of the greatest of ironies in the Live Earth scam is that having 'concerted' for Africa several times, the same rock stars and their successors are now campaigning for measures to 'save the planet' that will pull up the ladder on Africa and prevent those countries using the technologies of the 'West'. But then, contradictions are identified by research and contemplation and little of that seems to go on among the music 'intelligentsia' of the private-jet-set.

Anyway, you can't be against the global warming establishment in today's politically-correct music establishment. That would be real bad for your image as a rock star who cares. Any chance of a rock star who thinks and challenges the prevailing propaganda?

Oh, sorry, forgot. Someone shot him.

This is a David Icke article. Any thoughts???

Edited November 22, 2007 by brave_new_world

[DogsHead]

Yes.

Temperatures have been rising because the Sun has been releasing more solar radiation and this can be seen in the corresponding increase in sunspot activity - enormous explosions of energy on the Sun's surface that can be as big as the Earth, some as big as Jupiter.

He cites no evidence. Why?

Because it has been shown to be wrong.

Apply that statement to all of his other proclaimations.

Edited November 22, 2007 by DogsHead

[brave_new_world]

Yes.

He cites no evidence. Why?

Because it has been shown to be wrong.

Apply that statement to all of his other proclaimations.

The solar constant isn't constant. The sun is a variable star.

The vast majority of climate scientists in the world seriously and objectively studies what it is that influences global climate changes. We don't hear as much from them in the media as we do from the far smaller but also far more vocal minority of climate scientists who make a living by publicizing alarmist and often outrageous claims about man's detrimental influence on the global climate.

Armed with the very real evidence of the global cooling trend during the first half of the 20th century, climate alarmists claimed in the 1970s that another ice age was imminent. Today they (including even some former proponents of a coming ice age, e. g.: Stephen Schneider), ride a wave of alarm about man-made catastrophic global warming, a wave of alarm they created and keep fueling .

Objective scientists find that the evidence supporting a man-made global warming trend is at best skimpy. However, it cannot and should not be denied that climate changes take place and that they have done so since long before man even made an appearance on Earth.

Based on many different indicators from widely varying sources, it has been found that our sun, a variable star, is a major and controlling influence on the extent and rate of long- and short-term climate changes affecting Earth. In a January 17, 2003 article, Science@NASA describes the extent of the fluctuations in solar radiation over time, how they are being measured, the instruments that are being used to measure them, how those instruments are being calibrated and what has been found by using them.[1] The following graph is from that article.

http://fathersforlife.org/REA/warming4.htm

It has shown to be right as well. I guess it all comes down to what propaganda one believes. I happen to believe the scientists that say solar radiation does affect the planet.

Atmospheric circulation, the cause of weather, is driven by the sun’s energy. Climate is the integral of weather over periods of more than a year. This integral also depends on the flux of solar energy. The same applies to variations in the energy flux caused by the sun’s varying activity. Satellite data show that the “solar constant” S is variable. The solar irradiance decreased from the sunspot maximum 1979 to the minimum 1986, increased again on the way to the next maximum in the 11-year sunspot cycle, and decreased anew in the descending phase. This came as a surprise as it is plausible that the dark sunspots with their strong magnetic fields impede the free flux of energy from the sun’s interior to the outside. Yet P. V. Foukal and J. Lean [22] have shown that bright faculae in the vicinity of sunspots increase even more than sunspots when the activity grows stronger, so that an irradiance surplus is established.

http://www.john-daly.com/solar/solar.htm

Edited November 22, 2007 by brave_new_world

[MaiTino]

i totally agree with alot of what is said in this article. It really highlights well the hipocracy of those charity concerts and i agree with Icky's insightful point. I mean, its obvious when its put infront of you, that stuff about all the fuel wastage the pop stars use when they travel too them. The amount of energy Al gore uses is certainly an inconvenient truth i would say

On a personal level, i do believe that changes in the sun are the primary cause for global warming. I have been around many of the links which Brave has just posted that support this. However, i do feel that the damage we do to the environment will change and effect the dynamic of our climate. For me the issue is just a matter of giving the public the wrong information to manipulate and instill fear or to cover lies that have been told before. There are layers and layers of lies which the government departments tell for different reasons and ends. Although i feel that manipulation is at the root of it, i feel that there is much denial and little awareness of this by many including those who are batting for that team.

[greychupa]

to Brave new world: How do you know that YOURinformation isnt false?

To the starter of the topic: David Icke is a very controversional figure, even in the UFO community he isnt always believed. Yet, I find the idea that WE are the main reason for global warming not very credible. I think it is just another claim to make people scared, like the war on terrorism, to make us scared and blind for the real thread, wich is the alien races prying over our planet. And the fact that the world governments are growing closer to each other, start forming the "one world order".

[stevewinn]

David icke is a plant pot, he's one of these people who like to think they rebel from the system, and comes up with all conspiracy theories, and have you noticed the way he writes and sells books making £££$$$$ off the gullible, ive watched some of his videos on you-tube, he speaks sh**.

Edited November 22, 2007 by stevewinn

[brave_new_world]

to Brave new world: How do you know that YOURinformation isnt false?

I dont know. Just like with all news (which is mainly lies and often proven false) I just read and agree with whatever fits my reason and intuition.

To the starter of the topic: David Icke is a very controversional figure, even in the UFO community he isnt always believed. Yet, I find the idea that WE are the main reason for global warming not very credible.

I believe this. I believe it is due to the sun. So do many good scientists. Many good scientists dont believe it. To be honest I am sick of being told I ought to be worried when the government-media tells us it should be. During the seventies they were trying to alarm everyone about an ice age. I think it is all hype.

I think it is just another claim to make people scared, like the war on terrorism, to make us scared and blind for the real thread, wich is the alien races prying over our planet. And the fact that the world governments are growing closer to each other, start forming the "one world order".

Agreed.

David icke is a plant pot, he's one of these people who like to think they rebel from the system, and comes up with all conspiracy theories, and have you noticed the way he writes and sells books making £££$$$$ off the gullible, ive watched some of his videos on you-tube, he speaks sh**.

You are entitled to your opinion.

[brave_new_world]

Top Global Warming Advocate: Jupiter & Saturn Closer To Sun Than Earth

Live Earth kingpin dismantles his own credibility on national radio as propaganda bandwagon is massive flop

Prison Planet | July 9, 2007

Paul Joseph Watson

Live Earth's half empty stadiums and lackluster TV viewing figures were preceded by another embarrassment after one of the propaganda bandwagon's kingpins and a top global warming advocate responded to a question about solar-system wide climate change by claiming that Jupiter, Mars and Saturn were closer to the sun than Earth.

David Mayer de Rothschild is the youngest child (born 1978) of Sir Evelyn de Rothschild, of the British wing of the Rothschild banking family.

Rothschild's recent book, 77 Essential Skills to Stop Climate Changes, calls for ordinary people to limit outward behavior and even work at home and was used as part of the PR blitz to accompany the Live Earth project.

Appearing on The Alex Jones Show this past Friday, Rothschild reacted to a point about massive climate change at every point of the solar system and its relation to natural sun cycles by claiming Mars, Saturn and Jupiter were closer to the sun than Earth!

Here's a brief transcript of the exchange.

ALEX JONES: "The polar icecaps of Mars are receding at several miles a year, much faster than ours and that the moons of Saturn and Jupiter are melting, in fact several of their moons were ice and are now liquid seas - how are SUV's causing that David Rothschild?

ROTHSCHILD: "Because those planets are closer to the sun, my friend."

ALEX JONES: "No, Jupiter and Saturn are not closer to the sun and neither is Mars."

Rothschild then quickly changes the subject and when the point is raised again later in the show, he makes no effort to correct himself.

Click here for the clip. Listen to the full MP3 of the interview by clicking here .

Last time we checked, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn were all orbiting the sun at a greater distance than Earth.

http://www.infowars.com/articles/science/g..._than_earth.htm

This made me chuckle

[brave_new_world]

SUV's On Jupiter?

Are humans responsible for climate change on the outer reaches of the solar system, or is it the sun?

Paul Joseph Watson

Prison Planet

Thursday, November 16, 2006

Kofi Annan today slammed global warming skeptics as being "out of step" and "out of time," but how will altering human activity halt climate change when the evidence clearly indicates that the sun itself and not SUV's is heating up the entire solar system?

"The U.N. chief lamented "a frightening lack of leadership" in fashioning next steps to reduce global emissions. "Let us start being more politically courageous," he urged the hundreds of delegates from some 180 member nations of the 1992 U.N. climate treaty," reports Forbes.

But how do we square the fact that almost every planet in our solar system is simultaneously undergoing temperature change and volatile weather patterns. Does this not suggest that global warming is a natural cycle as a result of the evolving nature of the sun? Can Al Gore fill me in on this one?

- Space.com: Global Warming on Pluto Puzzles Scientists

In what is largely a reversal of an August announcement, astronomers today said Pluto is undergoing global warming in its thin atmosphere even as it moves farther from the Sun on its long, odd-shaped orbit.

- Space.com: New Storm on Jupiter Hints at Climate Change

The latest images could provide evidence that Jupiter is in the midst of a global change that can modify temperatures by as much as 10 degrees Fahrenheit on different parts of the globe.

- Current Science & Technology Center: Global Warming on Mars?

A study of the ice caps on Mars may show that the red planet is experiencing a warming trend. If both Mars and Earth are experiencing global warming, then perhaps there is a larger phenomenon going on in the Solar System that is causing their global climates to change.

- United Press International: NASA looks at a monster storm on Saturn

NASA says its Cassini spacecraft has found a hurricane-like storm at Saturn's South Pole, nearly 5,000 miles across -- or two-thirds Earth's diameter.

- Science Agogo: Global Warming Detected on Triton

There may not be much industrial pollution on Neptune's largest moon, but things are hotting up nonetheless. "At least since 1989, Triton has been undergoing a period of global warming," confirms astronomer James Elliot, professor of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. "Percentage-wise, it's a very large increase."

- Associated Press: Study says sun getting hotter

Solar radiation reaching the Earth is 0.036 percent warmer than it was in 1986, when the current solar cycle was beginning, a researcher reports in a study to be published Friday in the journal Science. The finding is based on an analysis of satellites that measure the temperature of sunlight.

- London Telegraph: The truth about global warming - it's the Sun that's to blame

Global warming has finally been explained: the Earth is getting hotter because the Sun is burning more brightly than at any time during the past 1,000 years, according to new research.

The simple fact is that throughout the ages the earth has swung wildly between a warm, wet, stable climate, to a cold, dry and windy one - long before the first fossil fuel was burned. The changes we are now witnessing are a walk in the park compared to the battering that our planet has taken in the past.

This is not a defense of the oil cartels or the Neo-Con wreckers, who would have every motivation to ignore global warming whether it is man-made or not.

Nor is it a blanket denial of the fact that the earth is getting very gradually hotter, but how do we reconcile global warming taking place at the farthest reaches of the solar system with the contention that it is caused by human activity? Have our exhaust fumes left earth's atmosphere and slipped through a black hole to Triton?

The assertion that global warming is man made is so oppressively enforced upon popular opinion, especially in Europe, that expressing a scintilla of doubt is akin to holocaust denial in some cases. Such is the insipid brainwashing that has taken place via television, newspapers and exalted talking heads - global warming skeptics are forced to wear the metaphoric yellow star and only discuss their doubts in hushed tones and conciliatory frameworks, or be cat-called, harangued and jeered by an army of do-gooders who righteously believe they are rescuing mother earth by recycling a wine bottle or putting their paper in a separate trash can.

Fearmongering about an imminent climate doomsday also hogs news coverage and important environmental issues like GM food, mad scientist chimera cloning and the usurpation and abuse of corporations like Monsanto flies under the radar.

Global warming is cited as an excuse to meter out further control and surveillance over our daily lives, RFID chips on our trash cans, GPS satellite tacking and taxation by the mile, as well as a global tax at the gas pump.

The extremist wing of the environmentalist movement, characterized by people like Dr. Erik Pianka, advocate the mass culling of humanity via plagues and state sanctioned bio-terrorism, in order to "save" the earth from the disease of humanity. Nazi-like genocial population control measures and the environmental establishment have always held a close alliance.

The orthodox organized religion of global warming and its disastrous consequences for our freedom of speech, freedom of mobility and our right to remain outside of the system, needs to be questioned on the foundational basis that the phenomenon is solar-system wide and it is mainly caused by the natural evolution of the sun and not human activity.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/novem...6suvjupiter.htm

This is just to show that icke has done some research.

[DogsHead]

The solar constant isn't constant. The sun is a variable star.

That is a given. The question someone trying to link the variation of solar output with global warming must answer, is which inconsitancies matter, and how much affect do they have.

The vast majority of climate scientists in the world seriously and objectively studies what it is that influences global climate changes. We don't hear as much from them in the media as we do from the far smaller but also far more vocal minority of climate scientists who make a living by publicizing alarmist and often outrageous claims about man's detrimental influence on the global climate.

Evidence for this claim?

Armed with the very real evidence of the global cooling trend during the first half of the 20th century, climate alarmists claimed in the 1970s that another ice age was imminent. Today they (including even some former proponents of a coming ice age, e. g.: Stephen Schneider), ride a wave of alarm about man-made catastrophic global warming, a wave of alarm they created and keep fueling .

Well, that's not strictly true, and constitutes cherry picking of evidence. Schneider did think that CO2 in the atmosphere could cool the average temp, but as further science came in, he changed his hypothesis, which is what science does. In fact, "In 1977 Schneider criticized a popular science book (The Weather Conspiracy: The Coming of the New Ice Age) that predicted an imminent Ice Age, writing in Nature:

...it insists on maintaining the shock effect of the dramatic...rather than the reality of the discipline: we just don't know enough to chose definitely at this stage whether we are in for warming or cooling— or when." (WIKI)

So you can't really call him an alarmist, can you?

Objective scientists find that the evidence supporting a man-made global warming trend is at best skimpy. However, it cannot and should not be denied that climate changes take place and that they have done so since long before man even made an appearance on Earth.

So you say. Once again, some supporting evidence would be nice...

From the wiki once again:"More recently, a study and review of existing literature published in Nature in Sept. 2006 suggests that the evidence is solidly on the side of solar brightness having relatively little effect on global climate, and downplays the likelihood of significant shifts in solar output over long periods of time." [uCAR (September 13, 2006). Changes In Solar Brightness Too Weak To Explain Global Warming. Press release.][Foukal, P.; Fröhlich, C. & Spruit, H. et al. (2006), "Variations in solar luminosity and their effect on the Earth’s climate", Nature 443 (7108)]

I've just found the article you C&P'd all that from, Brave. How about you give it to us in your own words? I'll get back to you on the rest of this later, but as far as I can see, the author, Dr Theodor Landscheidt, while prolific, doesn't seem to have too many supporters amongst the Climatologists. Also, he died in 2004, and as such has not the benefit of the latest satelite data.

[crystal sage]

http://biocab.org/Cosmic_Rays_Graph.html

As indicated previously, the intensity of ICR, the He nucleons energy and the variability of the tropospheric temperature has been unusually high through 2006 and the first two months of 2007. In the extension of the tropospheric temperatures, we observe high temperatures for January, February, November and December in 2006, but there were not higher than the registered through 1998. On this graph we observe that the change of temperature through January and February in 2007 was higher than through 2006; however, the rest of the year the change of temperature was normal. You can see that the anomalous intensity of Interstellar Cosmic Rays, which reached its maximum intensity through January-February 2007, promoted high ranks of cloudiness and more frequent, long and copious rainfall through January-November 2007. The Intensity of the Solar Irradiance was very low and the Sun remained spotless almost the year long, which coincides with the theory of Dr. Henrik Svensmark about the influence of the Solar Irradiance on cloudless days.

The next text was written on December 05, 2006: This year has been the coldest year of the decade. It seems to be that finally the global tropospheric temperatures are being standardized. This confirms that the fluctuations of the terrestrial temperature (and of all planets of the Solar System) are cyclical and that are caused by other sidereal systems outside the Earth. There is no Global Warming due to human activities.

http://seoblackhat.com/2007/03/04/global-w...on-and-jupiter/

Global Warming on Mars, Pluto, Triton and Jupiter

Global Warming on Mars, Pluto, Triton and Jupiter strongly points towards the Sun or Some other cosmic force being the cause of the recent global warming on Earth.

[thewho?]

The Illuminati front man for this grotesque misrepresentation of 'climate change' is the practising Satanist, the so-appropriately named, Al Gore

This article sounds more like an angry conspiracy blog than a scientific study.

[DogsHead]

This article sounds more like an angry conspiracy blog than a scientific study.

Bingo!

[Cradle of Fish]

I dont see how David Ickes delusions have anything to do with the natural world.

[brave_new_world]

That is a given. The question someone trying to link the variation of solar output with global warming must answer, is which inconsitancies matter, and how much affect do they have.

Evidence for this claim?

Well, that's not strictly true, and constitutes cherry picking of evidence. Schneider did think that CO2 in the atmosphere could cool the average temp, but as further science came in, he changed his hypothesis, which is what science does. In fact, "In 1977 Schneider criticized a popular science book (The Weather Conspiracy: The Coming of the New Ice Age) that predicted an imminent Ice Age, writing in Nature:

...it insists on maintaining the shock effect of the dramatic...rather than the reality of the discipline: we just don't know enough to chose definitely at this stage whether we are in for warming or cooling— or when." (WIKI)

So you can't really call him an alarmist, can you?

So you say. Once again, some supporting evidence would be nice...

From the wiki once again:"More recently, a study and review of existing literature published in Nature in Sept. 2006 suggests that the evidence is solidly on the side of solar brightness having relatively little effect on global climate, and downplays the likelihood of significant shifts in solar output over long periods of time." [uCAR (September 13, 2006). Changes In Solar Brightness Too Weak To Explain Global Warming. Press release.][Foukal, P.; Fröhlich, C. & Spruit, H. et al. (2006), "Variations in solar luminosity and their effect on the Earth’s climate", Nature 443 (7108)]

I've just found the article you C&P'd all that from, Brave. How about you give it to us in your own words? I'll get back to you on the rest of this later, but as far as I can see, the author, Dr Theodor Landscheidt, while prolific, doesn't seem to have too many supporters amongst the Climatologists. Also, he died in 2004, and as such has not the benefit of the latest satelite data.

Read the links. I am only layman with an informed opinion.

Here is another I got from crystal sage:

<a href="http://seoblackhat.com/2007/03/04/global-w...on-and-jupiter/" target="_blank">http://seoblackhat.com/2007/03/04/global-w...on-and-jupiter/</a>

From National Geographic:

“Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of the St. Petersburg’s Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.“

It all comes down to the propaganda ya wanna believe. I believe we dont have to be scared of global warming while others believe we should be scared. I personally dont think that the warming changes in theother planets are caused by human carbon dioxide. Some people dont want to believe that other planets are undergoing a change in temperature and others like David Mayer de Rothschild want to believe that Jupiter, saturn and mars are closer to the sun.

Edited November 26, 2007 by brave_new_world

[brave_new_world]

Cool links. I'll read the rest of them later.

[brave_new_world]

I dont see how David Ickes delusions have anything to do with the natural world.

His delusion is your opinion and if you read the article it mentions concerns about global warming.

[isis-999]

Hey BNW, I was going to read this untill i seen Ickes name on it, But i think it's good you care about the planet, I just don't think Ickes care's about anything but making money and telling lie's....

[The Skeptic Eric Raven]

I dont see how David Ickes delusions have anything to do with the natural world.

Exactly. It has been a Ickey love fest on here lately. What people believe is astounding. Out of this world.

[Leonardo]

It all comes down to the propaganda ya wanna believe. I believe we dont have to be scared of global warming while others believe we should be scared. I personally dont think that the warming changes in theother planets are caused by human carbon dioxide. Some people dont want to believe that other planets are undergoing a change in temperature and others like David Mayer de Rothschild want to believe that Jupiter, saturn and mars are closer to the sun.

Brave, the evidence of other planets heating up would indicate we are entering a cycle of high solar activity and yes, this is driving climate change here on Earth (or appears to be so). However, the amount of pollutants we have pumped into our atmosphere will exacerbate that change, making it happen faster and to a greater extreme than otherwise would probably happen.

Mr Icke may rail against the wording of those who promote positive action to soften the effect of this climate change but, by charging his anti-climate change rhetoric with his imaginative conspiracy theory, he mocks the real effort to help hundreds of millions of people who may very well suffer terribly. I have no gripe with those who use science to question the findings of others, my gripe is when fantasy is used to control their minds and turn their valid questioning into fanatical protest.

And before you start on about how wonderful Icke is, can you honestly say he is not trying to control the minds of those he is reaching out to just as he accuses others of?

Edited November 26, 2007 by Leonardo

[crystal sage]

More Than 15,000 Scientists Protest Kyoto Accord; Speak Out Against Global Warming Myth

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=50

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6972759.stm

Green taxes 'are making billions'

Smoke stacks from power plant

The Taxpayers' Alliance says some businesses are suffering unfairly

The government is raising billions of pounds more in green taxes than it needs to remove the UK's "carbon footprint", a report says.

The Taxpayers' Alliance said emissions in 2005 had done damage worth an estimated £11.7bn, but green taxes and charges in that year had made £21.9bn.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1454504.stm

http://www.ieta.org/ieta/www/pages/index.php?IdSitePage=1202

LONDON - A business fix to save the planet, where rich world polluters pay the developing world to cut greenhouse gas emissions on their behalf, is drawing breath after hoovering up its biggest money-spinning deals.

The trading idea relies on heavily polluting companies in poor countries being able to achieve more dramatic pollution cuts more cheaply than industry in the developed world.

It started some four years ago but took off last year after two key events -- the newly ratified Kyoto Protocol tied rich countries to pollution limits, and Europe set up a trading scheme which forced its industry to buy rights to pollute.

Suddenly eager European buyers were scouring the globe for the cheapest pollution rights, or carbon credits: in other words, a carbon market working just as intended.

http://cleanaircanada.blogspot.com/2007/06...-out-about.html

I think it is all about reducing pollution...deforestation..

dumping chemicals...destroying the environment...

We should seriously work at restoring the damage we have done...

regreening the earth...

I suppose this global warming issue will make us stop and think...

[Cradle of Fish]

His delusion is your opinion and if you read the article it mentions concerns about global warming.

I read it until he mentioned "shadow people".

[thewho?]

This thread is better suited for the Conspiracies & Secret Societies forum.

[Mattshark]

The solar constant isn't constant. The sun is a variable star.

The vast majority of climate scientists in the world seriously and objectively studies what it is that influences global climate changes. We don't hear as much from them in the media as we do from the far smaller but also far more vocal minority of climate scientists who make a living by publicizing alarmist and often outrageous claims about man's detrimental influence on the global climate.

Armed with the very real evidence of the global cooling trend during the first half of the 20th century, climate alarmists claimed in the 1970s that another ice age was imminent. Today they (including even some former proponents of a coming ice age, e. g.: Stephen Schneider), ride a wave of alarm about man-made catastrophic global warming, a wave of alarm they created and keep fueling .

Objective scientists find that the evidence supporting a man-made global warming trend is at best skimpy. However, it cannot and should not be denied that climate changes take place and that they have done so since long before man even made an appearance on Earth.

Based on many different indicators from widely varying sources, it has been found that our sun, a variable star, is a major and controlling influence on the extent and rate of long- and short-term climate changes affecting Earth. In a January 17, 2003 article, Science@NASA describes the extent of the fluctuations in solar radiation over time, how they are being measured, the instruments that are being used to measure them, how those instruments are being calibrated and what has been found by using them.[1] The following graph is from that article.

<a href="http://fathersforlife.org/REA/warming4.htm" target="_blank">http://fathersforlife.org/REA/warming4.htm</a>

It has shown to be right as well. I guess it all comes down to what propaganda one believes. I happen to believe the scientists that say solar radiation does affect the planet.

Atmospheric circulation, the cause of weather, is driven by the sun’s energy. Climate is the integral of weather over periods of more than a year. This integral also depends on the flux of solar energy. The same applies to variations in the energy flux caused by the sun’s varying activity. Satellite data show that the “solar constant” S is variable. The solar irradiance decreased from the sunspot maximum 1979 to the minimum 1986, increased again on the way to the next maximum in the 11-year sunspot cycle, and decreased anew in the descending phase. This came as a surprise as it is plausible that the dark sunspots with their strong magnetic fields impede the free flux of energy from the sun’s interior to the outside. Yet P. V. Foukal and J. Lean [22] have shown that bright faculae in the vicinity of sunspots increase even more than sunspots when the activity grows stronger, so that an irradiance surplus is established.

<a href="http://www.john-daly.com/solar/solar.htm" target="_blank">http://www.john-daly.com/solar/solar.htm</a>

Sorry to inform you of this, but that is simply not true, as a scientist working with marine life (something which is highly susceptable to global climate) me and my collegues need to keep a watch on global temperature and the scientific evidence surronding its reasons and sorry but the is a lot of work that show that our exponentialy increasing release of CO2 is clearly having an affect. You should go into Bangor uni and consider speaking to the staff there or actually look up some real scientific papers on the subject rather than random discredited internet sites (try scholar.google.com). Those sites are about as good as a night in the octagon.

Edited November 28, 2007 by Mattshark

[Mattshark]

I just also thought I would add David Icke is a moronic idiot who claimed he was God and that Australia would be destroyed in 2000, then man is not worth listening to.