Global Warming On The Ropes
Hysteria of climate cult begins to look increasingly inane

Paul Joseph Watson
Monday, March 19, 2007


The religion of man-made global warming has encountered a fierce backlash in recent weeks, partly as a result of Martin Durkin's excellent "Swindle" documentary, but also as a consequence of the sheer hysteria warming advocates are forced to attach their argument to when self-evident facts are in short supply.

A case in point was presidential candidate John Edward's screed last week, in which he said that global warming would make world war look like heaven. It being highly unlikely that Edwards fought in either of last century's world wars, he can only be fixing his premonition around an expected casualty figure of over 19 million human deaths as a result of a short term temperature increase.

The ironic truth, as highlighted in the "Swindle" documentary, is that Western enforced caps on carbon emissions, which are uniformly ignored by India and China, are preventing poverty stricken third world nations from achieving development by cutting off access to their huge natural resources. The measures employed to supposedly fight the negative impact of man-made global warming are in fact inflicting more death and disease on those already ravaged by famine and squalor.

Martin Durkin left a sufficient gap between his documentary and his next public statement to allow the frothing and maniacal vitriol to spew forth from the establishment left, aghast that their precious belief system had been challenged by sober evidence impenetrable by public relations stunts, rock concerts and photos of polar bears supposedly stranded on icebergs.

His response, carried by the Telegraph, noted with surprise not the volume of the attacks but their consistently feeble premise, including charges that Durkin had used an incorrect temperature graph when the program used the same one as the darlings of the climate cult, the IPCC.

"Too many journalists and scientists have built their careers on the global-warming alarm. Certain newspapers have staked their reputation on it. The death of this theory will be painful and ugly. But it will die. Because it is wrong, wrong, wrong," concludes Durkin.

Another would-be President and establishment kingpin of the man-made circus, Al Gore, today appears before the Energy and Commerce Committee on Capitol Hill to make his case for further control freak measures to be clamped on our behavior in the name of saving mother earth.

Gore will face some very interesting questions and his reaction will go a long way to judging the real agenda behind the climate crowd.

"How can you continue to claim that global warming on Earth is primarily caused by mankind when other planets (Mars, Jupiter and Pluto) with no confirmed life forms and certainly no man-made industrial greenhouse gas emissions also show signs of global warming? Wouldn’t it make more sense that the sun is responsible for warming since it is the common denominator?"
"Do you think the earth is significantly overpopulated and that is a major contributor to your view of climate change. (If yes, what do you think is a sustainable population for the planet?)"

Gore is likely to try and evade the second question because any specific response will put him firmly in the same camp as the Dr. Pianka's of the world, who have openly advocated genocide to forcibly reduce world's population to a fraction of its current level.

The orthodoxy took another blow over the weekend when two of its own adherents, Professors Paul Hardaker and Chris Collier, warned their own choir to stop preaching doomsday scenarios about global warming, recognizing that the hysteria has eroded a lot of credibility the man-made camp had built.

This admonition came too late because the fallacy of man-made global warming is already running out of steam for two reasons. One - the hysteria will only get louder because man-made advocates have a dearth of facts to base their alarmism on and always have to resort to fearmongering. Two - as we progress further into the 21st century and the much vaunted eco-apocalypse never arrives, the alarmists will begin to look increasingly stupid and untrustworthy.

It is at this point that man-made global warming will hold as much legitimacy as the 1970's global cooling scare does in hindsight, absolutely zero. Link

Uhhhmmmm "excellent" documentary?



Prisonplanet?!? LOL

Doesnt this belong in the Conspiracy Forum?

Is it me or is the right acting a lot like the left these days

Good post, Aztec Warrior.

I think politicians are all jumping on the man-made global warming bandwagon because they can project the 'I care about the world' image.

In Britain they're all at it.

I think the man-made global warming camp want to believe that tinkering around with human behavior can significantly affect the climate...can tame the wild powers of nature.

The natural-cycles-of-the-sun global warming camp are very suspicious of the politicians and others motives...ie smoke-screen for nuclear issues, erosion of freedoms, raising of prices/taxes.

Bringing politicians into this is an easy way to form your conspiracy theories but I wonder why you dont bring up the scientific community?

Before the politicians cared, scientists and activists cared but were ignored, now politicians get onboard and its a conspiracy?

I'll let you in on a little secret, politicians speak for big business(the economy) first, people second. They speak now because big business recognizes the potential cost and profit loss of us doing nothing. If the sea levels might rise and ruin a fancy commercial district they care. Also I believe they see the opportunity to get people focused on getting off oil, the same oil that funds Middle Eastern governments that sponsor terror, now to do that politicians know one strategy "DOOM, FEAR!", the same method they use to get people onboard for a war. Now just because politicians see an opportunity to futher their interests doesnt mean the scientific community is and has been part of a global conspiracy.

And why the hell is Prison Planet all of a sudden a good source LOL

Notice How YOU ALL are HINGING on the "man made" part of the story.........................................
Simply a diversionary tactic.........debating the fact if it is man made or not its always the same isnt it?
despite the evidence that MAN IS CONTRIBUTING to global warming they deny its man made
By man contributing dosent mean man CAUSED global warming we all understand that its
a Natural occurring phenomen that recently seems to have accelerated


Did man MAKE this global warming.....No Did MAN make ir accelerate.............YES by releasing emissions
no we arent the CAUSE of it but we Certainly arent HELPING it any
go on and continue the finger pointing debate tactic now im through

Another nail in the coffin:



SOURCE

You have hit a major nail on the head here, I believe. No matter whether a polititian truely believes in man-made global warming or not....the state of the world, the reliance on imported oil (petrol) from the middle east is probably a huge factor in the whole thing.

In a way, I could argue, that I can understand their (the politicians) deception....if, tomorrow, oil from the middle east stopped...then Western societies would struggle. Really struggle. If alternatives to oil/petrol are encouraged and the alternative to oil economy funded and encouraged then western societies might ride the wave of change.

The reason everyone is getting so steamed up about what's going on regarding global warming...is that they smell deception.
The scientists on both sides are probably sincere.

You may find this interesting.....

Preordained conclusions produce bad science

http://arstechnica.com/journals/science.ar...9/ineed-a-title

Superlative!

A voice of reason crying out in the wilderness.

I commend this post wholeheartedly!

Thank you, Aztec, and all those who have contributed herein.

Ole Lockbox looks like one tough cookie, eh?

Was there any politician on the man made global warming banwagon before Gore started his "mission"?

The Swindle documentary raised one interesting point for me and that was the possible correlation between global temperatures and solar activity. It does seem to be the first, most obvious port of call for a significant cause of any global temperature changes but doesn't ever seem to be mentioned. Further to this it seems the sharp spikes we are shown in temperature changes could simply be slight fluctuations depending upon the axis scales, I notice that they usually start at e.g. 1950 and with a datum of 1950 temperatures on the y-axis and with decades represented with smaller intervals than a degree of temperature change, whereas on a 1000 year x-axis and a 0-100 degree y-axis we may see this to be well within previous bounds and similar to previous dynamics. I believe the data may be corrupted/presented differently depending on how the researcher wants the results to appear, the same data sets can be used with completely different plots resulting.

I would like to see for myself and do my own plots and correlation analysis, does anyone know where uncorrupted/independent temperature/solar activity/co2/oceanic temperature data is avaliable ?

IMO green issues in the UK are simply being used as a basis for more stealth taxes and as usual it is the average Joe who will suffer most but , as Jeremy Clarkson said in his column, it is now becoming a fashion and fashions change.

On the subject of solar activity and its effects on the planet....Adrian Gilbert and Maurice Cotterell in their book 'Mayan Prophecies' discuss the Mayan longcount....a Great Cycle of about 5125 years...the latest one due to complete on 21st Dec. 2012.

They see the end of the Great Cycle as a culmination of a series of long term sunspots which will flip the sun's magnetic field, causing earthquakes and flooding on earth.

It' not just them, that book's a few years old...others, scientists etc.are studying it....but I do wonder if global warming MIGHT have a connection with sunspots and the reversal of the suns magnetic field?

If it has...then there is absolutely nothing we can do about it.

Sorry, in advance, if someone else has made this point about sunspots and I haven't noticed.

The theory of global warming has a scientific basis, no-one doubts that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and that lots of it will increase a planet's surface temperature - just look at Venus. It seems logical that the recent increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide is the cause of the recent increase in global temperatures, particularly in the Arctic. The only wriggle room is to question how much of the carbon dioxide increase is due to human activities. Since humans are now burning an awful lot of hydrocarbon fuel, and the resulting exhaust gases have to go somewhere, you need to do some pretty fancy footwork to deny the increase is due to this activity.

It seems ironic to me that for many years the theory was only supported by a few atmospheric scientists. As further evidence has come in, they have convinced first their colleagues and at last the politicians of the reality of it. Now, just because politicians are supporting it, it has suddenly become a conspiracy.

If you want to find people with a motive to deny this, look no further than the oil companies.

Try this version of the graph - there are also links to the original scientific papers:
http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/p...400000yrfig.htm
Note that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are now some 25% higher than at any time in the last 450,000 years.

http://jimmarrs.com/



The EPA closes its scientific libraries, destroys documents


Union of Concerned Scientists

The EPA has begun closing its nationwide network of scientific libraries, effectively preventing EPA scientists and the public from accessing vast amounts of data and information on issues from toxicology to pollution.

Several libraries have already been dismantled, with their contents either destroyed or shipped to repositories where they are un-cataloged and inaccessible.

Members of Congress have asked the EPA to cease and desist. While the agency claims that it has postponed further destruction of documents, we need you to tell the EPA that scientists and the public need unconstrained access to this critical information to protect our health and environment. UCS is asking concerned scientists and activists to call EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson and urge him to keep the library system open until all materials are available online and sufficient research assistance is available.

Please Note: We've received reports that some EPA receptionists are telling UCS supporters that the EPA is simply restructuring and modernizing the system. See below for evidence of why this argument doesn't hold water.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) maintains a nationwide network of 27 libraries that provide critical scientific information on human health and environmental protection, not only to EPA scientists, but also to other researchers and the general public. The EPA libraries are located in each of 10 regions of the country, at EPA headquarters in Washington, D.C. and at various EPA laboratories specializing in certain aspects of environmental protection.

In order to fulfill its mission to protect human health and the environment, the EPA must rely on accurate, up-to-date scientific information as well as the findings of earlier studies. To make the best scientific determinations, scientists need access to information regarding the health effects of toxic substances, records of environmental change over time, impacts on specific regions or communities and other issues. To this end, the libraries represent a unique and invaluable source of scientific knowledge on issues from hazardous waste to toxicology to pollution control. Additional benefit to scientific researchers is gained from the expertise of a dedicated library staff. In 2005, library staff fielded more than 134,000 database and reference questions and distributed almost 53,000 books, journal articles, and other resources to EPA researchers and the public.

In February 2006 under the guise of cutting costs, the Bush Administration proposed cutting $2 million out of the $2.5 million library services budget for fiscal year 2007. Such a drastic cut would ensure the closing of most of the library network, but would hardly register as a cost savings against the $8 billion EPA budget.

Despite the fact that Congress has not yet passed the 2007 budget or approved these funding cuts, the EPA has already moved with astonishing speed to close down several of its libraries to both the public and EPA staff. Three regional libraries, the Headquarters Library and a specialized library for research on the effects and properties of chemicals have already been closed, and four additional regional libraries have been subjected to reduced hours and limited access. Some books, reports and other resources formerly housed at these libraries have been sent to three repositories where they remain uncatalogued and inaccessible to the scientists and others who depend upon them. Other materials have already been recycled or thrown away.

While administration officials claim the changes are prompted by budgetary pressures, the existence of a dedicated library system has been shown to actually save money. A 2004 internal EPA report found that the library network saved over 214,000 hours a year in staff time, amounting to cost-savings of $7.5 million—considerably more than the savings gained from cutting the program.

Officials claim the closings are part of a modernization plan, and that all materials will eventually be available online. However, no comprehensive assessment of information needs has been undertaken—making it likely that some unique information will be lost—and no funding exists to carry out the time-consuming and expensive process of making documents available electronically. The end result is that the library resources are already unavailable and the promised electronic access could be years away.

The closure of these libraries and the warehousing of their resources represents an additional barrier to the free flow of scientific information. The EPA will not have the best information readily available when it makes regulatory decisions, negatively impacting the agency's ability to carry out its mission of protecting human health and the environment.

Many scientists and lawmakers have spoken out in protest of these library closures. Four unions representing 10,000 EPA scientists sent a letter asking Congress to stop the destruction of the library network. A letter from Representatives Henry Waxman (D-CA), Bart Gordon (D-TN) and John Dingell (D-MI) has prompted an investigation of the library system by the General Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress. And members of both the House and Senate have called upon Administrator Johnson to cease and desist with the closures until the investigation is complete and Congress has authorized action. While the EPA has told reporters that the agency is no longer destroying documents, the closed libraries have not reopened and the EPA has not provided a comprehensive plan to make available documents that are currently inaccessible.

UCS is asking concerned scientists and activists to call EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson and urge him to immediately halt the dismantling of the library system until Congress approves the EPA budget and all materials are readily available online.

Myths and Facts: What the EPA has told callers and why this is not accurate

Myth #1: The libraries are not closing.

The Facts: On the EPA's own library website, the five libraries that have been closed to date have been removed from the list and had their websites partially or completely shut down: the Headquarters Library, Region 5, Region 6, Region 7, and the Office of Prevention, Pollution, and Toxic Substances (OPPTS). The EPA libraries website links to a plan of action for closing many libraries and dispersing or disposing of materials. We also have first-hand accounts from EPA employees that the libraries have been closed.

Also, several newspapers have recently reported or editorialized about the library closures, including:

- Christian Science Monitor, 11/30/06: "As EPA Libraries go Digital, Public Access Suffers"

- Boston Globe editorial, 11/20/06: "Save the Earth's Libraries"

- Arizona Star, 11/05/06: "EPA Libraries Taking Big Hits: They're closed or curtailed to cut costs, agency says; critics skeptical"

- Kansas City Star, 12/3/06: "EPA Closings Draw Criticism"

Myth #2: No materials have been destroyed.

The Facts: Ample evidence exists that the EPA has already destroyed documents. The Christian Science Monitor reports that "scientific journals worth hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars were thrown in dumpsters in October." An EPA chemist told the Kansas City Star that one library was told to throw away journals. Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility uncovered documents ordering one library to recycle materials—"as many as possible." And the House and Senate letters referenced above also reference the destruction of documents.

Myth #3: Calls to Congress are more effective than calls to the EPA administrator.

The Facts: For now, it is more effective to call Administrator Johnson. Congress is already aware of this problem and has asked the EPA to cease and desist; the decision to stop the closing of libraries and the destruction of documents lies now with Administrator Johnson. Of course, if you wish to call your senators and members of Congress in addition to Administrator Johnson, you certainly should!

Written responses from the EPA

Some concerned scientists and citizens who are calling the EPA are receiving a written response in return along the lines of this message:

“The Agency's Library budget has been cut by $2 million for [Fiscal Year 2007]. The general trend in recent years has been fewer people physically visiting the EPA libraries, and more use of desktop services. EPA's goal is to achieve greater efficiencies by streamlining EPA's physical library collections and moving toward a new model focused on providing electronic delivery of library services.

For the past 15 years, EPA has been digitizing Agency documents and providing those documents in an electronic format. EPA is continuing this process by digitizing all unique documents created by the Agency with priority being given to those documents housed in the libraries that are closing. These documents will be made available to the public free of charge via the National Environmental Publications Information System (NEPIS). NEPIS, which is an online database, currently contains close to 20,000 documents and can be access at: http://nepis.epa.gov

In addition, the general public will still have access to interlibrary loan services, to reference services and to the Online Library System (OLS), the catalog of all the holdings in EPA's libraries at: http://www.epa.gov/natlibra"

The response shown above does not adequately address many fundamental problems with the EPA's decision to close libraries and destroy documents. Since the EPA is closing libraries before making materials available online, they must have a comprehensive plan that assures that valuable information is not destroyed or sequestered away indefinitely.

1. Why did EPA proceed so rapidly to shut the libraries, without having digitized all material first? Why is the EPA disposing of journals in dumpters? Who is deciding which journals go and which stay?

2. Why did EPA begin to shut down libraries before its Fiscal Year 2007 budget is approved by Congress and before Congress completes an investigation into the library system?

3. Why has EPA Administrator Johnson failed to respond to letters from leaders in Congress regarding this matter?

4. Has the EPA catalogued all of the documents that have been shipped from closed libraries to repositories? Are these items fully accessible? How long does the average inter-library loan request take to retrieve an item from the repository? Will the increased number of documents in repository increase this time?

5. According to a letter from the EPA employees union, some library contents "are being dispersed without establishing any standard procedures or criteria to ensure that important documents are not lost." What standards are in place to ensure that records slated for storage and scanning are properly reviewed? In particular, who makes the determination of what is a "unique" document, how is this determination made, and what is the timeline for making these decisions?

6. In total, the EPA collections include 504,000 books and reports, 3,500 journals, 25,000 maps and 3.5 million information objects on microfilm. While purportedly almost 20,000 EPA documents are already available online, this represents less than 0.5% of the holdings in the EPA collections. 99.5% of EPA holdings are not yet digitized. Digitizing information and making it available online is extremely costly and labor intensive. What additional resources—in terms of both funding and staff time—have been committed to digitizing documents?

7. In particular, documents from before 1990 do not appear to have been digitized, and it is not clear from the 2007 EPA Library Plan that these documents will be digitized. How long will these holdings be inaccessible? What plans exist for digitizing records generated before 1990?

8. According to the EPA, the EPA library collections contain both EPA-generated documents and tens of thousands of documents generated by EPA contractors. What timeline exists for digitization of contractor and other non-EPA generated documents?

9. Public access to printed and microfilm records is critical for scholars. What public access, in addition to the online access for the almost 20,000 EPA generated documents, will be available to the records? Will members of the public be able to examine the microfilm records and printed documents from contractors, as well as EPA-generated reports?

10. How will the EPA address access to documents that may be less useful for current scientific work but are critical for historical work?

11. Documents put on EPA websites must be fully accessible to people with disabilities. Therefore, anything other than text (for example, a graph) must be accompanied by explanatory text which is then read by the software that makes the document accessible. Scanned documents may not meet these requirements. How will the EPA digitize documents while meeting this requirement?

12. How will the public know about and/or gain access to the documents that are not currently online, and may not be available for two years or more?

13. What is the value of the staff time that will be taken to comply with public requests, EPA interlibrary loan requests and information requests about what is available and how to gain access to it? Is this the most cost-effective system? Given that the budget has been cut by $2 million and digitization creates a significant amount of work, is it realistic to assume that the modernization plan will proceed quickly?



For more information, see the American Library Association and Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility.

Special Libraries Association CEO Janice R. Lachance may have put it best: “With this proposal, EPA's leadership is making it more difficult for the agency's policymakers and the public to leverage the extensive knowledge found in high quality, accurate information to make important decisions on our nation's environment, potentially compromising the public's health.”

Please call Administrator Johnson's office today to ask him to immediately halt the closure of libraries and the destruction of documents.


back to news list

It's funny. I guess the political debate is over and if one doesn't subscribe to the man-made global warming hysteria....they are conspiracy nuts. I guess that's why the post was moved to conspiracy section.


Thanks MID


I happen to agree with your sun cycle post, which explains why the other planets in our solar system are now exhibiting signs of global warming.


I have that book in my collection and read it about 6 years ago.........way before global warming was in fashion. Ya think the Mayans may have known something. Too bad almost all of their codices were destroyed by the Monks.

I don't know if the global warming issue is so much a myth, as it is being blown out of propportion, compared to other environmental concerns: The destruction of the ozone; the disappearance of species; the destruction of natural habitats, such as the rainforests; pollution. Some of these other issues are being ignored with all the concern over global warming.

I'm not saying that global warming isn't a legitimate concern, but it's just one part of the big picture. The bottom line is that global warming itself may not create a doomsday scenario, but humans are impacting the environment in various ways, and when you add them all up, there's no denying that humans have already had a significant impact on their environment. What's worse is that these human activities which are impacting the environment are accelerating.

Carbon dioxide levels have been rising in the atmosphere since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, back in the Nineteenth Century. A good question might be why is it taking so long for these increased CO2 levels to have an impact. The answer could be related to another environmental factor -desertification.

North America had its experience with desertification back in the 1930s: Much of North America was literally turning into a desert; some of the hottest temperatures of the last century were recorded during this period. This trend towards desertification was partially reversed with the help of modern agricultural and irrigation techniques.

So it's possible that desertification, and global warming, has been kept in check partly by modern farming techniques. The problem with this is that modern farming is highly dependent on a cheap energy source. What happens if suddenly there is no longer a cheap supply of oil? If farmers were forced to return to more traditional farming techniques, due to spiraling fuel costs, we could see the return of the desertification of North America.

And another interesting point made in the documentary (& i am old enough to remember) is that 30 years ago the same scientific community were telling us that we were heading for another ice age. Perhap they'll change there minds again in another 30 years, but not before the politicians have ripped us all off for more taxes.

Thanks for that.

Just had a quick look at the graph page so far and there seems to be a cycle of about 100-125,000 years on the global temperature that may be getting slightly longer between peaks and that we are currently at the top of the cycle. As for the current levels of CO2 being 25% higher I appreciate that but it is the correlation between C02 and temperature that I am interested in, I am sure we are adding C02 I just wonder if it has the affect on the global temperature the government is now taxing us on, temperatures haven't jumped 25 %.

As the author states that each of the data points represent an average of around 1000 years a quick, rough count of data points over our recent spike means this zenith was reached around 10-15,000 years ago and we have been bouncing around the 1960 datum ever since well within historic bounds. We also have no way of knowing if 25% jumps in C02 happened in pre-history for a short term period at the lag time delay after a sharp increase in oceanic temperatures or at a lag period after the zenith of temperatures was reached unless the core sample struck a spike by chance, which at an average of 1000 years and with the data heavily weighted to the more recent times is a long shot. We will have to wait a few thousand years to see if this is ongoing as one recent data point doesn't make a trend. I will have a look at the papers referenced to see if I can get cold data, it is a shame oceanic temperature data is not avaliable for this graph as the 400-800 year lag between temperature and CO2 fits nicely with the ocean temperature theorey.

I wonder if the earths trajectory around something celestrial has such an orbit or if we pass closer to or further from something every 100,000+ years with the intersection of orbits getting slightly further apart each time. Does that kind of cycle fit into the Mayan history? I remember reading something about 5 Mayan ages or something, does this 100,000 odd year cycle fit their calander ?

EDIT: A quick search produced a lot of information on Milankovitch cycles the main one, or the one believed to have the largest affect happens every 100,000 years or so. The effect on Mars of its cycles are supposedly much more obvious on a 50,000 year cycle:

http://aa.usno.navy.mil/faq/docs/seasons_orbit.html

Heres another theory:

http://environment.newscientist.com/channe...ve-us-cold.html

I also remember at school in the 70's and early eighties being warned about the coming ice-age and how where I live would be soon swallowed by glaciers, then again the earth was definitely flat one century, understood to be round the next.

No, you'd expect a 25% increase in the extra temperature due to carbon dioxide's greenhouse effect, in other words a few degrees only. The temperature blip when civil aircraft were grounded after 9/11 suggests that that the effect of contrails reflecting incoming sunlight back into space is worth a degree or two in shielding us from the effects of extra carbon dioxide.


I can't think of any way so much carbon dioxide could be rapidly removed from the atmosphere. The historical record certainly suggests that after the relatively rapid increases, it only gets removed fairly slowly.

Isn't the crux of the argument what effect man-made CO2 has on global temperatures ? If there has been a 25% leap in C02 in the atmosphere we are assuming that it is man-made however that may not be totally the case as I said earlier these spikes may happen at times of peak global temperatures(which we seem to be around), the 800 year lag and mini-heat wave of the middle ages could also go some way to explaining it. A 25% change in 'temperature difference due to the CO2 effect' could mean anything as if we don't know what actual percentage of temperature rise this effect is responsible for we cannot calculate what the man-made part is contributing. Have we seen a 25% temperature difference leap since the industrial revolution over and above what has been seen historically and if not what is the difference above historical data? Even if we attribute 100% of what looks like a very small to zero difference over historical trends to man-made CO2 surely with this knowledge in hand and with a bit of care we can get back on track without the current hysteria and extra taxation (although 2.5 billion chinese and indians may be hard to convince)

The temperature blip seen after the 9/11 grounding suggests that in actual fact the use of air travel could be responsible for some global cooling ? So instead of taxing us extra for flying the government should be encouraging it ? Quite a tightrope we seem to be walking. I would also be interested to know what effect shipping and pollution has had on oceanic temperature dynamics, restricting removal of CO2 and compounding the problem, I don't see Blair taxing that (yet).

ahhhh But if you watch and listen to Gore althoug he is talking excessive warming
two imprtant things ring true also one being he NEVER claims GLOBAL WARMING IS MAN MADE
something most of you still seem to cling to. he said we have "CONTRIBUTED" to its acceleration
which is COMPLETLY different than "causing" it

Youll also Note that he too shows that how the melting of the ice caps and the missing glacial
Ice will hamper if not completly stop a natural occurring movement of the oceans waters
when this cyle stops if it does it will indeed Plunge England and other parts of europe into a
possible Ice age

this based on the abscence of the oceans natural cycle so you see Gore DOES elude to a possible
ice age that hasnt changed and he DOES NOT say that Global warming is man made!! so i guess
i fail to see many of the responders points based on such

HA HAAAA, yeah, i too posted this same vid in the other GW forum , just thought i would paste it here too cause i got another link with stuff in it at the bottom that you lot might like if you havnt got it already... and, well, you know, add my two pennies in too...although its four now cause i've posted it twice




nn23

OMG Aztec I LOVE that picture!!! I think Global whining will fade away in time!

Oh Goodness, Here you guys go again spewing your propaganda, acting like there is a debate. There is no debate. There are a few paid off douchebag "scientists" who work for the Oil industry.
=================================

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...=11&t=90975


Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

Main article: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

In 2007, as part of its Fourth Assessment Report, the IPCC concluded that human actions are "very likely" the cause of global warming, meaning a 90% or greater probability.[1]

"The world's leading climate scientists said global warming has begun, is very likely caused by man, and will be unstoppable for centuries, ... . The phrase very likely translates to a more than 90 percent certainty that global warming is caused by man's burning of fossil fuels. That was the strongest conclusion to date, making it nearly impossible to say natural forces are to blame."[6]

"The report said that an increase in hurricane and tropical cyclone strength since 1970 more likely than not can be attributed to man-made global warming. The scientists said global warming's connection varies with storms in different parts of the world, but that the storms that strike the Americas are global warming-influenced."[7]

"On sea levels, the report projects rises of 7-23 inches by the end of the century. That could be augmented by an additional 4-8 inches if recent surprising polar ice sheet melt continues."[8]

U.S. National Research Council, 2001

In 2001 the Committee on the Science of Climate Change of the National Research Council published Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions [10]. This report explicitly endorses the IPCC view of attribution of recent climate change as representing the view of the scientific community:

The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability. Human-induced warming and associated sea level rises are expected to continue through the 21st century... The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue. [11]

[edit] American Meteorological Society

The American Meteorological Society (AMS) statement adopted by their council in 2003 said:

There is now clear evidence that the mean annual temperature at the Earth's surface, averaged over the entire globe, has been increasing in the past 200 years. There is also clear evidence that the abundance of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has increased over the same period. In the past decade, significant progress has been made toward a better understanding of the climate system and toward improved projections of long-term climate change... Human activities have become a major source of environmental change. Of great urgency are the climate consequences of the increasing atmospheric abundance of greenhouse gases... Because greenhouse gases continue to increase, we are, in effect, conducting a global climate experiment, neither planned nor controlled, the results of which may present unprecedented challenges to our wisdom and foresight as well as have significant impacts on our natural and societal systems. [12]

[edit] Federal Climate Change Science Program, 2006

On May 2, 2006, the Federal Climate Change Science Program commissioned by the Bush administration in 2002 released the first of 21 assessments that concluded that there is clear evidence of human influences on the climate system (due to changes in greenhouse gases, aerosols, and stratospheric ozone) [13]. The study said that observed patterns of change over the past 50 years cannot be explained by natural processes alone, though it did not state what percentage of climate change might be anthropogenic in nature.

=======================================

http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/global_warming_worldbook.html

WORLD BOOK AT NASA


Global warming is an increase in the average temperature of Earth's surface. Since the late 1800's, the global average temperature has increased about 0.7 to 1.4 degrees F (0.4 to 0.8 degrees C). Many experts estimate that the average temperature will rise an additional 2.5 to 10.4 degrees F (1.4 to 5.8 degrees C) by 2100. That rate of increase would be much larger than most past rates of increase.

Scientists worry that human societies and natural ecosystems might not adapt to rapid climate changes. An ecosystem consists of the living organisms and physical environment in a particular area. Global warming could cause much harm, so countries throughout the world drafted an agreement called the Kyoto Protocol to help limit it.

Causes of global warming

Climatologists (scientists who study climate) have analyzed the global warming that has occurred since the late 1800's. A majority of climatologists have concluded that human activities are responsible for most of the warming. Human activities contribute to global warming by enhancing Earth's natural greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect warms Earth's surface through a complex process involving sunlight, gases, and particles in the atmosphere. Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are known as greenhouse gases.

The main human activities that contribute to global warming are the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas) and the clearing of land. Most of the burning occurs in automobiles, in factories, and in electric power plants that provide energy for houses and office buildings. The burning of fossil fuels creates carbon dioxide, whose chemical formula is CO2. CO2 is a greenhouse gas that slows the escape of heat into space. Trees and other plants remove CO2 from the air during photosynthesis, the process they use to produce food. The clearing of land contributes to the buildup of CO2 by reducing the rate at which the gas is removed from the atmosphere or by the decomposition of dead vegetation.

A small number of scientists argue that the increase in greenhouse gases has not made a measurable difference in the temperature. They say that natural processes could have caused global warming. Those processes include increases in the energy emitted (given off) by the sun. But the vast majority of climatologists believe that increases in the sun's energy have contributed only slightly to recent warming.


================================

PRESTIGIOUS SCIENCE ASSOCIATION ISSUES WARNING ON HUMAN-INDUCED GLOBAL WARMING

http://healthandenergy.com/global_warming.htm

February 17, 2007

The board of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, publisher of the prestigious journal Science and the world's largest general scientific society, today issued its first statement on global warming, attributing the Earth's recent warming to human activity. "The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society," the statement read. The release noted that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are at their highest concentration in 650,000 years, and AAAS president John Holdren added that by the end of this century, global temperatures could head for levels not seen in millions of years. The recent statement from AAAS marks another high-profile announcement this year from scientific and environmental groups calling for an immediate reduction of the causes of man-made climate change. AAAS concluded that there must be a definitive political push to address global warming. "We are already experiencing global climate change. It is time to muster the political will for concerted action. Stronger leadership at all levels is needed. The time is now. We must rise to the challenge." Scientists recognized the important political implications of the statement. Susanne Mosner of the National Center for Atmospheric Research stated: "The statement is really strengthening the case and political momentum for cutting greenhouse emissions."

2006 was the hottest year ever recorded in the United States. Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere "reached a record high in 2005," the United Nations reported in November, warning that "global average concentrations of carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide" will be even higher in 2006. In 2000, carbon dioxide emissions were rising less than 1 percent annually. Today they are rising more than 2.5 percent annually, with 7.9 billion metric tons of carbon added globally in 2005 alone (up from 6.8 billion in 2000). The Energy Department’s latest report projects America’s carbon dioxide emissions will increase by one third from 2005 to 2030. Meanwhile, U.S. dependence on OPEC nations for oil imports "has risen to its highest level in 15 years." In September 2006, 70 percent of oil consumed in the United States came from foreign sources, up from 58 percent in 2000. The impact of these historic environmental changes is already being felt, and will grow more severe in the years to come. Arctic sea ice coverage in March 2006 "was the lowest in winter since measurements by satellite began in the early 1970s," and a team of NASA-funded scientists found that ice is melting so fast in the Arctic "that the North Pole will be in the open sea in 30 years." Research published this year found increasing evidence that "global warming is causing stronger hurricanes," that rainfall could drop by 20 percent by the end of the century, threatening the world's deserts "as never before"; that climate change has spurred the recent "sudden and dramatic” increase in the number of wildfires and the length of the wildfire season, and will directly "increase the risk of forest fires, droughts and flooding over the next two centuries"; one study found climate change will have a devastating effect on America's bread basket, shifting crop production northward into Canada.

=====================================================

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-06...htm?POE=NEWISVA
The debate's over: Globe is warming
By Dan Vergano, USA TODAY
Don't look now, but the ground has shifted on global warming. After decades of debate over whether the planet is heating and, if so, whose fault it is, divergent groups are joining hands with little fanfare to deal with a problem they say people can no longer avoid.
The Larsen B ice shelf, on the eastern side of the Antarctic Peninsula, has shattered and separated from the continent as a result of warming.
National Snow and Ice Data Center

General Electric is the latest big corporate convert; politicians at the state and national level are looking for solutions; and religious groups are taking philosophical and financial stands to slow the progression of climate change.

They agree that the problem is real. A recent study led by James Hansen of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies confirms that, because of carbon dioxide emissions and other greenhouse gases, Earth is trapping more energy from the sun than it is releasing back into space.

==================================


http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=N...le&sid=1176
The Final Proof: Global Warming is a Man-Made Disaster
Posted on Sunday, February 20, 2005 @ 14:31:21 PST by vlad

General Overtone writes: Published on Saturday, February 19, 2005 by the lndependent/UK

by Steve Connor

Scientists have found the first unequivocal link between man-made greenhouse gases and a dramatic heating of the Earth's oceans. The researchers - many funded by the US government - have seen what they describe as a "stunning" correlation between a rise in ocean temperature over the past 40 years and pollution of the atmosphere.



The study destroys a central argument of global warming skeptics within the Bush administration - that climate change could be a natural phenomenon. It should convince George Bush to drop his objections to the Kyoto treaty on climate change, the scientists say.

Tim Barnett, a marine physicist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego and a leading member of the team, said: "We've got a serious problem. The debate is no longer: 'Is there a global warming signal?' The debate now is what are we going to do about it?"

The findings are crucial because much of the evidence of a warmer world has until now been from air temperatures, but it is the oceans that are the driving force behind the Earth's climate. Dr Barnett said: "Over the past 40 years there has been considerable warming of the planetary system and approximately 90 per cent of that warming has gone directly into the oceans."

===================================

Is this what the Criminals you guys support consider a "debate" ?

========================

Top NASA Scientist Says He's Being Silenced on Global Warming

Jan. 29, 2006 — A top government scientist is speaking out about what he says is an effort to keep him quiet about global warming.

NASA's chief climate scientist James Hansen says the space agency's backlash is part of a Bush administration effort aimed at those trying to sound the alarm on climate change.

He says the administration tried to silence him after he gave a speech last month with this warning: "We're getting very close to a tipping point in the climate system. If we don't get off our 'business as usual' scenario and begin to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, we're going to get big climate changes."

=======================
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/06/03/...ain510920.shtml

Bush Disses Global Warming Report
Dismisses His Own Environmental Protection Agency's Findings

CBS) President Bush dismissed on Tuesday a report put out by his administration warning that human activities are behind climate change that is having significant effects on the environment.

The report released by the Environmental Protection Agency was a surprising endorsement of what many scientists and weather experts have long argued — that human activities such as oil refining, power plants and automobile emissions are important causes of global warming.

=======================

Well to be honest Aztek, it is pretty nutty to keep acting like it's not real bud. This debate has been over for years.

Now what you are doing is just taking facts and trying to convince people that they are not real. Why?

That's weird.

Is it because Rush told you what to believe? Maybe........... just Maybe

There is no proof of man made Global Warming just Global Whining!

The scientific community does not agree with you. And I would tend to believe them before I believed Rush.

You tend to believe everything in left wing news blogs.

James Spann a operational meteorology since 1978 also doesn't believe that humans are to blame. the Weather channel wants to take away his AMS certification becuse of his views
"Well, well. Some “climate expert” on “The Weather Channel” wants to take away AMS certification from those of us who believe the recent “global warming” is a natural process. So much for “tolerance”, huh?

I have been in operational meteorology since 1978, and I know dozens and dozens of broadcast meteorologists all over the country. Our big job: look at a large volume of raw data and come up with a public weather forecast for the next seven days. I do not know of a single TV meteorologist who buys into the man-made global warming hype. I know there must be a few out there, but I can’t find them. Here are the basic facts you need to know:

*Billions of dollars of grant money is flowing into the pockets of those on the man-made global warming bandwagon. No man-made global warming, the money dries up. This is big money, make no mistake about it. Always follow the money trail and it tells a story. Even the lady at “The Weather Channel” probably gets paid good money for a prime time show on climate change. No man-made global warming, no show, and no salary. Nothing wrong with making money at all, but when money becomes the motivation for a scientific conclusion, then we have a problem. For many, global warming is a big cash grab."

source and his website

"Prague - Czech president Vaclav Klaus has criticized the UN panel on global warming, claiming that it was a political authority without any scientific basis, Czech media reported Friday.

Klaus told the Hospodarske noviny daily that the panel did not include "neutral scientists, a balanced group of scientists."


"These are politicized scientists who arrive there with one-sided opinion and assignment," he told interviewers.

According to the Czech president, "each serious person and scientist" says that global warming is a myth."
Source and full article

Another Scientist Slams Media’s Global Warming Myth

Scientist Calls Global Warming Theories 'Bunk,' Cites Errors of Logic

Facts disprove warnings about global warming

Boston Globe: Scientists don't agree on global warming

So what Ceasar, is that about 5 scientists total. Please. You will have to do better than that.

================

Anyway, here is a story I just ran across.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/032707R.shtml

Exclusive: Report Charges Broad White House Efforts to Stifle Climate Research
By Justin Rood
ABC News

Tuesday 27 March 2007

Bush administration officials throughout the government have engaged in White House-directed efforts to stifle, delay or dampen the release of climate change research that casts the White House or its policies in a bad light, says a new report that purports to be the most comprehensive assessment to date of the subject.

Researchers for the non-profit watchdog Government Accountability Project reviewed thousands of e-mails, memos and other documents obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests and from government whistle-blowers and conducted dozens of interviews with public affairs staff, scientists, reporters and others.

The group says it has identified hundreds of instances where White House-appointed officials interfered with government scientists' efforts to convey their research findings to the public, at the behest of top administration officials.

The report is slated to be released tomorrow at a hearing before the House Science Committee, which is investigating the issue.

"The evidence suggests that incidents of interference are often top-down reactions to science that has negative policy or public relations implications for the administration," the group says in its report.

Some of the alleged interference - including restricting scientists' ability to talk with the press and Congress - may have violated federal laws protecting their right to speak, the group concludes.

"Directives and signals" from White House offices, like the Council on Environmental Quality, the Office of Science and Technology Policy and the Office of Management and Budget, are handed down to political appointees and politically-aligned civil servants through off-the-record conversations, the report says. Frequently, those giving the direction have little or no scientific background, according to the report.

The alleged interference took the form of "delaying, monitoring, screening, and denying interviews" between government scientists and media outlets, as well as delaying, denying or "inappropriate[ly] editing" press releases conveying scientific findings to the public.

And another interesting point made in the documentary (& i am old enough to remember) is that 30 years ago the same scientific community were telling us that we were heading for another ice age. Perhap they'll change there minds again in another 30 years, but not before the politicians have ripped us all off for more taxes.

They know much more then those wacos you have used. that "worlds largest scientific community
" group have used false and missleading methods in the past, but I guess they didn't use that on those liberal blogs


BTW why do you use Bush and Rush all the time? I could care less what they think! I don't stick to party talking points like you do. I'm much smarter then that