i wonder if she along with all the journals publishing bogus stories about global warming around the world get the “data” from these crooks. Here is the proof you have been asking for regarding the benefits of scientists making the data.
It is the smoking gun. the emails cannot be taken at face value/ the complete truth. they were sifted through to find the most damming ones. the real truth is the author comments in the code/data.
all i wish that comes of this leak is to stop wasting money/grants etc on people studying climate change and start putting that money towards reducing pollution. i am not sure when the 2 were linked but there is nowhere near enough data to make that correlation.
The conman is always saying that scientists don’t benefit from making it seem that global warming is an impending catastrophe… that is no longer a valid argument.
There is LOTS of money in global warming. Al Gore is going to become a billionaire by using it to make money for himself. Researchers that said “global warming exists” got their budgets increased by 10 fold. Researches that said “global warming is silly” got their budgets slashed. Guess what everybody started saying? Everybody is paying for answers.
In one e-mail, the center’s director, Phil Jones, writes Pennsylvania State University’s Michael E. Mann and questions whether the work of academics that question the link between human activities and global warming deserve to make it into the prestigious IPCC report, which represents the global consensus view on climate science.
“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report,” Jones writes. “Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”
In another, Jones and Mann discuss how they can pressure an academic journal not to accept the work of climate skeptics with whom they disagree. “Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal,” Mann writes.
“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor,” Jones replies.
Patrick Michaels, a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute who comes under fire in the e-mails, said these same academics repeatedly criticized him for not having published more peer-reviewed papers.
“There’s an egregious problem here, their intimidation of journal editors,” he said. “They’re saying, ‘If you print anything by this group, we won’t send you any papers.’ ”
____________________________________
I have no doubt that many more examples of the unprofessionalism which characterizes the proponents of climate change will be brought to light.
People used to trust the news…then the news stopped being a report of the facts and started being nothing but opinion.
People used to trust scientists….then they starting making stuff up (projections) instead of just reporting the facts. Now it has come out that they are manipulating the facts to fit their projections.
I guess the answer is easy, just follow the money.
Climate change researchers must believe in the reality of global warming just as a priest must believe in the existence of God.
By BRET STEPHENS
Last year, ExxonMobil donated $7 million to a grab-bag of public policy institutes, including the Aspen Institute, the Asia Society and Transparency International. It also gave a combined $125,000 to the Heritage Institute and the National Center for Policy Analysis, two conservative think tanks that have offered dissenting views on what until recently was called—without irony—the climate change “consensus.”
To read some of the press accounts of these gifts—amounting to about 0.00027% of Exxon’s 2008 profits of $45 billion—you might think you’d hit upon the scandal of the age. But thanks to what now goes by the name of climategate, it turns out the real scandal lies elsewhere.
Climategate, as readers of these pages know, concerns some of the world’s leading climate scientists working in tandem to block freedom of information requests, blackball dissenting scientists, manipulate the peer-review process, and obscure, destroy or massage inconvenient temperature data—facts that were laid bare by last week’s disclosure of thousands of emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit, or CRU.
But the deeper question is why the scientists behaved this way to begin with, especially since the science behind man-made global warming is said to be firmly settled. To answer the question, it helps to turn the alarmists’ follow-the-money methods right back at them.
Consider the case of Phil Jones, the director of the CRU and the man at the heart of climategate. According to one of the documents hacked from his center, between 2000 and 2006 Mr. Jones was the recipient (or co-recipient) of some $19 million worth of research grants, a sixfold increase over what he’d been awarded in the 1990s.
Why did the money pour in so quickly? Because the climate alarm kept ringing so loudly: The louder the alarm, the greater the sums. And who better to ring it than people like Mr. Jones, one of its likeliest beneficiaries?
Thus, the European Commission’s most recent appropriation for climate research comes to nearly $3 billion, and that’s not counting funds from the EU’s member governments. In the U.S., the House intends to spend $1.3 billion on NASA’s climate efforts, $400 million on NOAA’s, and another $300 million for the National Science Foundation. The states also have a piece of the action, with California—apparently not feeling bankrupt enough—devoting $600 million to their own climate initiative. In Australia, alarmists have their own Department of Climate Change at their funding disposal.
And all this is only a fraction of the $94 billion that HSBC Bank estimates has been spent globally this year on what it calls “green stimulus”—largely ethanol and other alternative energy schemes—of the kind from which Al Gore and his partners at Kleiner Perkins hope to profit handsomely.
Supply, as we know, creates its own demand. So for every additional billion in government-funded grants (or the tens of millions supplied by foundations like the Pew Charitable Trusts), universities, research institutes, advocacy groups and their various spin-offs and dependents have emerged from the woodwork to receive them.
Today these groups form a kind of ecosystem of their own. They include not just old standbys like the Sierra Club or Greenpeace, but also Ozone Action, Clean Air Cool Planet, Americans for Equitable Climate Change Solutions, the Alternative Energy Resources Association, the California Climate Action Registry and so on and on. All of them have been on the receiving end of climate change-related funding, so all of them must believe in the reality (and catastrophic imminence) of global warming just as a priest must believe in the existence of God.
None of these outfits is per se corrupt, in the sense that the monies they get are spent on something other than their intended purposes. But they depend on an inherently corrupting premise, namely that the hypothesis on which their livelihood depends has in fact been proved. Absent that proof, everything they represent—including the thousands of jobs they provide—vanishes. This is what’s known as a vested interest, and vested interests are an enemy of sound science.
Which brings us back to the climategate scientists, the keepers of the keys to the global warming cathedral. In one of the more telling disclosures from last week, a computer programmer writes of the CRU’s temperature database: “I am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seems to be in nearly as poor a state as Australia was. . . . Aarrggghhh! There truly is no end in sight. . . . We can have a proper result, but only by including a load of garbage!”
This is not the sound of settled science, but of a cracking empirical foundation. And however many billion-dollar edifices may be built on it, sooner or later it is bound to crumble.
Schwarzenegger Attempts To Rescue Collapsing Global Warming Fraud With Alarmist PR Stunt
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Friday, December 4, 2009
Hitler-admiring Governor of California Arnold Schwarzenegger is having to resort to his wobbly acting skills in a desperate effort to rescue the crumbling edifice of the global warming fraud – by recycling debunked alarmist propaganda about rising sea levels.
With climategate sending shockwaves through the warmist scientific community, Schwarzenegger was dragged out to peddle absurd myths about areas of San Francisco being submerged underwater as a result of temperature increases that have failed to materialize for the last ten years.
“A map of how California will be affected by climate change in the future was unveiled yesterday by state governor Arnold Schwarzenegger,” reports the Daily Mail.
“The map, which demonstrates the devastating effects of global warming in just a century, shows how San Francisco Airport would be completely underwater if sea levels were to rise by 150cm (60in).”
“Within a century, Treasure Island, this place where we are right now, could be totally under water,” the governor said. “It is technology in the end that will save us.”
Ludicrous fearmongering about sea levels has long been a staple of climate change alarmism. Crude Hollywood-style propaganda about doomsday sea levels is intimately linked with bad science the laughably incorrect climate models that were circulating in the 1970’s that led many of the same individuals who today preach about global warming to warn about the apocalyptic threat of global cooling.
The genesis of the scam can be traced back to White House science czar John P. Holdren, who in the early 1970’s was busy warning about how global cooling would cause giant tidal waves. In the very same essay, “Overpopulation and the Potential for Ecocide,” Holdren subsequently claims that if humanity survived global cooling, overpopulation would then cause global warming which would cause “melting of the icecaps with a concomitant 150 foot increase in sea level.”
(ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW)
Schwarzenegger Attempts To Rescue Collapsing Global Warming Fraud With Alarmist PR Stunt 121109banner2
In the essay, Holdren and his co-author Paul Ehrlich wrote that global cooling would ensue as a result of , “a reduced transparency of the atmosphere to incoming light as a result of urban air pollutions (smoke, aerosols), agriculture air pollution (dust), and volcanic oil.”
Holdren and Ehrlich predicted, “a mere 1 percent increase in low cloud cover would decrease the surface temperature by .8C” and that “a decrease of 4C would probably be sufficient to cause another ice age.”
They continued: “Even more dramatic results are possible, however; for instance, a sudden outward slumping in the Antarctic ice cap, induced by added weight, could generate a tidal wave of proportions unprecedented in recorded history.”
The ridiculous notion of a 150 foot rise in sea levels has since been abandoned by the warmist community, with the UN IPCC scaling the scam back to a mere 2 feet.
In an August 2006 BBC News interview, Holdren was forced to backtrack on his own alarmism, correcting his claimed sea level rise to “up to 13 feet”.
Schwarzenegger has pitched his alarmism somewhere in the middle, claiming a rise of around 5 feet.
Schwarzenegger has pitched his alarmism somewhere in the middle, claiming a rise of around 5 feet. As the graph below illustrates, San Francisco sea levels have noticably dropped over the last few years, and are back down to around 1880 levels.
Schwarzenegger Attempts To Rescue Collapsing Global Warming Fraud With Alarmist PR Stunt 041209top4
Holdren’s spectacularly wrong predictions about the onset of a new ice age are inextricably linked to his propaganda about sea level rises, as is his subsequent global warming alarmism.
Schwarzenegger’s invocation of this fraud at a time when the entire edifice of global warming propaganda is crashing and burning as a result of the climategate scandal is a blatant public relations ploy designed to wash away rapidly growing suspicions about man-made global warming with a huge gulp of climate kool-aid.
I guess were all “stoned or stupider” cuzz we dont believe the liars the push global warming…..right Ed
the conman will just not talk about the e-mails and this thingy will all just go away.
I usually cant stand Ann Coulter but God she hits a home run here. bring out the chips and dogs.
Do smoking guns cause global warming, too?
Posted: December 02, 2009
Ann Coulter
As we now know (and by “we” I mean “everyone with access to the Internet”), the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit has just been caught ferociously manipulating the data about the Earth’s temperature.
Recently leaked e-mails from the “scientists” at CRU show that, when talking among themselves, they forthrightly admit to using a “trick” to “hide the decline” in the Earth’s temperature since 1960 – as one e-mail says. Still another describes their manipulation of the data thus: “(W)e can have a proper result, but only by including a load of garbage!”
Am I just crazy from the heat or were they trying to deceive us?
Global-warming cheerleaders in the media were quick to defend the scandalous e-mails, explaining that, among scientists, the words “trick,” “hide the decline” and “garbage” do not mean “trick,” “hide the decline” and “garbage.” These words actually mean “onion soup,” “sexual submissive” and “Gary, Ind.”
(Boy, it must be great to be able to redefine words right in the middle of a debate.)
Also, of course, the defenders said that the words needed to be placed “in context” – the words’ check was in the mail, and they’d like to spend more time with their families.
I have placed the words in context, and it turns out what they mean is: gigantic academic fraud.
Express your views on climate change in the most straightforward way possible – bumper sticker declares: “Global Warming is a Hoax”
The leaked e-mail exchanges also show the vaunted “scientists” engaging in a possibly criminal effort to delete their own smoking-gun e-mails in response to a Freedom of Information request. Next, the fanatics will be telling us that “among scientists,” this behavior does not indicate knowledge of guilt.
If I recall correctly, their next move should be to fire the special prosecutor late Saturday night.
These e-mails aren’t a tempest in a teapot. They are evidence of pervasive fraud by a massively influential institution that has dominated news coverage of global warming.
CRU was regularly cited as the leading authority on “global climate analysis” – including by the very news outlets that are burying the current scandal, such as the New York Times and the Washington Post. The CRU alone received more than $23 million in taxpayer funds for its work on global warming.
Having claimed to have collected the most complete data on the Earth’s temperature for the last half century, the CRU’s summary of that data was used by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for its 2007 report demanding that we adopt a few modest lifestyle changes, such as abolishing modern technology, reverting to hunter/gatherer status and taxing ourselves into servitude.
But then last weekend – in the middle of the “Let’s Cook the Books!” e-mail scandal – the CRU said that all its data on the Earth’s temperature since 1960 had been irretrievably “lost.” (Although I suspect “overcooked” might be a more apt term.)
The way this episode is unfolding, the environmentalists may be forced to drop their phantom threat of global warming and go back to the phantom threat of global cooling.
Most disturbingly, the CRU-affiliated “scientists” were caught red-handed conspiring to kill the careers and reputations of scientists who dissented from the religion of global warming. Indignant that scientific journals were publishing papers skeptical of global warming, the cult members plotted to get editors ousted and the publications discredited.
This sabotage of global-warming dissenters may be more galling than their manipulation of the data. Until now, the global-warming cult’s sole argument has been to demand that everyone shut up in response to the “scientific consensus” that human activity was causing global warming.
That’s their idea of a free and open debate.
It’s always the same thing with primitive people – voodoo practitioners, rain dancers and liberals. In lieu of facts, debate and a weighing of the evidence, religious fanatics respond to all counterarguments by invoking a higher authority: the witch doctor, a “scientific consensus,” “the Constitution” or “historians are agreed.”
Liberals won’t tell us why Congress passed a law outlawing incandescent light bulbs by 2014 – a bill solemnly delivered to the president in a Prius hybrid (making it the slowest-moving bill in U.S. history). Instead, they tell us there’s a “scientific consensus” that we have to use fluorescent light bulbs or we’ll all die.
(Column continues below)
They won’t tell us why Ten Commandments monuments must be stripped from every public space in America. Instead, they tell us “the Constitution” says so (according to the high priests who interpret it to mean things the document doesn’t remotely say).
They won’t tell us what Sen. Joe McCarthy lied about. They say: Historians are agreed that McCarthy was a liar. (These are the same historians who also stated as fact that “few American Communists were spies” – until decrypted Soviet cables proved that the Communist Party was awash with Soviet spies.)
This is precisely what liberals accuse Christians of doing, but which Christians never do. We don’t cite the Bible as authority – and then refuse to let anyone read it. We certainly don’t claim to have “lost” it, so you can’t check for yourself. But that’s exactly what the CRU has done with its secret data allegedly showing a warming Earth.
Also, biblical data on the Great Flood and Noah’s ark have held up remarkably well.
Even if the Earth were warming – which apparently it is not – the idea that humans using energy-efficient light bulbs would alter the temperature of the globe is approximately as plausible as the Aztecs’ belief that they were required to wrench the beating heart out of living, breathing humans in order to keep the sun on its path.
Sadly, the “human sacrifice deniers” lost the argument to Aztec CRU scientists, who explained that there was a “scientific consensus” on the benefits of ritual murder.
But at least the Aztecs slaughtered only tens of thousands of humans in the name of “climate change.” The global-warming cultists want us all dead.
It’s a real tragedy that people are being manipulated by so-called “truth” sites, into promoting the message of continued environmental destruction (among other things).
Because of your willingness to trust sites like Prison Planet, you are completely unaware of the fact that you are falling prey to the MIC clandestine propaganda campaign to keep their machine going. As long as they have people like you believing and promoting the idea that global warming is a hoax, their profits are safe from attack by government limitations on how much they can pollute and exploit the planet.
Through sites like Prison Planet, they’re able to deceive good people like yourself who think you’re getting the real truth there. They tell you global warming is a hoax and give you plausible evidence which you just soak up like a sponge, without ever checking whether the “documentation” is real.
Don’t you see infowars? You are carrying the message of the very agents you are fighting against; the Tri-Lateral, Bilderberg, IMF, One World government cabal. They are the ones who want you to believe that global warming is a hoax. They are the ones who stand to lose if they can’t convince you of that. Global warming is profitable for the people who pollute, NOT for the people who promote non-pollution. Follow the money dude, follow the money.
Do yourself and society a favor and use your own logic instead of relying on the propaganda they’re feeding you through their fake “truth” websites.
Demand defines the supply. Demand is fundamental. Without the demands of life, supply is irrelevant. All demands from the bird gathering sticks for a nest, to wanting a faster computer chip, are related to qualitative improvements in air food water and shelter to aid in the possibilities of propagation because of an improvement in the immediate local environment: Home.
You passed on a an urban myth.
Sue you are correct, Info is doing the bidding of all he SAYS he is against. Is he really against those things???
Would anyone argue for further discussions on an earth centered universe, phlogiston or a flat earth? For the same reasons dissenting pseudo science at variance from empirical data (rising oceans from a combinination of terrestrial ice melt and thermal expansion) tropical subtropical and Greenland snow, ice sheet, arctic marine island (Ellesmere, Novya Zemlya, and the Svalbard complex)
and alpine glacial coverage disappearing, Antarctic ice shelves breaking and disappearing, Sky island species going extinct, the rising level of malarial mosquitoes and so forth, needs to be dismissed and left with the musing of the spheres. It don’t meen nuthing. CO2 it don’t meen nuthin. Y’all seem to forget the snail darter it didn’t mean nuthin. Clear cuttin a forest, it don’t mean nuthin, white snow ain’t no diffurent from black asphalt — the sun shines on it, it was cold in Aspen last week and Palm Springs Florida. So just because the earth was hotter than the Sahara before in various “cycles,”
that’s a good reason to move to the Sahara to get ready for the warming that isn’t taking place — or sumthin like that, but who cares it don’t mean nuthing, there ain’t no proof and Rush and Glenn and Sean and Ann and Laura and Michelle TOLD me.
Ok maybe doped and duped, instead of stupider on Jupiter.
OK I got it. The analog of empical data don’t exist and statistical analysis don’t exist, and science don’t exist. In the words of a liberal Glenn Beck doppelganger “Get off my internet, you you you you cranially empty tool! Get sum reedin ritin and sum rifmatic! Get off get off arrghghghghgrrrrrr!!!!!!! How dare you insinuate that I should accept Retardican propaganda mythology as science! Get off get off get off you you you you uh, meany pants!
As an example of what I mean by trusting documentation from Prison Planet et al…
[As the graph below illustrates, San Francisco sea levels have noticably dropped over the last few years, and are back down to around 1880 levels.]
There’s no attribution on that graph. Where did the data come from? Who produced the graph? Did you even bother to question whether that graph was accurate or even real? Well I can tell you it is NOT. Sea levels are most certainly rising. Not only can people living in coastal areas all over the world attest to it, there are hundreds of scientific studies that corroborate it.
Occam’s Razor states that the simplest explanation tends to be the best one. What is more likely, that thousands of scientists all over the world are collaborating on producing a global warming hoax or that a few people with ties to the MIC are producing propaganda claiming that global warming is a hoax? You have to admit that it would be much simpler for a few people to claim global warming is a hoax than for someone to convince scientists of agencies like NASA, NOAA, the USGS, and thousands of others to produce false data on climate change.
My friends, climate change is not a hoax. It’s the idea that it’s a hoax that is the real hoax.
“You are carrying the message of the very agents you are fighting against; the Tri-Lateral, Bilderberg, IMF, One World government cabal. They are the ones who want you to believe that global warming is a hoax. They are the ones who stand to lose if they can’t convince you of that. Global warming is profitable for the people who pollute, NOT for the people who promote non-pollution. Follow the money dude, follow the money.”
Transcript: This is James Corbett of corbettreport.com and I come here today with a message for you.
You the environmentalists, you the activists, you the campaigners.
You who have watched with growing concern the ways in which the world around us has been ravaged in the pursuit of the almighty dollar.
You who are concerned with the state of the planet that we are leaving for our children and our grandchildren and those generations yet unborn.
This is not a message of divisiveness, but cooperation.
This is a message of hope and empowerment, but it requires us to look at a hard and uncomfortable truth:
Your movement has been usurped by the very same financial interests you thought you were fighting against.
You have suspected as much for years.
You watched at first with hope and excitement as your movement, your cause, your message began to spread, as it was taken up by the media and given attention, as conferences were organized and as the ideas you had struggled so long and hard to be heard were talked about nationally. Then internationally.
You watched with growing unease as the message was simplified. First it became a slogan. Then it became a brand. Soon it was nothing more than a label and it became attached to products. The ideas you had once fought for were now being sold back to you. For profit.
You watched with growing unease as the message became parroted, not argued, worn like a fashion rather than something that came from the conviction of understanding.
You disagreed when the slogans–and then the science–were dumbed down. When carbon dioxide became the focus and CO2 was taken up as a political cause. Soon it was the only cause.
You knew that Al Gore was not a scientist, that his evidence was factually incorrect, that the movement was being taken over by a cause that was not your own, one that relied on beliefs you did not share to propose a solution you did not want. It began to reach a breaking point when you saw that the solutions being proposed were not solutions at all, when they began to propose new taxes and new markets that would only serve to line their own pockets.
You knew something was wrong when you saw them argue for a cap-and-trade scheme proposed by Ken Lay, when you saw Goldman Sachs position itself to ride the carbon trading bubble, when the whole thrust of the movement became ways to make money or spend money or raise money from this panic.
Your movement had been hijacked.
The realization came the first time you read The Club of Rome’s 1991 book, The First Global Revolution, which says:
“In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together. But in designating these dangers as the enemy, we fall into the trap, which we have already warned readers about, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes, and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself.”
And when you looked at the Club of Rome’s elite member roster. And when you learnt about eugenics and the Rockefeller ties to the Kaiser Willhelm Institute and the practice of crypto-eugenics and the rise of overpopulation fearmongering and the call by elitist after elitist after elitist to cull the world population.
Still, you wanted to believe that there was some basis of truth, something real and valuable in the single-minded obsession of this hijacked environmental movement with manmade global warming.
Now, in November 2009, the last traces of doubt have been removed.
Last week, an insider leaked internal documents and emails from the Climate Research Unit of East Anglia University and exposed the lies, manipulation and fraud behind the studies that supposedly show 0.6 degrees Celsius of warming over the last 130 years. And the hockey stick graph that supposedly shows unprecedented warming in our times. And the alarmist warning of impending climate disaster.
We now know that these scientists wrote programming notes in the source code of their own climate models admitting that results were being manually adjusted.
We now know that values were being adjusted to conform to scientists’ wishes, not reality.
We now know that the peer review process itself was being perverted to exclude those scientists whose work criticized their findings.
We now know that these scientists privately expressed doubts about the science that they publicly claimed to be settled.
We now know, in short, that they were lying.
It is unknown as yet what the fallout will be from all of this, but it is evident that the fallout will be substantial.
With this crisis, however, comes an opportunity. An opportunity to recapture the movement that the financiers have stolen from the people.
Together, we can demand a full and independent investigation into all of the researchers whose work was implicated in the CRU affair.
We can demand a full re-evaluation of all those studies whose conclusions have been thrown into question by these revelations, and all of the public policy that has been based on those studies.
We can establish new standards of transparency for scientists whose work is taxpayer funded and/or whose work effects public policy, so that everyone has full and equal access to the data used to calculate results and all of the source code used in all of the programs used to model that data.
In other words, we can reaffirm that no cause is worth supporting that requires deception for its propagation.
Even more importantly, we can take back the environmental movement.
We can begin to concentrate on the serious questions that need to be asked about the genetic engineering technology whereby hybrid organisms and new, never-before-seen proteins that are being released into the biosphere in a giant, uncontrolled experiment that threatens the very genome of life on this planet.
We can look into the environmental causes of the explosion in cancer and the staggering drops in fertility over the last 50 years, including the BPA in our plastics and the anti-androgens in the water.
We can examine regulatory agencies that are controlled by the very corporations they are supposedly watching over.
We can begin focusing on depleted uranium and the dumping of toxic waste into the rivers and all of the issues that we once knew were part of the mandate of the real environmental movement.
Or we can, as some have, descend into petty partisan politics. We can decide that lies are OK if they support ‘our’ side. We can defend the reprehensible actions of the CRU researchers and rally around the green flag that has long since been captured by the enemy.
It is a simple decision to make, but one that we must make quickly, before the argument can be spun away and environmentalism can go back to business as usual.
We are at a crossroads of history. And make no mistake, history will be the final judge of our actions. So I leave you today with a simple question: Which side of history do you want to be on?
Of course the only reason we’re concerned about global warming is that it threatens our existence. It’s not hubris, it’s simple animal instinct to survive. Humanity’s main concern isn’t the overall health of the planet, or preventing extinction of snail darters, it’s preventing our own extinction.
Everyone agrees that the natural course of planetary evolution includes warming and ice ages, which there’s certainly nothing we can do to prevent. What everyone doesn’t agree to is whether humans can bring on either of these artificially by introducing large amounts of pollutants into the atmosphere. If that is indeed the case, then it’s possible we can hasten our own extinction.
But aside from the big picture, taking measures to lessen greenhouse gasses is good for our day to day existence, in preventing asthma, cancers, and other environmental diseases.
So, rather than arguing whether climate change is real or man-made, why don’t we just operate under the assumption that it is and do something to curb it?
infowars,
Again you are citing dubious sources: [Last week, an insider leaked internal documents and emails from the Climate Research Unit of East Anglia University and exposed the lies, manipulation and fraud behind the studies that supposedly show 0.6 degrees Celsius of warming over the last 130 years.]
This is exactly the kind of deception I’m talking about. You read that an insider leaked information debunking global warming and you swallow it whole without even questioning it. Who was that “insider?” Did this really even happen? Probably not. It’s just another made up story fed to conspiracy theorists and the media to undermine the worldwide environmental movement’s ability to restrict pollution and exploitation by corporations.
Wake up man! Not everything you read on the internet is true.
East Anglia University Statement on Hacking of Climate Research Unit Emails
“It is a matter of concern that data, including personal information about individuals, appears to have been illegally taken from the university and elements published selectively on a number of websites.
The volume of material published and its piecemeal nature makes it impossible to confirm what proportion is genuine.”
infowars, pay close attention to that last statement. Most likely, the fraud was not the scientist’s information, it was what was presented as the scientists information by the “hacker/insider” that is the fraud. This is how they operate; planting false information in otherwise legitimate reports.
Frankly I’m surprised that a premier conspiracy theorist such as yourself isn’t more suspicious and discerning of information like this. If you go around spouting false information, then how do you expect people to take you seriously when it comes to exposing the truth, which is what you say you’re mission is?
The MIC is making a fool of you and you just keep walking right into their trap.
Sue, today on the conman he said what these elite global warming liars have been saying all along, that carbon dioxide is a classified as a toxic pollutant that is dangerous to our planet and that needs to be controlled and limited by carbon credits…. a tax Sue, a tax.
This is what we breath out Sue.
This is what my dogs breath out Sue.
This is what plants need Sue.
This is what all living things including slugs breath out Sue.
This is a Global Tax on you Sue.
That’s one less illegal baby you wont be able to feed Sue.
This joke/hoax is on you Sue.
Not a single word from you about Depleted Uranium and you want a global tax
on what we breath and dog farts….LOL
“In August of 2003 the US Administration reversed the 1998 decision of the previous administration, which had classified carbon dioxide as a pollutant, and made it subject to the provisions of the Clean Air Act. As a result of the reversal of the 1998 decision, automobile manufacturers and power plants have been able to avoid making costly modifications that would have been required under the 1998 ruling. In 2006 environmental groups pushed for legislation that would reinstate carbon dioxide as a pollutant. In August of 2006 EPA General Counsel Robert Fabricant concluded that since the Clean Air Act does not specifically authorize regulation to address climate change, CO2 is not a pollutant (1).
The reason given for not classifying CO2 as a pollutant is based upon the fact that it is a natural component of the atmosphere and needed by plants in order to carry out photosynthesis. No one would argue the fact that carbon dioxide is a necessary component of the atmosphere any more than one would argue the fact that Vitamin D is necessary in the human diet. However, excess Vitamin D in the diet can be extremely toxic (6). Living systems, be they an ecosystem or an organism, require that a delicate balance be maintained between certain elements and/or compounds in order for the system to function normally. When one substance is present in excess and as a result threatens the wellbeing of an ecosystem, it becomes toxic, and could be considered to be a pollutant, despite the fact that it is required in small quantities.” http://environmentalchemistry.com/yogi/environmental/200611CO2globalwarming.html
No one is talking about taxing you and I on our exhales infowars. The tax would be levied against corporations who dump large quantities of it into our atmosphere, thus upsetting the delicate balance we require to survive. That’s why the MIC doesn’t want you to know that global warming is real. They just feed you the lie that it’s all a hoax designed to make Al Gore rich and you do their dirty work in spreading that lie around the blogosphere.
Bullshit isn’t technically a pollutant either, but can be harmful if swallowed in large quantities.
BTW I said plenty about Depleted Uranium after coming back from Iraq where I saw the horrifying results on the Iraqi population at the Basra hospital.
sure you did Sue.
where is this????
you shake your pom poms with the conman over cow farts and have said nothing about DU.
sooo.
” When one substance is present in excess and as a result threatens the wellbeing of an ecosystem, it becomes toxic, and could be considered to be a pollutant, despite the fact that it is required in small quantities.”
and what happens to the rain forest when you start messing with carbon dioxide Scientist Sue?
You don’t talk about fluoride in the water, you don’t talk about aspartame, you don’t talk about the biggest delivery of all pollution is from this illegal, immoral military endeavor forced upon us.
You don’t talk about chemtrails that are sprayed on us, you don’t talk about the 30+ million illegals that help in the pollution of this country, you don’t talk about The Chinese that are polluting not only in their country by producing this toxic crap but by sending their garbage over here.
You don’t talk about the oil and pharmaceutical companies that dump toxic chemicals in all the rivers, streams and oceans of this country and you certainly don’t talk about DU.
you would rather get worked up with cow farts.
Earth and it’s inhabitants need more, not less, CO2.
More CO2 means:
* More Plant Growth
* Plants need less water
* More food per acre
* More robust habitats and ecosystems
CO2 is Earth’s greatest airborne fertilizer. Without it – No Life On Earth!
Sue, are too young to remember, in 1975 this government pushed “the coming ice age?”
Tell us Sue, when do you believe the government info, when do you take it seriously? Do you flip a coin?
I believe what these people say every time.
“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
– Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme
“A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-development means bringing our
economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation.”
– Paul Ehrlich, Professor of Population Studies
“The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can’t let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are.”
– Michael Oppenheimer, Environmental Defense Fund
“Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control.”
– Professor Maurice King
“We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place for capitalists and their projects. We must reclaim the roads and plowed land, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness millions of acres of presently settled land.”
– David Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!
“Complex technology of any sort is an assault on human dignity. It would be little short of disastrous for us to
discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy, because of what we might do with it.”
– Amory Lovins, Rocky Mountain Institute
“The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the worst thing that could happen to the planet.”
– Jeremy Rifkin, Greenhouse Crisis Foundation
“Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.”
– Prof Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University
“Our insatiable drive to rummage deep beneath the surface of the earth is a willful expansion
of our dysfunctional civilization into Nature.”
– Al Gore, Earth in the Balance
“The big threat to the planet is people: there are too many, doing too well economically and burning too much oil.”
– Sir James Lovelock, BBC Interview
“My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with it’s full complement of species, returning throughout the world.”
-Dave Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!
“Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake,
use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing – are not sustainable.”
– Maurice Strong, Rio Earth Summit
“All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and
behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.”
– Club of Rome, The First Global Revolution
“Mankind is the most dangerous, destructive, selfish and unethical animal on the earth.”
– Michael Fox, vice-president of The Humane Society
“Humans on the Earth behave in some ways like a pathogenic micro-organism, or like the cells of a tumor.”
– Sir James Lovelock, Healing Gaia
“The Earth has cancer and the cancer is Man.”
– Club of Rome, Mankind at the Turning Point
“A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells, the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people. We must shift our efforts from the treatment of the symptoms to the cutting out of the cancer. The operation will demand many apparently brutal and heartless decisions.”
– Prof. Paul Ehrlich, The Population Bomb
“A reasonable estimate for an industrialized world society at the present North American material standard of living would be 1 billion. At the more frugal European standard of living, 2 to 3 billion would be possible.”
– United Nations, Global Biodiversity Assessment
“A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”
– Ted Turner, founder of CNN and major UN donor
“… the resultant ideal sustainable population is hence more than 500 million but less than one billion.”
– Club of Rome, Goals for Mankind
“One America burdens the earth much more than twenty Bangladeshes. This is a terrible thing to say in order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it’s just as bad not to say it.”
– Jacques Cousteau, UNESCO Courier
“If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.”
– Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, patron of the World Wildlife Fund
“I suspect that eradicating small pox was wrong. It played an important part in balancing ecosystems.”
– John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal
“The extinction of the human species may not only be inevitable but a good thing.”
– Christopher Manes, Earth First!
“Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license. All potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.”
– David Brower, first Executive Director of the Sierra Club
“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.”
– Club of Rome, The First Global Revolution
“We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination… So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”
– Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology, lead author of many IPCC reports
“Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.”
– Sir John Houghton, first chairman of IPCC
infowars, don’t you dare question me on my political and social activism. I did more to alert the American public of the danger of war with Iraq, Depleted Uranium, the MIC, American Fascism, etc. than you and all of your conspiracy theorists put together.
Did you go to Iraq? Did you see Depleted Uranium sickness firsthand? Did you go on tour around Colorado and Utah with firsthand photos and stories of the US devastation in Iraq from Operation Desert Storm?
All you ever do is cut and paste and quote crap from extremist sites that make people turn away and laugh. You never do any research of your own, you just rely on others to tell you what to think. You apparantly have no ability to discern truth from fiction.
According to your own words you “believe what these people say every time.” I don’t flip a coin to decide when to believe them and when to doubt, I use my brain, my logic, my gut, and tons and tons of research.
I agree with most of the statements you provided above. The world is overpopulated, and it isn’t because of immigrants. And yes, the world doesn’t need another selfish greedy polluting exploiting America. It needs regulation, control, conservation, and depopulation.
However, we don’t need to worry about the government or scary scientists killing us off with chemtrails, fluoride, or DU. All we need to do is keep doing what we’re doing; dumping tons of CO2, heavy metals, and other pollutants into the atmosphere, land and water, and the planet will eventually become uninhabitable for humans.
Just which side are you on anyway? It’s becoming really hard to tell. Are you against corporate pollution or are you against taxing and regulating corporate pollution? Are you against rampant population growth or are you against limiting population growth? Are you against MIC exploitation or are you against the scientists who are trying to stop MIC exploitation? I’m not sure you even know which side you’re on anymore.
1) Does CO2 function as a green house gas?
2) Is CO2 produced by forest fires, burning coal, oil, natural gas, volcanoes, organic decay, and cows?
3) Is homo sapiens responsible for any of this?
If the answer to these questions is “yes,” then humans have some responsibility for global warming.
A worthy philosophical question is: If humanity is merely complex chemistry, we with conscience call biology, then isn’t all we do natural? From that perspective, the Magna Carta, Battle of Actium, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, the holocaust, extinction of homo neandertalensis, Purple Haze, Puccini’s operas, DDT and yes Depleted Uranium are all natural. Perhaps we simply are. Human significance may not be relevant to supermassive black holes, the Andromeda galaxy or super novae of upper range Eddington limit stars. If it is important to matter to ourselves and potential progeny, then as Sue is suggesting, we might want to collectively do something about products with unintended consequences; pollution including excessive amounts of CO2 and even counter green house gas spikes. Should humanity stop there? I do not think so.
I too think the human population should with present practices be limited to
Global warming does not exist, at least for the last 11 years as the Earth’s temperature has declined.
The lying, corrupt government refuses to provide the data from publicly paid for research.
Researcher: NASA hiding climate data
… NASA has refused for two years to provide information under the Freedom of Information Act that would show how the agency has shaped its climate data and would explain why the agency has repeatedly had to correct its data going as far back as the 1930s.
The numbers matter. Under pressure in 2007, NASA recalculated its data and found that 1934, not 1998, was the hottest year in its records for the contiguous 48 states. NASA later changed that data again, and now 1998 and 2006 are tied for first, with 1934 slightly cooler.
…For now, climate scientists are rallying around the British researchers [that declares there is global warming].
NASA’s GISS was forced to update its data in 2007 after questions were raised by Steve McIntyre, who runs ClimateAudit.com.
GISS had initially listed the warmest years as 1998, 1934, 2006, 1921 and 1931. After Mr. McIntyre’s questions GISS rejiggered the list and 1934 was warmest, followed by 1998, 1921, 2006 and then 1931. But since then, the list has been rewritten again so it now runs 1998, 2006, 1934, 1921, 1999.
NASA and CRU data are considered the backbone of much of the science that suggests the earth is warming due to manmade greenhouse gas emissions. NASA argues its data suggests this decade has been the warmest on record.
On the other hand, data from the University of Alabama-Huntsville suggests temperatures have been relatively flat for most of this decade.
Like I said, even if global warming is the biggest hoax ever perpetrated, it still wouldn’t hurt to operate under the assumption that limiting pollution would be good for humanity and the planet overall.
[why don't we just operate under the assumption that it is and do something to curb it?]
In the late 80s, I documented weather forecasting systems at NOAA. What became clear to me in that short time is that atmospheric science is constantly looking for new inputs, new measures, to further substantiate forecasting models. At best such modeling remains a black art. I remain unpersuaded that the science behind global warming is any more substantive.
There are three main global temperature databases: the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia (CRU); the Global Historical Climate Network (NOAA/GHCN); and, the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (NASA/GISS). All three have global historical temperature records.
Atmospheric scientists in these organizations adjust the data to remove what they regard as “inhomogeneities,” incongruities that may result from moving a measurement station from one location to another, for example. It is “homogenized” data from CRU that a) serves as a basis for scientific consensus on global warming, and b) is the data that has “gone missing.”
Because I avoid basing conclusions on assumptions, I’d dearly love to see this missing CRU data on global warming, both the raw data, and the “homogenized” data. I won’t get to see any of it, and to be sure neither will you. But that’s different problem.
I appreciate you wanting to get accurate data before making decisions, but in the case of possible man induced climate change, we may not have the time to spare.
Consider that people were smoking and dying from tobacco long before there was data that showed it was a carcinogen. What we don’t know, can kill us.
All I’m saying is that, whether climate change is real or not, man-made or not, it would still be wise to take measures to limit or eliminate pollution. Aside from the possibility of flooding coastlines, we already know air pollution is carcinogenic and causes a multitude of problems for children, the elderly, asthmatics, plants, and animals.
Scientists are doing the best they can with the knowledge and equipment they currently possess. Rather than accusing them of evil intentions, why can’t we just give them the benefit of the doubt…for the benefit of all?
What we don’t know is what the destroyed data actually indicates about global temperatures. While I doubt any rational person would argue that the absence of this knowledge can kill us, the destruction of this data certainly indicates somebody had something to hide, like a dataset that could not withstand scientific scrutiny.
A friend recently wrote, “Humans are natural. It’s natural that some people think some things are unnatural or supernatural. It’s natural that we pollute. It’s natural the some people object to pollution. And it’s natural that we oversimplify things, because the complexity of what’s out there is ineffable.”
But Mitch, the climate change theory doesn’t rely on that ONE “missing” dataset. Even if a handful of scientists at one lab hid some evidence, there are thousands of other scientists at hundreds of other labs who’ve produced evidence that the earth is warming at a greater rate than ever before, and that the rate of warming parallels the increase in man-made pollutants.
You don’t really believe as infowars does, that every climatologist in the world is in cahoots in an evil plan to make Al Gore rich do you?
Thank you for that rousing example of reductio ad absurdum. I enjoyed it.
I have no fondness for Al Gore, it is true, but I would point out that yours is the attitude necessary for a Bernie Madoff to build an epic ponzie scheme. Your preponderance of evidence argument notwithstanding, the veracity of any scientific consensus relies on the elimination of all evidence to the contrary. Your “thousands of other scientists at hundreds of other labs” can’t disprove that the sun isn’t the primary cause.
From a logical perspective, the uncertainty principle eliminates the possibility of ALL contrary evidence being eliminated. Science has and always will be, with present understanding, based on statistical probabilities and statistical possibilities. Nearly certain is not absolute metaphysical certitude. Evolution, general theory of relativity, and global warming are theories. Results from theories are boiled down to statistical probabilities much like predicting hurricanes and other types of weather. These statistical probabilities are given as ranges. Empirical evidence (sequencing tree rings for instance) and the comparison of previously described analogs of reality with present analogs of reality give a better than excellent foundation for theories. Dated photographs are also excellent.
Just so an idea exists for consideration the 3 million square miles of the lower 48 is about 1.54% of the earth’s total surface. The evidence for global warming covers far more area than the lower 48. A cold day in Aspen is practically meaningless, however loss of ice in the fringes of Antarctica especially the Palmer penninsula, Greenland, Ellesmere, Himalayas, Andes and other mountain ranges. This loss of ice is an analog of reality, and a symptom of warming and is apparently planetary.
While the “global elite” fret about water vapor and carbon dioxide, real industrial toxins go unchallenged.
One of the worst is asbestos.
Asbestos has been known to be a cause of Mesothelioma and other serious lung diseases since the 1920s.
Yet, its use was pushed hard by government and industry.
Worse, workers were not informed or protected from its dangers. Regulation of asbestos is still lax and victims are being left on the side of the road to die.
Yet, “world leaders” are meeting to outlaw carbon dioxide.
infowars, if you and twenty other people were put in a room with no ventilation, you’d eventually run out of oxygen, replacing it with carbon dioxide, and you’d all die. Would you consider carbon dioxide a toxin then?
What happens when we fill our atmosphere with carbon dioxide? Do you really know the answer?
Any university lab can duplicate these results. One has to decide if the cloudless unpolluted day sky is blue or not. I am sure there is a few who do not think the sky under the above conditions is blue.
Obama acknowledged that the agreement’s reduction targets, to the chagrin of environmental groups, fell well short of what scientists project is necessary to stabilize warming at sub-catastrophic levels.
“This progress did not come easily, and we know that this progress alone is not enough,” Obama said in a late-evening news conference announcing the deal.
“We’ve come a long way, but we have much further to go.”
The failure to produce tougher emission cuts, greater financial assistance and a set deadline for follow-up disappointed many environmental activists and infuriated leaders of poor, climate-vulnerable nations like Nicaragua and Cuba, which appeared unlikely to endorse the agreement.
A final plenary session began debating the agreement early today. The goal was to reach enough consensus that the president of the conference, Danish Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen, could declare the document outlining the agreement approved. But that goal was thrown into question as a string of developing nations began to protest what they called an inadequate and nonbinding text.
Oxfam International, which works on climate and poverty issues around the world, called it a “historic cop-out” on its website. A protest group that has rallied in Copenhagen throughout the summit called it “toothless.” Kassie Siegel, director of the Climate Law Institute at the Center for Biological Diversity in Tucson, said, “If this is the best we can do, it is not nearly good enough.”
___________________________
ok mr conman and sue, we shall see this doomsday event you have pushed through fear 3+days a week for over a year now.
So, inforwars, forgive me if I can’t seem to keep my conspiracies straight.
Obama gives in to compromise in Copenhagen, and his REAL motivation, according to your effin’ ineffable sources, is that he is carrying the water (or oil), except that it was Bush-Cheney who were the REAl oilmen, and did everything in their power to completely discredit climate change, right down to doctoring EPA documents to water down findings about warming.
Something more fundamental is missing for you and most of the critics of Copenhagen. It’s called politics. You never get what you really want (or rarely) but you can succed, if you’re lucky, by NOT failing. I know it’s a difficult concept for you infowars, but Obama came out of Copenhagen with just enough to declare victory, though he would have loved much, much more.
Welcome to the real world, my friend, in which the REAL conspiracies occur in plain sight for all to see. Even you.
Both republicans and democrats have sold out to business interests at the expense of us the people. Business would divide us all into two classes, consumers and those few that control production and money. We are all subjugated by the corporatism that is America, and for that matter the developed world. We all need to resist it.
So many of or fellow citizens, the middle class, have bought into the beliefs that are propagated in the media, news and like your show, in our schools and by the system. Beliefs like, hard work is rewarded, education will get you ahead, that it is a level playing field, that capitalism is good, that this is the land of the free, and so many more slogans that in the end are hallow.
People peruse the dream, the myth, that we all have an equal shot at success. We consume more and more, the nice car, the nice house, the killer stereo, the latest fashions all in the never ending hunt to make it. Be somebody we are told and to the corporatist world that means consume more, have more, chase your dreams and dream of that next best thing. It is all hallow and empty in the end and one is left empty.
This is of course what these elitists want and one you push over and over and over ad nauseam. Our collective angst, or collective unrest chasing a dream that is no more real then the sitcom we watch on TV. They harness this angst and restlessness and tell you to work harder, try harder, go into debt, go back to school work. Work more spend more and for what Mr. Conman, for what?
This is why the main stream media is in the toilet. Because people are waking up to the lies and dis-service you and others have pushed.
Real world? Just you and a few phonies with money in your wallets continue the facade of a left vs. right scenario.
Wars, like Global Warming are pushed by fear mongers to have us lose our Freedoms forever.
I suggested to you years ago to read Smedely Butler’s book, War is a Racket.
I know for a fact you didn’t bother, but I also know you really know what is going on and have decided to be part of the problem (for money) rather than fight for truth and honor.
[Obama came out of Copenhagen with just enough to declare victory, though he would have loved much, much more.]
Geesh Michael… by this metric, every student should get an “A”.
Why did China walk out of the climate summit last week? it’s not rocket science: China doesn’t want an emissions cap.
To be fair, Obama did reach a compromise: China will allow some sort of yet-to-be-defined inspection process, but mainly it will, like other nations, “self-report” emissions. Just how might that work?
Isn’t this the antithesis of effective foreign policy? Maybe Obama’s next move will be to ask Iran to “self-report” its nuclear program.
Now that they face defeat, the Republican/Conservative movement has taken to proclaiming its satisfaction with the passage of healthcare reforn because they are convinced it won’t work.
The same psychotic dysfunction is at work when it comes to climate change. At the end of the day, if we don’t shift to renewable energy sources then we are damn near suicidal as a nation for reasons of (a) national security; and (b) climate change. (In that order, by the way). Even if you don’t believe in climate change one single bit, it still makes sense to shake our addiction to fossil fuel for reasons of national security.
This article, written by an aid for the Maldives who was in the room, is unequivocal evidence that China blocked all the major initiatives because it’s economy is overwhelmingly coal-based and it could not afford accords that force it to change post-haste.
In healthcare, climate change, and everything else, politicls is the art of the possible. Sometimes you can win the war one battle at a time.
[In healthcare, climate change, and everything else, politicls [sic] is the art of the possible. Sometimes you can win the war one battle at a time.]
A truer sentiment was never garbled.
A war you say? And all this time I thought the blood trail behind you and your partisan views was the unfortunate result of dragging your knuckles on the ground. I’d take the gloves off for this ‘war,’ but that hardly seems fair.
Woah Mitch, partisan or not, I hardly think our esteemed host’s views on “healthcare, climate change, and everything else,” worthy of your amusing but rather uncivil lambasting. Have you been taking lessons from Wharf Rat?
Happy New Year All. May we develop the compassion to share our views with tolerance and good will.
“Mitch Loses His (Blue) Marble
Post blogger Mitch Mulhall turns to the ultimate climate change denier — a man who has spent his career as a local weatherman. Dr. Frank Fields, anyone?”
Your right, putting him up against the man that invented the internet and whos life was written as Love Story. What was that Mitch thinking?
Where’s Al Gore now ? This winter , at least in the United States has record breaking low tempertures as far south as Florida in the 30’s even hitting 27 , snowing in texas off and on for the last few weeks , the great lakes states are below zero for the last week and even where I live up by Bartsow , Ca. in the high dessert , the avg low for this week will be 30.5 degrees ! The lowest temps in Ireland in over 30 years.
NOTE : Today while I was watching the Weather Channel , they reported that the WC will no longer be reporting hail as small as 1/4 inch . Only penny size hail will now be reported , because they stated ” 1/4 hail doesn’t cause as much property damage as does penny size hail ” . . . and they continued ” we don’t want to scare anyone with that type of hail warning ” ????
DUH ! The Weather Channel has only been reporting 1/4 hail warnings since it was founded back in 1981 . I don’t recall any ‘ panics ‘ when they had reported it before .
The truth of the matter is that hail , in general , is more frequent today then in the past , It contradicts the ‘ Global Warming ” scam . I guess The Weather Channel has also sold out to the American People . . . John Coleman must be hanging his head in shame .
I’ve already said I have no fondness for Al Gore, and I’ll leave it at that.
I don’t think for a second that climatic warming won’t cause problems for us–it most definitely will, as certainly as climatic cooling would. We should try to understand global warming. I think all the hand wringing over global warming is mostly political hyperbole that takes away attention from issues with much greater immediate import, like poverty, infectious diseases, public education, and human health.
When you consider everything that comes out a modern auto’s exhaust pipe, why has the political community locked on to Carbon Dioxide? That’s a pregnant question… one I think everyone should consider.
Your memory is shorter than a registration line at the Republican Party.
To whit: liberals have done nothing but agitate and lobby against “what comes out a modern auto’s exhaust pipe.” The evidence is everywhere every time you turn on your car.
Conservatives response to that? “It will hurt the economy.” The rest is history — a major coup for the liberal cause that has benefitted everyone.
Climate change? Same story. Liberals fighting based on science — and winning everywhere in the world, by the way, while conservatives like yourself grumble about freezing temperatures in DC and point to ludicrous examples like John Coleman, the weatherman, as proof positive.
Even conservatives now saw we need renewable energy. What say ye?
Michael,
Despite your best efforts to put words in my mouth, I’d have to say the figure who best encapsulates my views on the global warming debate is Freeman Dyson. Of the climatic models used to proffer the arguments supporting the positions of Al Gore and others, Dyson writes:
The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world we live in.
This statement comports with my experiences documenting weather forecasting systems at NOAA.
I have never argued against the development of renewable energy technologies, nor have I argue for eliminating the use of coal, petroleum, and other fossil fuels. My attitude is best summarized in an old, Colorado School of Mines bumper sticker that says, “BAN MINING, let the bastards freeze in the dark.” The closer Congress gets to control over CO2 levels in the atmosphere, the closer they get to controlling what we exhale, which in your case is mostly hot air.
Cheers,
Thinking that global warming means it gets warmer everywhere all of the time is like, well, thinking that carbon dioxide isn’t a toxin just because we exhale it (newsflash: the body exhales carbon dioxide BECAUSE it’s a toxin).
It’s pretty friggin simplistic to think “global warming” is a farce just because it’s cold and it hails somewhere. But it still befuddles a lot of people. That’s why several years ago, the term was modified to “climate change,” so it won’t confuse those prone to literal interpretations.
If the title confuses you, the science behind it must really rattle your cranium, so let me try to put this in layman’s terms…
Climate change means colder temperatures and hotter ones, it means more snow and less snow, it means tornadoes and hurricanes and more rain and less, but mostly what it means is that varying temperature’s associated effects will manifest in different areas than usual.
Which is where the problem lies. If it’s colder than usual in Florida, and it hails and ruins the crops – that’s a problem. If it’s warmer than usual in the Arctic and Antarctic and the glaciers melt and raise the ocean level – that’s a problem. If the monsoon’s come later and end earlier, and people, animals, and plants die of thirst – that’s a problem.
It isn’t global warming that’s a potential problem, it’s global climate change.
Yes Mitch, by all means let’s give it further study. In the meantime, let’s pass some anti-pollution regulation. If at the end of the study, climate change is proved innocuous, at least we’ll have a cleaner planet. If it’s found to be truly perilous and also avoidable, we’ll already have a head start on preventing possible mass-extinction.
[It’s pretty friggin simplistic to think "global warming" is a farce just because it’s cold and it hails somewhere.]
I’m criticizing the veracity of the climatic models used to put forth the idea that the human act of curbing the use of fossil fuels can halt or at least stem climatic changes that are unfavorable to human existence. I’d be pleased to read your refutation of my position on these climatic models, but abnegating an argument I do not make wastes both your time and mine.
Sorry Mitch, I should have made it clear that I was referring to infowars’ comment #46: “This winter , at least in the United States has record breaking low tempertures as far south as Florida in the 30’s even hitting 27 , snowing in texas off and on for the last few weeks , the great lakes states are below zero for the last week and even where I live up by Bartsow , Ca. in the high dessert , the avg low for this week will be 30.5 degrees ! The lowest temps in Ireland in over 30 years.”
But it still befuddles a lot of people. That’s why several years ago, the term was modified to “climate change,” so it won’t confuse those prone to literal interpretations.
26. Sue Gray | December 9th, 2009 at 6:39 pm
Like I said, even if global warming is the biggest hoax ever perpetrated, it still wouldn’t hurt to operate under the assumption that limiting pollution would be good for humanity and the planet overall.
___________________________________
besides you using both terms with no, zero, nadda facts to support your plan.
Im poor.
I dont have any money to support your tax Sue, and thats what it is, its a tax.
Thinking that global warming means it gets warmer everywhere all of the time is like, well, thinking that carbon dioxide isn’t a toxin just because we exhale it (newsflash: the body exhales carbon dioxide BECAUSE it’s a toxin).
If it’s warmer than usual in the Arctic and Antarctic and the glaciers melt and raise the ocean level – that’s a problem.
Your wrong on both parts.
Carbon Dioxide that we exhale is not a toxin and melting ice glaciers dont raise the ocean levels.
[Carbon Dioxide that we exhale is not a toxin and melting ice glaciers dont raise the ocean levels.]
Where are your facts to support this?
[Im poor.
I dont have any money to support your tax Sue, and thats what it is, its a tax. ]
What you don’t seem to get yet is that this is not a federal tax on citizens. It’s a tax on corporations, you know those same corporations you rail about whose greed starts wars and ruins our economy and spreads DU all over the place?
The tax is on their factory pollution, not on our exhalation. The tax will not come from your pocket, it will come from theirs and be used to clean up pollutants that affect our health and the health of our planet. The tax is to protect US from THEM.
im tired of spoon feeding you. go back and re-read what you wrote. I dont have anymore time for this, I find myself agreeing with Mitch on this one, and finding arguing with you a complete waste of time.
50. Sue Gray | January 6th, 2010 at 10:30 pm
Thinking that global warming means it gets warmer everywhere all of the time is like, well, thinking that carbon dioxide isn’t a toxin just because we exhale it (newsflash: the body exhales carbon dioxide BECAUSE it’s a toxin).
If it’s warmer than usual in the Arctic and Antarctic and the glaciers melt and raise the ocean level – that’s a problem.
________________________________
you made the claim you prove it.
and please stop putting words in others mouths, just speak for yourself and back up your claims.
and taxing or making something illegal never stops it, your global warming friends just want to make carbon credits like emmmmm the stock market, you know the one thats a fraud.
You want me to prove that melting glaciers raise the sea level? That’s basic physics! You made the claim that adding water to the ocean from melted glaciers does not raise sea level. I want you to explain how basic physics doesn’t apply here. What miracle planet do you live on where icemelt doesn’t produce added water?
I’ve never put words in other’s mouths. I only excerpt what you’ve written, as you’ve done to me in your last two comments.
You say carbon dioxide is not a toxin and melting glaciers don’t raise sea level and I’m asking you to back that up with scientific evidence. What’s there to get snippy about?
OK infowars, I’ll comply with your wishes. Here is the science behind my statements…
Basic Information about Concentrations of CO2 in Air
• 1,000,000 ppm of a gas = 100 % concentration of the gas, and 10,000 ppm of a gas in air = a 1% concentration.
• At 1% concentration of carbon dioxide CO2 (10,000 parts per million or ppm) and under continuous exposure at that level, such as in an auditorium filled with occupants and poor fresh air ventilation, some occupants are likely to feel drowsy.
• The concentration of carbon dioxide must be over about 2% (20,000 ppm) before most people are aware of its presence unless the odor of an associated material (auto exhaust or fermenting yeast, for instance) is present at lower concentrations.
• Above 2%, carbon dioxide may cause a feeling of heaviness in the chest and/or more frequent and deeper respirations.
• If exposure continues at that level for several hours, minimal “acidosis” (an acid condition of the blood) may occur but more frequently is absent.
• Breathing rate doubles at 3% CO2 and is four times the normal rate at 5% CO2.
• Toxic levels of carbon dioxide: at levels above 5%, concentration CO2 is directly toxic. [At lower levels we may be seeing effects of a reduction in the relative amount of oxygen rather than direct toxicity of CO2.]
Symptoms of high or prolonged exposure to carbon dioxide include headache, increased heart rate, dizziness, fatigue, rapid breathing, visual and hearing dysfunctions. Exposure to higher levels may cause unconsciousness or death within minutes of exposure. http://www.inspectapedia.com/hazmat/CO2gashaz.htm
But since you believe that all of the world’s scientists are conspiring to lie to us, what’s the point in my giving you the evidence to back up my statements when you’ll just dismiss it as global warming propaganda?
“Your wrong on both parts.
Carbon Dioxide that we exhale is not a toxin and melting ice glaciers dont raise the ocean levels. ”
Nothing you posted proves your points. Sure, fill a room with people breathing and take away their oxygen and they will die, not because of some kind of toxin, because they run out of air to breath.
And what happens when you fill a glass with water and lots of ice, Sue?
Does it overfill when the ice melts?
lol
Glaciers have air and volume Sue, and most of the entire Glacier is under water. Very little of that iceberg or glacier is even scene, hence when it melts it lowers sea levels not raises them.
Just like you fear-mongers that say man is the reason of global warming, yet Mars and other planets and moons have frozen areas, yet some are closer to the Sun and have no cars or cow farts. And then theres the fact that these same super-duper-leaders said we would have an ice age in the 70s.
And to change it too climate change…..WOW….there called seasons Sue. And if those seasons worry you, then get a group together to stop the HARP program and complain about the chemtrails this government finally admitted to doing.
but who cares cuzz Al Gore invented the internet, and Obama won the Peach Prize huh.
Uh infowars, I guess you’re not aware that glaciers are on land, not the ocean. We’re not talking about icebergs, we’re talking about frozen rivers of ice that have existed for thousands of years melting into the sea. The Antarctic ice sheet is from 7000 to 15000 feet thick and covers nearly the entire continent. You don’t think if it melts that will raise the sea level? There are glaciers melting in Greenland, Alaska, and the Himalayas. All adding new, previously bound up water to the ocean. It’s already happening and no matter how much you question authority, physics is still going to be in play.
[Sure, fill a room with people breathing and take away their oxygen and they will die, not because of some kind of toxin, because they run out of air to breath.]
And you just made the exact point scientists are trying to make with Carbon Dioxide levels in our atmosphere: too much, and we run out of air to breath. We die. That’s what toxic means.
While some ice covered land areas, glaciers, and icebergs are melting, some are growing and have been since the beginging of time. Some civilizations are deep below the sea, and some areas like the Grand Canyon are open for all to see, hike and enjoy. And to your surprise, all before you were breathing air or anyone was driving a big SUV and cows were farting with no tax on them.
I still dont believe you, the conman or any or your scientists or even Al Gore himself that what humans breath out is toxic. By your example, water is toxic, but then, so is mustard if you drowned in it.
The conman needs to put up the other side of the debate on his show, having 4 or 5 “script readers” over and over again serves no one.
[the body exhales carbon dioxide BECAUSE it’s a toxin]
Hmmm. The scientific community declares CO2 a greenhouse gas. Sue says it’s a toxin. The dry cleaning industry considers it a “green” solvent. And the soft drink industry wouldn’t be the same without it.
Info,
Ice in the form of glaciers, snow, sheets and caps above sealevel does not raise sea level, until it flows into as water or floats on as ice bergs or as an ice shelf. A melting iceberg does not raise the sea level. The level was already raised, when it began to fully float.
The melting and sublimation of terrestrial ice exceeds the deposition of the solid phase of water on land, hence the shrinking volume of non floating ice above sealevel.
With your original glass of water take a second glass and fill it to the brim and drop as carefully as you can an ice cube. This is exactly the same principle behind the raising of the seas, except for the mess you created on your table, we get Bangladesh and Florida as possible Atlantis candidates in a scifi post apocalyptic scenario. It truly is just that simple.
The issues Mitch brought up earlier, are absolutely valid problems without functioning sloutions. That they exist does not mean global warming isn’t a problem or is mitigated. Solving some of those problems might actually help with global warming.
The biosphere on this planet is warming and so I will do my best to not call it climate change for any nebulous reason PC or not. The sun is also warming as more hydrogen is converted into helium and increases core density making the core radius smaller and therefore increases the gravity which increases the rate on fusionable (excuse this “word”) collisions and thus heat while lowering the density of the suns outer layers because mass has gone to the core and mostly because the outer layers have more volume because of increased heat/energy from the core via radiative, conductive and convective means.
Whatever life after humanity goes extinct or evolves into, will have to deal with this and it is an irrevocable sentence, best solved by leaving the solar system. There is about 100,000,000 – 400,000,000 million years to figure the solar problem out.
In the meantime, humanity can introduce a Venusian hell much sooner. Of course with “jihadists,” Taliban christianites, oligarchs, kleptocrats and plutocrats running the shows of racism, plunder, murder, war machines, homocide, holocaust, ethnic cleansing, final solutions, pollution, irradiated foods and genetically modified organisms, alternate means of extinction may be at our door. Just think in 150 years all alive are likely to be dead, as I wrote somewhere before. We can enjoy the drivers taking us over the cliff, or do something about them. Currently, the drivers are protected by law more effectively than spotted owls, and should be treated like malarial mosquitoes ready to tank up on your erythrocytes.
As long as people allow the conversion of currency and metals into the protected ownership of wealth as ably defined by A. Smith, K. Marx and practiced without peer by A. Carnegie, we the people where ever we may live on this planet will have this problem.
Well Mitch, you’ve really hit the nail on the head. Carbon Dioxide is different things in different situations. That’s probably true of most elements.
If you’re talking about coca cola, CO2 is a harmless additive. If you’re talking about the atmosphere, it’s not. CO2 in the atmosphere isn’t inherently toxic, but too much is definitely toxic, just as it would be if there were too much CO2 in the human body.
The word toxic means dangerous or deadly. What the scientists are warning about is introducing toxic amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, which prevents heat from dissipating and throws off the climate balance, creating heat waves in Alaska and freezes in Florida.
CO2 may be good, but too much of a good thing can be bad.
According to the US National Snow and Ice Data Center in Colorado, Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007 – and even the most committed global warming activists do not dispute this.
This simple experiment can be reproduce by anyone using three plastic bottles, three cheap tropical fish tank thermometers, a halogen heater to provide infrared and a large bottle of carbonated water.
Many who consider themselves scientists will try to discredit this experiment in various ways so I would like to highlight the importance of this simple test by preempting any such criticism.
Firstly, in order to avoid any issues with regards water vapor I have used a control bottle of dry air. This way we can be sure that if water vapor becomes a forcing mechanism in the other two bottles we can compare that to the dry bottle. This control rules out water vapor as a forcing because the dry bottle and the bottle half filled with tap water react equally to the infrared heat.
Next I would point out that I did consider that the back side of the thermometers would be directly heated by the lamp but ruled this out as a concern for the following reasons.
Firstly because the bottles are made of clear plastic they are perfect for this experiment. While being transparent to the infrared light, the plastic itself is a poor conductor of heat. Therefore it allows rapid heating of the gas inside while avoiding heat conduction to the thermometers.
Next, because the gas inside is so rapidly warmed and rises over the 30º C max of the thermometers within a few seconds, it is fair to conclude that any direct heating of the back side of the thermometers would be insignificant. This is attested to by observing that the bottle containing CO2 is as slow to absorb as it is quick to re-emit heat. While the tap water/air and dry air bottles react equally.
Finally because the gas inside these bottles is heated so rapidly the infrared heat source can be turned off after just a few seconds which allows us to observe the pure heat emitting properties of normal atmospheric air compared with pure CO2.
Positioning the tap water/air bottle in the center gives another control because as can be seen, the dry air on the right reacts to infrared equally to the center bottle with tap water/air. This control helps to exclude water vapor as a forcing while at the same time rendering it unnecessary to reposition the bottles.
It is clear from these results that CO2 does not retain more heat than ordinary air. It is therefore conclusive that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas and that the term greenhouse gas in context with the Earths atmosphere is fallacious.
The only conclusion that can be drawn from this experiment is that adding more CO2 to the atmosphere will not produce a warming effect, therefore AGW is a scientific fraud.
This story allows a bit of reflection to the serious business of world destruction:
WORLD BICYCLE ADVENTURES–EAT DESSERT FIRST by Frosty Wooldridge
“Cookies always taste better than meat
and potatoes.”
A third grader
Couldn’t have found a more perfect spot among tall pines and¬ a needle soft floor to pitch my tent on this day, which I shall¬ remember for the rest of my life. Birds are chirping above me as¬ the light fades from the sky and a cool wind whispers through the trees making them creak as they sway back and forth. The ¬campfire chases away the darkness in a small circle surrounded by ¬towering redwoods.
Sunshine blessed us today as we rode the 49er Trail toward ¬Sonora, California. Flowers bloomed along the road like a ¬bouquet from a child’s coloring book. But something happened ¬today that fills my heart with sorrow.
When Doug and I awoke this morning, the sun had broken¬ through the cloud cover, revealing immense forests shrouded in¬ gray mist. A green mantle of pines swept toward towering peaks ¬of the High Sierra. The mist swirled like giant pinwheels above -the treetops while we ate our breakfast.
Doug and I eat foods that give us top performance. While ¬touring, we buy seven-grain cereal and mix it with sunflower¬ seeds, raisins, and fresh fruit. A loaf of wheat bread hangs off our¬ packs, and we spread peanut butter over each slice. Water is the simplest liquid to keep and pour over the cereal. Because ¬bicycling utilizes so much energy, breakfast is topped off with¬ an apple or an orange. We eat our food from the same stainless ¬steel pots used for cooking and washing dishes. After breakfast, ¬we break camp, and push the bikes out of the woods to the¬ highway.
We had descended from a snowstorm at 6,000 feet out of ¬Yosemite National Park. The rolling highway led us away from ¬Yosemite through tall trees, high mountain beauty and spring¬ colors. The dripping wet color of pine green glistened along¬ every mile in the road. We dropped another 1,000 feet before¬ stopping for lunch on a grassy spot near the road. Doug grabbed ¬his food pack, and I followed him with mine.
Our lunch ritual was the same every day. We bought ¬groceries for two days riding. Complex carbohydrates in the form¬ of fruits and vegetables, rice and lentils were our main staples. ¬We celebrated lunch because hunger constantly stalks a cyclist. ¬We sat in the shade, spread our towels and prepared sandwiches. ¬I’ll admit it–Doug eats more than I. No, let me clarify that¬ statement. He inhales more food than a humpback whale. He makes¬ a shark look tame when it comes to appetite. To give you an idea ¬how much Doug eats at a sitting, I’d lay bets on him in a pie¬ eating contest against the Pittsburgh Steelers. Doug would eat them ¬under the table. If there was a word to describe how much food¬ he consumes, it hasn’t been invented yet. That’s Doug, all 6’4″¬of him. Yet, through the modern miracle of bicycling, he’s lean ¬and clean.
He sat with his legs stretched out in a V. He laid out¬ eight slices of bread, along with a bag of vegetables. He¬ carries a cutting board which he washed off with his water bottle. Within minutes, he cut everything into slices. He¬ stacked tomatoes, cucumbers and green peppers on top of each¬ other before topping his sandwiches with mustard. His eyes lit ¬up as his tongue licked his lips in anticipation of the coming¬ feast. Not to be outdone, I too chopped with vigor. Hunger is¬ fun on a bicycle adventure, because we love to eat, and food¬ dazzles our taste buds. Thirty minutes later, we polished off¬ four bananas for dessert.
We were ready to go when I held us up for another minute ¬because I had to take a bathroom break. Back on the road, we¬ cranked up a hill with sweat dripping from our bodies. Not five¬ minutes later, we saw a bicyclist coming the other way as we¬ rolled into a valley. At the bottom, he coasted to a stop. Doug¬ and I slowed to a stop.
I was looking at the bike rider when I noticed he was ¬carrying a black puppy on a platform on his rear rack. I smiled, ¬”What a nice…” I began to say. Before I could finish my¬ sentence, the puppy bounded off the platform and ran across the¬ pavement toward us. I heard a vehicle coming, but before the¬ driver or anyone could bat an eyelash, the puppy yelped in a¬ death cry after being crushed by two sets of wheels from a pickup¬ truck going 60 miles per hour.
From a happy disposition with blue sky and sunshine ¬overhead, I was jerked into pain and bewilderment. My first ¬thought was for the fellow across the road who had seen his puppy¬ crushed to death before his eyes.
Blood gushed out from the dog’s body.
“Oh no, oh no,” I said in a withered voice.
It shocked my senses from a lovely day to a terrible moment¬ that happened with no rhyme or reason. Only that moment. Had we¬ eaten lunch for 30 seconds longer, or had I waited to relieve ¬myself, the exact meeting of that fellow bicyclist would have¬ saved the puppy. I felt sick.
The rider got off his bike. He walked across the road,¬ picked up the dog and walked up to us.
“I’m so sorry,” I said with grief in my voice.
“Nothing you could do. It wasn’t anyone’s fault,” he said.
The driver stopped and ran back, “I’m sorry,” he said. “I ¬couldn’t stop.”
“There’s nothing you could have done sir,” the bicyclist¬ said. “Thanks for stopping.”
“I’m sorry son,” the driver said as he walked away.
“I’m so sorry,” I repeated. “Is there anything I can do?”
“No,” he said. “I need to take Sierra for a walk in the¬ woods.”
As he carried the pup away toward the trees, I stood there, ¬my heart crushed with pain. He had lost a special friend, one he ¬had run through the high country with, one who had sat by ¬campfires with him.
A half-hour passed before I walked up to where he was¬ burying Sierra. I introduced myself. His name was Bob and he ¬began crying. I walked up and embraced him. His pain moved into ¬me. I wept with tears running down my face onto his shirt, soaking a small circle into it. I held him tight. He talked¬ with his face on my shoulders, sniffling through his nose,¬ convulsing with gasps of air. Minutes later, we picked up rocks ¬and finished covering Sierra’s body. Bob and I walked back¬ toward the road. Bob didn’t look back, but his whole being was¬ torn. I sensed the anguish ripping at his foundations.
“I don’t understand why this happened,” he said.
Doug nor I said anything. What could we say? What could we ¬do?
Nothing.
Bob decided to continue south. He wanted to figure out why¬ this happened. I gave him one last hug. Doug did too. Bob¬ walked across the road, picked up his bike and rode off.
“Do you know only one car has ridden by us in the last 45¬minutes?” Doug said.
“This just blows me away.”
“Eat dessert first.”
“What?”
“I read it on one of those climber’s T-shirts in Yosemite,¬ it said, ‘Eat dessert first, life is uncertain.’”
“No kidding,” I lamented. “Let’s get going.”
I pulled my bike up from the gravel shoulder and grasped the ¬bars with both hands. Looking down, I slipped my right foot into¬ the pedal strap. I pressed hard. The wheels gleamed as they ¬advanced. For the first time in my life, I noticed that the ¬spokes go forward and they go backward simultaneously. They¬ rotate up as well as down while the bike travels along the road. ¬ There is no power stroke for the spokes. They merely carry the¬ load placed upon them. On the end of the spokes, the wheel rolls ¬around. Just like this planet revolves in space. No reason,¬ other than that’s the way it is. I don’t know why Sierra died. ¬No reason. I fell in behind Doug, watching his freewheel spin -forward, starring at his derailleur as it dropped the chain into ¬lower gears when we began climbing out of the valley. For the¬ rest of the day, I watched his spinning back wheel.
Sitting here in this tent, the light has faded and the last ¬bird has ruffled its feathers in silence. The mountain air is ¬hushed and my candle flame flickers quietly. I shall never forget this day, nor its message–eat dessert first, for life is¬ uncertain. Take it all in daily–joy and sorrow, good and¬ bad times, confidence and uncertainty, smiles and tears, love and¬ heartbreak–because this is the best moment of life, present¬ living. Nothing is guaranteed even five minutes into the future. At no time are any of us immune to misfortune no matter ¬what our situation in life. You can be rich, famous, handsome and happy. It makes no difference. You can look at Princess Di, John Kennedy Jr., Derrick Thomas, Elvis Presley, Martin Luther King, Marilyn Monore, James Dean and countless others. The grand parade of life marches on with or without you.
I eat dessert first. But tonight, I don’t feel hungry.
Excerpt from: Bicycling Around the World: Tire Tracks for Your Imagination by Frosty Wooldridge, copies at 1 888 280 7715
According to the US National Snow and Ice Data Center in Colorado, Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007 – and even the most committed global warming activists do not dispute this.
Mitch.Mulhall: [Everyone knows there is no god.]
No: "Zubrod Is God."
Cheers, Read More...
Chief Hosa: Mitch. There are good arguments to be had across the spectrum about the social impacts of drug use and of crimializatio Read More...
TeleDogTwo: Good post AspenDad...
Can't wait for the hypocrits to raionalize away your statements...
There is big word missing fro Read More...
Jeff: This guy says it better than me, way better:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/04/AR20060704 Read More...
infowars.com: However many sides of the story there is, the US gives over 30 billion in aide to Israel every year so they can buy bomb Read More...
Homes For Sale Mt Pleasant SC: Useful information like this one must be kept and maintained so I will put this one on my twitter list! Thanks for this Read More...
Marlene Bass: Hi Stuart, Spoke to Sue Lerch and she told me she was in touchwith Lotta. I was best friends with Myrna Klein and Donal Read More...
Indisk Restaurang: When I came over to this blog post I can only see part of it, is this my web web browser or the internet website? Should Read More...
Kelli Martinez: As a mother of a 5 year old autistic son I can relate to your article and tell you it was beautifully written. I wish yo Read More...
franco apache: servi a los cascos blancos para la onu en saragevo,dispare y mate enemigos, no fui prisionero pero si lo hubiera sido s Read More...
Thanks Conman, I haven’t caght your show in a while. It’s good to hear a little bit posted.
i wonder if she along with all the journals publishing bogus stories about global warming around the world get the “data” from these crooks. Here is the proof you have been asking for regarding the benefits of scientists making the data.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120846593&ft=1&f=1001
It is the smoking gun. the emails cannot be taken at face value/ the complete truth. they were sifted through to find the most damming ones. the real truth is the author comments in the code/data.
all i wish that comes of this leak is to stop wasting money/grants etc on people studying climate change and start putting that money towards reducing pollution. i am not sure when the 2 were linked but there is nowhere near enough data to make that correlation.
The conman is always saying that scientists don’t benefit from making it seem that global warming is an impending catastrophe… that is no longer a valid argument.
There is LOTS of money in global warming. Al Gore is going to become a billionaire by using it to make money for himself. Researchers that said “global warming exists” got their budgets increased by 10 fold. Researches that said “global warming is silly” got their budgets slashed. Guess what everybody started saying? Everybody is paying for answers.
heres an e-mail for you conman…
In one e-mail, the center’s director, Phil Jones, writes Pennsylvania State University’s Michael E. Mann and questions whether the work of academics that question the link between human activities and global warming deserve to make it into the prestigious IPCC report, which represents the global consensus view on climate science.
“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report,” Jones writes. “Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”
In another, Jones and Mann discuss how they can pressure an academic journal not to accept the work of climate skeptics with whom they disagree. “Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal,” Mann writes.
“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor,” Jones replies.
Patrick Michaels, a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute who comes under fire in the e-mails, said these same academics repeatedly criticized him for not having published more peer-reviewed papers.
“There’s an egregious problem here, their intimidation of journal editors,” he said. “They’re saying, ‘If you print anything by this group, we won’t send you any papers.’ ”
____________________________________
I have no doubt that many more examples of the unprofessionalism which characterizes the proponents of climate change will be brought to light.
People used to trust the news…then the news stopped being a report of the facts and started being nothing but opinion.
People used to trust scientists….then they starting making stuff up (projections) instead of just reporting the facts. Now it has come out that they are manipulating the facts to fit their projections.
I guess the answer is easy, just follow the money.
Stranded Polar Bear Hoax
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2007/130707_b_polarbears.htm
Global warming is a hoax-John Stossel reports
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLcvCp4DHJw
Al Gore just canceled his lecture that was to take place during the climate conference in copenhagen. he had sold 3000 tickets (1200 bucks a pop)
it seems the uncertainty about Copenhagen is growing. when Al Gore bails out you KNOW something is wrong.
Climategate: Follow the Money
Climate change researchers must believe in the reality of global warming just as a priest must believe in the existence of God.
By BRET STEPHENS
Last year, ExxonMobil donated $7 million to a grab-bag of public policy institutes, including the Aspen Institute, the Asia Society and Transparency International. It also gave a combined $125,000 to the Heritage Institute and the National Center for Policy Analysis, two conservative think tanks that have offered dissenting views on what until recently was called—without irony—the climate change “consensus.”
To read some of the press accounts of these gifts—amounting to about 0.00027% of Exxon’s 2008 profits of $45 billion—you might think you’d hit upon the scandal of the age. But thanks to what now goes by the name of climategate, it turns out the real scandal lies elsewhere.
Climategate, as readers of these pages know, concerns some of the world’s leading climate scientists working in tandem to block freedom of information requests, blackball dissenting scientists, manipulate the peer-review process, and obscure, destroy or massage inconvenient temperature data—facts that were laid bare by last week’s disclosure of thousands of emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit, or CRU.
But the deeper question is why the scientists behaved this way to begin with, especially since the science behind man-made global warming is said to be firmly settled. To answer the question, it helps to turn the alarmists’ follow-the-money methods right back at them.
Consider the case of Phil Jones, the director of the CRU and the man at the heart of climategate. According to one of the documents hacked from his center, between 2000 and 2006 Mr. Jones was the recipient (or co-recipient) of some $19 million worth of research grants, a sixfold increase over what he’d been awarded in the 1990s.
Why did the money pour in so quickly? Because the climate alarm kept ringing so loudly: The louder the alarm, the greater the sums. And who better to ring it than people like Mr. Jones, one of its likeliest beneficiaries?
Thus, the European Commission’s most recent appropriation for climate research comes to nearly $3 billion, and that’s not counting funds from the EU’s member governments. In the U.S., the House intends to spend $1.3 billion on NASA’s climate efforts, $400 million on NOAA’s, and another $300 million for the National Science Foundation. The states also have a piece of the action, with California—apparently not feeling bankrupt enough—devoting $600 million to their own climate initiative. In Australia, alarmists have their own Department of Climate Change at their funding disposal.
And all this is only a fraction of the $94 billion that HSBC Bank estimates has been spent globally this year on what it calls “green stimulus”—largely ethanol and other alternative energy schemes—of the kind from which Al Gore and his partners at Kleiner Perkins hope to profit handsomely.
Supply, as we know, creates its own demand. So for every additional billion in government-funded grants (or the tens of millions supplied by foundations like the Pew Charitable Trusts), universities, research institutes, advocacy groups and their various spin-offs and dependents have emerged from the woodwork to receive them.
Today these groups form a kind of ecosystem of their own. They include not just old standbys like the Sierra Club or Greenpeace, but also Ozone Action, Clean Air Cool Planet, Americans for Equitable Climate Change Solutions, the Alternative Energy Resources Association, the California Climate Action Registry and so on and on. All of them have been on the receiving end of climate change-related funding, so all of them must believe in the reality (and catastrophic imminence) of global warming just as a priest must believe in the existence of God.
None of these outfits is per se corrupt, in the sense that the monies they get are spent on something other than their intended purposes. But they depend on an inherently corrupting premise, namely that the hypothesis on which their livelihood depends has in fact been proved. Absent that proof, everything they represent—including the thousands of jobs they provide—vanishes. This is what’s known as a vested interest, and vested interests are an enemy of sound science.
Which brings us back to the climategate scientists, the keepers of the keys to the global warming cathedral. In one of the more telling disclosures from last week, a computer programmer writes of the CRU’s temperature database: “I am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seems to be in nearly as poor a state as Australia was. . . . Aarrggghhh! There truly is no end in sight. . . . We can have a proper result, but only by including a load of garbage!”
This is not the sound of settled science, but of a cracking empirical foundation. And however many billion-dollar edifices may be built on it, sooner or later it is bound to crumble.
Schwarzenegger Attempts To Rescue Collapsing Global Warming Fraud With Alarmist PR Stunt
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Friday, December 4, 2009
Hitler-admiring Governor of California Arnold Schwarzenegger is having to resort to his wobbly acting skills in a desperate effort to rescue the crumbling edifice of the global warming fraud – by recycling debunked alarmist propaganda about rising sea levels.
With climategate sending shockwaves through the warmist scientific community, Schwarzenegger was dragged out to peddle absurd myths about areas of San Francisco being submerged underwater as a result of temperature increases that have failed to materialize for the last ten years.
“A map of how California will be affected by climate change in the future was unveiled yesterday by state governor Arnold Schwarzenegger,” reports the Daily Mail.
“The map, which demonstrates the devastating effects of global warming in just a century, shows how San Francisco Airport would be completely underwater if sea levels were to rise by 150cm (60in).”
“Within a century, Treasure Island, this place where we are right now, could be totally under water,” the governor said. “It is technology in the end that will save us.”
Ludicrous fearmongering about sea levels has long been a staple of climate change alarmism. Crude Hollywood-style propaganda about doomsday sea levels is intimately linked with bad science the laughably incorrect climate models that were circulating in the 1970’s that led many of the same individuals who today preach about global warming to warn about the apocalyptic threat of global cooling.
The genesis of the scam can be traced back to White House science czar John P. Holdren, who in the early 1970’s was busy warning about how global cooling would cause giant tidal waves. In the very same essay, “Overpopulation and the Potential for Ecocide,” Holdren subsequently claims that if humanity survived global cooling, overpopulation would then cause global warming which would cause “melting of the icecaps with a concomitant 150 foot increase in sea level.”
(ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW)
Schwarzenegger Attempts To Rescue Collapsing Global Warming Fraud With Alarmist PR Stunt 121109banner2
In the essay, Holdren and his co-author Paul Ehrlich wrote that global cooling would ensue as a result of , “a reduced transparency of the atmosphere to incoming light as a result of urban air pollutions (smoke, aerosols), agriculture air pollution (dust), and volcanic oil.”
Holdren and Ehrlich predicted, “a mere 1 percent increase in low cloud cover would decrease the surface temperature by .8C” and that “a decrease of 4C would probably be sufficient to cause another ice age.”
They continued: “Even more dramatic results are possible, however; for instance, a sudden outward slumping in the Antarctic ice cap, induced by added weight, could generate a tidal wave of proportions unprecedented in recorded history.”
The ridiculous notion of a 150 foot rise in sea levels has since been abandoned by the warmist community, with the UN IPCC scaling the scam back to a mere 2 feet.
In an August 2006 BBC News interview, Holdren was forced to backtrack on his own alarmism, correcting his claimed sea level rise to “up to 13 feet”.
Schwarzenegger has pitched his alarmism somewhere in the middle, claiming a rise of around 5 feet.
Schwarzenegger has pitched his alarmism somewhere in the middle, claiming a rise of around 5 feet. As the graph below illustrates, San Francisco sea levels have noticably dropped over the last few years, and are back down to around 1880 levels.
Schwarzenegger Attempts To Rescue Collapsing Global Warming Fraud With Alarmist PR Stunt 041209top4
Holdren’s spectacularly wrong predictions about the onset of a new ice age are inextricably linked to his propaganda about sea level rises, as is his subsequent global warming alarmism.
Schwarzenegger’s invocation of this fraud at a time when the entire edifice of global warming propaganda is crashing and burning as a result of the climategate scandal is a blatant public relations ploy designed to wash away rapidly growing suspicions about man-made global warming with a huge gulp of climate kool-aid.
Watch Arnie’s pathetic PR stunt below.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/schwarzenegger-attempts-to-rescue-collapsing-global-warming-fraud-with-alarmist-pr-stunt.html
____________________________
12 Days, 3 Networks and No Mention of ClimateGate Scandal
http://www.prisonplanet.com/12-days-3-networks-and-no-mention-of-climategate-scandal.html
I guess were all “stoned or stupider” cuzz we dont believe the liars the push global warming…..right Ed
the conman will just not talk about the e-mails and this thingy will all just go away.
I usually cant stand Ann Coulter but God she hits a home run here. bring out the chips and dogs.
Do smoking guns cause global warming, too?
Posted: December 02, 2009
Ann Coulter
As we now know (and by “we” I mean “everyone with access to the Internet”), the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit has just been caught ferociously manipulating the data about the Earth’s temperature.
Recently leaked e-mails from the “scientists” at CRU show that, when talking among themselves, they forthrightly admit to using a “trick” to “hide the decline” in the Earth’s temperature since 1960 – as one e-mail says. Still another describes their manipulation of the data thus: “(W)e can have a proper result, but only by including a load of garbage!”
Am I just crazy from the heat or were they trying to deceive us?
Global-warming cheerleaders in the media were quick to defend the scandalous e-mails, explaining that, among scientists, the words “trick,” “hide the decline” and “garbage” do not mean “trick,” “hide the decline” and “garbage.” These words actually mean “onion soup,” “sexual submissive” and “Gary, Ind.”
(Boy, it must be great to be able to redefine words right in the middle of a debate.)
Also, of course, the defenders said that the words needed to be placed “in context” – the words’ check was in the mail, and they’d like to spend more time with their families.
I have placed the words in context, and it turns out what they mean is: gigantic academic fraud.
Express your views on climate change in the most straightforward way possible – bumper sticker declares: “Global Warming is a Hoax”
The leaked e-mail exchanges also show the vaunted “scientists” engaging in a possibly criminal effort to delete their own smoking-gun e-mails in response to a Freedom of Information request. Next, the fanatics will be telling us that “among scientists,” this behavior does not indicate knowledge of guilt.
If I recall correctly, their next move should be to fire the special prosecutor late Saturday night.
These e-mails aren’t a tempest in a teapot. They are evidence of pervasive fraud by a massively influential institution that has dominated news coverage of global warming.
CRU was regularly cited as the leading authority on “global climate analysis” – including by the very news outlets that are burying the current scandal, such as the New York Times and the Washington Post. The CRU alone received more than $23 million in taxpayer funds for its work on global warming.
Having claimed to have collected the most complete data on the Earth’s temperature for the last half century, the CRU’s summary of that data was used by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for its 2007 report demanding that we adopt a few modest lifestyle changes, such as abolishing modern technology, reverting to hunter/gatherer status and taxing ourselves into servitude.
But then last weekend – in the middle of the “Let’s Cook the Books!” e-mail scandal – the CRU said that all its data on the Earth’s temperature since 1960 had been irretrievably “lost.” (Although I suspect “overcooked” might be a more apt term.)
The way this episode is unfolding, the environmentalists may be forced to drop their phantom threat of global warming and go back to the phantom threat of global cooling.
Most disturbingly, the CRU-affiliated “scientists” were caught red-handed conspiring to kill the careers and reputations of scientists who dissented from the religion of global warming. Indignant that scientific journals were publishing papers skeptical of global warming, the cult members plotted to get editors ousted and the publications discredited.
This sabotage of global-warming dissenters may be more galling than their manipulation of the data. Until now, the global-warming cult’s sole argument has been to demand that everyone shut up in response to the “scientific consensus” that human activity was causing global warming.
That’s their idea of a free and open debate.
It’s always the same thing with primitive people – voodoo practitioners, rain dancers and liberals. In lieu of facts, debate and a weighing of the evidence, religious fanatics respond to all counterarguments by invoking a higher authority: the witch doctor, a “scientific consensus,” “the Constitution” or “historians are agreed.”
Liberals won’t tell us why Congress passed a law outlawing incandescent light bulbs by 2014 – a bill solemnly delivered to the president in a Prius hybrid (making it the slowest-moving bill in U.S. history). Instead, they tell us there’s a “scientific consensus” that we have to use fluorescent light bulbs or we’ll all die.
(Column continues below)
They won’t tell us why Ten Commandments monuments must be stripped from every public space in America. Instead, they tell us “the Constitution” says so (according to the high priests who interpret it to mean things the document doesn’t remotely say).
They won’t tell us what Sen. Joe McCarthy lied about. They say: Historians are agreed that McCarthy was a liar. (These are the same historians who also stated as fact that “few American Communists were spies” – until decrypted Soviet cables proved that the Communist Party was awash with Soviet spies.)
This is precisely what liberals accuse Christians of doing, but which Christians never do. We don’t cite the Bible as authority – and then refuse to let anyone read it. We certainly don’t claim to have “lost” it, so you can’t check for yourself. But that’s exactly what the CRU has done with its secret data allegedly showing a warming Earth.
Also, biblical data on the Great Flood and Noah’s ark have held up remarkably well.
Even if the Earth were warming – which apparently it is not – the idea that humans using energy-efficient light bulbs would alter the temperature of the globe is approximately as plausible as the Aztecs’ belief that they were required to wrench the beating heart out of living, breathing humans in order to keep the sun on its path.
Sadly, the “human sacrifice deniers” lost the argument to Aztec CRU scientists, who explained that there was a “scientific consensus” on the benefits of ritual murder.
But at least the Aztecs slaughtered only tens of thousands of humans in the name of “climate change.” The global-warming cultists want us all dead.
Just for the record, did talk about it Thursday and Friday.
Hate to ruin a good conspiracy for inforwars.com.
Best, Con Man!
Just for the record, did talk about it Thursday and Friday.
Hate to ruin a good conspiracy for inforwars.com.
Best, Con Man!
not about the e-mails you didnt. lol
Infowars,
It’s a real tragedy that people are being manipulated by so-called “truth” sites, into promoting the message of continued environmental destruction (among other things).
Because of your willingness to trust sites like Prison Planet, you are completely unaware of the fact that you are falling prey to the MIC clandestine propaganda campaign to keep their machine going. As long as they have people like you believing and promoting the idea that global warming is a hoax, their profits are safe from attack by government limitations on how much they can pollute and exploit the planet.
Through sites like Prison Planet, they’re able to deceive good people like yourself who think you’re getting the real truth there. They tell you global warming is a hoax and give you plausible evidence which you just soak up like a sponge, without ever checking whether the “documentation” is real.
Don’t you see infowars? You are carrying the message of the very agents you are fighting against; the Tri-Lateral, Bilderberg, IMF, One World government cabal. They are the ones who want you to believe that global warming is a hoax. They are the ones who stand to lose if they can’t convince you of that. Global warming is profitable for the people who pollute, NOT for the people who promote non-pollution. Follow the money dude, follow the money.
Do yourself and society a favor and use your own logic instead of relying on the propaganda they’re feeding you through their fake “truth” websites.
Supply, as we know, creates its own demand.
Info, that is false.
Demand defines the supply. Demand is fundamental. Without the demands of life, supply is irrelevant. All demands from the bird gathering sticks for a nest, to wanting a faster computer chip, are related to qualitative improvements in air food water and shelter to aid in the possibilities of propagation because of an improvement in the immediate local environment: Home.
You passed on a an urban myth.
Sue you are correct, Info is doing the bidding of all he SAYS he is against. Is he really against those things???
Would anyone argue for further discussions on an earth centered universe, phlogiston or a flat earth? For the same reasons dissenting pseudo science at variance from empirical data (rising oceans from a combinination of terrestrial ice melt and thermal expansion) tropical subtropical and Greenland snow, ice sheet, arctic marine island (Ellesmere, Novya Zemlya, and the Svalbard complex)
and alpine glacial coverage disappearing, Antarctic ice shelves breaking and disappearing, Sky island species going extinct, the rising level of malarial mosquitoes and so forth, needs to be dismissed and left with the musing of the spheres. It don’t meen nuthing. CO2 it don’t meen nuthin. Y’all seem to forget the snail darter it didn’t mean nuthin. Clear cuttin a forest, it don’t mean nuthin, white snow ain’t no diffurent from black asphalt — the sun shines on it, it was cold in Aspen last week and Palm Springs Florida. So just because the earth was hotter than the Sahara before in various “cycles,”
that’s a good reason to move to the Sahara to get ready for the warming that isn’t taking place — or sumthin like that, but who cares it don’t mean nuthing, there ain’t no proof and Rush and Glenn and Sean and Ann and Laura and Michelle TOLD me.
Ok maybe doped and duped, instead of stupider on Jupiter.
OK I got it. The analog of empical data don’t exist and statistical analysis don’t exist, and science don’t exist. In the words of a liberal Glenn Beck doppelganger “Get off my internet, you you you you cranially empty tool! Get sum reedin ritin and sum rifmatic! Get off get off arrghghghghgrrrrrr!!!!!!! How dare you insinuate that I should accept Retardican propaganda mythology as science! Get off get off get off you you you you uh, meany pants!
As an example of what I mean by trusting documentation from Prison Planet et al…
[As the graph below illustrates, San Francisco sea levels have noticably dropped over the last few years, and are back down to around 1880 levels.]
There’s no attribution on that graph. Where did the data come from? Who produced the graph? Did you even bother to question whether that graph was accurate or even real? Well I can tell you it is NOT. Sea levels are most certainly rising. Not only can people living in coastal areas all over the world attest to it, there are hundreds of scientific studies that corroborate it.
For instance:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=6638
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.shtml
http://www.aviso.oceanobs.com/en/news/ocean-indicators/mean-sea-level/
Occam’s Razor states that the simplest explanation tends to be the best one. What is more likely, that thousands of scientists all over the world are collaborating on producing a global warming hoax or that a few people with ties to the MIC are producing propaganda claiming that global warming is a hoax? You have to admit that it would be much simpler for a few people to claim global warming is a hoax than for someone to convince scientists of agencies like NASA, NOAA, the USGS, and thousands of others to produce false data on climate change.
My friends, climate change is not a hoax. It’s the idea that it’s a hoax that is the real hoax.
“You are carrying the message of the very agents you are fighting against; the Tri-Lateral, Bilderberg, IMF, One World government cabal. They are the ones who want you to believe that global warming is a hoax. They are the ones who stand to lose if they can’t convince you of that. Global warming is profitable for the people who pollute, NOT for the people who promote non-pollution. Follow the money dude, follow the money.”
au contraire Sue, contraire
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEggt0ldQUI
Transcript: This is James Corbett of corbettreport.com and I come here today with a message for you.
You the environmentalists, you the activists, you the campaigners.
You who have watched with growing concern the ways in which the world around us has been ravaged in the pursuit of the almighty dollar.
You who are concerned with the state of the planet that we are leaving for our children and our grandchildren and those generations yet unborn.
This is not a message of divisiveness, but cooperation.
This is a message of hope and empowerment, but it requires us to look at a hard and uncomfortable truth:
Your movement has been usurped by the very same financial interests you thought you were fighting against.
You have suspected as much for years.
You watched at first with hope and excitement as your movement, your cause, your message began to spread, as it was taken up by the media and given attention, as conferences were organized and as the ideas you had struggled so long and hard to be heard were talked about nationally. Then internationally.
You watched with growing unease as the message was simplified. First it became a slogan. Then it became a brand. Soon it was nothing more than a label and it became attached to products. The ideas you had once fought for were now being sold back to you. For profit.
You watched with growing unease as the message became parroted, not argued, worn like a fashion rather than something that came from the conviction of understanding.
You disagreed when the slogans–and then the science–were dumbed down. When carbon dioxide became the focus and CO2 was taken up as a political cause. Soon it was the only cause.
You knew that Al Gore was not a scientist, that his evidence was factually incorrect, that the movement was being taken over by a cause that was not your own, one that relied on beliefs you did not share to propose a solution you did not want. It began to reach a breaking point when you saw that the solutions being proposed were not solutions at all, when they began to propose new taxes and new markets that would only serve to line their own pockets.
You knew something was wrong when you saw them argue for a cap-and-trade scheme proposed by Ken Lay, when you saw Goldman Sachs position itself to ride the carbon trading bubble, when the whole thrust of the movement became ways to make money or spend money or raise money from this panic.
Your movement had been hijacked.
The realization came the first time you read The Club of Rome’s 1991 book, The First Global Revolution, which says:
“In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together. But in designating these dangers as the enemy, we fall into the trap, which we have already warned readers about, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes, and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself.”
And when you looked at the Club of Rome’s elite member roster. And when you learnt about eugenics and the Rockefeller ties to the Kaiser Willhelm Institute and the practice of crypto-eugenics and the rise of overpopulation fearmongering and the call by elitist after elitist after elitist to cull the world population.
Still, you wanted to believe that there was some basis of truth, something real and valuable in the single-minded obsession of this hijacked environmental movement with manmade global warming.
Now, in November 2009, the last traces of doubt have been removed.
Last week, an insider leaked internal documents and emails from the Climate Research Unit of East Anglia University and exposed the lies, manipulation and fraud behind the studies that supposedly show 0.6 degrees Celsius of warming over the last 130 years. And the hockey stick graph that supposedly shows unprecedented warming in our times. And the alarmist warning of impending climate disaster.
We now know that these scientists wrote programming notes in the source code of their own climate models admitting that results were being manually adjusted.
We now know that values were being adjusted to conform to scientists’ wishes, not reality.
We now know that the peer review process itself was being perverted to exclude those scientists whose work criticized their findings.
We now know that these scientists privately expressed doubts about the science that they publicly claimed to be settled.
We now know, in short, that they were lying.
It is unknown as yet what the fallout will be from all of this, but it is evident that the fallout will be substantial.
With this crisis, however, comes an opportunity. An opportunity to recapture the movement that the financiers have stolen from the people.
Together, we can demand a full and independent investigation into all of the researchers whose work was implicated in the CRU affair.
We can demand a full re-evaluation of all those studies whose conclusions have been thrown into question by these revelations, and all of the public policy that has been based on those studies.
We can establish new standards of transparency for scientists whose work is taxpayer funded and/or whose work effects public policy, so that everyone has full and equal access to the data used to calculate results and all of the source code used in all of the programs used to model that data.
In other words, we can reaffirm that no cause is worth supporting that requires deception for its propagation.
Even more importantly, we can take back the environmental movement.
We can begin to concentrate on the serious questions that need to be asked about the genetic engineering technology whereby hybrid organisms and new, never-before-seen proteins that are being released into the biosphere in a giant, uncontrolled experiment that threatens the very genome of life on this planet.
We can look into the environmental causes of the explosion in cancer and the staggering drops in fertility over the last 50 years, including the BPA in our plastics and the anti-androgens in the water.
We can examine regulatory agencies that are controlled by the very corporations they are supposedly watching over.
We can begin focusing on depleted uranium and the dumping of toxic waste into the rivers and all of the issues that we once knew were part of the mandate of the real environmental movement.
Or we can, as some have, descend into petty partisan politics. We can decide that lies are OK if they support ‘our’ side. We can defend the reprehensible actions of the CRU researchers and rally around the green flag that has long since been captured by the enemy.
It is a simple decision to make, but one that we must make quickly, before the argument can be spun away and environmentalism can go back to business as usual.
We are at a crossroads of history. And make no mistake, history will be the final judge of our actions. So I leave you today with a simple question: Which side of history do you want to be on?
Hi Sue,
If Occam’s Razor is your metric, then how does a planet that supported giant reptiles for mellinia factor, say nothing of the ice age that followed?
The conceit in the global warming argument is not what is normal for Earth, but what is required for human existence.
Hubris.
Cheers,
Mitch,
Of course the only reason we’re concerned about global warming is that it threatens our existence. It’s not hubris, it’s simple animal instinct to survive. Humanity’s main concern isn’t the overall health of the planet, or preventing extinction of snail darters, it’s preventing our own extinction.
Everyone agrees that the natural course of planetary evolution includes warming and ice ages, which there’s certainly nothing we can do to prevent. What everyone doesn’t agree to is whether humans can bring on either of these artificially by introducing large amounts of pollutants into the atmosphere. If that is indeed the case, then it’s possible we can hasten our own extinction.
But aside from the big picture, taking measures to lessen greenhouse gasses is good for our day to day existence, in preventing asthma, cancers, and other environmental diseases.
So, rather than arguing whether climate change is real or man-made, why don’t we just operate under the assumption that it is and do something to curb it?
infowars,
Again you are citing dubious sources: [Last week, an insider leaked internal documents and emails from the Climate Research Unit of East Anglia University and exposed the lies, manipulation and fraud behind the studies that supposedly show 0.6 degrees Celsius of warming over the last 130 years.]
This is exactly the kind of deception I’m talking about. You read that an insider leaked information debunking global warming and you swallow it whole without even questioning it. Who was that “insider?” Did this really even happen? Probably not. It’s just another made up story fed to conspiracy theorists and the media to undermine the worldwide environmental movement’s ability to restrict pollution and exploitation by corporations.
Wake up man! Not everything you read on the internet is true.
East Anglia University Statement on Hacking of Climate Research Unit Emails
“It is a matter of concern that data, including personal information about individuals, appears to have been illegally taken from the university and elements published selectively on a number of websites.
The volume of material published and its piecemeal nature makes it impossible to confirm what proportion is genuine.”
infowars, pay close attention to that last statement. Most likely, the fraud was not the scientist’s information, it was what was presented as the scientists information by the “hacker/insider” that is the fraud. This is how they operate; planting false information in otherwise legitimate reports.
Frankly I’m surprised that a premier conspiracy theorist such as yourself isn’t more suspicious and discerning of information like this. If you go around spouting false information, then how do you expect people to take you seriously when it comes to exposing the truth, which is what you say you’re mission is?
The MIC is making a fool of you and you just keep walking right into their trap.
Sue, today on the conman he said what these elite global warming liars have been saying all along, that carbon dioxide is a classified as a toxic pollutant that is dangerous to our planet and that needs to be controlled and limited by carbon credits…. a tax Sue, a tax.
This is what we breath out Sue.
This is what my dogs breath out Sue.
This is what plants need Sue.
This is what all living things including slugs breath out Sue.
This is a Global Tax on you Sue.
That’s one less illegal baby you wont be able to feed Sue.
This joke/hoax is on you Sue.
Not a single word from you about Depleted Uranium and you want a global tax
on what we breath and dog farts….LOL
Come on infowars! Is that the best you’ve got?
“In August of 2003 the US Administration reversed the 1998 decision of the previous administration, which had classified carbon dioxide as a pollutant, and made it subject to the provisions of the Clean Air Act. As a result of the reversal of the 1998 decision, automobile manufacturers and power plants have been able to avoid making costly modifications that would have been required under the 1998 ruling. In 2006 environmental groups pushed for legislation that would reinstate carbon dioxide as a pollutant. In August of 2006 EPA General Counsel Robert Fabricant concluded that since the Clean Air Act does not specifically authorize regulation to address climate change, CO2 is not a pollutant (1).
The reason given for not classifying CO2 as a pollutant is based upon the fact that it is a natural component of the atmosphere and needed by plants in order to carry out photosynthesis. No one would argue the fact that carbon dioxide is a necessary component of the atmosphere any more than one would argue the fact that Vitamin D is necessary in the human diet. However, excess Vitamin D in the diet can be extremely toxic (6). Living systems, be they an ecosystem or an organism, require that a delicate balance be maintained between certain elements and/or compounds in order for the system to function normally. When one substance is present in excess and as a result threatens the wellbeing of an ecosystem, it becomes toxic, and could be considered to be a pollutant, despite the fact that it is required in small quantities.”
http://environmentalchemistry.com/yogi/environmental/200611CO2globalwarming.html
No one is talking about taxing you and I on our exhales infowars. The tax would be levied against corporations who dump large quantities of it into our atmosphere, thus upsetting the delicate balance we require to survive. That’s why the MIC doesn’t want you to know that global warming is real. They just feed you the lie that it’s all a hoax designed to make Al Gore rich and you do their dirty work in spreading that lie around the blogosphere.
Bullshit isn’t technically a pollutant either, but can be harmful if swallowed in large quantities.
BTW I said plenty about Depleted Uranium after coming back from Iraq where I saw the horrifying results on the Iraqi population at the Basra hospital.
“I said plenty about Depleted Uranium”
sure you did Sue.
where is this????
you shake your pom poms with the conman over cow farts and have said nothing about DU.
sooo.
” When one substance is present in excess and as a result threatens the wellbeing of an ecosystem, it becomes toxic, and could be considered to be a pollutant, despite the fact that it is required in small quantities.”
and what happens to the rain forest when you start messing with carbon dioxide Scientist Sue?
You don’t talk about fluoride in the water, you don’t talk about aspartame, you don’t talk about the biggest delivery of all pollution is from this illegal, immoral military endeavor forced upon us.
You don’t talk about chemtrails that are sprayed on us, you don’t talk about the 30+ million illegals that help in the pollution of this country, you don’t talk about The Chinese that are polluting not only in their country by producing this toxic crap but by sending their garbage over here.
You don’t talk about the oil and pharmaceutical companies that dump toxic chemicals in all the rivers, streams and oceans of this country and you certainly don’t talk about DU.
you would rather get worked up with cow farts.
Earth and it’s inhabitants need more, not less, CO2.
More CO2 means:
* More Plant Growth
* Plants need less water
* More food per acre
* More robust habitats and ecosystems
CO2 is Earth’s greatest airborne fertilizer. Without it – No Life On Earth!
http://www.co2isgreen.org
http://www.plantsneedco2.org
scienceandpublicpolicy.org
Sue, are too young to remember, in 1975 this government pushed “the coming ice age?”
Tell us Sue, when do you believe the government info, when do you take it seriously? Do you flip a coin?
I believe what these people say every time.
“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
– Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme
“A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-development means bringing our
economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation.”
– Paul Ehrlich, Professor of Population Studies
“The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can’t let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are.”
– Michael Oppenheimer, Environmental Defense Fund
“Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control.”
– Professor Maurice King
“We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place for capitalists and their projects. We must reclaim the roads and plowed land, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness millions of acres of presently settled land.”
– David Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!
“Complex technology of any sort is an assault on human dignity. It would be little short of disastrous for us to
discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy, because of what we might do with it.”
– Amory Lovins, Rocky Mountain Institute
“The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the worst thing that could happen to the planet.”
– Jeremy Rifkin, Greenhouse Crisis Foundation
“Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.”
– Prof Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University
“Our insatiable drive to rummage deep beneath the surface of the earth is a willful expansion
of our dysfunctional civilization into Nature.”
– Al Gore, Earth in the Balance
“The big threat to the planet is people: there are too many, doing too well economically and burning too much oil.”
– Sir James Lovelock, BBC Interview
“My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with it’s full complement of species, returning throughout the world.”
-Dave Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!
“Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake,
use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing – are not sustainable.”
– Maurice Strong, Rio Earth Summit
“All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and
behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.”
– Club of Rome, The First Global Revolution
“Mankind is the most dangerous, destructive, selfish and unethical animal on the earth.”
– Michael Fox, vice-president of The Humane Society
“Humans on the Earth behave in some ways like a pathogenic micro-organism, or like the cells of a tumor.”
– Sir James Lovelock, Healing Gaia
“The Earth has cancer and the cancer is Man.”
– Club of Rome, Mankind at the Turning Point
“A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells, the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people. We must shift our efforts from the treatment of the symptoms to the cutting out of the cancer. The operation will demand many apparently brutal and heartless decisions.”
– Prof. Paul Ehrlich, The Population Bomb
“A reasonable estimate for an industrialized world society at the present North American material standard of living would be 1 billion. At the more frugal European standard of living, 2 to 3 billion would be possible.”
– United Nations, Global Biodiversity Assessment
“A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”
– Ted Turner, founder of CNN and major UN donor
“… the resultant ideal sustainable population is hence more than 500 million but less than one billion.”
– Club of Rome, Goals for Mankind
“One America burdens the earth much more than twenty Bangladeshes. This is a terrible thing to say in order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it’s just as bad not to say it.”
– Jacques Cousteau, UNESCO Courier
“If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.”
– Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, patron of the World Wildlife Fund
“I suspect that eradicating small pox was wrong. It played an important part in balancing ecosystems.”
– John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal
“The extinction of the human species may not only be inevitable but a good thing.”
– Christopher Manes, Earth First!
“Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license. All potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.”
– David Brower, first Executive Director of the Sierra Club
“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.”
– Club of Rome, The First Global Revolution
“We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination… So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”
– Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology, lead author of many IPCC reports
“Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.”
– Sir John Houghton, first chairman of IPCC
infowars, don’t you dare question me on my political and social activism. I did more to alert the American public of the danger of war with Iraq, Depleted Uranium, the MIC, American Fascism, etc. than you and all of your conspiracy theorists put together.
Did you go to Iraq? Did you see Depleted Uranium sickness firsthand? Did you go on tour around Colorado and Utah with firsthand photos and stories of the US devastation in Iraq from Operation Desert Storm?
All you ever do is cut and paste and quote crap from extremist sites that make people turn away and laugh. You never do any research of your own, you just rely on others to tell you what to think. You apparantly have no ability to discern truth from fiction.
According to your own words you “believe what these people say every time.” I don’t flip a coin to decide when to believe them and when to doubt, I use my brain, my logic, my gut, and tons and tons of research.
I agree with most of the statements you provided above. The world is overpopulated, and it isn’t because of immigrants. And yes, the world doesn’t need another selfish greedy polluting exploiting America. It needs regulation, control, conservation, and depopulation.
However, we don’t need to worry about the government or scary scientists killing us off with chemtrails, fluoride, or DU. All we need to do is keep doing what we’re doing; dumping tons of CO2, heavy metals, and other pollutants into the atmosphere, land and water, and the planet will eventually become uninhabitable for humans.
Just which side are you on anyway? It’s becoming really hard to tell. Are you against corporate pollution or are you against taxing and regulating corporate pollution? Are you against rampant population growth or are you against limiting population growth? Are you against MIC exploitation or are you against the scientists who are trying to stop MIC exploitation? I’m not sure you even know which side you’re on anymore.
I said I believe these evil people, I didnt say I agree with them.
I think our conversation is long over.
Evil people? You mean environmentalists and scientists?
Yeah, let’s shelve this conversation since you’re just going to continue to believe what you want to believe and there’s no reasoning with you.
1) Does CO2 function as a green house gas?
2) Is CO2 produced by forest fires, burning coal, oil, natural gas, volcanoes, organic decay, and cows?
3) Is homo sapiens responsible for any of this?
If the answer to these questions is “yes,” then humans have some responsibility for global warming.
A worthy philosophical question is: If humanity is merely complex chemistry, we with conscience call biology, then isn’t all we do natural? From that perspective, the Magna Carta, Battle of Actium, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, the holocaust, extinction of homo neandertalensis, Purple Haze, Puccini’s operas, DDT and yes Depleted Uranium are all natural. Perhaps we simply are. Human significance may not be relevant to supermassive black holes, the Andromeda galaxy or super novae of upper range Eddington limit stars. If it is important to matter to ourselves and potential progeny, then as Sue is suggesting, we might want to collectively do something about products with unintended consequences; pollution including excessive amounts of CO2 and even counter green house gas spikes. Should humanity stop there? I do not think so.
I too think the human population should with present practices be limited to
Global warming does not exist, at least for the last 11 years as the Earth’s temperature has declined.
The lying, corrupt government refuses to provide the data from publicly paid for research.
Researcher: NASA hiding climate data
… NASA has refused for two years to provide information under the Freedom of Information Act that would show how the agency has shaped its climate data and would explain why the agency has repeatedly had to correct its data going as far back as the 1930s.
The numbers matter. Under pressure in 2007, NASA recalculated its data and found that 1934, not 1998, was the hottest year in its records for the contiguous 48 states. NASA later changed that data again, and now 1998 and 2006 are tied for first, with 1934 slightly cooler.
…For now, climate scientists are rallying around the British researchers [that declares there is global warming].
NASA’s GISS was forced to update its data in 2007 after questions were raised by Steve McIntyre, who runs ClimateAudit.com.
GISS had initially listed the warmest years as 1998, 1934, 2006, 1921 and 1931. After Mr. McIntyre’s questions GISS rejiggered the list and 1934 was warmest, followed by 1998, 1921, 2006 and then 1931. But since then, the list has been rewritten again so it now runs 1998, 2006, 1934, 1921, 1999.
NASA and CRU data are considered the backbone of much of the science that suggests the earth is warming due to manmade greenhouse gas emissions. NASA argues its data suggests this decade has been the warmest on record.
On the other hand, data from the University of Alabama-Huntsville suggests temperatures have been relatively flat for most of this decade.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009….g-climate-data/
Like I said, even if global warming is the biggest hoax ever perpetrated, it still wouldn’t hurt to operate under the assumption that limiting pollution would be good for humanity and the planet overall.
Who can argue with that?
Sue,
[why don't we just operate under the assumption that it is and do something to curb it?]
In the late 80s, I documented weather forecasting systems at NOAA. What became clear to me in that short time is that atmospheric science is constantly looking for new inputs, new measures, to further substantiate forecasting models. At best such modeling remains a black art. I remain unpersuaded that the science behind global warming is any more substantive.
There are three main global temperature databases: the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia (CRU); the Global Historical Climate Network (NOAA/GHCN); and, the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (NASA/GISS). All three have global historical temperature records.
Atmospheric scientists in these organizations adjust the data to remove what they regard as “inhomogeneities,” incongruities that may result from moving a measurement station from one location to another, for example. It is “homogenized” data from CRU that a) serves as a basis for scientific consensus on global warming, and b) is the data that has “gone missing.”
Because I avoid basing conclusions on assumptions, I’d dearly love to see this missing CRU data on global warming, both the raw data, and the “homogenized” data. I won’t get to see any of it, and to be sure neither will you. But that’s different problem.
Cheers,
Mitch,
I appreciate you wanting to get accurate data before making decisions, but in the case of possible man induced climate change, we may not have the time to spare.
Consider that people were smoking and dying from tobacco long before there was data that showed it was a carcinogen. What we don’t know, can kill us.
All I’m saying is that, whether climate change is real or not, man-made or not, it would still be wise to take measures to limit or eliminate pollution. Aside from the possibility of flooding coastlines, we already know air pollution is carcinogenic and causes a multitude of problems for children, the elderly, asthmatics, plants, and animals.
Scientists are doing the best they can with the knowledge and equipment they currently possess. Rather than accusing them of evil intentions, why can’t we just give them the benefit of the doubt…for the benefit of all?
[What we don't know, can kill us.]
What we don’t know is what the destroyed data actually indicates about global temperatures. While I doubt any rational person would argue that the absence of this knowledge can kill us, the destruction of this data certainly indicates somebody had something to hide, like a dataset that could not withstand scientific scrutiny.
A friend recently wrote, “Humans are natural. It’s natural that some people think some things are unnatural or supernatural. It’s natural that we pollute. It’s natural the some people object to pollution. And it’s natural that we oversimplify things, because the complexity of what’s out there is ineffable.”
Cheers,
But Mitch, the climate change theory doesn’t rely on that ONE “missing” dataset. Even if a handful of scientists at one lab hid some evidence, there are thousands of other scientists at hundreds of other labs who’ve produced evidence that the earth is warming at a greater rate than ever before, and that the rate of warming parallels the increase in man-made pollutants.
You don’t really believe as infowars does, that every climatologist in the world is in cahoots in an evil plan to make Al Gore rich do you?
Sue,
Thank you for that rousing example of reductio ad absurdum. I enjoyed it.
I have no fondness for Al Gore, it is true, but I would point out that yours is the attitude necessary for a Bernie Madoff to build an epic ponzie scheme. Your preponderance of evidence argument notwithstanding, the veracity of any scientific consensus relies on the elimination of all evidence to the contrary. Your “thousands of other scientists at hundreds of other labs” can’t disprove that the sun isn’t the primary cause.
Cheers,
From a logical perspective, the uncertainty principle eliminates the possibility of ALL contrary evidence being eliminated. Science has and always will be, with present understanding, based on statistical probabilities and statistical possibilities. Nearly certain is not absolute metaphysical certitude. Evolution, general theory of relativity, and global warming are theories. Results from theories are boiled down to statistical probabilities much like predicting hurricanes and other types of weather. These statistical probabilities are given as ranges. Empirical evidence (sequencing tree rings for instance) and the comparison of previously described analogs of reality with present analogs of reality give a better than excellent foundation for theories. Dated photographs are also excellent.
Just so an idea exists for consideration the 3 million square miles of the lower 48 is about 1.54% of the earth’s total surface. The evidence for global warming covers far more area than the lower 48. A cold day in Aspen is practically meaningless, however loss of ice in the fringes of Antarctica especially the Palmer penninsula, Greenland, Ellesmere, Himalayas, Andes and other mountain ranges. This loss of ice is an analog of reality, and a symptom of warming and is apparently planetary.
The EPA has declared carbon dioxide a toxin
which means they have now have the power to “regulate” it independent of Congress.
Why?
“Because it’s known to cause global warming
which harms human beings.”
This is absolute crap science.
On the other hand, the world is full of REAL toxins.
Here’s one that is still not being controlled while
“global leaders” meet in Copenhagen to “save humanity.”
A story from the UK.
http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/747.html
While the “global elite” fret about water vapor and carbon dioxide, real industrial toxins go unchallenged.
One of the worst is asbestos.
Asbestos has been known to be a cause of Mesothelioma and other serious lung diseases since the 1920s.
Yet, its use was pushed hard by government and industry.
Worse, workers were not informed or protected from its dangers. Regulation of asbestos is still lax and victims are being left on the side of the road to die.
Yet, “world leaders” are meeting to outlaw carbon dioxide.
Insane.
infowars, if you and twenty other people were put in a room with no ventilation, you’d eventually run out of oxygen, replacing it with carbon dioxide, and you’d all die. Would you consider carbon dioxide a toxin then?
What happens when we fill our atmosphere with carbon dioxide? Do you really know the answer?
Let the Depleted Uranium fly while you chase cow farts.
Check this out, CO2 spectral analysis. There are interpretations that differ even though the same results are seen.
http://science.widener.edu/svb/ftir/ir_co2.html
Any university lab can duplicate these results. One has to decide if the cloudless unpolluted day sky is blue or not. I am sure there is a few who do not think the sky under the above conditions is blue.
The Copenhagen Accord ends with a failure.
Obama acknowledged that the agreement’s reduction targets, to the chagrin of environmental groups, fell well short of what scientists project is necessary to stabilize warming at sub-catastrophic levels.
“This progress did not come easily, and we know that this progress alone is not enough,” Obama said in a late-evening news conference announcing the deal.
“We’ve come a long way, but we have much further to go.”
The failure to produce tougher emission cuts, greater financial assistance and a set deadline for follow-up disappointed many environmental activists and infuriated leaders of poor, climate-vulnerable nations like Nicaragua and Cuba, which appeared unlikely to endorse the agreement.
A final plenary session began debating the agreement early today. The goal was to reach enough consensus that the president of the conference, Danish Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen, could declare the document outlining the agreement approved. But that goal was thrown into question as a string of developing nations began to protest what they called an inadequate and nonbinding text.
Oxfam International, which works on climate and poverty issues around the world, called it a “historic cop-out” on its website. A protest group that has rallied in Copenhagen throughout the summit called it “toothless.” Kassie Siegel, director of the Climate Law Institute at the Center for Biological Diversity in Tucson, said, “If this is the best we can do, it is not nearly good enough.”
___________________________
ok mr conman and sue, we shall see this doomsday event you have pushed through fear 3+days a week for over a year now.
we shall see.
So, inforwars, forgive me if I can’t seem to keep my conspiracies straight.
Obama gives in to compromise in Copenhagen, and his REAL motivation, according to your effin’ ineffable sources, is that he is carrying the water (or oil), except that it was Bush-Cheney who were the REAl oilmen, and did everything in their power to completely discredit climate change, right down to doctoring EPA documents to water down findings about warming.
Something more fundamental is missing for you and most of the critics of Copenhagen. It’s called politics. You never get what you really want (or rarely) but you can succed, if you’re lucky, by NOT failing. I know it’s a difficult concept for you infowars, but Obama came out of Copenhagen with just enough to declare victory, though he would have loved much, much more.
Welcome to the real world, my friend, in which the REAL conspiracies occur in plain sight for all to see. Even you.
Best, Con Man!
Both republicans and democrats have sold out to business interests at the expense of us the people. Business would divide us all into two classes, consumers and those few that control production and money. We are all subjugated by the corporatism that is America, and for that matter the developed world. We all need to resist it.
So many of or fellow citizens, the middle class, have bought into the beliefs that are propagated in the media, news and like your show, in our schools and by the system. Beliefs like, hard work is rewarded, education will get you ahead, that it is a level playing field, that capitalism is good, that this is the land of the free, and so many more slogans that in the end are hallow.
People peruse the dream, the myth, that we all have an equal shot at success. We consume more and more, the nice car, the nice house, the killer stereo, the latest fashions all in the never ending hunt to make it. Be somebody we are told and to the corporatist world that means consume more, have more, chase your dreams and dream of that next best thing. It is all hallow and empty in the end and one is left empty.
This is of course what these elitists want and one you push over and over and over ad nauseam. Our collective angst, or collective unrest chasing a dream that is no more real then the sitcom we watch on TV. They harness this angst and restlessness and tell you to work harder, try harder, go into debt, go back to school work. Work more spend more and for what Mr. Conman, for what?
This is why the main stream media is in the toilet. Because people are waking up to the lies and dis-service you and others have pushed.
Real world? Just you and a few phonies with money in your wallets continue the facade of a left vs. right scenario.
Wars, like Global Warming are pushed by fear mongers to have us lose our Freedoms forever.
I suggested to you years ago to read Smedely Butler’s book, War is a Racket.
http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm
http://www.warisaracket.com/
I know for a fact you didn’t bother, but I also know you really know what is going on and have decided to be part of the problem (for money) rather than fight for truth and honor.
[Obama came out of Copenhagen with just enough to declare victory, though he would have loved much, much more.]
Geesh Michael… by this metric, every student should get an “A”.
Why did China walk out of the climate summit last week? it’s not rocket science: China doesn’t want an emissions cap.
To be fair, Obama did reach a compromise: China will allow some sort of yet-to-be-defined inspection process, but mainly it will, like other nations, “self-report” emissions. Just how might that work?
Isn’t this the antithesis of effective foreign policy? Maybe Obama’s next move will be to ask Iran to “self-report” its nuclear program.
Cheers,
Now that they face defeat, the Republican/Conservative movement has taken to proclaiming its satisfaction with the passage of healthcare reforn because they are convinced it won’t work.
The same psychotic dysfunction is at work when it comes to climate change. At the end of the day, if we don’t shift to renewable energy sources then we are damn near suicidal as a nation for reasons of (a) national security; and (b) climate change. (In that order, by the way). Even if you don’t believe in climate change one single bit, it still makes sense to shake our addiction to fossil fuel for reasons of national security.
As for what happened with China, Mitch, there’s an excellent must read from the Guardian in the U.K.: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/22/copenhagen-climate-change-mark-lynas.
This article, written by an aid for the Maldives who was in the room, is unequivocal evidence that China blocked all the major initiatives because it’s economy is overwhelmingly coal-based and it could not afford accords that force it to change post-haste.
In healthcare, climate change, and everything else, politicls is the art of the possible. Sometimes you can win the war one battle at a time.
Cheers, Con Man!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9DZmKI91s0
[In healthcare, climate change, and everything else, politicls [sic] is the art of the possible. Sometimes you can win the war one battle at a time.]
A truer sentiment was never garbled.
A war you say? And all this time I thought the blood trail behind you and your partisan views was the unfortunate result of dragging your knuckles on the ground. I’d take the gloves off for this ‘war,’ but that hardly seems fair.
Cheers,
Woah Mitch, partisan or not, I hardly think our esteemed host’s views on “healthcare, climate change, and everything else,” worthy of your amusing but rather uncivil lambasting. Have you been taking lessons from Wharf Rat?
Happy New Year All. May we develop the compassion to share our views with tolerance and good will.
“Mitch Loses His (Blue) Marble
Post blogger Mitch Mulhall turns to the ultimate climate change denier — a man who has spent his career as a local weatherman. Dr. Frank Fields, anyone?”
Your right, putting him up against the man that invented the internet and whos life was written as Love Story. What was that Mitch thinking?
Where’s Al Gore now ? This winter , at least in the United States has record breaking low tempertures as far south as Florida in the 30’s even hitting 27 , snowing in texas off and on for the last few weeks , the great lakes states are below zero for the last week and even where I live up by Bartsow , Ca. in the high dessert , the avg low for this week will be 30.5 degrees ! The lowest temps in Ireland in over 30 years.
NOTE : Today while I was watching the Weather Channel , they reported that the WC will no longer be reporting hail as small as 1/4 inch . Only penny size hail will now be reported , because they stated ” 1/4 hail doesn’t cause as much property damage as does penny size hail ” . . . and they continued ” we don’t want to scare anyone with that type of hail warning ” ????
DUH ! The Weather Channel has only been reporting 1/4 hail warnings since it was founded back in 1981 . I don’t recall any ‘ panics ‘ when they had reported it before .
The truth of the matter is that hail , in general , is more frequent today then in the past , It contradicts the ‘ Global Warming ” scam . I guess The Weather Channel has also sold out to the American People . . . John Coleman must be hanging his head in shame .
I’ve already said I have no fondness for Al Gore, and I’ll leave it at that.
I don’t think for a second that climatic warming won’t cause problems for us–it most definitely will, as certainly as climatic cooling would. We should try to understand global warming. I think all the hand wringing over global warming is mostly political hyperbole that takes away attention from issues with much greater immediate import, like poverty, infectious diseases, public education, and human health.
When you consider everything that comes out a modern auto’s exhaust pipe, why has the political community locked on to Carbon Dioxide? That’s a pregnant question… one I think everyone should consider.
Cheers,
Mitch:
Your memory is shorter than a registration line at the Republican Party.
To whit: liberals have done nothing but agitate and lobby against “what comes out a modern auto’s exhaust pipe.” The evidence is everywhere every time you turn on your car.
Conservatives response to that? “It will hurt the economy.” The rest is history — a major coup for the liberal cause that has benefitted everyone.
Climate change? Same story. Liberals fighting based on science — and winning everywhere in the world, by the way, while conservatives like yourself grumble about freezing temperatures in DC and point to ludicrous examples like John Coleman, the weatherman, as proof positive.
Even conservatives now saw we need renewable energy. What say ye?
Best, Con Man!
Michael,
Despite your best efforts to put words in my mouth, I’d have to say the figure who best encapsulates my views on the global warming debate is Freeman Dyson. Of the climatic models used to proffer the arguments supporting the positions of Al Gore and others, Dyson writes:
This statement comports with my experiences documenting weather forecasting systems at NOAA.
I have never argued against the development of renewable energy technologies, nor have I argue for eliminating the use of coal, petroleum, and other fossil fuels. My attitude is best summarized in an old, Colorado School of Mines bumper sticker that says, “BAN MINING, let the bastards freeze in the dark.” The closer Congress gets to control over CO2 levels in the atmosphere, the closer they get to controlling what we exhale, which in your case is mostly hot air.
Cheers,
Thinking that global warming means it gets warmer everywhere all of the time is like, well, thinking that carbon dioxide isn’t a toxin just because we exhale it (newsflash: the body exhales carbon dioxide BECAUSE it’s a toxin).
It’s pretty friggin simplistic to think “global warming” is a farce just because it’s cold and it hails somewhere. But it still befuddles a lot of people. That’s why several years ago, the term was modified to “climate change,” so it won’t confuse those prone to literal interpretations.
If the title confuses you, the science behind it must really rattle your cranium, so let me try to put this in layman’s terms…
Climate change means colder temperatures and hotter ones, it means more snow and less snow, it means tornadoes and hurricanes and more rain and less, but mostly what it means is that varying temperature’s associated effects will manifest in different areas than usual.
Which is where the problem lies. If it’s colder than usual in Florida, and it hails and ruins the crops – that’s a problem. If it’s warmer than usual in the Arctic and Antarctic and the glaciers melt and raise the ocean level – that’s a problem. If the monsoon’s come later and end earlier, and people, animals, and plants die of thirst – that’s a problem.
It isn’t global warming that’s a potential problem, it’s global climate change.
Yes Mitch, by all means let’s give it further study. In the meantime, let’s pass some anti-pollution regulation. If at the end of the study, climate change is proved innocuous, at least we’ll have a cleaner planet. If it’s found to be truly perilous and also avoidable, we’ll already have a head start on preventing possible mass-extinction.
[It’s pretty friggin simplistic to think "global warming" is a farce just because it’s cold and it hails somewhere.]
I’m criticizing the veracity of the climatic models used to put forth the idea that the human act of curbing the use of fossil fuels can halt or at least stem climatic changes that are unfavorable to human existence. I’d be pleased to read your refutation of my position on these climatic models, but abnegating an argument I do not make wastes both your time and mine.
Cheers,
Sorry Mitch, I should have made it clear that I was referring to infowars’ comment #46: “This winter , at least in the United States has record breaking low tempertures as far south as Florida in the 30’s even hitting 27 , snowing in texas off and on for the last few weeks , the great lakes states are below zero for the last week and even where I live up by Bartsow , Ca. in the high dessert , the avg low for this week will be 30.5 degrees ! The lowest temps in Ireland in over 30 years.”
#50. Sue Gray | January 6th, 2010 at 10:30 pm
But it still befuddles a lot of people. That’s why several years ago, the term was modified to “climate change,” so it won’t confuse those prone to literal interpretations.
26. Sue Gray | December 9th, 2009 at 6:39 pm
Like I said, even if global warming is the biggest hoax ever perpetrated, it still wouldn’t hurt to operate under the assumption that limiting pollution would be good for humanity and the planet overall.
___________________________________
besides you using both terms with no, zero, nadda facts to support your plan.
Im poor.
I dont have any money to support your tax Sue, and thats what it is, its a tax.
50. Sue Gray | January 6th, 2010 at 10:30 pm
Thinking that global warming means it gets warmer everywhere all of the time is like, well, thinking that carbon dioxide isn’t a toxin just because we exhale it (newsflash: the body exhales carbon dioxide BECAUSE it’s a toxin).
If it’s warmer than usual in the Arctic and Antarctic and the glaciers melt and raise the ocean level – that’s a problem.
Your wrong on both parts.
Carbon Dioxide that we exhale is not a toxin and melting ice glaciers dont raise the ocean levels.
[Carbon Dioxide that we exhale is not a toxin and melting ice glaciers dont raise the ocean levels.]
Where are your facts to support this?
[Im poor.
I dont have any money to support your tax Sue, and thats what it is, its a tax. ]
What you don’t seem to get yet is that this is not a federal tax on citizens. It’s a tax on corporations, you know those same corporations you rail about whose greed starts wars and ruins our economy and spreads DU all over the place?
The tax is on their factory pollution, not on our exhalation. The tax will not come from your pocket, it will come from theirs and be used to clean up pollutants that affect our health and the health of our planet. The tax is to protect US from THEM.
im tired of spoon feeding you. go back and re-read what you wrote. I dont have anymore time for this, I find myself agreeing with Mitch on this one, and finding arguing with you a complete waste of time.
50. Sue Gray | January 6th, 2010 at 10:30 pm
Thinking that global warming means it gets warmer everywhere all of the time is like, well, thinking that carbon dioxide isn’t a toxin just because we exhale it (newsflash: the body exhales carbon dioxide BECAUSE it’s a toxin).
If it’s warmer than usual in the Arctic and Antarctic and the glaciers melt and raise the ocean level – that’s a problem.
________________________________
you made the claim you prove it.
and please stop putting words in others mouths, just speak for yourself and back up your claims.
and taxing or making something illegal never stops it, your global warming friends just want to make carbon credits like emmmmm the stock market, you know the one thats a fraud.
You want me to prove that melting glaciers raise the sea level? That’s basic physics! You made the claim that adding water to the ocean from melted glaciers does not raise sea level. I want you to explain how basic physics doesn’t apply here. What miracle planet do you live on where icemelt doesn’t produce added water?
I’ve never put words in other’s mouths. I only excerpt what you’ve written, as you’ve done to me in your last two comments.
You say carbon dioxide is not a toxin and melting glaciers don’t raise sea level and I’m asking you to back that up with scientific evidence. What’s there to get snippy about?
OK infowars, I’ll comply with your wishes. Here is the science behind my statements…
Basic Information about Concentrations of CO2 in Air
• 1,000,000 ppm of a gas = 100 % concentration of the gas, and 10,000 ppm of a gas in air = a 1% concentration.
• At 1% concentration of carbon dioxide CO2 (10,000 parts per million or ppm) and under continuous exposure at that level, such as in an auditorium filled with occupants and poor fresh air ventilation, some occupants are likely to feel drowsy.
• The concentration of carbon dioxide must be over about 2% (20,000 ppm) before most people are aware of its presence unless the odor of an associated material (auto exhaust or fermenting yeast, for instance) is present at lower concentrations.
• Above 2%, carbon dioxide may cause a feeling of heaviness in the chest and/or more frequent and deeper respirations.
• If exposure continues at that level for several hours, minimal “acidosis” (an acid condition of the blood) may occur but more frequently is absent.
• Breathing rate doubles at 3% CO2 and is four times the normal rate at 5% CO2.
• Toxic levels of carbon dioxide: at levels above 5%, concentration CO2 is directly toxic. [At lower levels we may be seeing effects of a reduction in the relative amount of oxygen rather than direct toxicity of CO2.]
Symptoms of high or prolonged exposure to carbon dioxide include headache, increased heart rate, dizziness, fatigue, rapid breathing, visual and hearing dysfunctions. Exposure to higher levels may cause unconsciousness or death within minutes of exposure.
http://www.inspectapedia.com/hazmat/CO2gashaz.htm
You can find graphs that show sea level rise here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise
But since you believe that all of the world’s scientists are conspiring to lie to us, what’s the point in my giving you the evidence to back up my statements when you’ll just dismiss it as global warming propaganda?
Sue, your putting words in my mouth again.
I said
“Your wrong on both parts.
Carbon Dioxide that we exhale is not a toxin and melting ice glaciers dont raise the ocean levels. ”
Nothing you posted proves your points. Sure, fill a room with people breathing and take away their oxygen and they will die, not because of some kind of toxin, because they run out of air to breath.
And what happens when you fill a glass with water and lots of ice, Sue?
Does it overfill when the ice melts?
lol
Glaciers have air and volume Sue, and most of the entire Glacier is under water. Very little of that iceberg or glacier is even scene, hence when it melts it lowers sea levels not raises them.
Just like you fear-mongers that say man is the reason of global warming, yet Mars and other planets and moons have frozen areas, yet some are closer to the Sun and have no cars or cow farts. And then theres the fact that these same super-duper-leaders said we would have an ice age in the 70s.
And to change it too climate change…..WOW….there called seasons Sue. And if those seasons worry you, then get a group together to stop the HARP program and complain about the chemtrails this government finally admitted to doing.
but who cares cuzz Al Gore invented the internet, and Obama won the Peach Prize huh.
remember that bumper sticker, question authority?
Uh infowars, I guess you’re not aware that glaciers are on land, not the ocean. We’re not talking about icebergs, we’re talking about frozen rivers of ice that have existed for thousands of years melting into the sea. The Antarctic ice sheet is from 7000 to 15000 feet thick and covers nearly the entire continent. You don’t think if it melts that will raise the sea level? There are glaciers melting in Greenland, Alaska, and the Himalayas. All adding new, previously bound up water to the ocean. It’s already happening and no matter how much you question authority, physics is still going to be in play.
[Sure, fill a room with people breathing and take away their oxygen and they will die, not because of some kind of toxin, because they run out of air to breath.]
And you just made the exact point scientists are trying to make with Carbon Dioxide levels in our atmosphere: too much, and we run out of air to breath. We die. That’s what toxic means.
While some ice covered land areas, glaciers, and icebergs are melting, some are growing and have been since the beginging of time. Some civilizations are deep below the sea, and some areas like the Grand Canyon are open for all to see, hike and enjoy. And to your surprise, all before you were breathing air or anyone was driving a big SUV and cows were farting with no tax on them.
I still dont believe you, the conman or any or your scientists or even Al Gore himself that what humans breath out is toxic. By your example, water is toxic, but then, so is mustard if you drowned in it.
The conman needs to put up the other side of the debate on his show, having 4 or 5 “script readers” over and over again serves no one.
37,000 scientists now signed on against the hoax of global warming and climate change.
Human Co2 Doesn’t Cause Global Warming
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZXn4rmdUOo&feature=PlayList&p=D9DE7B81B37E1DBD&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=39
[the body exhales carbon dioxide BECAUSE it’s a toxin]
Hmmm. The scientific community declares CO2 a greenhouse gas. Sue says it’s a toxin. The dry cleaning industry considers it a “green” solvent. And the soft drink industry wouldn’t be the same without it.
Such a polarizing chemical compound!
Info,
Ice in the form of glaciers, snow, sheets and caps above sealevel does not raise sea level, until it flows into as water or floats on as ice bergs or as an ice shelf. A melting iceberg does not raise the sea level. The level was already raised, when it began to fully float.
The melting and sublimation of terrestrial ice exceeds the deposition of the solid phase of water on land, hence the shrinking volume of non floating ice above sealevel.
With your original glass of water take a second glass and fill it to the brim and drop as carefully as you can an ice cube. This is exactly the same principle behind the raising of the seas, except for the mess you created on your table, we get Bangladesh and Florida as possible Atlantis candidates in a scifi post apocalyptic scenario. It truly is just that simple.
The issues Mitch brought up earlier, are absolutely valid problems without functioning sloutions. That they exist does not mean global warming isn’t a problem or is mitigated. Solving some of those problems might actually help with global warming.
The biosphere on this planet is warming and so I will do my best to not call it climate change for any nebulous reason PC or not. The sun is also warming as more hydrogen is converted into helium and increases core density making the core radius smaller and therefore increases the gravity which increases the rate on fusionable (excuse this “word”) collisions and thus heat while lowering the density of the suns outer layers because mass has gone to the core and mostly because the outer layers have more volume because of increased heat/energy from the core via radiative, conductive and convective means.
Whatever life after humanity goes extinct or evolves into, will have to deal with this and it is an irrevocable sentence, best solved by leaving the solar system. There is about 100,000,000 – 400,000,000 million years to figure the solar problem out.
In the meantime, humanity can introduce a Venusian hell much sooner. Of course with “jihadists,” Taliban christianites, oligarchs, kleptocrats and plutocrats running the shows of racism, plunder, murder, war machines, homocide, holocaust, ethnic cleansing, final solutions, pollution, irradiated foods and genetically modified organisms, alternate means of extinction may be at our door. Just think in 150 years all alive are likely to be dead, as I wrote somewhere before. We can enjoy the drivers taking us over the cliff, or do something about them. Currently, the drivers are protected by law more effectively than spotted owls, and should be treated like malarial mosquitoes ready to tank up on your erythrocytes.
As long as people allow the conversion of currency and metals into the protected ownership of wealth as ably defined by A. Smith, K. Marx and practiced without peer by A. Carnegie, we the people where ever we may live on this planet will have this problem.
Well Mitch, you’ve really hit the nail on the head. Carbon Dioxide is different things in different situations. That’s probably true of most elements.
If you’re talking about coca cola, CO2 is a harmless additive. If you’re talking about the atmosphere, it’s not. CO2 in the atmosphere isn’t inherently toxic, but too much is definitely toxic, just as it would be if there were too much CO2 in the human body.
The word toxic means dangerous or deadly. What the scientists are warning about is introducing toxic amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, which prevents heat from dissipating and throws off the climate balance, creating heat waves in Alaska and freezes in Florida.
CO2 may be good, but too much of a good thing can be bad.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/the-mini-ice-age-starts-here.html
According to the US National Snow and Ice Data Center in Colorado, Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007 – and even the most committed global warming activists do not dispute this.
________________________________
AGW Debunked for £5.00
watch the experiment here
http://www.spinonthat.com/CO2.html
This simple experiment can be reproduce by anyone using three plastic bottles, three cheap tropical fish tank thermometers, a halogen heater to provide infrared and a large bottle of carbonated water.
Many who consider themselves scientists will try to discredit this experiment in various ways so I would like to highlight the importance of this simple test by preempting any such criticism.
Firstly, in order to avoid any issues with regards water vapor I have used a control bottle of dry air. This way we can be sure that if water vapor becomes a forcing mechanism in the other two bottles we can compare that to the dry bottle. This control rules out water vapor as a forcing because the dry bottle and the bottle half filled with tap water react equally to the infrared heat.
Next I would point out that I did consider that the back side of the thermometers would be directly heated by the lamp but ruled this out as a concern for the following reasons.
Firstly because the bottles are made of clear plastic they are perfect for this experiment. While being transparent to the infrared light, the plastic itself is a poor conductor of heat. Therefore it allows rapid heating of the gas inside while avoiding heat conduction to the thermometers.
Next, because the gas inside is so rapidly warmed and rises over the 30º C max of the thermometers within a few seconds, it is fair to conclude that any direct heating of the back side of the thermometers would be insignificant. This is attested to by observing that the bottle containing CO2 is as slow to absorb as it is quick to re-emit heat. While the tap water/air and dry air bottles react equally.
Finally because the gas inside these bottles is heated so rapidly the infrared heat source can be turned off after just a few seconds which allows us to observe the pure heat emitting properties of normal atmospheric air compared with pure CO2.
Positioning the tap water/air bottle in the center gives another control because as can be seen, the dry air on the right reacts to infrared equally to the center bottle with tap water/air. This control helps to exclude water vapor as a forcing while at the same time rendering it unnecessary to reposition the bottles.
It is clear from these results that CO2 does not retain more heat than ordinary air. It is therefore conclusive that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas and that the term greenhouse gas in context with the Earths atmosphere is fallacious.
The only conclusion that can be drawn from this experiment is that adding more CO2 to the atmosphere will not produce a warming effect, therefore AGW is a scientific fraud.
Sue-CO2 is a compound, not an element. I get your point about moderation, but at some point even moderation gets, well, kinda weird…
Cheers,
This story allows a bit of reflection to the serious business of world destruction:
WORLD BICYCLE ADVENTURES–EAT DESSERT FIRST by Frosty Wooldridge
“Cookies always taste better than meat
and potatoes.”
A third grader
Couldn’t have found a more perfect spot among tall pines and¬ a needle soft floor to pitch my tent on this day, which I shall¬ remember for the rest of my life. Birds are chirping above me as¬ the light fades from the sky and a cool wind whispers through the trees making them creak as they sway back and forth. The ¬campfire chases away the darkness in a small circle surrounded by ¬towering redwoods.
Sunshine blessed us today as we rode the 49er Trail toward ¬Sonora, California. Flowers bloomed along the road like a ¬bouquet from a child’s coloring book. But something happened ¬today that fills my heart with sorrow.
When Doug and I awoke this morning, the sun had broken¬ through the cloud cover, revealing immense forests shrouded in¬ gray mist. A green mantle of pines swept toward towering peaks ¬of the High Sierra. The mist swirled like giant pinwheels above -the treetops while we ate our breakfast.
Doug and I eat foods that give us top performance. While ¬touring, we buy seven-grain cereal and mix it with sunflower¬ seeds, raisins, and fresh fruit. A loaf of wheat bread hangs off our¬ packs, and we spread peanut butter over each slice. Water is the simplest liquid to keep and pour over the cereal. Because ¬bicycling utilizes so much energy, breakfast is topped off with¬ an apple or an orange. We eat our food from the same stainless ¬steel pots used for cooking and washing dishes. After breakfast, ¬we break camp, and push the bikes out of the woods to the¬ highway.
We had descended from a snowstorm at 6,000 feet out of ¬Yosemite National Park. The rolling highway led us away from ¬Yosemite through tall trees, high mountain beauty and spring¬ colors. The dripping wet color of pine green glistened along¬ every mile in the road. We dropped another 1,000 feet before¬ stopping for lunch on a grassy spot near the road. Doug grabbed ¬his food pack, and I followed him with mine.
Our lunch ritual was the same every day. We bought ¬groceries for two days riding. Complex carbohydrates in the form¬ of fruits and vegetables, rice and lentils were our main staples. ¬We celebrated lunch because hunger constantly stalks a cyclist. ¬We sat in the shade, spread our towels and prepared sandwiches. ¬I’ll admit it–Doug eats more than I. No, let me clarify that¬ statement. He inhales more food than a humpback whale. He makes¬ a shark look tame when it comes to appetite. To give you an idea ¬how much Doug eats at a sitting, I’d lay bets on him in a pie¬ eating contest against the Pittsburgh Steelers. Doug would eat them ¬under the table. If there was a word to describe how much food¬ he consumes, it hasn’t been invented yet. That’s Doug, all 6’4″¬of him. Yet, through the modern miracle of bicycling, he’s lean ¬and clean.
He sat with his legs stretched out in a V. He laid out¬ eight slices of bread, along with a bag of vegetables. He¬ carries a cutting board which he washed off with his water bottle. Within minutes, he cut everything into slices. He¬ stacked tomatoes, cucumbers and green peppers on top of each¬ other before topping his sandwiches with mustard. His eyes lit ¬up as his tongue licked his lips in anticipation of the coming¬ feast. Not to be outdone, I too chopped with vigor. Hunger is¬ fun on a bicycle adventure, because we love to eat, and food¬ dazzles our taste buds. Thirty minutes later, we polished off¬ four bananas for dessert.
We were ready to go when I held us up for another minute ¬because I had to take a bathroom break. Back on the road, we¬ cranked up a hill with sweat dripping from our bodies. Not five¬ minutes later, we saw a bicyclist coming the other way as we¬ rolled into a valley. At the bottom, he coasted to a stop. Doug¬ and I slowed to a stop.
I was looking at the bike rider when I noticed he was ¬carrying a black puppy on a platform on his rear rack. I smiled, ¬”What a nice…” I began to say. Before I could finish my¬ sentence, the puppy bounded off the platform and ran across the¬ pavement toward us. I heard a vehicle coming, but before the¬ driver or anyone could bat an eyelash, the puppy yelped in a¬ death cry after being crushed by two sets of wheels from a pickup¬ truck going 60 miles per hour.
From a happy disposition with blue sky and sunshine ¬overhead, I was jerked into pain and bewilderment. My first ¬thought was for the fellow across the road who had seen his puppy¬ crushed to death before his eyes.
Blood gushed out from the dog’s body.
“Oh no, oh no,” I said in a withered voice.
It shocked my senses from a lovely day to a terrible moment¬ that happened with no rhyme or reason. Only that moment. Had we¬ eaten lunch for 30 seconds longer, or had I waited to relieve ¬myself, the exact meeting of that fellow bicyclist would have¬ saved the puppy. I felt sick.
The rider got off his bike. He walked across the road,¬ picked up the dog and walked up to us.
“I’m so sorry,” I said with grief in my voice.
“Nothing you could do. It wasn’t anyone’s fault,” he said.
The driver stopped and ran back, “I’m sorry,” he said. “I ¬couldn’t stop.”
“There’s nothing you could have done sir,” the bicyclist¬ said. “Thanks for stopping.”
“I’m sorry son,” the driver said as he walked away.
“I’m so sorry,” I repeated. “Is there anything I can do?”
“No,” he said. “I need to take Sierra for a walk in the¬ woods.”
As he carried the pup away toward the trees, I stood there, ¬my heart crushed with pain. He had lost a special friend, one he ¬had run through the high country with, one who had sat by ¬campfires with him.
A half-hour passed before I walked up to where he was¬ burying Sierra. I introduced myself. His name was Bob and he ¬began crying. I walked up and embraced him. His pain moved into ¬me. I wept with tears running down my face onto his shirt, soaking a small circle into it. I held him tight. He talked¬ with his face on my shoulders, sniffling through his nose,¬ convulsing with gasps of air. Minutes later, we picked up rocks ¬and finished covering Sierra’s body. Bob and I walked back¬ toward the road. Bob didn’t look back, but his whole being was¬ torn. I sensed the anguish ripping at his foundations.
“I don’t understand why this happened,” he said.
Doug nor I said anything. What could we say? What could we ¬do?
Nothing.
Bob decided to continue south. He wanted to figure out why¬ this happened. I gave him one last hug. Doug did too. Bob¬ walked across the road, picked up his bike and rode off.
“Do you know only one car has ridden by us in the last 45¬minutes?” Doug said.
“This just blows me away.”
“Eat dessert first.”
“What?”
“I read it on one of those climber’s T-shirts in Yosemite,¬ it said, ‘Eat dessert first, life is uncertain.’”
“No kidding,” I lamented. “Let’s get going.”
I pulled my bike up from the gravel shoulder and grasped the ¬bars with both hands. Looking down, I slipped my right foot into¬ the pedal strap. I pressed hard. The wheels gleamed as they ¬advanced. For the first time in my life, I noticed that the ¬spokes go forward and they go backward simultaneously. They¬ rotate up as well as down while the bike travels along the road. ¬ There is no power stroke for the spokes. They merely carry the¬ load placed upon them. On the end of the spokes, the wheel rolls ¬around. Just like this planet revolves in space. No reason,¬ other than that’s the way it is. I don’t know why Sierra died. ¬No reason. I fell in behind Doug, watching his freewheel spin -forward, starring at his derailleur as it dropped the chain into ¬lower gears when we began climbing out of the valley. For the¬ rest of the day, I watched his spinning back wheel.
Sitting here in this tent, the light has faded and the last ¬bird has ruffled its feathers in silence. The mountain air is ¬hushed and my candle flame flickers quietly. I shall never forget this day, nor its message–eat dessert first, for life is¬ uncertain. Take it all in daily–joy and sorrow, good and¬ bad times, confidence and uncertainty, smiles and tears, love and¬ heartbreak–because this is the best moment of life, present¬ living. Nothing is guaranteed even five minutes into the future. At no time are any of us immune to misfortune no matter ¬what our situation in life. You can be rich, famous, handsome and happy. It makes no difference. You can look at Princess Di, John Kennedy Jr., Derrick Thomas, Elvis Presley, Martin Luther King, Marilyn Monore, James Dean and countless others. The grand parade of life marches on with or without you.
I eat dessert first. But tonight, I don’t feel hungry.
Excerpt from: Bicycling Around the World: Tire Tracks for Your Imagination by Frosty Wooldridge, copies at 1 888 280 7715
According to the US National Snow and Ice Data Center in Colorado, Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007 – and even the most committed global warming activists do not dispute this.
I dispute it.