Tuesday, May 21, 2013
Brrr... This Global Warming Sure Is Cold.
Originally posted, Sunday, November 23, 2008
No where can the “icy” grip of the mainstream media’s liberal fascism, be felt with more “chilling” effect, than the “freeze out” of contrasting data in regards to man made global warming orthodoxy. it would appear to the casually and mostly uninterested public; that man made climate change is as accepted by the scientific community as the law of gravity. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The fact the public is so ill informed on this issue is very dangerous; as many public and private policies are being formulated based on specious assumptions. The fact there are data and logic contradicting the concept of anthropogenic climate change is almost completely hidden from view by the mainstream media.
For example: in 2007 the US Senate released a report from over four hundred scientists, from twenty-four countries, many of whom are, or were participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticizing the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.
Just a few quotes from the report:
Netherlands: Atmospheric scientist Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, a scientific pioneer in the development of numerical weather prediction and former director of research at The Netherlands' Royal National Meteorological Institute, and an internationally recognized expert in atmospheric boundary layer processes, “I find the Doomsday picture Al Gore is painting – a six-meter sea level rise, fifteen times the IPCC number – entirely without merit,” Tennekes wrote. “I protest vigorously the idea that the climate reacts like a home heating system to a changed setting of the thermostat: just turn the dial, and the desired temperature will soon be reached."
Norway: Geologist/Geochemist Dr. Tom V. Segalstad, a professor and head of the Geological Museum at the University of Oslo and formerly an expert reviewer with the UN IPCC: “It is a search for a mythical CO2 sink to explain an immeasurable CO2 lifetime to fit a hypothetical CO2 computer model that purports to show that an impossible amount of fossil fuel burning is heating the atmosphere. It is all a fiction.”
New Zealand: IPCC reviewer and climate researcher and scientist Dr. Vincent Gray, an expert reviewer on every single draft of the IPCC reports going back to 1990 and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of "Climate Change 2001: “The [IPCC] ‘Summary for Policy makers’ might get a few readers, but the main purpose of the report is to provide a spurious scientific backup for the absurd claims of the worldwide environmentalist lobby that it has been established scientifically that increases in carbon dioxide are harmful to the climate. It just does not matter that this ain't so.”
Denmark: Space physicist Dr. Eigil Friis-Christensen is the director of the Danish National Space Centre, a member of the space research advisory committee of the Swedish National Space Board, a member of a NASA working group, and a member of the European Space Agency who has authored or co-authored around 100 peer-reviewed papers and chairs the Institute of Space Physics: “The sun is the source of the energy that causes the motion of the atmosphere and thereby controls weather and climate. Any change in the energy from the sun received at the Earth’s surface will therefore affect climate.”
USA: Dr. David Wojick is a UN IPCC expert reviewer, who earned his PhD in Philosophy of Science and co-founded the Department of Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie-Mellon University: “In point of fact, the hypothesis that solar variability and not human activity is warming the oceans goes a long way to explain the puzzling idea that the Earth's surface may be warming while the atmosphere is not. The GHG (greenhouse gas) hypothesis does not do this.” Wojick added: “The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of false alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates.”
Canada: IPCC 2007 Expert Reviewer Madhav Khandekar, a Ph.D meteorologist, a scientist with the Natural Resources Stewardship Project who has over 45 years experience in climatology, meteorology and oceanography, and who has published nearly 100 papers, reports, book reviews and a book on Ocean Wave Analysis and Modeling: “To my dismay, IPCC authors ignored all my comments and suggestions for major changes in the FOD (First Order Draft) and sent me the SOD (Second Order Draft) with essentially the same text as the FOD. None of the authors of the chapter bothered to directly communicate with me (or with other expert reviewers with whom I communicate on a regular basis) on many issues that were raised in my review. This is not an acceptable scientific review process.”
Note: there were only 52 scientists that participated in the UN IPCC summary. The over 400 skeptical scientists featured in this new report outnumber by nearly eight times the number of scientists who participated in the 2007 UN IPCC Summary for Policy makers. The notion of “hundreds” or “thousands” of UN scientists agreeing to a scientific statement does not hold up to scrutiny. The senate report is in stark contrast to the consensus claims made by the mainstream media and man
made climate change proponents, as illustrated by the following:
CNN’s Miles O’Brien (July 23, 2007): "The scientific debate is over," O'Brien said. “We're done." O’Brien also declared on CNN on February 9, 2006 that scientific skeptics of man-made catastrophic global warming “are bought and paid for by the fossil fuel industry, usually.”
Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, Chairman of the IPCC view on the number of skeptical scientists as quoted on Feb. 20, 2003: “About 300 years ago, a Flat Earth Society was founded by those who did not believe the world was round. That society still exists; it probably has about a dozen members.”
The Washington Post asserted on May 23, 2006 that there were only “a handful of skeptics” of man-made climate fears.
ABC News Global Warming Reporter Bill Blakemore reported on August 30, 2006: “After extensive searches, ABC News has found no such [scientific] debate” on global warming.
Andrew Dessler in the eco-publication Grist Magazine (November 21, 2007): “While some people claim there are lots of skeptical climate scientists out there, if you actually try to find one, you keep turning up the same two dozen or so (e.g., Singer, Lindzen, Michaels, Christy, etc., etc.). These skeptics are endlessly recycled by the denial machine, so someone not paying close attention might think there are lots of them out there -- but that's not the case."
Source, US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Mr. Blakemore and Mr. Dessler may need to reassess they’re career choice as reporters, I always believed that the ability to dig up facts and people was a prerequisite for sound reporting. Over 31,000 scientists have signed the Global Warming Petition Project. Including 9000 with PhDs. How many scientists does it take to constitute the “lots” that Mr. Dessler is looking for?
I submit good readers--that it does not take a scientific degree to reveal the absurdity of the concept of anthropogenic climate change. Just a little time, curiosity and as Carl Sagan used to put it; a well oiled “baloney detector”. The earths atmosphere is comprised of 78% Nitrogen, 21% Oxygen and everything else makes up the last 1%. The amount of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere is 0.0384 of 1%. In other words the amount of Co2 in the atmosphere is measured in parts per million of a single percentage point. Yet we are being asked to accept so infinitesimal an amount of Co2 can have so profound an effect on our planet.
The earth is not a closed system. According to Mr. Desslers Grist Magazine website 2% of the earths surface is covered with man made cities, towns, villages and roads. I have seen other sources that say it is 3%, be that as it may, it would follow that less than one percent of that man made space is used for industrial use, factories that produce Co2 and machines like trucks, cars, trains...Yet 20% of the worlds land mass is covered with oxygen producing and Co2 consuming grass, and 29% is covered with even larger trees. Not to mention 70% of the earth is covered with water, teeming with plant life that produces the majority of the earths oxygen. Yet though the earths atmosphere is 99% colder gases, those gases are overcome by a millionth of a percent of Co2? What are the mechanics of such a feat? People really don’t have an appreciation for just how large our world is.
I think a good illustration may be that if you took a glass and filled it with water, and put it under a faucet with the tap open, water constantly filling it, and you took a dropper that would dispense a drop of hot sauce 1% of the glasses volume every time you squeezed it. You then squeeze the dropper every minute or so. then give it to a thirsty friend, do you think it would burn his mouth? He wouldn’t even know the hot sauce was there.
So man’s creation of high levels of Co2 is causing a catastrophic rise in the earths temperature according to “todays expert scientists” But what did the scientists just some 30 years ago think that a rise in man made atmospheric Co2 would portend? Lets take a look shall we?
"The continued rapid cooling of the earth since WWII is in accord with the increase in global air pollution associated with industrialization, mechanization, urbanization and exploding population. Reid Bryson, "Global Ecology; Readings towards a rational strategy for Man", (1971)
"I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000_ - Paul Ehrlich in (1969)
"This [cooling] trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century" - Peter Gwynne, Newsweek 1976
"There are ominous signs that the earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production - with serious political implications for just about every nation on earth. The drop in food production could begin quite soon... The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologist are hard-pressed to keep up with it." Newsweek, April 28, (1975)
"This cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people. If it continues and no strong action is taken, it will cause world famine, world chaos and world war, and this could all come about before the year 2000". - Lowell Ponte "The Cooling", 1976
"If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder by the year 2000...This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age."- Kenneth E.F. Watt on air pollution and global cooling, Earth Day (1970) Source, Writer John Breyer
Scientists for over a hundred years believed that in conjunction with the classical four elements of the Greeks there was a fifth element called phlogiston. it was theorized that phlogiston was contained in all combustible materials and released during combustion and was supposed to explain oxidation processes like burning and rust. Those 17th and 18th century scientists also comprised a consensus.
And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. II Thessalonians 2:10-12