|
Post by Swamp Gas on Mar 16, 2006 16:44:42 GMT -5
I'm uncertain over his Nuclear Power theories on recersing Global Warming, but he makes some good points. Environment In Crisis - 'We Are Past The Point Of No Return' By Michael McCarthy Environment Editor - UK Times 1-16-6 Thirty years ago, the scientist James Lovelock worked out that the Earth possessed a planetary-scale control system which kept the environment fit for life. He called it Gaia, and the theory has become widely accepted. Now, he believes mankind's abuse of the environment is making that mechanism work against us. His astonishing conclusion - that climate change is already insoluble, and life on Earth will never be the same again. The world has already passed the point of no return for climate change, and civilisation as we know it is now unlikely to survive, according to James Lovelock, the scientist and green guru who conceived the idea of Gaia - the Earth which keeps itself fit for life. In a profoundly pessimistic new assessment, published in today's Independent, Professor Lovelock suggests that efforts to counter global warming cannot succeed, and that, in effect, it is already too late. The world and human society face disaster to a worse extent, and on a faster timescale, than almost anybody realises, he believes. He writes: " Before this century is over, billions of us will die, and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable." In making such a statement, far gloomier than any yet made by a scientist of comparable international standing, Professor Lovelock accepts he is going out on a limb. But as the man who conceived the first wholly new way of looking at life on Earth since Charles Darwin, he feels his own analysis of what is happening leaves him no choice. He believes that it is the self-regulating mechanism of Gaia itself - increasingly accepted by other scientists worldwide, although they prefer to term it the Earth System - which, perversely, will ensure that the warming cannot be mastered. This is because the system contains myriad feedback mechanisms which in the past have acted in concert to keep the Earth much cooler than it otherwise would be. Now, however, they will come together to amplify the warming being caused by human activities such as transport and industry through huge emissions of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2 ). It means that the harmful consequences of human beings damaging the living planet's ancient regulatory system will be non-linear - in other words, likely to accelerate uncontrollably. He terms this phenomenon "The Revenge of Gaia" and examines it in detail in a new book with that title, to be published next month. The uniqueness of the Lovelock viewpoint is that it is holistic, rather than reductionist. Although he is a committed supporter of current research into climate change, especially at Britain's Hadley Centre, he is not looking at individual facets of how the climate behaves, as other scientists inevitably are. Rather, he is looking at how the whole control system of the Earth behaves when put under stress. Professor Lovelock, who conceived the idea of Gaia in the 1970s while examining the possibility of life on Mars for Nasa in the US, has been warning of the dangers of climate change since major concerns about it first began nearly 20 years ago. He was one of a select group of scientists who gave an initial briefing on global warming to Margaret Thatcher's Cabinet at 10 Downing Street in April 1989. His concerns have increased steadily since then, as evidence of a warming climate has mounted. For example, he shared the alarm of many scientists at the news last September that the ice covering the Arctic Ocean is now melting so fast that in 2005 it reached a historic low point. Two years ago he sparked a major controversy with an article in The Independent calling on environmentalists to drop their long-standing opposition to nuclear power, which does not produce the greenhouses gases of conventional power stations. Global warming was proceeding so fast that only a major expansion of nuclear power could bring it under control, he said. Most of the Green movement roundly rejected his call, and does so still. Now his concerns have reached a peak - and have a new emphasis. Rather than calling for further ways of countering climate change, he is calling on governments in Britain and elsewhere to begin large-scale preparations for surviving what he now sees as inevitable - in his own phrase today, "a hell of a climate", likely to be in Europe up to 8C hotter than it is today. In his book's concluding chapter, he writes: "What should a sensible European government be doing now? I think we have little option but to prepare for the worst, and assume that we have passed the threshold." And in today's Independent he writes: "We will do our best to survive, but sadly I cannot see the United States or the emerging economies of China and India cutting back in time, and they are the main source of [CO2] emissions. The worst will happen ..." He goes on: "We have to keep in mind the awesome pace of change and realise how little time is left to act, and then each community and nation must find the best use of the resources they have to sustain civilisation for as long as they can." He believes that the world's governments should plan to secure energy and food supplies in the global hothouse, and defences against the expected rise in sea levels. The scientist's vision of what human society may ultimately be reduced to through climate change is " a broken rabble led by brutal warlords." Professor Lovelock draws attention to one aspect of the warming threat in particular, which is that the expected temperature rise is currently being held back artificially by a global aerosol - a layer of dust in the atmosphere right around the planet's northern hemisphere - which is the product of the world's industry. This shields us from some of the sun's radiation in a phenomenon which is known as "global dimming" and is thought to be holding the global temperature down by several degrees. But with a severe industrial downturn, the aerosol could fall out of the atmosphere in a very short time, and the global temperature could take a sudden enormous leap upwards. One of the most striking ideas in his book is that of "a guidebook for global warming survivors" aimed at the humans who would still be struggling to exist after a total societal collapse. Written, not in electronic form, but "on durable paper with long-lasting print", it would contain the basic accumulated scientific knowledge of humanity, much of it utterly taken for granted by us now, but originally won only after a hard struggle - such as our place in the solar system, or the fact that bacteria and viruses cause infectious diseases. ROUGH GUIDE TO A PLANET IN JEOPARDY Global warming, caused principally by the large-scale emissions of industrial gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2), is almost certainly the greatest threat that mankind has ever faced, because it puts a question mark over the very habitability of the Earth. Over the coming decades soaring temperatures will mean agriculture may become unviable over huge areas of the world where people are already poor and hungry; water supplies for millions or even billions may fail. Rising sea levels will destroy substantial coastal areas in low-lying countries such as Bangladesh, at the very moment when their populations are mushrooming. Numberless environmental refugees will overwhelm the capacity of any agency, or indeed any country, to cope, while modern urban infrastructure will face devastation from powerful extreme weather events, such as Hurricane Katrina which hit New Orleans last summer. The international community accepts the reality of global warming, supported by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In its last report, in 2001, the IPCC said global average temperatures were likely to rise by up to 5.8C by 2100. In high latitudes, such as Britain, the rise is likely to be much higher, perhaps 8C. The warming seems to be proceeding faster than anticipated and in the IPCC's next report, 2007, the timescale may be shortened. Yet there still remains an assumption that climate change is controllable, if CO2 emissions can be curbed. Lovelock is warning: think again. 'The Revenge of Gaia' by James Lovelock is published by Penguin on 2 February, price £16.99 news.independent.co.uk/environment/article338878.ece
|
|
|
Post by Mech on Mar 17, 2006 17:42:02 GMT -5
Quote: "His astonishing conclusion - that climate change is already insoluble, and life on Earth will never be the same again."
Doom and gloom.
AGAIN..the earth will do what it wants.
It will warm up again...and it will get cold again.
Just like it NATURALLY always does.
Quote: "" Before this century is over, billions of us will die, and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable."
Sounds PERFECT for THE GLOBALISTS.
Mabye the NAZIS knew about this PLAN years ago?
Neu Schwabenland in Antartica..where the new "RACE" will be born?
Just a thought.
|
|
|
Post by KNOWTHIS on Mar 17, 2006 18:43:16 GMT -5
We just lost an entire city due to as Bill Maher said, “hurricanes on steroids“ and that’s hardly a reason to throw a party. I call it realism, not doom a gloom. The hurricane season is expected to get even worse. Maybe it is just a cycle, maybe not. What harm comes from erring on the side of caution for once in this country? What if it is part of a natural cycle that we’re effecting adversely? What’s the worst that could happen with some regulations? Cleaner air to breathe? I could think of worse consequences.
If a man smokes 3 packs a day for thirty years, charbroils his lungs, coughs blood regularly and develops cancer only to say that a cycle must’ve caused it he doesn’t recognize the obvious impact of cause & effect.
The earth will do what it wants, even if that means shedding those that contaminate it. We need nature in order to exist, nature doesn’t need us. It’s only logical to respect it. And of course man effects what nature does. Unless you can explain to me how it is that lakes and rivers pollute themselves? I can give you a hundred examples of how man effects nature, it’s not even about controlling it.
Besides, if man cannot control nature, why worry about weather control/modification programs? Is it arrogant to believe that they exist? I think you’re sensible enough to know that man can certainly influence its surroundings and environment.
Perhaps the plan was to kill off the people by poisoning the environment that sustains them. If what has been occurring is a phony crisis I’d hate to see a real one. We’ve got more environmental/health problems accumulating than I can ever remember.
|
|
|
Post by KNOWTHIS on Mar 17, 2006 18:53:25 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Jeanie on Mar 17, 2006 19:22:21 GMT -5
Knowthis says:"We need nature in order to exist, nature doesn’t need us. It’s only logical to respect it. And of course man effects what nature does. Unless you can explain to me how it is that lakes and rivers pollute themselves? I can give you a hundred examples of how man effects nature, it’s not even about controlling it." Makes perfect sense to me, are you listening Mech ? Jeanie
|
|
|
Post by Mech on Mar 17, 2006 19:41:51 GMT -5
Are you LISTENING JEANIE?
Man-made global warming is a HOAX to get the people UNDER CONTROL....PERIOD!!!!
UC Physics Professor Says Global Warming Not Real
Technology Review | October 26 2004
Progress in science is sometimes made by great discoveries. But science also advances when we learn that something we believed to be true isn’t. When solving a jigsaw puzzle, the solution can sometimes be stymied by the fact that a wrong piece has been wedged in a key place.
In the scientific and political debate over global warming, the latest wrong piece may be the “hockey stick,” the famous plot (shown below), published by University of Massachusetts geoscientist Michael Mann and colleagues. This plot purports to show that we are now experiencing the warmest climate in a millennium, and that the earth, after remaining cool for centuries during the medieval era, suddenly began to heat up about 100 years ago--just at the time that the burning of coal and oil led to an increase in atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide.
I talked about this at length in my December 2003 column. Unfortunately, discussion of this plot has been so polluted by political and activist frenzy that it is hard to dig into it to reach the science. My earlier column was largely a plea to let science proceed unmolested. Unfortunately, the very importance of the issue has made careful science difficult to pursue.
But now a shock: Canadian scientists Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick have uncovered a fundamental mathematical flaw in the computer program that was used to produce the hockey stick. In his original publications of the stick, Mann purported to use a standard method known as principal component analysis, or PCA, to find the dominant features in a set of more than 70 different climate records.
But it wasn’t so. McIntyre and McKitrick obtained part of the program that Mann used, and they found serious problems. Not only does the program not do conventional PCA, but it handles data normalization in a way that can only be described as mistaken.
Now comes the real shocker. This improper normalization procedure tends to emphasize any data that do have the hockey stick shape, and to suppress all data that do not. To demonstrate this effect, McIntyre and McKitrick created some meaningless test data that had, on average, no trends. This method of generating random data is called “Monte Carlo” analysis, after the famous casino, and it is widely used in statistical analysis to test procedures. When McIntyre and McKitrick fed these random data into the Mann procedure, out popped a hockey stick shape!
That discovery hit me like a bombshell, and I suspect it is having the same effect on many others. Suddenly the hockey stick, the poster-child of the global warming community, turns out to be an artifact of poor mathematics. How could it happen? What is going on? Let me digress into a short technical discussion of how this incredible error took place.
In PCA and similar techniques, each of the (in this case, typically 70) different data sets have their averages subtracted (so they have a mean of zero), and then are multiplied by a number to make their average variation around that mean to be equal to one; in technical jargon, we say that each data set is normalized to zero mean and unit variance. In standard PCA, each data set is normalized over its complete data period; for key climate data sets that Mann used to create his hockey stick graph, this was the interval 1400-1980. But the computer program Mann used did not do that. Instead, it forced each data set to have zero mean for the time period 1902-1980, and to match the historical records for this interval. This is the time when the historical temperature is well known, so this procedure does guarantee the most accurate temperature scale. But it completely screws up PCA. PCA is mostly concerned with the data sets that have high variance, and the Mann normalization procedure tends to give very high variance to any data set with a hockey stick shape. (Such data sets have zero mean only over the 1902-1980 period, not over the longer 1400-1980 period.)
The net result: the “principal component” will have a hockey stick shape even if most of the data do not.
McIntyre and McKitrick sent their detailed analysis to Nature magazine for publication, and it was extensively refereed. But their paper was finally rejected. In frustration, McIntyre and McKitrick put the entire record of their submission and the referee reports on a Web page for all to see. If you look, you’ll see that McIntyre and McKitrick have found numerous other problems with the Mann analysis. I emphasize the bug in their PCA program simply because it is so blatant and so easy to understand. Apparently, Mann and his colleagues never tested their program with the standard Monte Carlo approach, or they would have discovered the error themselves. Other and different criticisms of the hockey stick are emerging (see, for example, the paper by Hans von Storch and colleagues in the September 30 issue of Science).
Some people may complain that McIntyre and McKitrick did not publish their results in a refereed journal. That is true--but not for lack of trying. Moreover, the paper was refereed--and even better, the referee reports are there for us to read. McIntyre and McKitrick’s only failure was in not convincing Nature that the paper was important enough to publish.
How does this bombshell affect what we think about global warming?
It certainly does not negate the threat of a long-term global temperature increase. In fact, McIntyre and McKitrick are careful to point out that it is hard to draw conclusions from these data, even with their corrections. Did medieval global warming take place? Last month the consensus was that it did not; now the correct answer is that nobody really knows. Uncovering errors in the Mann analysis doesn’t settle the debate; it just reopens it. We now know less about the history of climate, and its natural fluctuations over century-scale time frames, than we thought we knew.
If you are concerned about global warming (as I am) and think that human-created carbon dioxide may contribute (as I do), then you still should agree that we are much better off having broken the hockey stick. Misinformation can do real harm, because it distorts predictions. Suppose, for example, that future measurements in the years 2005-2015 show a clear and distinct global cooling trend. (It could happen.) If we mistakenly took the hockey stick seriously--that is, if we believed that natural fluctuations in climate are small--then we might conclude (mistakenly) that the cooling could not be just a random fluctuation on top of a long-term warming trend, since according to the hockey stick, such fluctuations are negligible. And that might lead in turn to the mistaken conclusion that global warming predictions are a lot of hooey. If, on the other hand, we reject the hockey stick, and recognize that natural fluctuations can be large, then we will not be misled by a few years of random cooling.
A phony hockey stick is more dangerous than a broken one--if we know it is broken. It is our responsibility as scientists to look at the data in an unbiased way, and draw whatever conclusions follow. When we discover a mistake, we admit it, learn from it, and perhaps discover once again the value of caution.
|
|
|
Post by Mech on Mar 17, 2006 19:44:40 GMT -5
Study: SUN'S Changes to Blame for Part of Global Warming
Live Science/Robert Roy Britt | October 3 2005
WhatReallyHappened has a great commentary on this....
This is the Galileo thing all over again. There is clear evidence that the sun is the primary control of the Earth's temperature. First, the cycle of hot planet and ice age matches exactly the cycle Earth's orbit as it slowly oscillates between more circular and more elliptical. More recently, the link between solar activity and Earth's temperature has been established for a decade. Finally, since the Earth has sent probes to Mars since 1976, it has been shown that Mars is getting warmer as well, despite the absence of SUVs.
But, if the Sun is making the Earth warmer, there will be no money for "fixes", no political "cause" with which to swindle the voters out of support, let alone a justification for further control over people's lives. So, like the supporters of epicycles looking at Galileo's numbers, the scientists shrug, say "It's possible, but what I have known all my life still applies."
Now, I am a big supporter of wise use of resources, but the geological record is clear. The Earth gets hotter and colder all the time. That change is NATURAL. We just came out of an ice age and we are still far cooler than Earth was during the Cretaceous. It is only the arrogance of man that suggests that the Earth can or should be frozen in its current configuration for the benefit of man.
Increased output from the Sun might be to blame for 10 to 30 percent of global warming that has been measured in the past 20 years, according to a new report.
The findings were published online this week by the journal Geophysical Research Letters.
Scientists agree the planet is warming. Effects are evident in melting glaciers and reductions in the amount of frozen ground around the planet.
The new study is based in part on Columbia University research from 2003 in which scientists found errors in how data on solar brightness is interpreted. A gap in data, owing to satellites not being deployed after the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster, were filled by less accurate data from other satellites, Scafetta says.
The Duke analyses examined solar changes over 22 years versus 11 years used in previous studies. The cooling effect of volcanoes and cyclical shifts in ocean currents can have a greater negative impact on the accuracy of shorter data periods.
"The Sun may have minimally contributed about 10 to 30 percent of the 1980-2002 global surface warming," the researchers said in a statement today.
Many questions remain, however. For example, scientists do not have a good grasp of how much Earth absorbs or reflects sunlight.
"We don't know what the Sun will do in the future," Scafetta says. "For now, if our analysis is correct, I think it is important to correct the climate models so that they include reliable sensitivity to solar activity. Once that is done, then it will be possible to better understand what has happened during the past hundred years."
|
|
|
Post by Mech on Mar 17, 2006 19:45:40 GMT -5
Global warming is good for you The world's climate has always changed and that should not scare us. We should just be preparedLondon Guardian 12/05/02: Duncan Steel Original Link: www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,12374,854111,00.html There can be little doubt that global warming is real. When scientists argue about the subject, it is usually in the context of how large a temperature rise they have calculated for the next decade or century, not whether any heating at all will occur. The heat is on, then. At least I hope so: because the greenhouse effect is a good thing. Consider historical records, and other tracers showing how our climate has varied over the past few millennia. Stepping back just a decade, we find that injections of dust or smoke into the atmosphere, such as from the Mount Pinatubo volcanic eruption and the oil fires after the Gulf war, led to slight coolings (airborne particles reflect sunlight away). Going back to the 17th century, one notes the "Little Ice Age" when the River Thames froze over and frost fairs were held in London on its icy surface. This occurred during an era when there was a dip in sunspot numbers, and so was presumably caused by lessened solar output. Why, we don't know. But it happened. Starting around AD540, pestilence spread across Europe. This is usually termed the Plague of Justinian (emperor of the eastern Roman Empire), and it was provoked by a climatic downturn. Similarly, several coincidental crashes of disparate, well-separated civilisations are recognised in archaeological records, for example around 1650BC and also 2350BC, with no apparent link other than widespread worsening climate. So, relatively small perturbations in the amount of sunlight reaching the ground can lead to temperature falls sufficient to provoke the downfall of previously effective agricultural systems and economies. Looking at the climate over an extended timescale, longer than the Holocene (the relatively warm past 12,000 years), one sees that the usual condition of Earth is far colder than that enjoyed now. The norm is Ice Age. Cool the climate just a little, and a feedback effect drops the temperature further: the Arctic snowfields creep further south and, because snow reflects away more sunlight than bare ground, the temperature drops lower, more snow falls, and on it goes. Metaphorically, the global climate is similar to a cliff edge, next to which a drunk is staggering. One step in the wrong direction and over he goes. Although we'd all like things to remain the same, the reality is that nothing, most especially the weather, is constant. Coolings seem to be rapid, and cause disastrous downfalls of civilisation. But we can cope with slow upward trends in temperature. Our mantra should be slow change good, fast change bad. Given that we cannot stop the occurrence of random steps toward the precipice, what we need to do is arrange for our drunkard to be a safe distance from the cliff edge. That is why global warming is a good thing. In fact, life on Earth owes its existence to the greenhouse effect. This became clear from investigations of other planets. It was by trying to understand why Venus has such a high surface-temperature (close to 500 C) that we learned how the terrestrial atmosphere keeps us warm, and realised that elevated levels of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels must surely push Earth's temperature up. That our planet is subject to the greenhouse effect is not in doubt. The natural action of the atmosphere elevates the global temperature by almost 40 degrees. The moon is at the same distance from the sun as us, but much colder because it is airless. When scientists debate the possibility of life on planets orbiting distant stars, they may ruminate on the "Goldilocks problem". The global temperature, like the porridge, must be "just right". But what is the "right" terrestrial temperature from the perspective of the development of civilisation? That there are substantial drawbacks to global warming is unarguable. Certain low-lying areas such as Bangladesh and various Pacific islands may well be flooded. It will be the responsibility of the developed nations, which produce most of the carbon dioxide emissions, to find ways to assist those people most affected. But it is not only the developing world that will be inundated. For example, most of Florida, rather than just the Everglades, may become a swamp. In 100 years' time Miami may be submerged, but a century ago there was almost nothing there. Such change - slow change, on the scale of the human lifetime - causing the shifting of peoples has been a continuing feature of history. In Britain the coastlines have never been constant: as Beachy Head erodes, it produces shingle that banks up to the east. The place where William the Conqueror landed in 1066 is now inland. Status quo is the exception, not the norm. For the human utility of the planet as a whole, some regions may need to be abandoned, while new zones of habitability will become available as planet Earth warms slightly. It is a natural function of humankind to move on, and search for new opportunities and horizons. Global warming, then, is great because it protects us from the unpredictable big freeze that would be far, far worse. · Duncan Steel is reader in space technology at the Joule Physics Laboratory, University of Salford.
|
|
|
Post by Mech on Mar 17, 2006 19:46:23 GMT -5
Greenland ice cap thickens slightly
CNN/Reuters | October 24 2005
Greenland's ice cap has thickened slightly in recent years despite wide predictions of a thaw triggered by global warming, a team of scientists said on Thursday.
The 9,842-feet thick ice cap is a key concern in debates about climate change because a total melt would raise world sea levels by about 7 meters. And a runaway thaw might slow the Gulf Stream that keeps the North Atlantic region warm.
But satellite measurements showed that more snowfall was falling and thickening the ice cap, especially at high altitudes, according to the report in the journal Science.
Glaciers at sea level have been retreating fast because of a warming climate, making many other scientists believe the entire ice cap was thinning.
"The overall ice thickness changes are ... approximately plus 1.9 inches a year or 21.26 inches over 11 years," according to the experts at Norwegian, Russian and U.S. institutes led by Ola Johannessen at the Mohn Sverdrup center for Global Ocean Studies and Operational Oceanography in Norway.
However, they said that the thickening seemed consistent with theories of global warming, blamed by most experts on a build-up of heat-trapping gases from burning fossil fuels in power plants, factories and cars.
Warmer air, even if it is still below freezing, can carry more moisture. That extra moisture falls as snow below 32 Fahrenheit.
And the scientists said that the thickening of the ice-cap might be offset by a melting of glaciers around the fringes of Greenland. Satellite data was not good enough to measure the melt nearer sea level.
Most models of global warming indicate that the Greenland ice might melt within thousands of years if warming continues.
Oceans would rise by about 70 meters if the far bigger ice-cap on Antarctica melted along with Greenland. Antarctica's vast size acts as a deep freeze likely to slow any melt of the southern continent.
The panel that advises the United Nations has predicted that global sea levels might rise by almost a meter by 2100 because of a warming climate.
Such a rise would swamp low-lying Pacific islands and warming could trigger more hurricanes, droughts, spread deserts and drive thousands of species to extinction.
Still, a separate study in Science on Thursday said sea levels were probably rising slightly because of a melt of ice sheets.
"Ice sheets now appear to be contributing modestly to sea level rise because warming has increased mass loss from coastal areas more than warming has increased mass gain from enhanced snowfall in cold central regions," it said.
"Greenland presently makes the largest contribution to sea level rise," according to the report by scientists led by Richard Alley of Pennsylvania State University in the United States.
|
|
|
Post by Mech on Mar 17, 2006 19:50:16 GMT -5
UN's Promise to 'Save The World' In Return For Corrupt Global Government "The most potent threats to life on earth - global warming, health pandemics, poverty and armed conflict - could be ended by moves that would unlock $7 trillion - $7,000,000,000,000 (£3.9trn) - of previously untapped wealth, the United Nations claims today."Paul Joseph Watson/Prison Planet.com | January 31 2006 The first wave of the attempt to create a global government has failed. The EU constitution is dead in the water and the UN can be defined as somewhere in between a talking shop and a laughing stock. The sands have shifted. The Clinton era move to establish the United Nations and its offshoots as a de facto world government with dictatorial control over US sovereignty was met with ferocious opposition from conservatives sick to their stomachs from eight years of moral relativism. The establishment knew it was time to play their ace in the hole and George W. Bush, so-called conservative, was installed (not elected) as US President. Despite Bush's total and absolute abandonment of conservative principles, including increasing deficit spending beyond the level of all previous 42 administrations put together, signing legislation anathema to the Constitution, promoting global government and anti-American trade deals like CAFTA and the FTAA, and attempting to 'solve' the illegal immigration problem by legalizing all the illegal aliens, mainstream conservatives put the blinkers on and went back to sleep. This enabled the hijacked government of the United States to step in where he UN had failed, as the enforcer of world government, and a neo-conservative plan to eliminate all 'rogue states' that did not comply was set in action. Afghanistan and Iraq are down, Iran and Syria are next. However, it seems that some disenfranchised UN higher-ups are keen to see the organization once again assume its role at the head of the hydra. The London Independent reports, The most potent threats to life on earth - global warming, health pandemics, poverty and armed conflict - could be ended by moves that would unlock $7 trillion - $7,000,000,000,000 (£3.9trn) - of previously untapped wealth, the United Nations claims today. The price? An admission that the nation-state is an old-fashioned concept that has no role to play in a modern globalised world where financial markets have to be harnessed rather than simply condemned. The message is simple, sacrifice your national sovereignty and we will save the world! Using the threat of environmental catastrophe and the implementation of a world tax, the UN is coming back for another bite at the cherry, an end run around national sovereignty. Why should we even for a second consider signing over our freedom and sovereignty to a body that has been embroiled in one scandal after another? Were the UN attempting to save the world when they used a ship chartered for peacekeepers to bring children into East Timor to be exploited as prostitutes? Were the UN attempting to save the world when they imposed sanctions on Iraq in 1990 that directly led to the deaths of a million Iraqis, 500,000 of them children? Were they attempting to solve problems of poverty, disease and suffering when they unleashed this living hell? A price (half a million dead kids) that was "worth paying" according to Secretary of State Madeleine Albright? Were the UN attempting to save the world in 1994 when they withdrew their peacekeepers from Rwanda, an action that directly led to the butchering of 800,000 people? Were the UN attempting to save the world when they set up a program of prostitution and systematic rape throughout Sierra Leone's brutal 10 year civil war? Were the UN attempting to save the world when pedophilia scandals involving their personnel emerged from all over West Africa and the Balkans? Were their intentions noble when they fired the individuals responsible for blowing the whistle and trying to save the children? Is the UN offshoot UNESCO, an organization which so-called conservative George W. Bush signed the US back onto, pure in its efforts for mankind when it promotes unlimited abortion, the elimination of Judeo-Christian civilization, and the abolition of private property rights? Common sense tells us that we should not negotiate with serial killers and purveyors of global genocide when they make grandiose promises to create heaven on earth. Would you get in a car with Ted Bundy if he promised you a good time?
|
|
|
Post by Mech on Mar 17, 2006 19:54:42 GMT -5
The truth about global warming - it's the Sun that's to blame
London Telegraph | July 20 2004
Global warming has finally been explained: the Earth is getting hotter because the Sun is burning more brightly than at any time during the past 1,000 years, according to new research.
A study by Swiss and German scientists suggests that increasing radiation from the sun is responsible for recent global climate changes.
Dr Sami Solanki, the director of the renowned Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Gottingen, Germany, who led the research, said: "The Sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures.
"The Sun is in a changed state. It is brighter than it was a few hundred years ago and this brightening started relatively recently - in the last 100 to 150 years."
Dr Solanki said that the brighter Sun and higher levels of "greenhouse gases", such as carbon dioxide, both contributed to the change in the Earth's temperature but it was impossible to say which had the greater impact.
Average global temperatures have increased by about 0.2 deg Celsius over the past 20 years and are widely believed to be responsible for new extremes in weather patterns. After pressure from environmentalists, politicians agreed the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, promising to limit greenhouse gas emissions between 2008 and 2012. Britain ratified the protocol in 2002 and said it would cut emissions by 12.5 per cent from 1990 levels.
Globally, 1997, 1998 and 2002 were the hottest years since worldwide weather records were first collated in 1860.
Most scientists agree that greenhouse gases from fossil fuels have contributed to the warming of the planet in the past few decades but have questioned whether a brighter Sun is also responsible for rising temperatures.
To determine the Sun's role in global warming, Dr Solanki's research team measured magnetic zones on the Sun's surface known as sunspots, which are believed to intensify the Sun's energy output.
The team studied sunspot data going back several hundred years. They found that a dearth of sunspots signalled a cold period - which could last up to 50 years - but that over the past century their numbers had increased as the Earth's climate grew steadily warmer. The scientists also compared data from ice samples collected during an expedition to Greenland in 1991. The most recent samples contained the lowest recorded levels of beryllium 10 for more than 1,000 years. Beryllium 10 is a particle created by cosmic rays that decreases in the Earth's atmosphere as the magnetic energy from the Sun increases. Scientists can currently trace beryllium 10 levels back 1,150 years.
Dr Solanki does not know what is causing the Sun to burn brighter now or how long this cycle would last.
He says that the increased solar brightness over the past 20 years has not been enough to cause the observed climate changes but believes that the impact of more intense sunshine on the ozone layer and on cloud cover could be affecting the climate more than the sunlight itself.
Dr Bill Burrows, a climatologist and a member of the Royal Meteorological Society, welcomed Dr Solanki's research. "While the established view remains that the sun cannot be responsible for all the climate changes we have seen in the past 50 years or so, this study is certainly significant," he said.
"It shows that there is enough happening on the solar front to merit further research. Perhaps we are devoting too many resources to correcting human effects on the climate without being sure that we are the major contributor."
Dr David Viner, the senior research scientist at the University of East Anglia's climatic research unit, said the research showed that the sun did have an effect on global warming.
He added, however, that the study also showed that over the past 20 years the number of sunspots had remained roughly constant, while the Earth's temperature had continued to increase.
This suggested that over the past 20 years, human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation had begun to dominate "the natural factors involved in climate change", he said.
Dr Gareth Jones, a climate researcher at the Met Office, said that Dr Solanki's findings were inconclusive because the study had not incorporated other potential climate change factors.
"The Sun's radiance may well have an impact on climate change but it needs to be looked at in conjunction with other factors such as greenhouse gases, sulphate aerosols and volcano activity," he said. The research adds weight to the views of David Bellamy, the conservationist. "Global warming - at least the modern nightmare version - is a myth," he said. "I am sure of it and so are a growing number of scientists. But what is really worrying is that the world's politicians and policy-makers are not.
"Instead, they have an unshakeable faith in what has, unfortunately, become one of the central credos of the environmental movement: humans burn fossil fuels, which release increased levels of carbon dioxide - the principal so-called greenhouse gas - into the atmosphere, causing the atmosphere to heat up. They say this is global warming: I say this is poppycock."
|
|
|
Post by Mech on Mar 17, 2006 19:55:49 GMT -5
But oh no......Its all those evil humans fault.
Lets kill em' Nature is more important!!!
|
|
|
Post by KNOWTHIS on Mar 17, 2006 20:31:41 GMT -5
Thank you Jeanie, it's just my opinion though.
Now about the articles posted.
Greenland ice cap thickens slightly (from your article)
UC Physics Professor Says Global Warming Not Real (from your article)
And if the sun really is heating up then the threat of increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere trapping its radiation makes it even more dangerous to us. This is not a reassurance to me in anyway. The one article seems to suggest that the sun is possibly one factor and not the one and only cause. In fact it says that it may have contributed to just 10-30% of the global warming.
As far as the UN, sure they can take advantage of a crisis. This is not proof to me that it isn't a crisis though. Halliburton took advantage of the damage left behind from hurricane Katrina. Yet the hurricane was very real. More to come in fact....
“Evil” and incompetence are not synonymous terms. People are simply ignorant of what they’re doing to themselves in my opinion. Besides, this is not a good vs. evil or bad vs. good issue. It’s not some epic struggle of man vs. nature. It’s man co-existing (or not) with nature. It’s not even about worship or religion. Even an atheist can be an environmentalist that holds nature in high regards.
A fish can curse the water that it resides in if it wants. It won't last very long without it though.
|
|
|
Post by KNOWTHIS on Mar 17, 2006 20:58:06 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by KNOWTHIS on Mar 17, 2006 21:02:06 GMT -5
(also in one of Mech's articles)
|
|
|
Post by Mech on Mar 17, 2006 21:05:48 GMT -5
Nope.... The SUN has been brighter and more INTENSE than it has been in RECORDED history at this stage..and EXPECTED to get 50...I REPEAT...50 TIMES BRIGHTER."WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Sun-spawned cosmic storms that can play havoc with earthly power grids and orbiting satellites could be 50 percent stronger in the next 11-year solar cycle than in the last one, scientists said on Monday.
Using a new model that takes into account what happens under the sun's surface and data about previous solar cycles, astronomers offered a long-range forecast for solar activity that could start as soon as this year or as late as 2008.
They offered no specific predictions of solar storms, but they hope to formulate early warnings that will give power companies, satellite operators and others on and around Earth a few days to prepare.
"This prediction of an active solar cycle suggests we're potentially looking at more communications disruptions, more satellite failures, possible disruptions of electrical grids and blackouts, more dangerous conditions for astronauts," said Richard Behnke of the Upper Atmosphere Research Section at the National Science Foundation.
"Predicting and understanding space weather will soon be even more vital than ever before," Behnke said at a telephone news briefing.
The prediction, roughly analogous to the early prediction of a severe hurricane season on Earth, involves the number of sunspots on the solar surface, phenomena that have been monitored for more than a century.
TWISTED MAGNETIC FIELDS
Every 11 years or so, the sun goes through an active period, with lots of sunspots. This is important, since solar storms -- linked to twisted magnetic fields that can hurl out energetic particles -- tend to occur near sunspots.
The sun is in a relatively quiet period now, but is expected to get more active soon, scientists said. However, there is disagreement as to whether the active period will start within months -- late 2006 or early 2007 -- or years, with the first signs in late 2007 or early 2008.
Whenever it begins, the new forecasting method shows sunspot activity is likely to be 30 percent to 50 percent stronger than the last active period. The peak of the last cycle was in 2001, the researchers said, but the period of activity can span much of a decade.
The strongest solar cycle in recent memory occurred in the late 1950s, when there were few satellites aloft, no astronauts in orbit and less reliance on electrical power grids than there is now.
If a similarly active period occurred now, the impact would be hard to predict, according to Joseph Kunches of the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration's Space Environment Center in Colorado.
"It's pretty uncertain what would happen, which makes this work more relevant," Kunches said.
"What we have here is a prediction that the cycle is going to be very active, and what we need and what we're of course working on is to be able to predict individual storms with a couple days or hours in advance so the grids can take the action," Behnke said.today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=scienceNews&storyid=2006-03-06T204858Z_01_N06327000_RTRUKOC_0_US-SPACE-SUN.xml&rpc=22GEE...wouldn't you say GLOBAL DIMMING...is MAN MADE by CONTRAILS and CHEMTRAILS for a REASON? Just a thought. I wouldn't worry to much about what comes out of your car exhaust pipe. MUCH BIGGER problems...NON MAN MADE ONES..are on the way.
|
|
|
Post by Swamp Gas on Mar 18, 2006 9:54:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Mech on Mar 18, 2006 10:00:33 GMT -5
Look,
I know that this forum caters much more to the liberal side of things...therefore my postings in particular might be as popular as some others here are...or for that matter..as welcome.
I am not refuting global warming....I am refuting MAN CAUSED global warming.
I will repeat myself AGAIN......the earth will warm up and cool down on its own.
Solar cycles and natural events are the cause.
If you are going to talk sides...I think Ive made myself CRYSTAL CLEAR in the past that I am on NEITHER SIDE exept liberty and the constitution.
Anyone who promotes big government and tyranny is the enemy.
|
|
|
Post by Swamp Gas on Mar 18, 2006 10:32:41 GMT -5
Who said anything about HU-People causing global warming. We are accelerating it at a very rpaid rate, much more than any time in history. If you read the Gaia Theory, of which the author is NOT a liberal, BTW), he says that we could be passed the point of no return. I feel we can still stop it, but we MUST heal the atmosphere and Ozone Layer...NOW. Global Warming is real, and when we accept that, and accept the premise that we must reverse it, then we can make progress.
The forum caters to ANY view, except being abusive.
I am as much of a Constitutionalist as you are. You are a veteran, I have been fighting Corporatists and Linear Thinkers for 40+ years. Why is it that Libertarians think they are the only ones who defend the Constitution.
The government is as good as the people that put it in.
A small government is not the answer. This is what Right-Wing Corporatists want. Libertarians still want their garbage picked up, their streets policed, borders protected, food inspected, and Gun Rights protected. Greens and True Liberals want the same. It is the Limbaughs, Hannitys, Cheneys, and O'Reilly that want small governments....except when it comes to intimidating liberals and dark-skinned people. Corporations are completely unaccountable, and I DO NOT want them running the country. I want the government that the founding fathers envisioned. A Republic.
A government by the people and for the people is what we want.
Call me a Socialist and a Liberal....I'm proud of it. History is on my side. Washington, Madison, and Frankin were all Hashish-Smoking Liberals. The British were the GW Bush's. It was Liberals who got rid of child labor, got minimum wage, woman's rights, black rights, amd instituted every other positive social change. Conservatives always fight against giving power to the people.
|
|
|
Post by Swamp Gas on Mar 18, 2006 10:39:59 GMT -5
www.ucsusa.org/news/commentary/page.jsp?itemID=27193881July 19, 2005 Last Gasp to Undermine Global Warming Rep. Joe Barton-Exxon's Tiger-Is Defanged by Science Statement from Julie Anderson, Washington Representative for Climate Policy at the Union of Concerned Scientists "The science community has roundly criticized Chairman Joe Barton's (R-TX) misguided Energy and Commerce Committee investigation into a specific global warming study. Last week letters from the National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and a letter signed by 20 leading climate researchers voiced strong concerns about the value of the investigation as well as its intimidating In addition, Congressional leaders of both parties spoke out strongly against the investigation, calling it "misguided and illegitimate." "Rep. Barton receives thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from Exxon/Mobil, the fossil fuel dinosaur that has a long and unflattering history of funding junk science to cast doubt on the fact that burning oil and other fossil fuels is a major factor in global warming. "While Barton is acting like Exxon's tiger in his attacks on individual scientists, he has in fact been defanged by science itself. Just last month, the national scientific academies of 11 nations issued a joint statement that reads, "The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action" to reduce global warming emissions. And at the G8 Summit in July, President Bush himself acknowledged that he accepts the overwhelming evidence that human activity contributes significantly to global warming. "If Rep. Barton truly wished to make good use of taxpayer dollars, he would direct his committee to investigate policies to immediately reduce our global warming pollution and help avoid dangerous changes in our cli
|
|
|
Post by CDsNuTz on Mar 18, 2006 10:43:08 GMT -5
Thats the way i look at it also mech,Sure we may have helped slightly or we aren't making things any better for ourselves.For the most part i believe it's a natural process the earth is going through.It's obvious the earth has been around much longer the we have as a species and once it does away with us it will go on living, supporting life.
There are 6.5 billion people on this earth.They'd like you to believe that its so over populated the earth cant sustain us all.It's already a proven fact the 6.5 billion people could fit within 2 states, each having half a mile of space to themselves..Now you tell me thats over population and i'll tell you you've bought into the NWO's agenda.
Don't get me wrong the things we do to mother earth will come back to haunt us no doubt.We could be living a cleaner life.The outter earth can and will give us anything we need to sustain ouselve if we do it right. I beleive that when we started taking things out from under earths crust is when we started our down fall.We dont need oil we dont need coal, there are other ways to do the same things oil and coal would do..We just have to get rid of the corporate madness, greed.
|
|
|
Post by Mech on Mar 18, 2006 11:22:20 GMT -5
Right..I agree CDSNuts.
I just look at the way the environment in the USA was back in the early 20th and at the mid part of the industrial revolution and compare it to now, post-industrial age America. All the big polluters have moved to China, India and Mexico where the eco-laws and taxes arent nearly as strict as they are here.
Anyone who says the environment in America is getting dirtier and there are less trees than there were back then is just fooling themselves. This country is being DE-industrialized if anything. Moose and coyotes are appearing in larger numbers than ever in Massachusetts. 50 years ago..you hardly ever saw them.
The environment is still dirty in some ways and there are accidents BUT....things are slowly getting better.
Global warming and cooling on the other hand...will happen no matter what we do.
Ozone depletion may have been cause by exessive flourine and CFC's being produced as well as numerous 20th century volcanos like Pinatubo and Mt st helens and others.
I believe that can be repaired...but it will take a long time.
|
|
|
Post by Mech on Mar 18, 2006 11:32:11 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by KNOWTHIS on Mar 18, 2006 17:05:45 GMT -5
Of course any kind of normal warming of the earth is related to the sun’s radiation. The sunspot theory is false though and the reason is a simple one. During extended periods when sunspot activity is normal and radiation levels show no significant increase, the global temperatures still rise at the same rates. If there were a direct causal link this wouldn’t be the case. During those periods of decreased or normal solar activity you’d instead see a leveling off or plateau in the rates of our global temperatures. The “blame the sun” theories were probably dreamt up at the Cato Institute. In the one article you posted Mech promoting the theory even it only attributed the sun’s increased activity to causing 10-30% of global warming. I wouldn’t hang your hat on this one.
Again, from one of your articles:
I won’t be convinced otherwise until someone can give me even one good, solid reason to believe that the unbelievable correlations in the graphs I posted related to CO2 levels and temperatures are just coincidences.
The article wasn’t about the brightness of the sun but rather about how much sunlight is actually reaching the earth due to obstructions in the atmosphere.
Something else worth noting is that many of these same skeptics were initially saying that global warming doesn’t exist period. Then when that lie proved to be too difficult to hold in the face of so much mounting counter-evidence they revised it. Now of course it’s “a cycle“, “it’s the sun“, it’s this or it’s that, anything but what it really is. Anything to eliminate self-responsibility or accountability. Soon they’ll have to concede that man is at the very least partly responsible, then they’ll point fingers and blame the each other, “it’s not my industry”. The truth stands as a defense and that’s why there so much backpedaling in the debunker community on this debate.
As far as this being an NWO plot. None of it adds up. Why is the Bush administration so adamantly opposed to the theory and suppressing it? Governments all around the world are in fact censoring their scientists about this. Governments don’t suppress lies, they promote them while suppressing the TRUTH. This seems to be something that they don’t want us to know or care about. And there are hundreds of thousands of well studied independently thinking scientists that are very concerned. The United Nations didn’t go door to door and politely ask all of them to pretend to endorse a theory just so they can create a new tax on it. Besides, even globalists hell bent on world domination know that they need clean air and sustainable temperatures to survive.
It’s funny how information seems to come to me at precisely the right moment. It just so happened that last night Linda Moulton Howe was on the radio discussing this very topic. I’m going to post more about it later, it was absolutely alarming. She mentioned that polar bears are now on the verge of extinction due to the unpredictably high rates of glacial melting. She also said that people who rely on these glaciers as a source of clean water are going to suffer when they disappear and they soon will. Then were going to have to start building desalination plants around the world.
China, India & others are indeed part of the problem. We must remember that a lot of the industry over there is our own. Still, China’s paying a great price for what they’re doing to themselves and I’ll get into that later. We all share the same atmosphere you know? I know that Atlanta recently issued a code red smog alert. There are times when it’s actually too dangerous to leave your house and breathe the air in large cities because of excess pollution. Have you ever seen the smog in LA? Because there are such high concentrations of exhaust and emissions in the cities there are obvious major consequences. We are responsible for this, not the sun, not space aliens, not cycles, US. China is currently paying a terrible price for their industry increases and lack of regulations as they’re having major water shortages and air pollution problems. Trust me, we don't want to model ourselves after them. This is not a game or a joke. To say that we don’t play a role or just a small role is untrue, very untrue, irresponsibly untrue.
|
|
|
Post by KNOWTHIS on Mar 18, 2006 17:13:38 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Mech on Mar 18, 2006 17:17:42 GMT -5
I disagree.
The Earth was formed with fire and destruction for one thing.
Its part of a planetary cycle.
NOBODY said man isn't part of "the problem" of environmental woes.
I for one WORK in the field of environmental remediation/restoration. No one is going to ACCUSE me of being "bad for mother earth" and all that ridiculous garbage promoted by socialists and one-worlders.
The earth isn't as weak and timid as you think it is.
|
|
|
Post by KNOWTHIS on Mar 18, 2006 17:17:50 GMT -5
www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/13/tech/main1391827.shtml Other environmentally imperiled sites include Nepal's Sagarmatha National Park, which includes Mount Everest; Huarascan National Park in Peru; Great Barrier Reef in Australia; and the Belize Barrier Reef Reserve System in Central America.
|
|
|
Post by Mech on Mar 18, 2006 17:20:47 GMT -5
So?
We just came out of an ice age not too long ago.
Could it be that the planet is SUPPOSED to heat up around this time?
But oh no....
"Its those damned car emissions"
TAX THEM....TAX THEM!!!!!
CONTROL.....CONTROL...CONTROL!!!!
|
|
|
Post by Swamp Gas on Mar 18, 2006 17:26:07 GMT -5
Alex Jones Debunks the phony, socialist "Environmental Movement" and the Globalist bankers who fund/control them...aswell as the UN takeover of our National Parks/forests. Alex is a one-trick pony, New World Order. I'm getting tired of his anti-social diatribes. He has no new ideas on how to create a better world, and is more involved in saying how bad things are. It's like, "Yes, Yes, There is a New World Order". Let's hear some solutions, instead of rants. Liberals and Socialists come up with ideas. Conservatives criticize the ideas and the lifestyles, and have no good replacements. Let's face the facts. If it weren't for the environmentalists, and the dreaded liberals, we would be all breathing completely smoke filled air, drinking filthy water, and there would be no controls to prevent the raping of the nature. Do you think people like Alex Jones are the type that stopped the NWO from taking over in the 60s? Who were the first to see the CIA for what it was? Who invented the GUI interface? Who voted for woman's rights? Who brought black rights up? Who fights for gay rights? Who stopped the Vietnam War? Who are the most creative artists? Who gave a safety net for sick and old people? What is the lone US senator from Wisconsin fighting against Bush right now? Who fights for animals? Who stopped child labor? Who fought for workers rights? Who enacted every important social change in the last 100 years? IT WAS F**KING LIBERALS
|
|
|
Post by KNOWTHIS on Mar 18, 2006 17:27:20 GMT -5
How so....
The formation of the earth is one of those arguments that will probably never be answered in my opinion. Was it big-bang, God, did it slowly build over time. No one knows for sure.
OK, but prove it to me. At what point in previous history was there ever a cyclical industrial revolution with all of the included side effects? What's taking place is unprecedented.
It's not as invincible as you think it is.
|
|