Beware the oil company-funded naysayers

[CDNBear]

The big oil industry boogie men are forcing the tectonic plates to cause more oceanic volcanic activity to I guess...


Underwater volcanoes increasing global warming – catastrophe in 2012? </B>
India Daily Technology Team
Feb. 26, 2006

Global warming on massive rise due to an exponential rise in underwater volcanoes. The hot methane underwater can cause temperature of the ocean rise very fast. That can be devastating if the trend continues till 2012. First, higher ocean temperature is the breeding ground for cyclones and typhoons. Second, the temperature rise can cause coastal flooding all over the world. The global warming is getting accelerated very fast by the underwater volcanoes.
The tectonic plate movements especially under the oceans have gone up by many times. Andaman Nicobar Island now is experiencing under water volcanoes in Indian ocean and Bay of Bengal. In America North West is experiencing unprecedented level of small earthquakes and under water volcanoes. Seattle and Oregon are experiencing heavy levels of tectonic disturbance.
Underwater volcanoes are being reported in Australia, Greece, New Zealand and many other countries. Russia’s Kumpchetka peninsula is experiencing double volcanoes of large sizes.
According some geologists, there are not enough monitoring mechanisms for knowing the number of under water volcanoes.
Most Navies are experiencing changing under water topologies all over the world. The recent American submarine accident caused by under water ridges never mapped before and many other reports from other navies just confirm the fact that there are massive tectonic movements under the oceans that we are not observing.
Magma movements under the ocean has increased many folds – says Geologists. These developments show the projected under water volcanoes and magma movements have steadily increased in the last five years and now it is just going through the roof.
These data do not take into consideration the small less that 4.0 Richter scale earth quakes under the water. Based on a recent study, it is evident that the tectonic movements have gone up by several folds in the last nine months.

http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/7146.asp

 

[CDNBear]

More oil industry shills, this time, they're Swiss...

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


By Michael Leidig and Roya Nikkhah


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."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/18/wsun18.xml

 

[CDNBear]

Now here's an inconvenient truth...

http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache...NCE+AS+AMENDED+OCT+14+2006&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1

CONSTITUTION OF THE SOCIALIST ALLIANCE AS AMENDED OCT 14 2006

A: Statement of aims

A7. Environment – The Alliance recognises that capitalism is incapable of planning and developing the resources of our planet in the light of the vulnerability of the ecosystem. Capitalism – with its ruthless pursuit of short term profit and its need for unplanned growth is the major cause of environmental damage. Capitalism by its very nature can only plunder and disrupt the environment. In particular we regard global warming as a major threat to human civilisation and existence. Only in a socialist society would it be possible for human activity to be environmentally sustainable.

Only the left elite know what to do? Ya, right, and Bush is the best President the US has ever had.

If offer up Dr. Ball's assertions and claims, well rather statements of facts is more like it. It amazes me how a man that is willing to actually sit down and debate the numbers and facts, point by point is called skeptic and an oil industry shill.

That is the lame tactic of the left elitist, damned and determined to force feed their agenda on the west.

Dr. Ball's published letter to the Press-Telegram said, in part:

I have seen the movie [An Inconvenient Truth] and, as someone with a doctorate in climatology, have studied the subject so long that when I began, the scientific consensus was that we were heading for another ice age. But Gore doesn't understand that consensus is not a scientific fact. It is also clear he doesn't understand how science works.
The global warming theory assumed carbon dioxide (CO2) traps heat in the atmosphere, and if it increases because of human additions to the total, then global temperature would rise. Unfortunately, environmentalists and people who saw human use of energy to develop technology and industry as wrong saw it as an opportunity to undermine Western development and civilization.

They politicized the issue and converted a scientific theory to a fact. Scientists like myself who tried to ask questions were called skeptics or more recently deniers with all the holocaust connotations.

The real inconvenient truth is that the fundamental assumption that CO2 causes warming has proven incorrect. Not only is the human portion not the cause, but CO2 itself is not the cause of global warming or climate change. Ice core records covering 420,000 years show temperature changing before CO2, not the other way around as implied by Gore.

In the 20th century most warming occurred before 1940, when production of CO2 was low. From 1940 to 1980, global temperatures went down while human addition of CO2 increased most dramatically. Since 1998 global temperatures have declined while human production of CO2 continues to increase.

I would gladly sit down with Mr. Hennessy and go through Gore's movie, scene by scene, and explain how it is distorted, taken out of context or otherwise manipulated.

Tim Ball
Victoria, British Columbia

Seems pretty open to scrutiny, why are the 2500 so called scientists on the IPCC report so open to such scrutiny? Because they are not all scientists.

 

[Kreskin]

From Bear's article:

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.

So we can either try and cool the sun or reduce greenhouse gases. Whether or not we get the one with the greater impact isn't certain, but it will be one with an impact.

 

[I think not]

Anybody remember the words CFC's, Ozone Layer Depletion and capitalist pigs?

I'll refresh everyone's memory, by 1996 the EU, Canada and the US completely banned the use of CFC's. Everybody remember that?

Ten years later, it's still being used everywhere else in the world.

Why aren't the tree huggers going ballistic?

 

[Kreskin]

Anybody remember the words CFC's, Ozone Layer Depletion and capitalist pigs?

I'll refresh everyone's memory, by 1996 the EU, Canada and the US completely banned the use of CFC's. Everybody remember that?

Ten years later, it's still being used everywhere else in the world.

Why aren't the tree huggers going ballistic?

They probably do but no one ever listens to them, or they're out hugging a big cedar.

 

[CDNBear]

If it's all about saving the planet and not about socialist re-engineering, then why is pollution as a whole being addressed? Why is it just an attack on fossil fuels, the center piece of capitalism and the western economy.

 

[Kreskin]

If it's all about saving the planet and not about socialist re-engineering, then why is pollution as a whole being addressed? Why is it just an attack on fossil fuels, the center piece of capitalism and the western economy.

Only if you want it to be. I see the oil cartel as an ME terrorism bonanza and a drain on western economies.

I heard Gordon Campbell say today that he's going to California to talk to Ahnuld about creating a hydrogen highway along the entire west coast. I didn't hear the details. I guess the I-5 and into BC would become service oriented to hydrogen powered vehicles etc. Finally someone wants to think outside the status quo. Why wouldn't that venture be good for capitalists?

 

[Tonington]

Bear, see I was sucked in by the sun a while back too. I mean it provides something like 99.998% of the energy on the planet. So it sounds like a surefire bet to say the sun is what is causing the problem. There have been many who have tried to show the correlation, the link is much harder to prove. I mean if it was a surefire thing, one would assume that the link would be well proved by now, but it hasn't and they're still out there trying to prove it.

When I discussed that Danish study (coincidently the data in the link I provided which shows the flaw was up to date at the time of the Solanki study from the Telegraph link of yours) there was quite a bit of liberties taken to produce the desired results. I believe I talked about the proper filtering techniques not being applied, and in some instances these sun spot studies actually just look until they can find a correlation anyways. The reliability of going back very far is low, so theres really only a bit of recent data which can be used. They often choose 11 year data cycles, which makes sense because sun spot cycles are in that range. The problem is, in relation to the filtering of data for correlations, quite a bit of the climate data is in that decadal time band. Things like: Pacific Decadal Oscillation, ENSO cycle (El nino/ La nina), volcanic eruptions and of course the sun cycle. Just like in that Danish study, if you only use a narrow filter ( in this case the convenient 11 year number, which most people seem to love to use) you can show that sun spot activity and your temperature data is correlated. If you use multiple filters, like the Danish study didn't use, the confidence of your correlation drops significantly, so as to be statistically irrelevant.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying there is no effect, that's ludicrous. I'm only saying that there are a number of studies which have been presented as the silver bullet, but breakdown when the methodology and statistical analysis are examined.

 

[Sparrow]

Talking about global warming???

Frostbite ends Bancroft-Arnesen trek
By PATRICK CONDON, Associated Press WriterMon Mar 12, 5:28 PM ET


A North Pole expedition meant to bring attention to global warming was called off after one of the explorers got frostbite. The explorers, Ann Bancroft and Liv Arnesen, on Saturday called off what was intended to be a 530-mile trek across the Arctic Ocean after Arnesen suffered frostbite in three of her toes, and extreme cold temperatures drained the batteries in some of their electronic equipment.
"Ann said losing toes and going forward at all costs was never part of the journey," said Ann Atwood, who helped organize the expedition.
On Monday, the pair was at Canada's Ward Hunt Island, awaiting a plane to take them to Resolute, Canada, where they were to return to Minneapolis later this week.
Bancroft, 51, became the first woman to cross the North Pole on a 1986 expedition. She and Arnesen, 53, of Oslo, Norway, were the first women to ski across Antarctica in 2001.
But the latest trek got off to a bad start. The day they set off from Ward Hunt Island, a plane landing near the women hit their gear, punching a hole in Bancroft's sled and damaging one of Arnesen's snowshoes.
They repaired the snowshoe with binding from a ski, but Atwood said the patch job created pressure on Arnesen's left foot, which led to blisters that then turned into frostbite.
Then there was the cold — quite a bit colder, Atwood said, then Bancroft and Arnesen had expected. One night they measured the temperature inside their tent at 58 degrees below zero, and outside temperatures were exceeding 100 below zero at times, Atwood said.
"My first reaction when they called to say there were calling it off was that they just sounded really, really cold," Atwood said.
She said Bancroft and Arnesen were applying hot water bottles to Arnesen's foot every night, but had to wake up periodically because the bottles froze.
The explorers had planned to call in regular updates to school groups by satellite phone, and had planned online posts with photographic evidence of global warming. In contrast to Bancroft's 1986 trek across the Arctic with fellow Minnesota explorer Will Steger, this time she and Arnesen were prepared to don body suits and swim through areas where polar ice has melted.
Atwood said there was some irony that a trip to call attention to global warming was scuttled in part by extreme cold temperatures.
"They were experiencing temperatures that weren't expected with global warming," Atwood said. "But one of the things we see with global warming is unpredictability."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070312/ap_on_sc/polar_trek_1
___

 

[Tonington]

No kidding, cold temperature in the Arctic during winter...

 

[Sparrow]

Yes and it is so cold that the ice in melting.

 

[Tonington]

I don't think we've reached the beginning of spring melt yet...I doubt they would attempt a circum-polar trek with melting ice. Besides this is a weather event they are experiencing, which isn't climate. They set 100 year records this week in Saskatchewan, in the area of about 20 degrees celcius. The Spring melt date is happening earlier every year, some day we will have to call it melt date rather than Spring melt.

 

[gc]

Anybody remember the words CFC's, Ozone Layer Depletion and capitalist pigs?

I'll refresh everyone's memory, by 1996 the EU, Canada and the US completely banned the use of CFC's. Everybody remember that?

Ten years later, it's still being used everywhere else in the world.

Why aren't the tree huggers going ballistic?

They are being phased out and are supposed to be gone by 2010, I think. Not that I think it's ok to use CFCs, but somehow I doubt the developing world uses nearly as much CFCs as Canada, the U.S. and Europe in the first place.

 

[L Gilbert]

Anybody remember the words CFC's, Ozone Layer Depletion and capitalist pigs?

I'll refresh everyone's memory, by 1996 the EU, Canada and the US completely banned the use of CFC's. Everybody remember that?

Ten years later, it's still being used everywhere else in the world.

Why aren't the tree huggers going ballistic?

Because they have a couple new items to whine about.
Scientists haven't stopped saying CFCs shouldn't be used. That's one of the things that happens when people pay more attention to the media than they do to the people with the facts. Why listen to the treehuggers? It just gives them credence. Why not ignore them and pay attention to researchers? They're the ones with the real info.

 

[L Gilbert]

If it's all about saving the planet and not about socialist re-engineering, then why is pollution as a whole being addressed?

Because pollution as a whole is an issue. Air pollution, water pillution, etc. all has an effect.

Why is it just an attack on fossil fuels, the center piece of capitalism and the western economy.

If pollution as a whole being addressed, then it isn't just an attack on the oil industry.

 

[Kreskin]

If environmentalists are "treehuggers" does that make the other side "stock option humpers"?

Just wondering :read2:

 

[L Gilbert]

They are being phased out and are supposed to be gone by 2010, I think. Not that I think it's ok to use CFCs, but somehow I doubt the developing world uses nearly as much CFCs as Canada, the U.S. and Europe in the first place.

I don't know about the States, but http://www.ec.gc.ca/ozone/EN/index.cfm?intCat=158

I'll bet that China puffs a lot more than we do these days.

 

[L Gilbert]

Talking about global warming???

Frostbite ends Bancroft-Arnesen trek
By PATRICK CONDON, Associated Press WriterMon Mar 12, 5:28 PM ET

A North Pole expedition meant to bring attention to global warming was called off after one of the explorers got frostbite. The explorers, Ann Bancroft and Liv Arnesen, on Saturday called off what was intended to be a 530-mile trek across the Arctic Ocean after Arnesen suffered frostbite in three of her toes, and extreme cold temperatures drained the batteries in some of their electronic equipment.
"Ann said losing toes and going forward at all costs was never part of the journey," said Ann Atwood, who helped organize the expedition............

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070312/ap_on_sc/polar_trek_1
___

A cse of frostbite. Geeee, I guess global warming is a myth after all.

 

[L Gilbert]

If environmentalists are "treehuggers" does that make the other side "stock option humpers"?

Just wondering :read2:

.... or freemarket hos.