How the GW myth is perpetuated

[Walter]

This didn't make the headlines. Not part of the AGW agenda.

Monday, October 29, 2007 ... / / / / /

Resurrection of Austria's doomed ski resorts

Figure 1: Schladming, Austria

Last year, we would be reading dozens of articles arguing that ski resorts in the Alps are doomed because of climate change. For example, The New York Times wrote in December 2006:

This season is certainly shaping up as a nonclassic, but it may be a milestone of another kind. The record warmth — in some places autumn temperatures were three degrees Celsius above average — has brought home the profound threat of climate change to Europe’s ski industry.

If venturing outdoors without a jacket is not enough evidence, there are two new studies — one that says the Alps are the warmest they have been in 1,250 years and another that predicts that an increase of a few more degrees would leave most Alpine resorts with too little snow to survive.

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which sponsored the second study, stopped short of predicting ruin for Europe’s ski industry. But Bruno Abegg, a researcher at the University of Zurich who was involved in it, said low-lying resorts faced an insuperable problem. "Let’s put it this way,” he said. “I wouldn’t invest in Kitzbühel."​

Well, the warming comrade has missed a pretty good investment. Snow has returned to the doomed ski resorts. They opened one month earlier than planned. Some slopes already hold more than one meter of snow.

Where does this miraculous change come from? It is called the weather. Although it may sound incredible, sometimes it is warm and sometimes it is cold.

 

[Walter]

http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=55387187-4d06-446f-9f4f-c2397d155a32

IPCC a fraud.

 

[Walter]

Tuesday, October 30, 2007

NO 'Consensus' on "Man-Made" Global Warming


Author: Andrew

While Al Gore lies that the "The debate on global warming is over." - [Al Gore, 2006] the public is fed this propaganda; that the debate is settled and the science is in on the cause of the 0.6 degree [IPCC] mild warming over the last 100 years. Nothing could be further from the truth. Least of all that science is determined by vote rather than the scientific method.

"Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus..." - Michael Crichton, A.B. Anthropology, M.D. Harvard


There is NO 'Consensus' on "Man-Made" Global Warming:

19,000 Scientists declare that global warming is a lie with no scientific basis whatsoever (OISM)
4000 Scientists sign 'The Heidelberg Appeal' (Science & Environmental Policy Project)
500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares (Heartland Institute)
105 Scientists sign 'The Leipzig Declaration on Global Climate Change' (Science & Environmental Policy Project)
77 Skeptical Scientists (Business and Media Institute)
60 Scientists call on Harper to revisit the science of global warming (Financial Post, Canada)
41 Scientists debunk global warming alert (Telegraph.co.uk)
27 Skeptical Scientists, 'The Deniers' (National Post, Canada)

An Inconvenient Fact: ...only 51 individuals signed the IPCC Report released on February 2, 2007.

"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane" - Marcus Aurelius

http://www.populartechnology.net/2007/10/no-consensus-on-global-warming.html

 

[Tonington]

I don't know how many times this has to be said. Crichton is worng, and he is right. You only need one scientist to say something. The consensus in this case involves many investigators from multiple disciplines in science with convergent results. Biologists, chemists, physicists, and all of the interdisciplinary studies have built the body of knowledge.

It's particularly hilarious that in an article which begins by proclaiming how consensus is meaningless, we would find statements like:

"19,000 Scientists declare that global warming is a lie..." I wonder if they asked for interviews from Perry Mason, or Gerri Halliwell.:roll:

Someone should get a refund on that cracker jack journalism diploma, or at least a free box of cereal.

 

[Tonington]

:lol:

 

[Walter]

November 02, 2007
'Global Warming' as Pathological Science

By James Lewis


Trofimko Lysenko is not a household name; but it should be, because he was the model for all the Politically Correct "science" in the last hundred years. Lysenko was Stalin's favorite agricultural "scientist," peddling the myth that crops could be just trained into growing bigger and better. You didn't have to breed better plants over generations, as farmers have been doing for ages. It was a fantasy of the all-powerful Soviet State. Lysenko sold Stalin on that fraud in plant genetics, and Stalin told Soviet scientists to fall into line --- in spite of the fact that nobody really believed it. Hundreds of thousands of peasants starved during Stalin's famines, in good part because of fraudulent science.


There is such a thing as pathological science. Science becomes unhealthy when its only real question --- "what is true?" --- is sabotaged by vested interests, by ideological Commissars, or even by grant-swinging scientists. Today's Global Warming campaign is endangering real, honest science. Global Warming superstition has become an international power grab, and good science suffers as a result.


Freeman Dyson, one of the great physicists alive today, put it plainly enough in his autobiography:

"...all the fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated. Here I am opposing the holy brotherhood of climate model experts and the crowd of deluded citizens who believe the numbers predicted by the computer models. ... I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do. ... They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in."
​

When the scientific establishment starts to peddle fraud, we get corrupt science.


Full article:
http://www.americanthinker.com/prin...m/2007/11/global_warming_as_pathological.html

 

[typingrandomstuff]

To not accepting the truth: Fine, clog all the bathrooms and get your consequences. Die and let all humanity die.
die.
die.
die.
And you suppose I'll become a goth next.
die.
die.
die.
Hate messages everywhere until someone goes crazy and kill you all.
die.

 

[typingrandomstuff]

die.
die.
die.
The next millennium is coming.
die.
die.
die.
die.

 

[Extrafire]

I don't know how many times this has to be said. Crichton is worng, and he is right. You only need one scientist to say something. The consensus in this case involves many investigators from multiple disciplines in science with convergent results. Biologists, chemists, physicists, and all of the interdisciplinary studies have built the body of knowledge.

It's particularly hilarious that in an article which begins by proclaiming how consensus is meaningless, we would find statements like:

"19,000 Scientists declare that global warming is a lie..." I wonder if they asked for interviews from Perry Mason, or Gerri Halliwell.:roll:

Someone should get a refund on that cracker jack journalism diploma, or at least a free box of cereal.

Watch Micheal Chrichton explain about complex systems, and how scare scenarios have always been with us. Very informative.

As for the Oregon Petition, it was indeed signed by thousands of scientists. Environuts tried to find non-scientific signatories to discredit it, and finding none decided the best way to attack its credibility was to add their own false signatures. Seems to have worked with you.

 

[Walter]

 

[Walter]

The deceit behind global warming


By Christopher Booker and Richard North

Last Updated: 12:01am GMT 04/11/2007
Page 1 of 2

Have your say

Read comments

No one can deny that in recent years the need to "save the planet" from global warming has become one of the most pervasive issues of our time. As Tony Blair's chief scientific adviser, Sir David King, claimed in 2004, it poses "a far greater threat to the world than international terrorism", warning that by the end of this century the only habitable continent left will be Antarctica.
Government told to aim higher with emissions targets
Antarctic ice sheets may grow
Hempleman-Adams' experience of climate change | Video Inevitably, many people have been bemused by this somewhat one-sided debate, imagining that if so many experts are agreed, then there must be something in it. But if we set the story of how this fear was promoted in the context of other scares before it, the parallels which emerge might leave any honest believer in global warming feeling uncomfortable.

Rest of article.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/11/04/eaclimate104.xml

 

[Walter]

Warming scaremongers lap up the cash

[SIZE=-1]Posted: November 3, 2007[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]1:00 a.m. Eastern[/SIZE]


People who reached adulthood in the 1960s were greeted with the growing notion that a "population explosion" would wreak havoc upon civilization. In his 1968 book, "The Population Bomb," Paul R. Erlich predicted that:

In the 1970s and 1980s, hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now.​

CBS television produced a special program based on his writing to scare the pants off an unsuspecting generation. The media jumped on this new, "enlightened," progressive revelation by this Stanford University butterfly expert, and for years, nations set out to prevent this certain disaster.
It didn't happen, of course. In fact, throughout the world, population is either declining or stable. Only in the poorest parts of the world is population increasing.
When people refused to fall dead of starvation in the streets of New York, as Erlich had predicted, another catastrophe was created: a new "ice age." This same Paul R. Erlich predicted that the man-made increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide would "... keep the energy of the sun from warming the Earth in the first place."
Newsweek picked up the story. The article claimed that scientists were "almost universal" in their agreement that global cooling would result in devastating crop losses. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration scientist Murray Mitchell reported a half-degree decline in ground temperature between 1945 and 1968. Other media joined the parade and convinced a generation that human activity would result in a new period of glaciation.

It didn't happen, of course. Paul Erlich, and many of the same scientists who predicted a coming "ice age" have now joined the bandwagon that is predicting another imagined catastrophe: global warming. Another Stanford professor, Stephen Schneider, who was first an advocate for global cooling, flip-flopped and now is a proponent of global warming. His statements about global warming to Discover magazine (pp. 45-48, Oct. 1989) are quite revealing:

... [W]e have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.​

Schneider admits what many people have long suspected: there's more to the motive of these doomsayers than meets the eye – or the scientific evidence.
The population explosion myth and the global cooling myth came and went. But the global warming myth lingers and lingers. Why?
The major difference between the current, lingering global warming hysteria and the other predictions of catastrophe is the United Nations. The U.N. didn't fully recognize the value of the environment as a funding source until the 1972 Conference on the Environment held in Stockholm, headed by Maurice Strong. By the time global cooling shifted to global warming, the U.N. had created the United Nations Environment Program, and international treaties on wetlands and on endangered species. Global warming was an idea that promised unlimited funds.
The 1992 Framework Convention on Climate Change and the creation of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change became the global institutions for the collection and redistribution of money. With this money came power, the power to propagandize. Using the IPCC as the perceived "last word" in science, the political arm of the U.N.'s global warming push has churned out tons of global warming propaganda, labeled as "official" scientific findings. In truth, the IPCC's Executive Reports use just enough science to flavor their projections and, following Stephen Schneider's advice, "ignore any doubts" that participating scientists may have.
Younger people, who did not live through the rise and fall of previous predictions of catastrophe, can be forgiven for not seeing through the current rash of global warming hype. Gray-headed folks have no excuse and should provide leadership to the less experienced.
Politicians and scientists, even those who know better, see the current global warming scenario as a funding source and are not about to bite the hand that feeds them.
One most interesting observation is this: The university professors, the scientists and the politicians who have historically advanced these mythical catastrophic scenarios are folks who have never lived in the real world. They refuse to acknowledge that real people who deal every day with real problems create ways to master them. It seems way beyond their comprehension to realize that a free market is far more responsive to changing conditions than are government policies.
Everyone beyond the ninth grade knows that the climate is changing – as it has done throughout the history of the world. Chances are quite good that the climate will continue to change, regardless of the policies of the U.N., Washington, or of any state. The real catastrophe is not global warming, but the fact that governments continue to waste billions of dollars brainwashing and frightening yet another generation. These people will, one day, look back and laugh, much the way we laugh at Paul Erlich's prediction that population growth would cause people to die of starvation in the streets of American cities by the 1980s, and the 1970s hysteria about the coming "ice age."

 

[Tonington]

As for the Oregon Petition, it was indeed signed by thousands of scientists. Environuts tried to find non-scientific signatories to discredit it, and finding none decided the best way to attack its credibility was to add their own false signatures. Seems to have worked with you.

Do you think that they mailed this out to environuts as you call them? They mailed this package out to anyone with a science degree. That those names would even appear on their list of 'experts' speaks to the credibility of their selection process.

Are you in the habit of accepting non-peer reviewed papers like this piece of pseudo-scientific crap? The paper it was based on contains a number of factual errors. They only selected one paleo-climate record, that of the Sargasso sea, and they even got the dates wrong by 50 years. Then they go on to comically state that humans exhaling contributes to the buildup of carbon. A laughable concept, as the respired CO2 comes from carbon removed from the atmosphere by the plants our food ate, and the plants that we ate. Effectively, our breathing is carbon neutral. That is but a taste of the errors.

 

[Walter]

Why the IPCC should be disbanded Written by John McLean Friday, 09 November 2007

Why the IPCC should be disbanded​

Introduction
The common perception of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is one of an impartial organisation that thoroughly reviews the state of climate science and produces reports which are clear, accurate, comprehensive, well substantiated and without bias.

One only needs examine some of its procedural documents, its reports and its dealings with reviewers of the report drafts to discover how wrong this impression is.

The IPCC is not and never has been an organisation that examines all aspects of climate change in a neutral and impartial manner. Its internal procedures reinforce that bias; it makes no attempts to clarify its misleading and ambiguous statements. It is very selective about the material included in its reports; its fundamental claims lack evidence. And most importantly, its actions have skewed the entire field of climate science.

Over the last 20 years and despite its dominance and manipulation of climate science, the IPCC has failed to provide concrete evidence of a significant human influence on climate.

It's time to call a halt to its activities and here are ten reasons for doing so.

Complete article:



http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/mclean-disband_the_ipcc.pdf

More of the same.
http://homepages.tesco.net/~kate-and-david/2007/Holland(2007).pdf

 

[Walter]

[FONT=VERDANA, ARIAL, HELVETICA, SANS-SERIF][SIZE=+1]Despite predictions, sky is not falling[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=VERDANA, ARIAL, HELVETICA, SANS-SERIF][/FONT]

[FONT=VERDANA, ARIAL, HELVETICA, SANS-SERIF][SIZE=-1]PAULA EASLEY
COMMENT

(Published: November 10, 2007)

The first key to wisdom is constant and frequent questioning, for by doubting we are led to question and by questioning we arrive at the truth.
-- Peter Abelard (A.D. 1079 - 1142)

Reading about the recent global warming rally at Kincaid Park, I wondered if the participants would be relieved if man's activities were proved not responsible for Alaska's warming weather. An intriguing question.
They probably don't know ground-based warming stopped in 1998, according to Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change data. This temperature stability is occurring despite a four percent increase in atmospheric C02 over the last eight years. Lower atmosphere satellite data also show little, if any, warming since 1979, although atmospheric CO2 increased 17 percent. In another surprising turn, NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies corrected data errors this September that required changing America's warmest year on record from 1998 to 1934, thus refuting the Gospel According to James Hansen, the Institute's director. The third hottest year is now 1921.

Complete article. http://www.adn.com/opinion/comment/v-printer/story/9443701p-9355123c.html
[/SIZE][/FONT]

 

[mrmom2]

Hey Walter don't you love being a Heretic cause thats what you Extra and myself are being called these days :lol:

 

[EagleSmack]

As well as being called blasphmers, cretins, ignorant

AND...

You all work for Exxon or are paid by them.

 

[mrmom2]

Geez were do i get my check from big oil Eagle ?:lol:

 

[Tonington]

They're thanking you at the gas pump, and don't forget the coal dinosaurs:lol:

 

[mrmom2]

Actually there thanking you guys cause your driving up the prices with your relegion :roll: