At least 200 narwhal whales in Canada's Arctic, trapped by winter ice and facing starvation or suffocation, must be culled, officials say. Hunters from the village of Pond Inlet on Baffin Island discovered the animals trapped near Bylot Island, about 17 kilometres from Pond Inlet, on November 15.
The local hunters are allowed to harvest only 130 whales each year for food, according to standards set by the federal department of Fisheries and Oceans. But department spokesman Keith Pelley said: "It's unlikely the animals are going to survive the winter, so the hunters have been given authorisation to cull them." The hunters have been on the ice slaughtering the whales since Thursday and are likely to accomplish their task over the coming days, he said.
Narwhal are found mostly in the Arctic circle, and are renowned for their extraordinarily long tusk, which is actually a twisted incisor tooth that projects from the left side of its upper jaw and can be up to three metres long.
"A couple of weeks ago, when the ice was still moving, there were quite a few narwhal seen out there in the open water," Jayko Allooloo, chairman of the Pond Inlet hunters and trappers organisation, told public broadcaster CBC. "About a week later, they're stuck."
Community elders and officials feared the whales would die from a lack of oxygen as the ice grew thicker around them, Pelley explained. There are about a dozen areas of open waters where they could come up for air, but it is a tight squeeze for them.
Source
A Global farce? A number of researchers say that despite public opinion, global warming may be a result of natural causes
Article below from the student newspaper of the University of Oregon
If the Greenland icecap melts, the Sahara expands and the Siberian permafrost disappears, don't blame carbon-emitting SUVs or billowing smokestacks, says a group of scientists who claim their research on global warming has been repressed. The explanation, they argue, might be simpler: Mother Nature is just going through her natural cycles.
Researchers from around the world have begun to question the growing acceptance among the public, the media and the scientific community that labels human behavior as the primary cause of global warming.
The researchers who go against the scientific grain on the climate change issue know their ideas are unpopular. In fact, many claim their research is so disliked the rest of the scientific community is working to suppress it in spite of convincing scientific evidence.
They also claim that the suggested effects of global warming are nothing short of "sheer fear-mongering," as Marlo Lewis of the Competitive Enterprise Institute put it. The more probable effects of climate change are likely to be much less severe than activists would indicate, researchers say.
These unpopular and inflammatory ideas don't seem to have infiltrated the University of Oregon community. Many professors at the University adamantly insist global warming is man-made and any debate to the contrary is pointless.
While many University of Oregon professors are in the public majority on the global warming issue and in line with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, an international group that compiles research and issues reports on climate change, the voice of dissent is surfacing in a growing number of intellectual communities.
In December 2007, a group of more than 400 scientists from more than 24 nations testified that they do not think global warming is man-made. The group, appearing before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, contested many of the main points that support human-induced global warming and said their skeptical views have been repressed by scientific journals and the mainstream media.
Scientists in the group represented had worked for institutions such as Harvard University, NASA, the U.S. Department of Energy, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, the University of London, Princeton University and the International Arctic Research Centre.
Don Easterbrook, a geology professor at Western Washington University in Bellingham, has spent his career studying climate patterns and glaciers in the Cascade Mountains and Greenland. He has concluded carbon dioxide emissions are not causing global warming - natural climate fluctuation patterns are. Easterbrook and his colleague Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama at Huntsville, say nature can regulate itself with climate and solar cycles. Compared with other greenhouse gasses such as water vapor, carbon dioxide does not trap heat in a significant way, they say. They say that assuming humans alone have created global warming borders on arrogance.
The two are studying the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, a naturally occurring temperature fluctuation in the Pacific Ocean that has been observed by NASA satellite observations. The PDO changes between warm and cold cycles approximately every 20 to 30 years, which changes the cloudiness of Earth, the behavior of the jet stream and subsequently the temperature, according to NASA.
In the abstract for his article "Tropical Pacific decadal variability and global warming," Benjamin Giese, a professor of oceanography at Texas A&M University, writes: "The results suggest that much of the decade to decade variations in global air temperature may be attributed to tropical Pacific decadal variability."
Spencer believes the PDO cycles explain about 75 percent of the climate change during the 20th century. During that time, Earth went through a cold period from 1900-20, was warm from 1920-45, cooled down from 1945-77 and warmed from 1977-98. Spencer and Easterbrook say all of those fluctuations correlate with changes in the PDO.
Global warming may be affected by more than just earthly causes, Easterbrook said. Solar cycles may be having an effect as well. The number of sunspots, or black areas of the sun, range from zero to 170 and the fewer there are, the cooler the Earth is.
Current sun spot activity is very similar to that around 1600 and 1800, which were very cold times in history, Easterbrook said. During the last 500 years, solar cycles have changed between 25 and 30 times, corresponding with climate changes.
According to Easterbrook, 80 to 90 percent of global warming can be attributed to the greenhouse effect of water vapor. University of Notre Dame professor William Evans echoed this observation. "Yes, CO2 is one of several greenhouse gasses, but (it's) not the biggest contributor. Water vapor is," Evans said in an e-mail.
Tim Patterson, professor of Earth sciences at Carleton University in Ottawa, told the Canadian Free Press in 2005 that carbon dioxide levels today are 10 times lower than 450 million years ago - when the Earth was the coldest it has been in the past half-billion years.
According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are currently at 385 parts per million, a rise of about 100 parts per million since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. Nevertheless, Easterbrook said current levels are still too negligible to have the effects the scientific community has been attributing to them.
Spencer agreed. He added it is very difficult to prove carbon dioxide is causing global warming because the current warming cycle is the only one in which the gas had a significant presence at all. Just because Earth has warmed while carbon dioxide was in the atmosphere does not mean there is actually a correlation, Spencer and Easterbrook said. "The possibility that global warming is completely natural has never really been investigated," Spencer said.
Although a body of research focuses on the cause of climate change, a group of researchers say the cause is superfluous. To them, the possibility of catastrophe is more important - and it is a possibility that has been drastically exaggerated, they say. In the group that testified before the Senate, some participants were environmentalists who wanted to protest the "fear promotion" they thought global warming activists were using. The problems that global warming can cause - increased sea levels, melted ice caps, endangered arctic species - have been overblown, according to some researchers.
Lewis has analyzed former vice president and Nobel Peace Prize winner Al Gore's documentary film "An Inconvenient Truth" and found it an example of the "fear promotion" vetted in the Senate hearings. Lewis took to task Gore's three main claims, which he says are overstated and created unfounded fear among the public. The first said the Greenland ice sheet is melting and the moulins, or rivers of melted glacial ice, are destroying the structural integrity of Greenland's glaciers. The second predicts a 20-foot sea level rise and the third predicts a trend of very severe hurricanes.
Sterling Burnett, senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis, said none of the predicted problems is new and most have been described inaccurately. After Hurricane Katrina in 2005, he said, scientists predicted severe hurricanes would be a continuing trend brought on by global warming. The mediocre hurricane seasons of 2006 and 2007 directly refute that claim. Both years had only five hurricanes and two major hurricanes, according to the Pew Center on Global Warming, in contrast to 2005, which had 15 hurricanes and seven major hurricanes.
Burnett also said that while sea levels may rise a few inches during the next century, they have already risen 400 feet since the end of the last ice age 12,000 years ago, an increase of three feet per century. That indicates that sea level increases today are nothing out of the ordinary.
George Kukla, a research scientist at Columbia University, said creating fear about global warming is more harmful than the phenomenon itself. He also raised the concern that money and funding were a major motivation behind the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's and its allies' focus on disaster scenarios and negative effects of climate change.
"The only thing to worry about is the damage that can be done by worrying. Why are some scientists worried? Perhaps because they feel that to stop worrying may mean to stop being paid," Kukla said before the Senate.
Much more here
Myths about energy threaten future of nation
Fossil fuels are not ruining the environment, the world is not running out of oil and the U.S. can never be energy independent
Brad Richards, executive vice president of the Mt. Vernon-based Illinois Oil & Gas Association, took issue Thursday in Carmi with "three myths that threaten our country."And in a program of that name, Richards told members and guests of the Kiwanis Club of Carmi that Americans need to focus on reality and not rhetoric as they address their energy needs.
Introduced by Carmi oilman Chris Mitchell, Richards said fossil fuels such as crude oil, natural gas and coal "underpin modern society" and are vital to food production, transportation, healthcare and virtually any other aspect of modern life. Speaking at the club's weekly meeting at The Hickory Stick, he said some environmentalists say global warming is a consequence of the burning of fossil fuels and that the Earth is in peril. Not so, said Richards. He noted that an era known as the Little Ice Age ended about 1850 and the Earth continued to warm through the mid-20th century. And he added that no one really knows why, even though some say the use of fossil fuels was a contributing factor.
He also took issue with the idea that global warming is catastrophic, pointing to data that shows than 7 1/2 times more Europeans died from the effects of heat than the effects of cold during a recent time period. And Richards took on the "polar bear" argument. While admitting that warming has impacted the bears' habitat, he said figures show that there are five times more polar bears living today than in the '60s.
Richards said that accords reached several years ago by several countries' representatives meeting in Kyoto, Japan (and not accepted by the U.S., though he expects the country will accept them during the Obama Administration) would have minimal effect on global warming. Even if all the measures proposed then were implemented and adhered to throughout the 21st century, Richards maintained, the result would be a decline of just .3 degree in average world temperature Fahrenheit by 2100.
Poverty, the speaker told the Kiwanians, is worse than global warming. And he predicted that an enforced reduction in the use of fossil fuels will have a very adverse effect on the economies of Third World nations-and be very costly to the U.S., as well."China isn't worried about CO2 emissions," he said, asserting that the U.S. will be put at a "tremendous disadvantage" if it puts severe restrictions on the use of fossil fuels. Richards said the nation's ultimate goal should not be to reduce greenhouse gases but to improve the quality of life and the environment.
He also took issue with the idea that the world is running out of oil. U.S. crude oil production peaked in the early 1970s and it may well be that world production has peaked recently, he said. But there will be no precipitous decline in production across the globe, he said. Instead, "Supply and demand will reach an uneasy equilibrium. And we'll have a bumpy plateau of production for decades to come; extreme volatility will be the rule."The world is not running out of oil, he said, but it is running out of cheap, easily-found oil. Still, "there's no way to run away from oil" entirely, he cautioned.
Richards told the group that U.S. energy independence is "neither do-able nor desirable." The truth is that the world is becoming more interdependent, he said, and unrealistic talk of energy independence hampers realistic discussion of the matter."It's feel-good talk," he said, but even aggressive development of alternative energy sources wouldn't begin to provide the volume of energy now derived from fossil fuels."The truth is," said Richards, "that we're all married to fossil fuels." And he predicted that this won't change for 30 to 50 years, adding that the U.S. should "accept the reality of energy interdependence."
The club was told that crude oil now provides about 39 percent of the energy that the U.S. uses, natural gas 24 percent, coal 23 percent, nuclear power eight percent and hydroelectric power three percent. And Richards noted that environmentalists don't like any of these sources.Sadly, however, just as the nation can't drill its way to energy independence, it can't build enough windmills or install enough solar panels to replace fossil fuels.
There are encouraging signs. U.S. natural gas production is expected to increase by eight percent this winter to a 35-year high, thanks to higher prices and new technology. What's going on in the U.S. industry is "amazing" and "unbelievable," Richards told the club, with horizontal drilling and other technologies being used to find and exploit huge gas fields.While admitting that John McCain was not the ideal candidate of the U.S. energy industry, Richards made it clear that the industry has little enthusiasm for the president-elect. Barack Obama called for a new windfall profits tax on oil when the price of crude was over $100, Richards said. A similar tax didn't work in the '70s; it increased the nation's dependence on foreign oil, depressed domestic exploration and generated less than 25 percent of what was projected. More of the same could be expected if a new tax were implemented now, he added."Let free markets, not the government, make energy choices," Richards told the crowd.
Asked about the viability of tar sands and oil shales as energy sources, the speaker said they're realistic if crude oil stabilizes at $90 a barrel or so.The impact of the recent drop in crude oil prices was discussed by Mitchell and Kiwanian Scott Pugsley, an executive with Carmi-based Les Wilson, Inc. Mitchell noted that local producers were getting about $128 a barrel in June and July but it fell this week to about $43-the first time since 2005 it had dropped below $50. "How do you budget and plan for that?" he asked, noting that the decline has been a "mess" for local oil companies to deal with. He had expected crude to stabilize in the range of $80 to $90, he said, adding that this would have been a healthy level for the independent domestic oil companies.
Mitchell said his family has been in the oil business for three generations and has "seen some roller coasters." And the business will survive, as well those who "don't get themselves into a bind" by making bad decisions. Pugsley said much of Wilson's business is in drilling for natural gas. And of great concern right now is the restriction on capital, he added. Mitchell also pointed to the recent decision to slow development of an ethanol plant at Mt. Vernon, Ind. The price of crude oil has to remain relatively high in order for these plants to be feasible, he said. But he added that the nation needs a steady, dependable supply of energy, and that wind and solar are uncertain. Richards added that the nation has no good way to store electricity.
Source
Global Warming? Bring it On!
The argument propounded by the dubious United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report on Anthropogenic (human-induced) Global Warming (AGW) is willfully fraudulent. The report has been vigorously and critically undermined, scientifically denounced and found wanting from both notable scientists here and abroad.
In spite of this fact, it is likely that the new U.S. Democratic Congress and Administration will once again proclaim that they know better than we do about such things. Get ready for them to move surreptitiously under the guise of Global Climate Control in an effort to enhance their own legacies and pocketbooks. To be sure, the Left hears nothing but their own incestuous voices, despite the voices of clarity and reason that abound around them. And there are many, many distinguished dissenters against the charade of AGW. Take for instance the Founder of the Weather Channel and eminent Meteorologist John Coleman who has stated:
There is no significant man made global warming. There has not been any in the past, there is none now and there is no reason to fear any in the future. The climate of Earth is changing. It has always changed. But mankind's activities have not overwhelmed or significantly modified the natural forces.
Through all history, Earth has shifted between two basic climate regimes: ice ages and what paleoclimatologists call "Interglacial periods". For the past 10 thousand years the Earth has been in an interglacial period.... [where] the Earth warms up, the glaciers melt and life flourishes. Clearly from our point of view, an interglacial period is greatly preferred to the deadly rigors of an ice age. Mr. Gore and his crowd would have us believe that the activities of man have overwhelmed nature during this interglacial period and are producing an unprecedented, out of control warming.
Well, it is simply not happening. Worldwide there was a significant natural warming trend in the 1980's and 1990's as a Solar cycle peaked with lots of sunspots and solar flares. That ended in 1998 and now the Sun has gone quiet with fewer and fewer Sun spots, and the global temperatures have gone into decline. Earth has cooled for almost ten straight years. So, I ask Al Gore, where's the global warming?
There is an abundance of solid data to back these conclusions up. For example, new measurements from the NASA/ESA spacecraft Ulysses show that the sun's current period of low activity goes beyond an extended dearth of sunspots. Solar activity has dropped to the lowest levels since recording began some 50 years ago. Current experts, such as Veizer, Shaviv, and most recently Svensmark et al., and Patterson, suggest that changes in the output of the sun caused the most recent climate change. They convincingly argue that increased cosmic radiation acts as a catalyst for cloud formation in earth's atmosphere. This, in turn, leads to a general cooling of the world's climate if the pattern persists.
Ironically, during the 1970s while some (including NASA's James Hansen) were hysterically promoting the schizoid fears of a new ice age hitting the world in a few decades, a new frenzy over Global Warming and Climate Change was just beginning at Scripps Ocenaographic Institute in San Diego, CA. It was started by one of their most esteemed scientists Roger Revelle, the father of Oceanography. His work correlated the increases in carbon dioxide, CO2 (a laboratory defined greenhouse gas) to atmospheric warming. Revelle later moved to Harvard and encouraged his students, including Al Gore, to rehash the data.
Since then the research methods have clearly gotten out of hand. Many avenues of research have proven repeatedly useless. Even Roger Revelle understood that there were greater variables at play than the trace gas of CO2.
Before he died, Revelle gave interviews and wrote letters stating that CO2 and its greenhouse effect did not warrant extreme countermeasures. He told Omni Magazine, in March 1984, that "CO2 increase is predicted to temper weather extremes" -- not cause them. One cannot argue that CO2 was a causative factor -- especially since CO2 was apparently following temperature trend -- not moderating it. It seems none of his followers, Gore in particular, heeded his words.
There is a huge problem with the idea that Carbon Dioxide, or CO2, is a globally polluting gas, much less one that causes climate change and global warming. Even though some data seemed to initially substantiate the AGW thesis, these ideas were later proven to be wrong. (Those derived from ice core data were especially damning.) Australian Climatologist Dr. David Evans has done yeoman's work on this issue.
Often forgotten in the argument is the fact that CO2 is only a trace component of the atmosphere. For every million molecules of other gases in the atmosphere (such as nitrogen, oxygen, and hydrogen), there are only 385 molecules of CO2.
It is a fact that atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have varied widely over geological time. The peak was estimated to be some 20-fold higher than at present (+6,000 ppm) -- and the low about 200 ppm below today's. (Everyday office air concentrations often exceed 1,000 ppm CO2.). Meteorologist John Coleman perspicaciously asks:
How can this tiny trace upset the entire balance of the climate of Earth? How can a trace element possibly be the cause of systemic Global Warming? It can't. That's all there is to it; it can't.... Carbon dioxide does not cause significant global warming.
Increased levels of CO2 has more likely benefited all life forms on the planet, summarizes Coleman. Many other scientists have come to the same conclusion. Robinson, Robinson & Soon, in their cogent 2007 published research paper found here, provided empirical evidence that invalidates AGW alarmists hypotheses. They also found overwhelming support for the general benefits that are derived from natural global warming. Here is the summary of their findings:
1- A review of the research literature concerning the environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that increases during the 20th and early 21st centuries have produced no deleterious effects upon Earth's weather and climate. There are no experimental data to support the hypothesis that increases in human hydrocarbon use or in atmospheric carbon dioxide and other green house gases are causing or can be expected to cause unfavorable changes in global temperatures, weather, or landscape. There is no reason to limit human production of CO2, CH4, and other minor green house gases as has been proposed.
2- Predictions of catastrophic global warming are based on computer climate modeling, a branch of science still in its infancy. The empirical evidence - actual measurements of Earth's temperature and climate - shows no man-made warming trend. Indeed, during four of the seven decades since 1940 when average CO2 levels steadily increased, U.S. average temperatures were actually decreasing.
3- Increased carbon dioxide has, however, markedly increased plant growth. Predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in hydrocarbon use and minor greenhouse gases like CO2 do not conform to current experimental knowledge.
4- While major green house gas H2O substantially warms the Earth, minor green house gases such as CO2 have little effect.... The 6-fold increase in hydrocarbon use since 1940 has had no noticeable effect on atmospheric temperature or on the trend in glacier length.
5- Solar activity and U.S. surface temperature are closely correlated...., but U.S. surface temperature and world hydrocarbon use are not correlated.
6- We also need not worry about environmental calamities even if the current natural warming trend continues. The Earth has been much warmer during the past 3,000 years without catastrophic effects. Warmer weather extends growing seasons and generally improves the habitability of colder regions.
7- Human use of coal, oil, and natural gas has not harmfully warmed the Earth, and the extrapolation of current trends shows that it will not do so in the foreseeable future. The CO2 produced does, however, accelerate the growth rates of plants and also permits plants to grow in drier regions. Animal life, which depends upon plants, also flourishes, and the diversity of plant and animal life is increased.
Dr. Michael Griffin, the new NASA Administrator, looks at climate change in a refreshingly contrarian fashion. He has stated:
To assume that [climate change] is a problem is to assume that the state of earth's climate today is the optimal climate, the best climate that we could have or ever have had and that we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn't change.
There are other fundamental objections to the AGW theory:
(1) The infamous "Hockey Stick" statistical debacle, nicely summarized here, effectively cherry-picked data from tree rings to estimate temperature change over the past 1000 years. The report erroneously declared that the largest increases in world temperature occurred in the 20th century. These results could not be reproduced by anyone. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS) later found the statistical methods first employed inappropriate and the findings bogus.
(2) The reported NASA temperature data glitch discovered by Canadian Computer Analyst Steve McIntyre that wrongly kicked all temperature records up several tenths of a degree was a severe setback for AGW modelers. This software "failure" was overseen by one of AGW's fiercest proponents, the notorious Dr. James Hanson. NASA's GISS and Hanson have recently come under fire again for poor data collection methods and questionable accuracy.
(3) As recently presented in American Thinker, Lord Monckton competently summarizes for us that many of the highly publicized AGW "facts" are simple documented anomalies of natural climate cycling -- designedly misrepresented for the cause of AGW. To wit: The Oceans are not catastrophically rising nor are they warming. In fact, the oceans have been cooling since 2003. The Snows of Kilimanjaro are not melting but ablating because of friction due to a cooling atmosphere and natural cooling trends. The world's 160,000 glaciers are not suddenly receding, but appear to be re-advancing, including those ice shelves in Antarctic and the polar ice sheets, all of which cycle regularly in ice mass. Lord Monckton, a science-journalist, provides even more evidence here.
(4) Finally let us not forget the astute investigation of automated weather stations by US Meteorologist Anthony Watts. Watts painstakingly discovered that a large fraction of the nation's 1,200 stations have been wrongly sited in man-made heat-absorbing centers. (Examples include locations on rooftops, on slabs of heat absorbing concrete, next to air conditioners, diesel generators and asphalt parking lots, even at sewage treatment plants. Some are located in areas experiencing excessive nighttime humidity, and at non-standard observing heights, including one actually sinking into a swamp.) Watts' discovery profoundly undermined the veracity of historical temperature data documented in the United States -- data that had been used by AGW proponents.
There are three indisputable and fundamental facts that were wantonly ignored in the UN's IPCC sham of a report. The UN breathlessly but insidiously "forgot" to include the specifics that:
(1) The Earth has largely benefited by past warming cycle's and that these previous "warmings" had nothing to do with man's activities. These earlier natural cycles were not catastrophic events; they were, in fact, beneficial to all life forms. They provided warmer and longer growing seasons, more areas available for crops, etc. We know, for instance, that Greenland was once green, that Eric the Red planted and grew grapes in what is now Nova Scotia, Canada, that the Romans planted grapes in England, etc.
(2) Solar/Sun Spot activity is the originator of most climatic change and most weather patterns on Earth. It is king. There is no larger factor of influence. CO2 influence is negligible and pales in comparison. CO2 follows the trend of temperature; it does not cause it.
(3) Subordinate to solar activity alone, atmospheric water vapor/cloud formation and movement is the largest known variable that influences temperature changes in the atmosphere of the earth, and the earth's oceans. Water vapor in the atmosphere is around 1000-10,000 times as important as atmospheric CO2.
These three quintessential and pivotal factors are not even discussed in the UN's IPCC report. This exclusion should raise a red flag in any intelligent mind. That's why so many of us are yelling from the rooftops about the absurdity of the report itself! Instead of a true and open discourse, we see the daily dribble from the MSM and various liberally usurped science journals, dishonestly and falsely alleging a "consensus" when there is none.
Indeed, arrayed against the arcane burlesque of the United Nations IPCC with its politically selected 2500 Scientists, of which a core group of 600 exists, and a relatively small number of mediocre "scientists" here and there across the American landscape who have suddenly found notoriety or grant money in the global warming cause, are 31,072+ legitimate and viable scientists (of which I am one) who signed the American Petition Project declaring the Global Warming Hypothesis bogus found here, here and here. We openly refute the UN's conclusions. Here's the Petition Statement we dissenters signed in opposition:
"We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."
Let me assure you that we're not in good humor, nor take it kindly to be slurred and ridiculed by taking the other side in this debate. And our numbers are still growing. Indeed, we're angry that the vast majority of American Scientists will not be heard by the media. We're dismayed over the fact that the Global Warming fiasco has become politically popular and expedient to those left-wing politicians and power-brokers whose sole aim is to literally tax everything with a carbon footprint and give them control over all life, hidden within their PC guileful pretence to save the planet. They wish to save no one but themselves.
And the tide turns further. Of the 2500 originally aligned scientists and putative authors of the UN's IPCC report some 500 are no longer faithful to Big Al's errand. Many of these scientists discovered that their individual findings and comments were willfully misrepresented. All participant conclusions were unilaterally changed to adhere strictly to the United Nations objective of building support for world taxation and rationing of industrially useful energy. Since the original IPCC report (and there have been some 4 others now formally issued), the defecting 500 scientists have issued public statements challenging global warming. Approximately 100 of these scientists are now open defectors. Others are currently suing the UN for the misuse of their good names and research. It is difficult to see why a thinking person would even consider the IPCC report as legitimate.
The entire IPCC process is but obfuscation by the secular and atheist Left. It has allowed the Left to conflate the vanity of secular opinion with scientific and/or moral truth. There is an easy and immediate remedy for their debacle. Will Rogers stated it simply: "When you are in a hole ... stop digging.... Please!"
Source
UK Labour Party Councillor Glynn Evans dissents
QUESTION - what is the biggest lie ever told to the public? Answer - that manmade carbon dioxide is responsible for accelerated climate change and global warming. Yes, carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, but it is only a trace gas that accounts for a small part of the atmosphere and it has had a tendency to warm the climate by about 0.5C during the last century. At this point in time global temperatures are relatively stable.
The Green Party's, and its wider associated movements', assertion that man's continued use of fossil fuels is going to heat the atmosphere to high temperatures in many years to come is wrong. There is no evidence to support this theory. It is time science revisited the manmade carbon dioxide driven global warming theory with some urgency.
At this point in time the green movement would have me burnt at the stake for heresy in challenging orthodox global warming theory, and no, I don't have shares in any oil companies.
Henrik Svensmark, the Danish scientist with research over many years with help from many scientists in all fields of science, has proved that clouds are the main greenhouse gas. The major breakthrough came in 2005 with the SKY experiment at the Danish National Space Centre that clearly demonstrated the pivotal role of cosmic rays and ions in the seeding and formation of clouds that affect climate change and global warming. This would make the manmade global warming theory redundant.
Do we make a bonfire of all our fossil fuels? The answer is no. Global warming is not in man's control.
A full-scale cloud facility is being built in Geneva by the European Organisation for Nuclear Research (Cern).
Sustainability is important to make the earth's fossil fuels and nuclear energy last as long as possible to allow scientists to bring forward alternative fuel technologies, if mankind does not achieve this it will be a case of "would the last person to leave earth please turn off the lights".
Source
UP FOR DEBATE: CARBON COSTS
A sequel to the ballyhooed debate in 2007 over the motion that "Global Warming is Not a Crisis" has been scheduled in New York City in January, this time exploring a new premise: "Major Reductions in Carbon Emissions are Not Worth the Money." Those in favor of the motion (some additions may come, organizers say) will be the "skeptical environmentalist" Bjorn Lomborg; Philip Stott, the British biogeographer who has become a prominent critic of global warming worriers; and Peter W. Huber, the Manhattan Institute scholar, lawyer and mechanical engineer who has written that energy waste is unavoidable and beneficial.
Those against will be Daniel M. Kammen, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley, focused on renewable and "appropriate" energy technology and a senior energy adviser to the Obama campaign; Oliver Tickell, an environmental writer/campaigner in search of what he calls Kyoto2, a framework for controlling greenhouse gases that is effective, efficient and equitable; and Adam Werbach, who gained fame as the youngest president of the Sierra Club (elected at 23), but now is focused on "blue" marketing for business growth framed around sustainability, as the head of Saatchi & Saatchi S. I'll have to ask him about how that works.
More here
***************************************
For more postings from me, see DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here. For readers in China or for times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site here.
*****************************************
Jim Hansen and his twin
No comments:
Post a Comment