Now if CO2 is the big bad cause of climate change, why do only documentaries that tend to disprove global warming show up as the first sites? Try it yourself, no documentary proving CO2 is a problem show up. Greenies appear to be relying on Al Gore's Hollywood production. They don't even attempt to present real facts to real people, you see, we are only the pockets to be picked, so they do not have to convince us of anything, only our governments.
I want to thank PM Harper and Minister Prentice for their adult approach to this issue. You stood proud and the majority of Canadians stood proudly with you. I enjoyed every fossil award we received...after all, that Alberta oil is because of all those fossils decomposing into black gold!
Now that the eco-nuts have frozen their nuts off, it's time to get serious. Environment Canada needs to be checked into to make sure they have not fudged our temperature readings. Next we need to call for an independent review of the Climategate scientists and we need to demand their data so that scientists can start recreating the real story about temperatures. I suggest 10 or more independent teams from around the world, who have NO contact with each other, and the UN IPCC should be shut down, it's a political organization that has nothing to do with science. If climate scientists do not agree with this, they are not real scientists. Real scientists form the hypothesis and then test it. They do not fake results to support a hypothesis. They do not suppress other theories that might disprove their point of view just because they are getting huge grants to support one point of view.
A perfect example of the climate scientists blocking other scientists who have a different theory is this video. It is worth watching and much more believable than anything I have seem from the global warming scientists. The Cloud mystery:
These are REAL scientists, not Al Gore, the politician or Suzuki, the bug guy. I hope you watched all of the video, because it's not flashy like Gore's made in Hollywood movie, but the science is easy to understand and testable. Same can't be said of the CO2 guys. Show me the proof you CO2 guys.
Look up, into the sky, do you see that big yellow ball that warms our earth? Could it maybe have something to do with our climate?
29 comments:
Don't forget The 11th Hour.
What a Christmas present for your readers, and the media, if they would pay attention.
Excellent find! Only have watched the first vid so far, but...
Couple years back I read a book, "Earth Under Fire", by Paul A. LaViolette, Ph.D, which detailed essentially the same science as Svendmark.
LaViolette showed a direct co-relation between cosmic ray activity originating from the center of the galactic, solar activity and the earth's magnetic field. There are cycles in each of these, as there is in virtually everything in the universe.
Solar activity directly interferes with cosmic rays, thereby providing a literal shield for the earth. How the cycles of each co-relate is critical.
There's a serious concern amongst scientists right now with regard to the earths magnetic fields, which in fact are in a very weakened state...in fact, bordering on neutral. The earth's magnetic field has reversed polarities numerous times over hundreds of millions of years. Nobody knows for sure exactly what the effects of this are on the planet, nor how long the process takes.
What is known is that, if there is a prolonged phase of zero magnetic field during the reversal, the surface of the planet will be vulnerable to both solar and cosmic ray bombardment. And the results of this could be catastrophic for life on the planet.
There is strong indication that a polarity shift is both cyclically due, and that the current state is a predecessor to a imminent reversal.
Just read another book, "Apocalypse 2012", by Lawrence E. Joseph, a scientist and journalist, who set out to see what all the fuss about 2012 is about. His discoveries regarding the planets magnetic fields and solar activity cycles are a tad disconcerting.
(Incidentally, 2012 is expected to be the solar maximum from hell...while the planet's magnetic field happens to be teetering on collapse.)
Also, LaViolette couldn't get published either...
Solar sunspot activity for the last several months has been basically nil, a rare event in itself.
Calm before the storm...???
Frankly, me thinks global warming is the least of our worries.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The Separation of Science and State
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
That’s the maxim that our society and the science community needs to enact. It's not going to stop every future fraud like we've seen with this Global Warming / Climate Change debacle but it would be a good start.
The medical profession has their principal precept of “First, Do No Harm”.
It’s more than a little obvious that the Sciences are in dire need of one themselves.
from spectacular footage of a deep sea volcano:
Dec 17/09
''...Mission scientists believe 80 percent of eruptive activity on Earth takes place in the ocean, and most volcanoes are in the deep ocean...''
'..Scientists believe further study of active deep-ocean eruptions will provide a better understanding of oceanic cycles of carbon dioxide and sulfur gases, how heat and matter are transferred from the interior of the Earth to its surface,
and how life adapts to some of the harshest conditions on Earth...''
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20091217_volcano2.html
One would also think that if there is increased vulcanic activity in the sea, that would have alot more to do with melting icecaps than a
.07 degree change in global temperature.
WHERE IS THE SCIENCE?
Well, I think that we have problems because we have more people than the planet can support. We force agriculture, we ship food to areas where nature is trying to cull the population, we have widespread immigration, we encourage population growth...and then we get onto these freaking global warming-ozone layer-energy crisis silliness.
We cut down forests, eliminating the trees which clean the air, hold the soil in place, and absorb excess rainfall. Then, we complain that we are having floods, tsunamis, soil erosion and...oh yes, global warming.
More trees, less people - that is the solution. Not taxes, not rhetoric, not the Suzukis and Gores of the world...not even that idiot Bono. Just less people and more trees.
BTW, Hunter. I have a new Google account - hikingtogod. So, it's me, East of Eden, under a new name.
Have a blessed Christmas, Hunter and all my blogospheric Conservatives. May the Lord bless each and every one of you and bring you a new year full of grace, tranquility, and happiness.
And, above all, God Bless Prime Minister Harper as he tries mightily to steer the ship called Canada toward a stable and prosperous future and may he be strenghthened in his resolve to right all the wrongs perpetrated on us, the Canadian people, by the Liberals before him.
Every country in the world just agreed that climate change is a problem, that people's current activities are likely the cause, and that something must be done.
Many people are disappointed, while others are smirking because no binding treaty was signed, but the fact is the entire world's governments now agree. Now we can get to work on the only real solution, which is developing better technology. We'll have to use up the last of our carbon ceiling to do that, just as the first railways were built by horse power. Then atmospheric CO2 levels can level off and decline to normal levels.
You are the one who is out of step, and acting like a dinosaur thrashing in a tar pit. Fool.
Well, LS - I was actually considering your comment until your last line - you blew your entire argument out of the water with your unwarranted personal attack. What is it with you folks and your insatiable need to insult and offend?
I remember a decade or two ago when the Amazonian rain forest was the big eco subject and that made sense. By destroying one of the world's great forests, we severely reduced the planet's ability to cleanse the air. In addition, the removal of trees laid the ground vulnerable to erosion and loss as well as destroying the wildlife within.
We simply have too many people on the planet. Technology is not the answer. If we had less people, we'd have less pollution and less destruction. We would not be poisoning the earth with chemical fertilizers, we would not have mass sewage and garbage, we would not have billions of discarded plastic water bottles...to name just a couple of examples.
What you said made sense...but your comment was completely negated by your offensive comment at the end. You folks want free speech but only as long as you are the ones who are free. You simply do not want to hear any other perspective. And...until you live a life which in no way harms the environment, you simply do not have a leg on which to stand.
Liberal Supporter...
My response would be...
21st Century heresy..., and 21st century lemmings....
Just because everyone agreed the world was flat, or slavery was just fine, or that Hitler was a great guy with good ideas, didn't make it factual or the truth, eh?
Remember, we elect politicians to do what we...the apparent majority...want them to, which they are.
...and will, for whatever reasons, tend to do this until the majority says otherwise.
In the mean time, I refuse to be herded like sheep.
Well, LS - I was actually considering your comment until your last line - you blew your entire argument out of the water with your unwarranted personal attack. What is it with you folks and your insatiable need to insult and offend?
Did you bother to read the original post? Insults and smirking comments riddle every post here. It is standard procedure here. Perhaps your bias blinds you to that fact. How many posts can you find here that do NOT use "lefty" as a pejorative or an insult? Even the Friday Funnies invariably show an insatiable need to insult and offend, all from one of "you folks".
But thank you for climbing off your high horse to address my points.
I remember a decade or two ago when the Amazonian rain forest was the big eco subject and that made sense. By destroying one of the world's great forests, we severely reduced the planet's ability to cleanse the air. In addition, the removal of trees laid the ground vulnerable to erosion and loss as well as destroying the wildlife within.
Slash and burn agriculture releases the CO2 in the trees, and what grows after is insufficient to reabsorb it to maintain balance. Reabsorbing the CO2 fixes the carbon in chlorpyll and releases the oxygen for animal and human life. Slash and burn is often done to grow cash crops to provide currency to pay for the fertilizers and pesticides needed to grow such monocultures.
We simply have too many people on the planet. Technology is not the answer. If we had less people, we'd have less pollution and less destruction. We would not be poisoning the earth with chemical fertilizers, we would not have mass sewage and garbage, we would not have billions of discarded plastic water bottles...to name just a couple of examples.
If you want to get into political mudslinging, usually it is right wingers that will claim you favour genocide to reduce population, or refer to China forcing women to have abortions, and then claim this is a "symptom" of any left wing thinking. Just look at hunter's earlier post, where she talks of Diane Francis' recent article saying we need to reduce our numbers too.
What you said made sense...but your comment was completely negated by your offensive comment at the end. You folks want free speech but only as long as you are the ones who are free. You simply do not want to hear any other perspective. And...until you live a life which in no way harms the environment, you simply do not have a leg on which to stand.
Baloney. You must be new to this blog. Just read some of the posts here and see if you can still say "it's all you lefties" that are so offensive and unwilling to listen to any other perspective.
==== hit the 4096 character max. Why is blogger trying to be like twitter?
Back to the topic, the best way to reduce population is through education, especially of girls, and rising standards of living. You might note that many countries with extensive social programs will have lower population growth because a) the women are educated enough that they tend to have smaller families and can use birth control and b) you don't need lots of children to ensure they can support you in old age.
As far as "technology is the solution", my point was that we often hear people calling climate change a "money sucking redistributon scheme". Since pretty much any human activity can be viewed in this way, it misses the point. The idea of Kyoto, for example, was not that carbon emitters are supposed to pay others so they can keep emitting, it is to encourage developing cleaner technology. The Amazon is logged, because cost of the lost oxygen and biodiversity cannot be added to the economic equation, so it becomes an "externality", and therefore not part of the equation. Emission trading schemes attempt to make CO2 emission have a cost, and then economic forces will quickly find technological solutions. For example, under Kyoto, instead of buying Russian hot air, you could put the same money into cleaning up your own act. Ensuring everyone has to do the same, means those who don't bother don't profit. It was modeled on the Montreal Protocol on CFCs which actually did work. Kyoto could have worked on a regional basis, despite not having everyone on board, though the problem is much bigger since there was only a handful of CFC manufacturers.
The Copenhagen agreement at least has every country on board, though no requirements yet. The most significant part of the agreement is that China's emissions will actually be monitored and not hidden as a state secret. As they say, if you can measure it and see it, you can start figuring out how to control it.
Interesting, most posters are giving links to other sites and books to read, then LS gets let out of moderation and, not one fact, not one link to proving CO2 is causing global warming, just "emotional" feeling and "CONSENSUS" which has nothing to do with real science.
The videos I posted are about real scientists doing real research.
LS proves my point about lefties, (he really, really, hates being called a lefty) all emotion and group think. Oh and insults, that's standard lefty debate. When in doubt, insult, and swear.
Just because everyone agreed the world was flat, or slavery was just fine, or that Hitler was a great guy with good ideas, didn't make it factual or the truth, eh?
None of those statements are true.
There was never a time when everyone agreed with world was flat.
The slaves never believed slavery was just fine.
Churchill never believed anything Hitler had to say, though Prescott Bush was quite happy to sell to him.
Your point is refuted.
BTW, LS...
Did you actually watch the vids posted?
You should, eh?
Trashes CO2 AGW right into the dirt...and the great part is, that's not what they were trying to do.
They were just doing good, honest science...heavy on the "honest" part.
...if you get my drift.
Yikes, LS! Was that lame or what!
And not everyone agrees with AGW.
I guess your point is refuted then, too, eh?
Anyway...
The "consensus" was that Columbus probably would sail off the edge of the world.
The "consensus" obviously was, for many, many centuries in fact, that slavery was quite fine, which is why there were so many slaves. You know?
And Hitler was elected by millions of Germans, one of those "consensus" things, most of whom continued for years after to basically worship the tyrant and do pretty much whatever he wanted them to do.
Now, as you noted, people do show up from time to time and try to turn things around, using common sense usually. Hence Galileo, Lincoln, Churchill...you would be amazed at how many Brits and Americans thought Hitler was on to something, something both Churchill and Roosevelt had a helluva time dealing with.
"Consensus" means diddly. And it certainly means zilch, zip, zero within the field of science! Any scientist offering up "consensus" as legitimization ought to have his pathetic ass kicked all the way to hell and back again!
Tell you what...
You take some time out of your busy schedule of shilling for AGW, and watch the series of vids presented here, and then watch this series of vids over at SDA...
And then come back here and tell us all about CO2 induced AGW.
Go ahead, I dare ya to watch 'em.
LS your latest was not published because you continue to go after one of my posters on something you can not prove, that has nothing to do with this issue. Try again.
The Cloud Mystery refuted.
Too funny, it took me about two seconds to find out that "realscience" has nothing to do with real science!
http://climatedepot.com/a/1742/Climatologist-slams-RealClimateorg-for-erroneously-communicating-the-reality-of-the-how-climate-system-is-actually-behaving--Rebuts-Myths-On-Sea-Level-Oceans-and-Arctic-Ice
Try harder LS, you can't just read only lefty stuff on climate science.
Yikes, LS! Was that lame or what!
I thought you didn't like ad hominem attacks. Ok for thee but not for me?
And not everyone agrees with AGW.
True.
I guess your point is refuted then, too, eh?
I did not claim everyone agreed with it. You, on the other hand made claims about "everyone", when you said Just because everyone agreed the world was flat, or slavery was just fine, or that Hitler was a great guy with good ideas, didn't make it factual or the truth, eh?.
Anyway...
The "consensus" was that Columbus probably would sail off the edge of the world.
Baloney.
The "consensus" obviously was, for many, many centuries in fact, that slavery was quite fine, which is why there were so many slaves. You know?
What society would have more slaves than people? Which of those slaves thought it was quite fine. The majority of people, therefore did not think slavery was fine, therefore the "consensus" was against it.
And Hitler was elected by millions of Germans, one of those "consensus" things, most of whom continued for years after to basically worship the tyrant and do pretty much whatever he wanted them to do.
Where would a thread be without Godwin? Hitler was never elected with a majority.
Your three examples are refuted. You are correct, of course, that consensus does not mean something is true. However, consensus on a scientific matter means most scientists accept it as true. But they only accept it as true until proven wrong. I have never maintained that the scientists are infallible. I freely accept that the AGW theory could be wrong, and the scientists could be wrong. I have yet to see a denialist state that their view could be wrong. They seem to see it as a kind of weakness to be willing to accept one could be wrong. That is not the way of science.
Now, as you noted, people do show up from time to time and try to turn things around, using common sense usually. Hence Galileo, Lincoln, Churchill...
Your appeal to authority does not validate your position in any way.
you would be amazed at how many Brits and Americans thought Hitler was on to something, something both Churchill and Roosevelt had a helluva time dealing with.
Godwin was on to something too.
-- split to meet blogger 4096 limit
"Consensus" means diddly. And it certainly means zilch, zip, zero within the field of science!
Baloney. It means what it means, which is most scientists agree.
Any scientist offering up "consensus" as legitimization ought to have his pathetic ass kicked all the way to hell and back again!
No scientist does expect consensus to imply they are correct. That is what religion does. However, you have not made your case that a consensus among scientists, where most agree about something, means nothing, and should be given equal weight as a small number of scientists who disagree. A consensus of scientists continues to agree that gravity is what holds things to the ground. Other theories might involve cosmic rays pushing everything towards the earth, but there is not a consensus for that theory. Do you therefore prefer that theory (which I just made up)? You will however find debate about the exact nature of gravity. Einstein considered gravity to be a kind of wave, but could never prove it. He was not able to describe gravity in terms of the other fundamental forces of electricity, magnetism, weak nuclear force and strong nuclear force. His failure, unfortunately for space travelers, does not negate gravity.
Tell you what...
You take some time out of your busy schedule of shilling for AGW, and watch the series of vids presented here, and then watch this series of vids over at SDA...
And then come back here and tell us all about CO2 induced AGW.
Go ahead, I dare ya to watch 'em.
The Cloud Mystery refuted.
That was easy.
Why is any source I cite "lefty"? Your sources are all funded by Exxon.
Environment Canada?
Here's their UofVic subsidy proudly presenting how the data is "Homogenised"
http://www.cics.uvic.ca/scenarios/pdf/workshop/PresCliSce.pdf
On another note, please stop saying "Greenies", 'eco-nusts", etc. The correct description is Climate Syndicates
Just watched the Fox special on global warming. Mo Strong gave his view-ugh- Very good documentary, looks at climategate. Well worthwhile to catch it in repeats or at the website.
Algore was not included at all.
LS - I am not new to this blog - I am East of Eden under a new moniker; as I explained in an earlier post.
LS - I am not new to this blog - I am East of Eden under a new moniker; as I explained in an earlier post.
I saw the post where you were "East" and said you can't go on blogger from work anymore. I didn't see this new moniker. However, you must be able to see that hunter certainly gives as good as she gets when it comes to insults. I think some of her over the top rants are funny actually.
Oh, poor, mistreated Libby.
The truth is, Libby's a really nice guy. He really is. He and all his fellows in the Clowncar Brigade.
See? It's the conservatives who are really out of control.
Post a Comment