FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
Global Warming Scam Latest
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 56, 57, 58  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> General Discussion
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message
atm



Joined: 16 Apr 2006
Posts: 3863

PostPosted: Sat Nov 08, 2008 7:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Remember Ole Hairy, Finty? An interview beckons.


Quote:



BBC SHUNNED ME FOR DENYING CLIMATE CHANGE




http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/69623

FOR YEARS David Bellamy was one of the best known faces on TV.

A respected botanist and the author of 35 books, he had presented around 400 programmes over the years and was appreciated by audiences for his boundless enthusiasm.


Yet for more than 10 years he has been out of the limelight, shunned by bosses at the BBC where he made his name, as well as fellow scientists and environmentalists.

His crime? Bellamy says he doesn’t believe in man-made global warming.

Here he reveals why – and the price he has paid for not toeing the orthodox line on climate change.



"When I first stuck my head above the parapet to say I didn’t believe what we were being told about global warming I had no idea what the consequences would be.

I am a scientist and I have to ­follow the directions of science but when I see that the truth is being covered up I have to voice my ­opinions.

According to official data, in every year since 1998 world temperatures have been getting colder, and in 2002 Arctic ice actually increased. Why, then, do we not hear about that?

The sad fact is that since I said I didn’t believe human beings caused global warming I’ve not been allowed to make a TV programme.

My absence has been noticed, because wherever I go I meet people who say: “I grew up with you on the television, where are you now?”

It was in 1996 that I criticised wind farms while appearing on Blue Peter and I also had an article published in which I described global warming as poppycock.

The truth is, I didn’t think wind farms were an effective means of alternative energy so I said so. Back then, at the BBC you had to toe the line and I wasn’t doing that.

At that point I was still making loads of television programmes and I was enjoying it greatly. Then I suddenly found I was sending in ideas for TV shows and they weren’t getting taken up. I’ve asked around about why I’ve been ignored but I found that people didn’t get back to me.



At the beginning of this year there was a BBC show with four experts saying: “This is going to be the end of all the ice in the Arctic,” and hypothesising that it was going to be the hottest summer ever. Was it hell! It was very cold and very wet and now we’ve seen evidence that the glaciers in Alaska have started growing rapidly – and they’ve not grown for a long time.

I’ve seen evidence, which I believe, that says there has not been a rise in global temperature since 1998, despite the increase in carbon dioxide being pumped into the atmosphere. This makes me think the global warmers are telling lies – carbon dioxide is not the driver.

The idiot fringe have accused me of being like a Holocaust denier, which is ludicrous. Climate change is all about cycles, it’s a natural thing and has always happened. When the Romans lived in Britain they were growing very good red grapes and making wine on the borders of Scotland. It was evidently a lot warmer.

If you were sitting next to me 10,000 years ago we’d be under ice. So thank God for global warming for ending that ice age; we wouldn’t be here otherwise.

People such as former American Vice-President Al Gore say that millions of us will die because of global warming – which I think is a pretty stupid thing to say if you’ve got no proof.

And my opinion is that there is absolutely no proof that carbon dioxide is anything to do with any impending catastrophe. The ­science has, quite simply, gone awry. In fact, it’s not even science any more, it’s anti-science.

There’s no proof, it’s just projections and if you look at the models people such as Gore use, you can see they cherry pick the ones that support their beliefs.

To date, the way the so-called Greens and the BBC, the Royal Society and even our political parties have handled this smacks of McCarthyism at its worst.

Global warming is part of a natural cycle and there’s nothing we can actually do to stop these cycles. The world is now facing spending a vast amount of money in tax to try to solve a problem that doesn’t actually exist.

And how were we convinced that this problem exists, even though all the evidence from measurements goes against the fact? God knows. Yes, the lakes in Africa are drying up. But that’s not global warming. They’re drying up for the very ­simple reason that most of them have dams around them.

So the water that used to be used by local people is now used in the production of cut flowers and veget­ables for the supermarkets of Europe.

One of Al Gore’s biggest clangers was saying that the Aral Sea in Uzbekistan was drying up because of global warming. Well, everyone knows, because it was all over the news 20 years ago, that the Russians were growing cotton there at the time and that for every ton of cotton you produce you use a vast amount of water.

The thing that annoys me most is that there are genuine environmental problems that desperately require attention. I’m still an environmentalist, I’m still a Green and I’m still campaigning to stop the destruction of the biodiversity of the world. But money will be wasted on trying to solve this global warming “problem” that I would much rather was used for looking after the people of the world.

Being ignored by the likes of the BBC does not really bother me, not when there are much bigger problems at stake.
I might not be on TV any more but I still go around the world campaigning about these important issues. For example, we must stop the dest­ruc­tion of trop­ical rainforests, something I’ve been saying for 35 years.

Mother nature will balance things out but not if we interfere by destroying rainforests and overfishing the seas.
That is where the real environmental catastrophe could occur.

INTERVIEW BY HELEN DOWD
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marlin



Joined: 14 Jan 2007
Posts: 74
Location: cape verde

PostPosted: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

A Source of the Earth's Internal Heat - the Plasma Connection and Ice Ages

Quote:
The earth may be considered as an electrically charged body in dynamic electrical equilibrium with the plasma of its immediate environment, space. The earth is electrically isolated from its plasma environment by a space charge sheaf, or plasma double layer within which the total voltage difference occurs. However an isolated body whose electrical potential is not continually renewed by electric currents will quickly acquire the potential of the surrounding plasma and its double layer will disappear.

As the Earth's double layer is being continually maintained, (it if wasn't it would be like the moon), it must therefore be receiving electric currents which have now been discovered at the earth's polar regions reaching magnitudes of mega-amperes; the now famous Birkeland currents routinely measured by today's satellites. (See various papers by Anthony L. Peratt)

These electric currents have to pass through the interior of the earth, which passing through matter, generate heat. Just how this is achieved within the upper mantle remains to be resolved, and through which paths, but we can be equally certain of one fact, radiogenic decay cannot be invoked as the heat source since it diminishes over time, and is thus incapable of producing any thermal surge in order to explain periodic volcanism observed during the Earth's evolution. (Plate Tectonics is essentially a myth whose death throes can be viewed at the NCGT website). Radiogenic heat implies a an Earth cooling with time, not one which exhibits a fluctuating thermal state as observed over history.

The earth's thermal stability is dominated by its mass and the only plausible energy source for maintaining its thermal state are the electrical currents connecting it with the sun, with a minor diurnal variation from solar radiance.

The Sun's source of energy is external and as, like the earth, the solar double layers also have to have electric currents maintaining its electric state; these electric currents come from the galaxy.

It has recently been discovered that the Sun's heliopause has shrunk some 25% in diameter, and this spherical layer could be considered the outer layer of the Sun's double layer, insulating it electrically from the rest of space, then a reduction in the diameter of the solar double layer would imply a reduction in the electric currents feeding the Sun itself. This effect would be noticed by an absence of solar sunspots whose characteristics were modelled by Kristian Birkeland in his Terella experiments.

If the electrical power to the sun is reduced, then so too the electrical power to the earth, and hence the present day observed cooling of the earth's global mean temperature.

(There is a widely maintained myth that the earth's thermal stability can be affected by the burning of hydrocarbons by humanity on its surface. This belief is known as Anthropogenic Global Warming and is pure bunkum and not considered here as a serious scientific idea. It is, however, an extremely serious political idea, and needs to dealt with the strongest measures).

Now an interesting physical fact lies in the Giauque-Debye adiabatic demagnetization phenomenon where a sudden collapse in the magnitude of a magnetic field causes cooling. But any collapsing magnetic field has to be preceded by a collapsing electrical current, and this fact raises the possibility that Earth Ice Ages, and for that matter minor ice ages like the LIA, might be the result of a signficiant decrease in the power of the electrical currents to the earth. As any one who has any experience with electric heaters, turning off the electrical power to the electric heater causes it to cool. So why should the earth system behave any differently?

Climate science is struggling for an energy source to replace the widely assumed Solar Irradiance model. The one suggested here, based on the principles of a plasma universe, seems a better solution. It, at least, explains the observations which AGW cannot.


http://geoplasma.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!C00F2616F39D0B2B!415.entry
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marlin



Joined: 14 Jan 2007
Posts: 74
Location: cape verde

PostPosted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 1:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Magnetic Portals Connect Sun and Earth

Quote:
Oct. 30, 2008: During the time it takes you to read this article, something will happen high overhead that until recently many scientists didn't believe in. A magnetic portal will open, linking Earth to the sun 93 million miles away. Tons of high-energy particles may flow through the opening before it closes again, around the time you reach the end of the page.

"It's called a flux transfer event or 'FTE,'" says space physicist David Sibeck of the Goddard Space Flight Center. "Ten years ago I was pretty sure they didn't exist, but now the evidence is incontrovertible."

Indeed, today Sibeck is telling an international assembly of space physicists at the 2008 Plasma Workshop in Huntsville, Alabama, that FTEs are not just common, but possibly twice as common as anyone had ever imagined.



An artist's concept of Earth's magnetic field connecting to the sun's--a.k.a. a
"flux transfer event"--with a spacecraft on hand to measure particles and fields.


Researchers have long known that the Earth and sun must be connected. Earth's magnetosphere (the magnetic bubble that surrounds our planet) is filled with particles from the sun that arrive via the solar wind and penetrate the planet's magnetic defenses. They enter by following magnetic field lines that can be traced from terra firma all the way back to the sun's atmosphere.

"We used to think the connection was permanent and that solar wind could trickle into the near-Earth environment anytime the wind was active," says Sibeck. "We were wrong. The connections are not steady at all. They are often brief, bursty and very dynamic."


http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/30oct_ftes.htm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marlin



Joined: 14 Jan 2007
Posts: 74
Location: cape verde

PostPosted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 2:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Solar Wind Loses Power, Hits 50-year Low


Quote:
Sept. 23, 2008: In a briefing today at NASA headquarters, solar physicists announced that the solar wind is losing power.

"The average pressure of the solar wind has dropped more than 20% since the mid-1990s," says Dave McComas of the Southwest Research Institute in San Antonio, Texas. "This is the weakest it's been since we began monitoring solar wind almost 50 years ago."

McComas is principal investigator for the SWOOPS solar wind sensor onboard the Ulysses spacecraft, which measured the decrease. Ulysses, launched in 1990, circles the sun in a unique orbit that carries it over both the sun's poles and equator, giving Ulysses a global view of solar wind activity:



Global measurements of solar wind pressure by Ulysses.
Green curves trace the solar wind in 1992-1998, while blue
curves denote lower pressure winds in 2004-2008.


Curiously, the speed of the million mph solar wind hasn't decreased much—only 3%. The change in pressure comes mainly from reductions in temperature and density. The solar wind is 13% cooler and 20% less dense.

"What we're seeing is a long term trend, a steady decrease in pressure that began sometime in the mid-1990s," explains Arik Posner, NASA's Ulysses Program Scientist in Washington DC.

How unusual is this event?

"It's hard to say. We've only been monitoring solar wind since the early years of the Space Age—from the early 60s to the present," says Posner. "Over that period of time, it's unique. How the event stands out over centuries or millennia, however, is anybody's guess. We don't have data going back that far."

Flagging solar wind has repercussions across the entire solar system—beginning with the heliosphere.

The heliosphere is a bubble of magnetism springing from the sun and inflated to colossal proportions by the solar wind. Every planet from Mercury to Pluto and beyond is inside it. The heliosphere is our solar system's first line of defense against galactic cosmic rays. High-energy particles from black holes and supernovas try to enter the solar system, but most are deflected by the heliosphere's magnetic fields.



The heliosphere. Click to view a larger image showing the rest of the bubble.


"The solar wind isn't inflating the heliosphere as much as it used to," says McComas. "That means less shielding against cosmic rays."

In addition to weakened solar wind, "Ulysses also finds that the sun's underlying magnetic field has weakened by more than 30% since the mid-1990s," says Posner. "This reduces natural shielding even more."

Unpublished Ulysses cosmic ray data show that, indeed, high energy (GeV) electrons, a minor but telltale component of cosmic rays around Earth, have jumped in number by about 20%.

These extra particles pose no threat to people on Earth's surface. Our thick atmosphere and planetary magnetic field provide additional layers of protection that keep us safe.

But any extra cosmic rays can have consequences. If the trend continues, astronauts on the Moon or en route to Mars would get a higher dose of space radiation. Robotic space probes and satellites in high Earth orbit face an increased risk of instrument malfunctions and reboots due to cosmic ray strikes. Also, there are controversial studies linking cosmic ray fluxes to cloudiness and climate change on Earth. That link may be tested in the years ahead.

Some of most dramatic effects of the phenomenon may be felt by NASA's two Voyager spacecraft. After traveling outward for 30+ years, the two probes are now at the edge of the heliosphere. With the heliosphere shrinking, the Voyagers may soon find themselves on the outside looking in, thrust into interstellar space long before anyone expected. No spacecraft has ever been outside the heliosphere before and no one knows what the Voyagers may find there.

NASA is about to launch a new spacecraft named IBEX (short for Interstellar Boundary Explorer) that can monitor the dimensions of the heliosphere without actually traveling to the edge of the solar system. IBEX may actually be able to "see" the heliosphere shrinking and anticipate the Voyager's exit. Moreover, IBEX will reveal how our solar system's cosmic ray shield reacts to changes in solar wind.

"The potential for discovery," says McComas, "is breathtaking."


http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/23sep_solarwind.htm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fintan
Site Admin


Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 7962

PostPosted: Thu Nov 20, 2008 6:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

When the bottom line is on the table as the key concern,
those unconvinced by the argument about global warming
find renewed impetus to say "screw it!"

And that's the new bottom line.

Quote:
What climate change?
Meltdown trumps fears at APEC


By JOSEPH COLEMAN - 20 Nov, 2008

LIMA, Peru (AP) — Countries on both sides of the Pacific have reason to
be very afraid of climate change. Rising sea levels could swamp coastal
farms, higher temperatures wipe out entire species and increasingly
violent storms exact a widening human and financial toll.

But at this week's summit of 21 Pacific Rim nations, global warming
is barely on the agenda. In its place: the financial crisis.


"The interest and focus on climate change has dissipated somewhat,"
said Woo Yuen Pau, CEO of the Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada.

Financial issues are a natural fit for the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation
group, or APEC, which includes the United States, China, Japan and
Russia, among others. Its annual summits traditionally focus on nuts-and-
bolts issues such as spreading free trade and bolstering regional
networking.

The agenda is often driven by the host nation, and in Australia last year,
that meant global warming. APEC leaders in Sydney signed a non-binding
agreement to improve energy efficiency and increase forest cover.

Expectations for a follow-up at this year's meeting, which was officially
beginning with a dinner Friday, are rock-bottom.

The Pacific Economic Cooperation Council announced Wednesday that
climate change was the summit's No. 7 priority, based on an annual
survey of regional government officials, business people and academics.
Last year, it was No. 4.

Among the issues ranking above climate change this year: trade talks,
food and energy security and reforming the APEC bureaucracy.....

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/


Meanwhile, the climate-change-friendly Henry Waxman
has been engineered into place as head of the House
Energy Panel to fit nicely with the Obama agenda....

Quote:
Longtime Head of House Energy Panel Is Ousted

By JOHN M. BRODER - November 20, 2008

WASHINGTON — Representative Henry A. Waxman of California
ousted Representative John D. Dingell of Michigan from his post as
chairman of the influential Committee on Energy and Commerce on
Thursday, giving President-elect Barack Obama an advantage in his
plans to promote efforts to combat global warming.


By a secret vote of 137 to 122, House Democrats ended Mr. Dingell’s
nearly 28-year reign as his party’s top member on the committee. In
doing so, Mr. Waxman’s backers upended the seniority system to install a
leader more in tune with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on a variety of
issues.

The chairmanship of the Committee on Energy and Commerce is a key
post, since the committee will handle legislation on climate change,
energy and health care that President-elect Obama is hoping to move
through the new Congress.

Mr. Waxman, who has been the chairman of the Committee on Oversight
and Government Reform, was backed by many environmentalists for his
stands on clean air and global warming
, and he has a long record of
leadership on health care issues.

Environmental groups reacted swiftly and mostly positively to the
ascension of Mr. Waxman. “Chairman Waxman has been a leader on
global warming for many years
, and we look forward to working closely
with him in his new role,” said Karen Wayland, legislative director of the
Natural Resources Defense Council.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/21/us/politics/21dingell.html?hp

_________________
Minds are like parachutes.
They only function when open.


Last edited by Fintan on Fri Nov 21, 2008 5:28 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
bri



Joined: 16 Jun 2006
Posts: 3174
Location: Capacious Creek

PostPosted: Fri Nov 21, 2008 3:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Obama Affirms Climate Change Goals

Quote:
President-elect Barack Obama, in strongly-worded remarks to a gathering of governors and foreign officials on Tuesday, said he had no intention of softening or delaying his aggressive targets for reducing emissions that cause the warming of the planet.

Speaking by video to a climate conference in Los Angeles, Mr. Obama repeated his campaign vow to reduce climate-altering carbon dioxide emissions by 80 percent by 2050, and invest $150 billion in new energy-saving technologies.

“Now is the time to confront this challenge once and for all,” Mr. Obama said. “Delay is no longer an option. Denial is no longer an acceptable response.”

Some industry leaders and members of Congress have suggested that Mr. Obama’s climate proposal would impose too great a cost on an already-stressed economy — having the same effects as a tax on coal, oil and natural gas — and should await the end of the current downturn. A bill similar to Mr. Obama’s plan failed to clear the Senate earlier this year, largely because of concerns about its impact on the economy.


Mr. Obama rejected that view, saying that his plan would reduce oil imports, create jobs in energy conservation and renewable sources of energy, and reverse the warming of the atmosphere.

“My presidency will mark a new chapter in America’s leadership on climate change that will strengthen our security and create millions of new jobs in the process,” Mr. Obama said.

State officials and environmental advocates were cheered that Mr. Obama choose to address climate change as only the second major policy area he has discussed as president-elect. In a press conference and television interview last week he said that his first priority as president will be to revitalize the economy.

The bipartisan summit meeting was convened by Arnold Schwarzenegger, the Republican governor of California, who has been a leader in state efforts to regulate greenhouse gases, even when it meant confronting the Bush administration over its more hesitant approach. Attendees included the governors of Illinois, Florida, Wisconsin and Kansas, who have also been in the forefront of actions at the state level to act in the absence of a national climate change plan. Officials from 22 other states, Mexico, Canada, Australia, Brazil, China, India and Indonesia, as well as United Nations aides and environmentalists, also are taking part in the two-day meeting.

Mr. Schwarzenegger announced the meeting in September in part to signal to Washington and the two presidential candidates that the states were serious about moving forward with climate legislation with or without Washington’s blessing.

California enacted a sweeping climate bill in 2007 that would have, among other things, imposed strict mileage and emissions standards on all cars and trucks sold in the state. More than a dozen other states adopted the standards, but they were struck down by the Bush administration last December on the ground that the states did not have the legal authority to regulate greenhouse gases.

“When California passed its global warming law two years ago, we were out there on an island,” Mr. Schwarzenegger said in opening the conference, “so we started forming partnerships everywhere we could.”

Mr. Obama said that although he would not attend a U.N.-sponsored meeting on climate change next month, he has asked members of Congress who are going to report back to him on what the United States can do to reassert leadership on global climate policy.

He also told the state officials: “When I am president, any governor who’s willing to promote clean energy will have a partner in the White House. Any company that’s willing to invest in clean energy will have an ally in Washington. And any nation that’s willing to join the cause of combating climate change will have an ally in the United States of America.”

Governor Jim Doyle, Democrat of Wisconsin, said in a telephone interview from Los Angeles that he had been frustrated by what he said was the Bush administration’s timid approach to climate issues. And he said that despite the current economic crisis, it was important to begin long-term efforts to address global warming.

“I think we all wish the economy was a lot better, but I feel very strongly that we can’t back away from progress we’ve made on really important things like climate change,” Mr. Doyle said. “I’m looking forward to having a federal government and a president who will provide real leadership and bring the United States into the world on this issue.”


you been bamboozled
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
coalraker



Joined: 20 Jan 2007
Posts: 494

PostPosted: Fri Nov 21, 2008 11:37 am    Post subject: another brick in the wall Reply with quote


OBAMANATION OF DESOLATION "Standing in the Holy Place'' Question
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marlin



Joined: 14 Jan 2007
Posts: 74
Location: cape verde

PostPosted: Fri Nov 21, 2008 1:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

‘There’s a lot of rich people backing this cause’

Quote:
According to Horner, there is talk that Barack Obama will attempt to get a climate change treaty ratified by simply reclassifying the necessary legislation as an ‘executive agreement’, making passage through the Senate considerably easier. That would be at odds with the spirit of the American Constitution, which demands the Senate’s ‘advice and consent’ on major treaties (1).


http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/reviewofbooks_article/5956/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fintan
Site Admin


Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 7962

PostPosted: Sun Nov 23, 2008 3:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lies, Damm Lies and....
Global Warming Graphs


This is a little mini-treatise on the dangers of pretty graphs
in support of the global warming hysteria.


First, here's a great comparison of Earth's surface temperatures, as per
the official GISS data, first in 1999 ---and then adjusted in 2008:

Quote:
Questions on the evolution of the GISS temperature product



Blink comparator of GISS USA temperature anomaly - h/t to Zapruder

The last time I checked, the earth does not retroactively
change it’s near surface temperature.....

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/11/14/the-evolution-of-the-giss-temperature-product/#more-4143


So what is going on here?

Well, let's call it retrospective readjustment based on GISS re-analysis.

A comment on the above graph puts it nicely. It's a fair account of what
actually DID happen with official Earth surface temperature measurments:

Quote:
Think of it this way. You conduct an experiment.

After you conduct the experiment, you find out that

(a) some of your instruments were either miscalibrated,
defective or improperly located,

(b) external factors that you did not take into consideration or
measure at the time the experiment was running have affected your
measurements,

(c) some of the measurements during the experiment were not recorded,

(d) you used different instruments to record measurements over different
time periods at different locations during the experiment. You find all of
this out AFTER you have been running the experiment for many years.

Then, instead of throwing out the data as hopelessly compromised
and starting the experiment over with these factors corrected, you


(a) do a study estimating how miscalibrated, how defective and how
improperly located your instruments were and apply adjustments to all
past data to “correct” the improper reading,

(b) you do a study to estimate the effect of the external factors at the
time you discover the problem and apply adjustments to all past data to
correct” the effects of the external factors even though you have no idea
what the effect of the external factor actually was for a given instrument
at the time the data was recorded, because you only measured the effect
years later and then at only some locations,

(c) you “fill in” any missing data using data from other instruments
and/or from other measurements by the same instrument,

(d) you do another study to determine how best to deal with
measurements from different instruments over different time periods
and at different locations and apply adjustments to all past data to
"correct" for differences between readings from different instruments
over different time periods at different locations.

Then you continue running the experiment, while you continue applying
all of your adjustments on an ongoing basis to all past data as new
measurements are recorded.

Finally, you believe that all of your data has been meticulously recorded
with great accuracy and any uncertainties are minimal.

Then you proceed to use the results of your experiment to justify
changing policies for the entire world at a cost of many trillions of
dollars, with the unerring belief that your experimental data is
completely reliable.


Now here's another danger of the use of pretty graphics.

First take a look at this "official" graph of surface temperature:

Quote:

Pretty scary, eh?

I mean - just look at the steep rise in that graph.
Temperature looks like it's going through the roof!

Until you look at another similar graph where the temperature axis
is not as tall - and the years axis not as short:

Quote:

Now that doesn't look quite so alarming, does it?

Yet both graphs are showing essentially the same data range.

To prove that, I extracted the graph from the "steep Rise" version:

Quote:

Then....
I changed it's aspect ratio to stretch it
to match the "less steep" graph:

Quote:



So appearances can be, and often deliberately are deceptive.

But there's another deception inbuilt into both graphs.

They are graphs of Earth's surface temperature, isn't that right?

So how about we redo the stretched graph, and this time we show the
temperature scale in a range from --the lowest Earth surface temperature
ever recorded --to the higest surface temperature ever recorded.

That's fair enough, isn't it?

The lowest Earth surface temperature ever recorded was
minus 89 degrees celcius at Vostok, Antarctica - July 21, 1983.

The highest Earth surface temperature ever recorded was
plus 58 degrees celcius at Al 'Aziziyah, Libya - September 13, 1922.

So, now here's that graph again --and as I say, it shows the
dangers of pretty graphs to drive global warming alarmism:


Quote:


Versus:


_________________
Minds are like parachutes.
They only function when open.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Fintan
Site Admin


Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 7962

PostPosted: Tue Nov 25, 2008 9:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
NOT EVIL JUST WRONG.com

http://www.noteviljustwrong.com/




Quote:
NOT EVIL JUST WRONG

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHMOEVRysWE


Quote:
Film-makers taking on our
'global warming hysteria'


A new Irish film claims that climate change guru Al Gore
is an alarmist and that those who think they are saving the
planet are only hurting the poor.


If the advance publicity is anything to go by, Not Evil Just Wrong will do
for Al Gore what Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 did for George W Bush.

"This is the film Al Gore and Hollywood don't want you to see," declares
the website for the latest work by film-makers Ann McElhinney and Phelim
McAleer. The site even features a big picture of Gore, with his lips in the
photograph seemingly digitally enhanced to make them look like Heath
Ledger's Joker from the latest Batman film.

The website goes on to say that their latest film - which takes on what are
described as global warming alarmists - is "the most controversial
documentary of the year". Indeed, it could very well be the most
controversial. And Al Gore and Hollywood may well not want you to see it.
And in that respect, Gore and co are actually succeeding for the moment.
Because there is no completed film. Not yet anyway.

McElhinney and McAleer have raised almost $1 million but need a
total of $4.5m to allow for a full cinema release.


They have gone onto the internet hoping to solicit donations in the style
of Barack Obama. The finished product will be around 90 minutes long.
A near-complete version of the film has been chosen in the audience
category at the Amsterdam Film Festival later this month.

McElhinney and McAleer, who are a married couple, are former
journalists. McElhinney broke the Tristan Dowse story and the
questionable money-making industry that had grown up around
adoptions abroad. McAleer is a former journalist with the Sunday Times
and the Financial Times, who worked as a correspondent in Bucharest
for a number of years.

_________________
Minds are like parachutes.
They only function when open.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
marlin



Joined: 14 Jan 2007
Posts: 74
Location: cape verde

PostPosted: Wed Nov 26, 2008 11:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

NASA Free Energy Oven

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fintan
Site Admin


Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 7962

PostPosted: Tue Jan 06, 2009 9:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

A majority of climate scientists surveyed by a UK newspaper
now believe that political options to fight "global warming"
will not be sufficient, and the time has come to consider risky
technological approaches such as pumping water vapour into
the air or fertilising the sea with iron filings to foster the growth
of phytoplankton.

These lunatics just got really dangerous!


Quote:


Climate scientists:
it's time for 'Plan B'


Poll of international experts by The Independent reveals
consensus that CO2 cuts have failed – and their growing
support for technological intervention


By Steve Connor, Science Editor and Chris Green
Friday, 2 January 2009

An emergency "Plan B" using the latest technology is needed to
save the world from dangerous climate change, according to a poll of
leading scientists carried out by The Independent. The collective
international failure to curb the growing emissions of carbon dioxide
(CO2) in the atmosphere has meant that an alternative to merely
curbing emissions may become necessary.


The plan would involve highly controversial proposals to lower global
temperatures artificially through daringly ambitious schemes that either
reduce sunlight levels by man-made means or take CO2 out of the air.

This "geoengineering" approach – including schemes such as fertilising
the oceans with iron to stimulate algal blooms – would have been
dismissed as a distraction a few years ago but is now being seen by the
majority of scientists we surveyed as a viable emergency backup plan
that could save the planet from the worst effects of climate change, at
least until deep cuts are made in CO2 emissions.

What has worried many of the experts, who include recognised authorities
from the world's leading universities and research institutes, as well as a
Nobel Laureate, is the failure to curb global greenhouse gas emissions
through international agreements, namely the Kyoto Treaty, and recent
studies indicating that the Earth's natural carbon "sinks" are becoming
less efficient at absorbing man-made CO2 from the atmosphere.

Levels of CO2 have continued to increase during the past decade since
the treaty was agreed and they are now rising faster than even the worst-
case scenarios from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a
United Nations body. In the meantime the natural absorption of CO2 by
the world's forests and oceans has decreased significantly. Most of the
scientists we polled agreed that the failure to curb emissions of CO2,
which are increasing at a rate of 1 per cent a year, has created the need
for an emergency "plan B" involving research, development and possible
implementation of a worldwide geoengineering strategy.

Just over half – 54 per cent – of the 80 international specialists in climate
science who took part in our survey agreed that the situation is now so
dire that we need a backup plan that involves the artificial manipulation of
the global climate to counter the effects of man-made emissions of
greenhouse gases. About 35 per cent of respondents disagreed with the
need for a "plan B", arguing that it would distract from the main objective
of cutting CO2 emissions, with the remaining 11 per cent saying that they
did not know whether a geoengineering strategy is needed or not.

Almost everyone who thought that geoengineering should be studied as a
possible plan B said that it must not be seen as an alternative to
international agreements on cutting carbon emissions but something that
runs in parallel to binding treaties in case climate change runs out of
control and there an urgent need to cool the planet quickly.

Geoengineering was dismissed as a distraction a few years ago
but it has recently become a serious topic of research. Next summer,
for example, the Royal Society, in London, is due to publish a report
on the subject, led by Professor John Shepherd of the National
Oceanography Centre at Southampton University.


Professor Shepherd was one of the scientists who said that a plan B
was needed because he was now less optimistic about the prospects of
curbing CO2 levels since Kyoto was agreed, and less optimistic about
the ability of the Earth's climate system to cope with the expected CO2
increases.

"Geoengineering options... must not be allowed to detract from efforts to
reduce CO2 emissions directly," said Professor Shepherd, who studies the
interaction between the climate and oceans. In answer to the question of
whether scientists were more optimistic or less optimistic about the ability
of the climate system to cope with increases in man-made CO2 without
dangerous climate change, just one out of the 80 respondents to our
survey was more optimistic, 72 per cent were less optimistic, and 23 per
cent felt about the same.

Professor James Lovelock, a geo-scientist and author of the Gaia
hypothesis, in which the Earth is a quasi-living organism, is one of those
who is less optimistic. He believes that a plan B is urgently needed. "I
never thought that the Kyoto agreement would lead to any useful cut
back in greenhouse gas emissions so I am neither more nor less
optimistic now about prospect of curbing CO2 compared to 10 years ago.
I am, however, less optimistic now about the ability of the Earth's climate
system to cope with expected increases in atmospheric carbon levels
compared with 10 years ago," he told The Independent. "I strongly agree
that we now need a 'plan B' where a geoengineering strategy is drawn up
in parallel with other measures to curb CO2 emissions."

Among those who oppose geoengineering is Professor David Archer, a
geophysicist at Chicago University and expert on ocean chemistry.
"Carbon dioxide released to the atmosphere will continue to affect climate
for many millennia," he said. "Relying on geoengineering schemes such
as sulphate aerosols would be analogous to putting the planet on life
support. If future humanity failed to pay its 'climate bill' – a bill that we
left them, thank you very much – they would bear the full brunt of climate
change within a very short time."

Gummer set for green role

The former Tory cabinet member who publicly fed his daughter a
beefburger during the outbreak of so-called "mad cow disease" is in line
for a leading role in helping the Government fight against global warming,
writes Nigel Morris.

John Gummer, who served as Environment Secretary in the previous
Conservative government, has been shortlisted for the post of chairman
of the Committee on Climate Change. He is one of three candidates being
discussed in Whitehall to succeed Baron Turner of Ecchinswell. The others
are Rachel Lomax, a former Treasury official who has recently retired as
a deputy governor of the Bank of England, and Sir John Harman, former
chairman of the Environment Agency.

Mr Gummer, 69, has been a Conservative activist for almost half a
century and has spent 34 years as an MP. He represents the safe seat of
Suffolk Coastal. A 16-year spell in government culminated with his
promotion by John Major to Environment Secretary, when he was
regarded as a pioneering minister, introducing the landfill tax and the
fuel-price escalator.

Mr Gummer said last night he knew nothing about the vacant post.



Fixing the planet:
Could technology help save the world?


Injecting the air with particles to reflect sunlight

Volcanic eruptions release huge amounts of sulphate particles into the
upper atmosphere, where they reflect sunlight. After Mount Pinatubo
erupted in 1991, sulphates reflected enough sunlight to cool the Earth by
0.5C for a year or two. The Nobel Laureate Paul Crutzen suggested in
2006 that it may be possible to inject artificial sulphate particles into the
upper atmosphere – the stratosphere. However, the idea does not
address ocean acidification caused by rising CO2 levels. There may be
side-effects such as acid rain and adverse effects on agriculture.

Creating low clouds over the oceans

Another variation on the theme of increasing the Earth's albedo, or
reflectivity to sunlight, is to pump water vapour into the air to stimulate
cloud formation over the sea. John Latham of the United States National
Centre for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado is working with
Stephen Salter of Edinburgh University and Mike Smith at Leeds to
atomise seawater to produce tiny droplets to form low-level maritime
clouds that cover part of the oceanic surface. The only raw material is
seawater and the process can be quickly turned off. The cloud cover
would only affect the oceans, but still lower global temperatures.

Fertilising the sea with iron filings

This idea arises from the fact that the limiting factor in the multiplication
of phytoplankton – tiny marine plants – is the lack of iron salts in the sea.
When scientists add iron to "dead" areas of the sea, the result is a
phytoplankton bloom which absorbs CO2. The hope is that carbon taken
up by the microscopic plants will sink to deep layers of the ocean, and be
taken out of circulation. Experiments support the idea, but blooms may be
eaten by animals so carbon returns to the atmosphere as CO2.

Mixing the deep water of the ocean

The Earth scientist James Lovelock, working with Chris Rapley of the
Science Museum in London, devised a plan to put giant tubes into the
seas to take surface water rich in dissolved CO2 to lower depths where it
will not surface. The idea is to take CO2 out of the short-term carbon
cycle, cutting the gas in the atmosphere. Critics say it may bring carbon
locked away in the deep ocean to the surface.

Giant mirrors in space

Some scientists suggest it would be possible to deflect sunlight with a
giant mirror or a fleet of small mirrors between the Earth and the Sun.
The scheme would be costly and prompt debate over who controls it.
Many scientists see it as contrary to the idea of working with the Earth's
systems.


http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/climate-scientists-its-time-for-plan-b-1221092.html

_________________
Minds are like parachutes.
They only function when open.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 56, 57, 58  Next
Page 3 of 58

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Theme xand created by spleen.