Global Warming Scam Latest

News & Views on All Topics
Post Reply
User avatar
Site Admin
Posts: 8923
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2006 10:46 pm

Now running on UK television......

This is a very slick piece of psychological manipulation, which uses the most advanced tactics of the advertising industry.

It's designed to get the adult viewer to identify with the child in the advert.
The voice of the parent(authority) then becomes the voice of Government.

The objective is to bypass critical faculties and use emotion(not reason) and the simple storyboard to hammer a message into the unconscious.
<iframe id="ytplayer" type="text/html" width="640" height="360" src="" frameborder="0"></iframe>
Worst. Climate. Campaign. Ever.

October 09, 2009

The UK government has decided to convince us all that climate change is real. To this end it is spending £6 million on a prime time advertising campaign featuring a father reading a bedtime story about the evil carbon dioxide monster created by grown ups which is making rabbits cry.

In perhaps the worst advert for stopping climate change I&#8217;ve ever seen, the cringe worthy short has the father telling his child how scientists found that global warming &#8220;was being caused by too much CO2, and it was the children of the land who&#8217;d have to live with the horrible consequences&#8221;.

When the child asks plaintively &#8220;is there a happy ending?&#8221; a disembodied voice proclaims, &#8220;It&#8217;s up to us how the story ends.&#8221;

Well in that case I want Al Gore to ride in on an IPCC dragon and slay the carbon monster with his sword of Inconvenient Truth.

The UK&#8217;s Department of Energy and Climate Change says a recent poll found less than 20% of citizens think climate change will impact their children. ... _ever.html
Minds are like parachutes.
They only function when open.
User avatar
Posts: 3861
Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2006 5:32 am

<iframe id="ytplayer" type="text/html" width="640" height="360" src="" frameborder="0"></iframe>
User avatar
Posts: 2620
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 3:09 pm

Thanks atm - and thanks Fintan for pointing out the corruption and selling-out of 'science'.

NWO crap plays so well on semi-literate drugged minds.

NWO propaganda(aka 'education') programs in North America and northern europe have resulted in a semi-literate populace that is totally disconnected from the natural order of things and from all common sense and reasoning ability.
User avatar
Site Admin
Posts: 8923
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2006 10:46 pm

Great find ATM, on the video rebuttal to the "Scawy Monster" BS. :lol:

I cross posted it on WattsUpWithThat Link
Minds are like parachutes.
They only function when open.
User avatar
Site Admin
Posts: 8923
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2006 10:46 pm

&#8220;Possibly some people in the BBC have worked out
that the whole shooting match will collapse
and they had better be ahead of the game.&#8221;

-- Piers Corbyn from Weatheraction

The BBC are now hedging their bets on Global Warming.
This tells you that the climate change crew are seriously worried
that Mother Nature may prove them and their media apologists
to be alarmists.

Time for a bit of ass-covering. :lol: :lol:

What happened to global warming?

By Paul Hudson - Climate correspondent, BBC News

This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.

But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.

And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise.

So what on Earth is going on?

Climate change sceptics, who passionately and consistently argue that man's influence on our climate is overstated, say they saw it coming.

They argue that there are natural cycles, over which we have no control, that dictate how warm the planet is. But what is the evidence for this?

During the last few decades of the 20th Century, our planet did warm quickly.

Sceptics argue that the warming we observed was down to the energy from the Sun increasing. After all 98% of the Earth's warmth comes from the Sun.

But research conducted two years ago, and published by the Royal Society, seemed to rule out solar influences.

The scientists' main approach was simple: to look at solar output and cosmic ray intensity over the last 30-40 years, and compare those trends with the graph for global average surface temperature.

And the results were clear. "Warming in the last 20 to 40 years can't have been caused by solar activity," said Dr Piers Forster from Leeds University, a leading contributor to this year's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

But one solar scientist Piers Corbyn from Weatheraction, a company specialising in long range weather forecasting, disagrees.

He claims that solar charged particles impact us far more than is currently accepted, so much so he says that they are almost entirely responsible for what happens to global temperatures.

He is so excited by what he has discovered that he plans to tell the international scientific community at a conference in London at the end of the month.

If proved correct, this could revolutionise the whole subject.

Ocean cycles

What is really interesting at the moment is what is happening to our oceans. They are the Earth's great heat stores.

According to research conducted by Professor Don Easterbrook from Western Washington University last November, the oceans and global temperatures are correlated.

The oceans, he says, have a cycle in which they warm and cool cyclically. The most important one is the Pacific decadal oscillation (PDO).

For much of the 1980s and 1990s, it was in a positive cycle, that means warmer than average. And observations have revealed that global temperatures were warm too.

But in the last few years it has been losing its warmth and has recently started to cool down.

These cycles in the past have lasted for nearly 30 years.

So could global temperatures follow? The global cooling from 1945 to 1977 coincided with one of these cold Pacific cycles.

Professor Easterbrook says: "The PDO cool mode has replaced the warm mode in the Pacific Ocean, virtually assuring us of about 30 years of global cooling."

So what does it all mean? Climate change sceptics argue that this is evidence that they have been right all along.

They say there are so many other natural causes for warming and cooling, that even if man is warming the planet, it is a small part compared with nature.

But those scientists who are equally passionate about man's influence on global warming argue that their science is solid.

The UK Met Office's Hadley Centre, responsible for future climate predictions, says it incorporates solar variation and ocean cycles into its climate models, and that they are nothing new.

In fact, the centre says they are just two of the whole host of known factors that influence global temperatures - all of which are accounted for by its models.

In addition, say Met Office scientists, temperatures have never increased in a straight line, and there will always be periods of slower warming, or even temporary cooling.

What is crucial, they say, is the long-term trend in global temperatures. And that, according to the Met office data, is clearly up.

To confuse the issue even further, last month Mojib Latif, a member of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) says that we may indeed be in a period of cooling worldwide temperatures that could last another 10-20 years.

Professor Latif is based at the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at Kiel University in Germany and is one of the world's top climate modellers.

But he makes it clear that he has not become a sceptic; he believes that this cooling will be temporary, before the overwhelming force of man-made global warming reasserts itself.

So what can we expect in the next few years?

Both sides have very different forecasts. The Met Office says that warming is set to resume quickly and strongly.

It predicts that from 2010 to 2015 at least half the years will be hotter than the current hottest year on record (1998).

Sceptics disagree. They insist it is unlikely that temperatures will reach the dizzy heights of 1998 until 2030 at the earliest. It is possible, they say, that because of ocean and solar cycles a period of global cooling is more likely.

One thing is for sure. It seems the debate about what is causing global warming is far from over. Indeed some would say it is hotting up.
The BBC article above is however still trying to hold the line on the
pretence that the sun is not a cliamte driver.

By the way, here's their red-faced admission from a related
BBC blog entry:
2) Did the models predict that temperatures would level off?

None of the climate models suggested that global temperatures would not rise any further for at least another 10 years, which is what we have observed. The Hadley Centre model does incorporate ocean cycles. But that doesn't alter the fact that the models did not predict this. So the question must be, will it/has it captured the negative PDO that some scientists say will last for the next 20 odd years - and if it hasn't, why hasn't it? I also know that the Met Office are currently conducting research into why temperatures have levelled off/fallen from their peak. ... icle.shtml
Other media nave noticed the
shifting position of the BBC....

Sceptics welcome BBC report on 'global cooling'

Climate change sceptics have welcomed a &#8220;surprise&#8221; BBC decision to
give prominence to evidence from leading scientists that there could
be 30 years of &#8220;global cooling&#8221;.

By Richard Savill -7:00AM BST 12 Oct 2009

Under the headline `Whatever happened to Global Warming?&#8217;, the BBC has reported that the warmest year recorded globally was 1998, and for the last 11 years no increase in global temperatures has been observed.

The report by the BBC climate correspondent, Paul Hudson, which provoked a strong debate on the Corporation&#8217;s website, quotes a climatologist as saying there could be 30 years of cooling due to the falling temperatures of the oceans.

Last night, one solar scientist, Piers Corbyn from Weatheraction, a company specialising in long range weather forecasting, said: &#8220;It is interesting the BBC is prepared to tolerate him (Hudson) writing these things.

&#8220;It is a surprise &#8211; a welcome one - that the BBC has put it as bluntly as they have. More often than not they (the BBC) put forward the brainwashing views of CO2-driven, man-made climate change.

&#8220;Possibly some people in the BBC have worked out that the whole shooting match will collapse and they had better be ahead of the game.&#8221;

Mr Corbyn is due to put forward his view that solar charged particles &#8220;impact us far more than is currently accepted&#8221; to the international scientific community at a conference in London later this month.

He said climate change was a &#8220;weapon of mass taxation.&#8221;

&#8220;All the political parties want to use climate change as an excuse to raise taxes," he added. "Also it is a tactic for the Western powers to control the world energy supply.&#8221;

The BBC report quotes Prof Don Easterbrook from Western Washington University as saying the oceans and global temperatures are correlated.

The oceans have a cycle in which they warm and cool cyclically. The most important is the Pacific decadal oscillation (PDO), he added.

He said in the last few years it has been losing its warmth and has recently started to cool down.

&#8220;The PDO cool mode has replaced the warm mode in the Pacific Ocean, virtually assuring us of about 30 years of global cooling,&#8221; Prof Easterbrook was quoted as saying.

Some reader comments on the BBC's website said the broadcaster had made a "U-turn" over its readiness to acknowledge the views of scientists who believe cooling is here to stay.

However the BBC said: &#8220;We have always reported a range of views and this article is no different.

"The point the article is making is that views about climate change are hotly contested. To characterise this as some sort of change in position is simply wrong.&#8221;
Meanwhile in the US, Denver
feels Winter's first chill....

Early winter arrival with record lows and snow

October 12, 11:32 AM - Baltimore Weather ExaminerTony Pann

There is a lot of support for the Global Cooling crowd this week as signs of winter have arrived across parts of the nation.

This morning Minneapolis took it on the chin with a forecast of 2-4 inches of snow and falling temperatures. This just a day after the Twins lost their post season bid to the Yankees. That pales in comparison to nearly 17 inches of snow in parts of Nebraska. Meanwhile, rain was developing in the south in what made the weather map look a lot more like December. While we have not yet had our first frost, temperatures have dipped into the 30s in western Maryland this morning.

Denver is known for wacky weather, but it was what they had over the weekend was a bit extreme even for them. They shared in 87 new record lows set this weekend. About 2 inches of snow fell, but a bitter chill forced the postponement of the baseball playoff game with the Phillies on Saturday, after setting the record coldest 'maximum' temperature at 26F and the coldest October 10th in 104 years. It warmed up a little for Sunday night's game, which turned out th be the coldest professional baseball game ever played with a temperature that dropped to 27F in Denver at midnight.

The outlook for cold and snow in Denver and Minneapolis is important to us, because it lays the foundation for the cold air that will be heading our way. This week will feature an arctic air mass sliding into Maryland, and another storm along an active split jet stream. As it looks now, it will build in a chill rain for the end of the week, but establish a pattern that may last most of this month. See more in the slide show below. for the first look at the winter weather outlook, click here. I will gather more outlooks and share them here. Personally, I am in line with a colder than normal winter with above normal snowfall. So if you heard the BGE expectation for lower utility bills reported last month, I don't see where they gathered a warm winter forecast from. Perhaps in the northern plains it will be above normal, but by no stretch will it be warm.
Scientists see signs of global cooling

Monday, 21 September 2009

TERRI JACKSON - Director, Independent Climate Research Group, Bangor

The four major global temperature-tracking outlets (Hadley UK, NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, University of Alabama-Huntsville and Remote Sensing Systems, Santa Rosa) have released updated information showing 2007 global cooling, ranging from 0.65C to 0.75C, a value which is large enough to erase nearly all the global-warming recorded over the last 100 years. This occurred in a single year (click

In addition, the alarm of some people over the Arctic ice-caps is misplaced. In the Arctic, some 10 million square kilometres of sea ice melts each summer. Each September, the Arctic starts to freeze again.

The extent of the ice now is 500,000 sq km greater than it was this time last year, which was in turn 500,000 sq km more than in September 2007.

By April next year, after months of darkness, it will be back up to 14m sq km or more.

As regards Antartica and Greenland, most of their ice sheets are growing, rather than shrinking.
Minds are like parachutes.
They only function when open.
User avatar
Posts: 3265
Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2006 10:46 pm
Location: Capacious Creek

Mother Nature is telling the NWO to fuck off.
Don't mess with her, she can get pretty cold.

Glad to know she's on our side
but wish she'd let up a bit up here.
Send some of it down to Texas!
Spread the wealth!
User avatar
Posts: 2620
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 3:09 pm

The NWO criminals are well aware that 'global warming' is a hoax that they have been able to make the sheeple believe - in order to pick their pockets for $$zillions and limit their freedom.

The fact that they have changed the mantra from"global warming" to "climate change" hardly matters to their overall plan: the sheeple still accept it (that there is something seriously worng, that we are all in danger unless the government saves us) without question or investigation.

Criminal Mario Barosi's recent statements cite "climate change".
User avatar
Posts: 2620
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 3:09 pm

Barroso (sorry for spelling error)
Posts: 141
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2006 7:31 am
Location: UK

An inconvenient journalist

As the holes in the arguments about climate change start to look bigger than the one in the ozone layer, it's interesting to see how the professional activists have reacted.

And, as usual when it comes to liberals being challenged on their orthodoxy, they react with fury.

Irish journalist Phelim McAleer has made a delightful habit of seriously pissing these people off.

His movie Mine Your Own Business, for instance, drove environmentalists mad when he exposed their hypocrisy and lies about mining and his latest flick, Not Evil, Just Wrong has taken the climate change zealots to task.

An expert contrarian, McAleer hit the news last week when he attended the premiere of the propaganda film The Age Of Stupid, which condemns those who use air travel.

He asked Gillian Anderson how she got to New York for the premiere. The answer? She flew, of course, but justified it on the basis that she was, um, flying to the movie launch because it was important to highlight the dangers of, er, flying.

It's exactly the kind of fuzzy logic we have come to expect from these people, and now McAleer has managed to annoy the Grand High Priest of the movement, Al Gore.

Gore rarely takes questions from the press, because he is afraid of being exposed, but McAleer managed to make it into a press conference the other day and asked Gore a question.

The response? His microphone was immediately turned off and he was hustled out.

There's a moral to this story, children: freedom of speech exists -- but only as long as they

source: ... 12468.html
User avatar
Site Admin
Posts: 8923
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2006 10:46 pm

October Snow Cover Worst In Six Years
20% of USA is covered in snow already

In ten or twenty or thirty years it&#8217;s going to get really warm&#8230;

Really. It is. Just wait.

Meanwhile our projection for an accelerating icy grip is looking good.
Just on 20% of the US is now covered in snow in an early start to
this year's winter:
And the mid-October snow cover over the US
is at it's highest level in six years:
On Friday, up to 1 foot of snow fell at higher elevations in Wyoming,
from a surface low which moved across the Plains. This same system
produced up to 1 1/2 feet of snow in Nebraska. More fell across the
southern Dakotas, Upper Midwest and western Great Lakes.

More here.

Meanwhile, even as the US Midwest wraps up warm, the Global Warming
fanatics are still planning how cities can cope with higher sea levels by means
of houses on stilts, among other ideas.
Somebody should tell them the Sun is not on their side. It continues to be
extremely quiet. This satellite snapshot of a spotless Sun is from today,
October 14:
It's well past time the global warming nuts connected the record dips in
temperature with the concurrent dips in sunspot activity. According to :

&#8220;Today, the sun is entering its 13th consecutive day without
sunspots. Just a few years ago, such a stretch of blank suns would have
been unthinkable. Now it's routine. So far this year, the sun has been
spotless 79% of the time, topping the 73% mark recorded in 2008.

Long after many forecasters thought solar minimum would be finished,
the quiet is not only continuing, but actually deepening.
Are sunspots gone for good?

CBC News has a very good report on the solar link to Earth temperature:
<embed src=" ... od/DHU74v1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="509" height="416">
We've already reported on the BBC's attempt to cover it's ass on
the actual cooling trend. Now despite the determination of the lunatics
to commandeer the asylum, the UK Daily Mail is the latest mainstream
newspaper to attempt to deal with climate realities:
Whatever happened to global warming?
How freezing temperatures are starting
to shatter climate change theory.

By Daily Mail Reporter - 7:21 PM on 13th October 2009

In the freezing foothills of Montana, a distinctly bitter blast of revolution hangs in the air.

And while the residents of the icy city of Missoula can stave off the -10C chill with thermals and fires, there may be no easy remedy for the wintry snap&#8217;s repercussions.

The temperature has shattered a 36-year record. Further into the heartlands of America, the city of Billings registered -12C on Sunday, breaking the 1959 barrier of -5C.

Closer to home, Austria is today seeing its earliest snowfall in history with 30 to 40 centimetres already predicted in the mountains.

Such dramatic falls in temperatures provide superficial evidence for those who doubt that the world is threatened by climate change.

But most pertinent of all, of course, are the growing volume of statistics.

According to the National Climatic Data Centre, Earth&#8217;s hottest recorded year was 1998.

If you put the same question to NASA, scientists will say it was 1934, followed by 1998. The next three runner-ups are 1921, 2006 and 1931.

Which all blows a rather large hole in the argument that the earth is hurtling towards an inescapable heat death prompted by man&#8217;s abuse of the environment.

Indeed, some experts believe we should forget global warming and turn our attention to an entirely differently phenomenon &#8211; global cooling.....


Minds are like parachutes.
They only function when open.
User avatar
Posts: 2620
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 3:09 pm

People have become so disconnected from nature (aka common sense) that they fail to understand that 'climate change' is perfectly natural and normal and has been going on continuously since the creation of the planet. Perhaps we need to take a look at this very basic ignorance.
Posts: 554
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 5:18 pm
Location: western pennsylvania

so you think the GW people are just going away?
someone needs to hit this guy with a hockey stick :) ... %27_moment

Without Drastic CO2 Cuts Immediately, the World Faces a Massive 'Oh Shit' Moment

By Mark Hertsgaard, The Nation. Posted October 15, 2009.

A frightening new climate change study says the United States must eliminate its enormous rate of carbon emission within ten years.

Editor's Note: This is the kickoff to a series of pieces as a Copenhagen Primer about climate change that we will be running in the lead up to the international climate talks in Copenhagen beginning on December 7. Stay tuned.

They say that everyone who finally gets it about climate change has an "Oh, shit" moment -- an instant when the full scientific implications become clear and they suddenly realize what a horrifically dangerous situation humanity has created for itself. Listening to the speeches, ground-breaking in their way, that President Obama and Chinese President Hu Jintao delivered September 22 at the UN Summit on Climate Change, I was reminded of my most recent "Oh, shit" moment. It came in July, courtesy of the chief climate adviser to the German government. Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, chair of an advisory council known by its German acronym, WBGU, is a physicist whose specialty, fittingly enough, is chaos theory. Speaking to an invitation-only conference at New Mexico's Santa Fe Institute, Schellnhuber divulged the findings of a study so new he had not yet briefed Chancellor Angela Merkel about it. The study, Solving the Climate Dilemma: The Budget Approach, has now been published here. If its conclusions are correct -- and Schellnhuber ranks among the world's half-dozen most eminent climate scientists -- it has monumental implications for the pivotal meeting in December in Copenhagen, where world leaders will try to agree on reversing global warming.

Schellnhuber and his WBGU colleagues go a giant step beyond the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the UN body whose scientific reports are constrained because the world's governments must approve their contents. The IPCC says that by 2020 rich industrial countries must cut emissions 25 to 40 percent (compared with 1990) if the world is to have a fair chance of avoiding catastrophic climate change. By contrast, the WBGU study says the United States must cut emissions 100 percent by 2020 -- in other words, quit carbon entirely within ten years. Germany and other industrial nations must do the same by 2025 to 2030. China only has until 2035, and the world as a whole must be carbon free by 2050. The study adds that big polluters can delay their day of reckoning by "buying" emissions rights from developing countries, a step the study estimates would extend some countries' deadlines by a decade or so.

Needless to say, this timetable is light-years more demanding than what the world's major governments are talking about in the run-up to Copenhagen. The European Union has pledged 20 percent reductions by 2020, which it will increase to 30 percent if others -- i.e., the United States -- do the same. Japan's new prime minister likewise has promised 25 percent reductions by 2020 if others do the same. Obama didn't mention a number, but the Waxman-Markey bill, which he supports, would deliver less than 5 percent reductions by 2020. Obama's silence -- doubtless a function of the fact that Republicans are implacably opposed to serious emissions cuts -- allowed Hu to claim the higher ground at the UN. Hu went further than any Chinese leader has before, pledging to curb greenhouse gas emissions growth by a "notable margin" by 2020. Obama dropped his own bombshell, however, urging that all G-20 governments phase out subsidies for fossil fuels. "The time we have to reverse this tide is running out," Obama declared. Alas, the WBGU study suggests that our time is in fact all but gone.

G-8 leaders agreed in July to limit the global temperature rise to 2 degrees C (3.6 F) above the pre-industrial level at which human civilization developed. Schellnhuber, addressing the Santa Fe conference, joked that the G-8 leaders agreed to the 2C limit "probably because they don't know what it means." In fact, even the "brutal" timeline of the WBGU study, Schellnhuber cautioned, would not guarantee staying within the 2 C target. It would merely give humanity a two out of three chance of doing so -- "worse odds than Russian roulette," he wryly noted. "But it is the best we can do." To have a three out of four chance, countries would have to quit carbon even sooner. Likewise, we could wait another decade or so to halt all greenhouse emissions, but this lowers the odds of hitting the 2 C target to fifty-fifty. "What kind of precautionary principle is that?" Schellnhuber asked.

There is a fundamental political assumption underlying the WBGU study: that the right to emit greenhouse gases is shared equally by all people on earth. Known in diplomatic circles as "the per capita principle," this approach has long been insisted upon by China and most other developing countries and thus is seen as essential to an agreement in Copenhagen, though among G-8 leaders only Merkel has endorsed it
. The WBGU study applies the per capita principle to the world population of 7 billion people and arrives at an annual emissions quota of 2.8 tons of carbon dioxide per person. That's harsh news for Americans, who emit twenty tons per person annually, and it explains why the US deadline is the most imminent. But China won't welcome this study either. China's combination of high annual emissions and huge population gives it a deadline only a few years later than Europe's and Japan's.

"I myself was terrified when I saw these numbers," Schellnhuber told me. He urges governments to agree in Copenhagen to launch "a Green Apollo Project." Like John Kennedy's pledge to land a man on the moon in ten years, a global Green Apollo Project would aim to put leading economies on a trajectory of zero carbon emissions within ten years. Combined with carbon trading with low-emissions countries, Schellnhuber says, such a "wartime mobilization" might still save us from the worst impacts of climate change. The alternative is more and more "Oh, shit" moments for all of us.

Mark Hertsgaard, a fellow of The Open Society Institute, is The Nation magazine's environment correspondent. His new book, Living Through the Storm: How Our Children Can Survive the Next 50 Years of Climate Change, is forthcoming from Houghton Mifflin.
Birth is the first example of " thinking outside the box"
Post Reply