Tagged: global warming RSS Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • ancavge 1:41 am on August 30, 2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , global warming, , , , north pole, polar bears, , sceptics   

    Al Gore likens climate change sceptics to racists – Telegraph.

     
  • ancavge 2:47 pm on October 5, 2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: 10:10, , , , blow up, , , , , , , , , , , eco, eco-campaigners, , global warming, , , , , Piers Corbyn, , ,   

    Cut CO2 or we’ll blow up your kids: 10:10 climate change ad shock 

    Appearing to blow up schoolchildren in front of their classmates is an unlikely way of trying to convince people to reduce pollution. But when British eco-campaigners tried to put comedy into cutting carbon – the joke backfired badly. It is tongue-in-cheek, but some of the scenes you’ll see are a quite gory. It was created on behalf of the Ten-Ten environmental campaign, to spur people into reducing their carbon emissions by ten per cent. British Meteorologist Piers Corbyn told RT that environmentalists are hitting new depths.

     
  • ancavge 4:54 pm on September 9, 2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , Copenhagen summit, global warming, ,   

    After a Year of Setbacks, U.N. Looks to Take Charge of World’s Agenda 

    link to story:

    After a Year of Setbacks, U.N. Looks to Take Charge of World’s Agenda.

     
  • ancavge 7:18 pm on August 31, 2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , , , , , global warming, , , , , , , ,   

    Climate Change: A Failed Attempt To Establish “Scientific Dictatorship” 

    link to story:

    Climate Change: A Failed Attempt To Establish “Scientific Dictatorship”.

     
  • ancavge 6:17 pm on March 2, 2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , , , , , , global warming, , , ,   

    Climategate professor Phil Jones admits sending ‘pretty awful emails’ | Mail Online.

     
  • ancavge 7:22 pm on March 1, 2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , , global population, global warming, , lower, , , , TED,   

    Bill Gates: Use Vaccines To Lower Population 

    Paul Joseph Watson
    Prison Planet.com
    Monday, March 1, 2010

    Microsoft founder Bill Gates told a recent TED conference, an organization which is sponsored by one of the largest toxic waste polluters on the planet, that vaccines need to be used to reduce world population figures in order to solve global warming and lower CO2 emissions.

    Stating that the global population was heading towards 9 billion, Gates said, “If we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services (abortion), we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 per cent.”

    Quite how an improvement in health care and vaccines that supposedly save lives would lead to a lowering in global population is an oxymoron, unless Gates is referring to vaccines that sterilize people, which is precisely the same method advocated in White House science advisor John P. Holdren’s 1977 textbook Ecoscience, which calls for a dictatorial “planetary regime” to enforce draconian measures of population reduction via all manner of oppressive techniques, including sterilization.

    “I’m not sure what the nothing-to-see-here explanation is for Bill Gates’ theory that “new vaccines” can help lower the population of the world,” points out the Cryptogon blog, “But I thought about the incidents from the 1990s where the World Health Organization was providing a “tetanus vaccine” to poor girls and women (and just poor girls and women) that contained human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG). For those who don’t want to delve into that, in short, it was a World Health Organization experiment; a test of a vaccine against pregnancy.”

    After presenting an equation that included the number of people on the planet and CO2 emissions, Gates said, “Probably one of these numbers is going to get pretty near to zero.”

    Later in the presentation, Gates mentions picking a vaccine, “which is something I love,” that would be used to lower global CO2 emissions.

    He also advocates pouring more money into the global warming scam by way of the United Nations, as well as a “CO2 tax” and cap and trade, while making it clear that the developed world would have to reduce its living standards by cutting back on essential services that generate CO2.

    Gates said that a 20 per cent reduction in CO2 emissions was necessary by 2020, a 50 per cent reduction by 2050, and ultimately that there had to be zero CO2 emissions globally, a measure that would completely reverse hundreds of years of technological progress and return man to the agrarian age, all in the name of preventing an alleged miniscule temperature increase that has been proven to be based on fraudulent data models in light of the Climategate scandal.

    One of Gates’ proposals for reducing CO2 emissions is the use of biofuels, which as a new report highlights, has resulted in millions of acres of forests being destroyed, which ultimately means a net increase in CO2 emissions from biofuels when compared to fossil fuels, not to mention the massive devastation caused to wildlife.

    As we have documented, a CO2 reduction of 50-80 per cent, not to mention 100 per cent, would inflict a new great depression in the United States, reducing GDP by 6.9 percent – a figure comparable with the economic meltdown of 1929 and 1930.

    Additionally, the “post-industrial revolution” being proposed by Gates and his ilk would lead to massive job losses.

    The implementation of so-called “green jobs” in other countries has devastated economies and cost millions of jobs. As the Seattle Times reported back in June, Spain’s staggering unemployment rate of over 18 per cent was partly down to massive job losses as a result of attempts to replace existing industry with wind farms and other forms of alternative energy.

    In a so-called “green economy,” “Each new job entails the loss of 2.2 other jobs that are either lost or not created in other industries because of the political allocation — sub-optimum in terms of economic efficiency — of capital,” states the report.

    The fact that Gates would be so open in his call to use vaccines to lower global population (without a word as to the human rights considerations), probably has a lot to do with the audience attending his speech.

    The TED organization admits that it is elitist, “in a good way,” and charges a whopping $6,000 dollars membership fee which must be paid by conference attendees. TED also charges nearly $1,000 just for its live conference web stream. The organization’s sponsors include IBM and military-industrial complex kingpin General Electric, which has a notorious history of environmental misdeeds, being ranked fourth-largest corporate producer of air pollution in the United States, with more than 4.4 million pounds per year (2,000 Tonnes) of toxic chemicals released into the air. GE is also a major contributor to the toxic waste problem, rendering its sponsorship of an organization that claims to be seeking solutions to environmental problems completely hypocritical.

    Watch Gates’ speech below.

    URL to article: http://www.infowars.com/bill-gates-use-vaccines-to-lower-population/

     
  • ancavge 12:52 am on February 27, 2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , , , climate scientists, , , , cold winter, , , freeze, global warming, , greenhouse gas emissions, , theories of global warming,   

    Scientists examine causes for lull in warming 

    Reuters
    February 26, 2010

    Climate scientists must do more to work out how exceptionally cold winters or a dip in world temperatures fit their theories of global warming, if they are to persuade an increasingly sceptical public.

    At stake is public belief that greenhouse gas emissions are warming the planet, and political momentum to act as governments struggle to agree a climate treaty which could direct trillions of dollars into renewable energy, away from fossil fuels.

    Public conviction of global warming’s risks may have been undermined by an error in a U.N. panel report exaggerating the pace of melt of Himalayan glaciers and by the disclosure of hacked emails revealing scientists sniping at sceptics, who leapt on these as evidence of data fixing.

    Scientists said they must explain better how a freezing winter this year in parts of the northern hemisphere and a break in a rising trend in global temperatures since 1998 can happen when heat-trapping gases are pouring into the atmosphere.

    Read entire article

    URL to article: http://www.infowars.com/scientists-examine-causes-for-lull-in-warming/

     
    • Cognog2 7:13 am on February 28, 2010 Permalink | Reply

      Anthony,
      A Question of Logic. [Could this go some way to an explanation?]

      May I raise the following questions for the scientists to resolve?

      Does the IPCC definition of ‘Forcing Flux’ comply with the Laws of Thermodynamics?

      [This may be found at the IPCC site WG1 AR4 2007 report. Page 133 Chap.2.2]
      Quote:- “Ramaswamy et al. (2001) define it as ‘the change in net (down minus up) irradiance (solar plus longwave; in W m–-2) at the tropopause after allowing for stratospheric temperatures to readjust to radiative equilibrium, but with surface and tropospheric temperatures and state held fixed at the unperturbed values’.” [My bold emphasis]

      My engineering student notes, confirmed by the textbooks that: ‘An energy flux crossing a boundary always resulted in a change of state in the recipient system’

      The question may appear pedantic; but in fact it is not only vital to the ensuing logic but appears to have caused considerable confusion within the scientific community and the political scene. This mainly by rendering this forcing as a constant in its own right rather than as a variable consequent upon ‘changes of state‘.

      The first indication of this confusion occurs when attempt is made to insert this Forcing into the Stefan-Botzmann equation; for there is nowhere to put it without invalidly increasing solar insolation.

      The second quirk in the logic is evident in the use of a calculated value for this Forcing [3.405 W.m-2.] to then go on to produce a ‘change of state’, namely temperature, contrary to the definition.

      The third problem which arises is how to reduce this constant over time to enable a credible equilibrium result.
      Here the IPCC invokes the Bode equation which appears to have little connection with the complexities of the climate but does give a basis of assumption for prediction.
      The validity of this assumption, of course is very much open to question. Particularly as Control System Design and Simulation textbooks all give a different interpretation.

      This last aspect is a subjective judgement but does have a remarkable influence on the final prediction [by a factor of 10] it definitely needs resolution.

      I ask these questions as my own calculations, following the IPCC’s (dubious?) logic and data without challenge, except for substituting the Textbook ‘multiplier’ function, produce a predicted temperature rise of a mere 0.3 oC which corresponds to the Stefan result.

      Can anyone out there explain, deny or ultimately resolve these issues?
      [References available on request]

    • Cognog2 7:20 am on February 28, 2010 Permalink | Reply

      Anthony,
      A Question of Logic.

      May I raise the following questions with the scientists?

      Does the IPCC definition of ‘Forcing Flux’ comply with the Laws of Thermodynamics?

      [This may be found at the IPCC site WG1 AR4 2007 report. Page 133 Chap.2.2]
      Quote:- “Ramaswamy et al. (2001) define it as ‘the change in net (down minus up) irradiance (solar plus longwave; in W m–-2) at the tropopause after allowing for stratospheric temperatures to readjust to radiative equilibrium, but with surface and tropospheric temperatures and state held fixed at the unperturbed values’.” [My bold emphasis]

      My engineering student notes, confirmed by the textbooks that: ‘An energy flux crossing a boundary always resulted in a change of state in the recipient system’

      The question may appear pedantic; but in fact it is not only vital to the ensuing logic but appears to have caused considerable confusion within the scientific community and the political scene. This mainly by rendering this forcing as a constant in its own right rather than as a variable consequent upon ‘changes of state‘.

      The first indication of this confusion occurs when attempt is made to insert this Forcing into the Stefan-Botzmann equation; for there is nowhere to put it without invalidly increasing solar insolation.

      The second quirk in the logic is evident in the use of a calculated value for this Forcing [3.405 W.m-2.] to then go on to produce a ‘change of state’, namely temperature, contrary to the definition.

      The third problem which arises is how to reduce this constant over time to enable a credible equilibrium result.
      Here the IPCC invokes the Bode equation which appears to have little connection with the complexities of the climate but does give a basis of assumption for prediction.
      The validity of this assumption, of course is very much open to question. Particularly as Control System Design and Simulation textbooks all give a different interpretation.

      This last aspect is a subjective judgement but does have a remarkable influence on the final prediction [by a factor of 10] it definitely needs resolution.

      I ask these questions as my own calculations, following the IPCC’s (dubious?) logic and data without challenge, except for substituting the Textbook ‘multiplier’ function, produce a predicted temperature rise of a mere 0.3 oC which corresponds to the Stefan result.

      Can anyone out there explain, deny or ultimately resolve these issues?
      Perhaps this could explain some of the current anomalies.

  • ancavge 12:47 am on February 27, 2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: 1895, , , , global warming, , , , U.S. Data, ,   

    U.S. Data Since 1895 Fail To Show Warming Trend 

    PHILIP SHABECOFF
    The New York Times
    February 26, 2010

    After examining climate data extending back nearly 100 years, a team of Government scientists has concluded that there has been no significant change in average temperatures or rainfall in the United States over that entire period.

    While the nation’s weather in individual years or even for periods of years has been hotter or cooler and drier or wetter than in other periods, the new study shows that over the last century there has been no trend in one direction or another.

    The study, made by scientists for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration was published in the current issue of Geophysical Research Letters. It is based on temperature and precipitation readings taken at weather stations around the country from 1895 to 1987.

    Read entire article

    URL to article: http://www.infowars.com/u-s-data-since-1895-fail-to-show-warming-trend/

     
  • ancavge 12:37 am on February 27, 2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , global warming, USA Weekend   

    Beck’s Failure To Retract Global Warming Advocacy Provokes Online Firestorm 

    Paul Joseph Watson
    Prison Planet.com
    Friday, February 26, 2010

    Glenn Beck has failed to respond to a firestorm of reaction to his comments made during a February 21st interview with USA Weekend magazine in which he completely reversed his position on climate change by revealing that he believed in man-made global warming.

    As we reported earlier this week, Beck appeared to stab his conservative audience in the back when he told USA Weekend magazine that man-made climate change was occurring in an article entitled Don’t judge Beck by his cover.

    In the article, Beck tells interviewer Dennis McCafferty, “You’d be an idiot not to notice the temperature change.”

    “He also says there’s a legit case that global warming has, at least in part, been caused by mankind,” writes McCafferty, under the sub headline, “He believes in global warming.”

    “The blogosphere is on fire with reaction to McCafferty’s USA Weekend piece,” according to World Net Daily’s Chelsea Schilling, who pointed out that posters on the prominent conservative forum Free Republic were furious at Beck for seemingly performing a huge flip-flop on the issue.

    “Seems like the rose-colored glasses are beginning to fall off those who used to view Mr. Beck with good approval?” wrote one.

    “OK, final straw for Beck with me,” added another.

    “When an unflattering quote comes out about someone, anyone, they all say, “I was misquoted.” Everyone does it. The people who were actually misquoted take legal action if a retraction/correction isn’t printed. In fact, that’s why newspapers print retractions/corrections. If Beck doesn’t sue USA Weekend, then it tells me his protestations ring hollow,” writes another.

    Other respondents said they thought the article was a hit piece and that Beck’s comments on global warming had been misreported. However, Beck’s reaction to the controversy suggests otherwise.

    Following the outcry, Beck responded by accusing McCafferty of inventing four of the ten things attributed to him in the article, but since Beck made no mention whatsoever of it, we can only assume that his global warming comment wasn’t one of them.

    “Beck had plenty of criticism of the USA Weekend story… he didn’t raise any objections to the article’s portrayal of his environmental views,” remarks Mother Jones’s Kate Sheppard.

    Since Beck changes his tune every time the wind blows (he was for the bailout before he was against it), we can only assume that increasing suspicion from conservatives over his global warming comments will force Beck to back peddle and issue some form of retraction.

    However, for some this will only confirm the fact that Beck is a shill and a performing circus clown who cries on cue while hoodwinking millions of conservatives into supporting policies which represent the antithesis of true conservatism, like a national sales tax (an idea also embraced by Nancy Pelosi), while attacking people who espouse real conservative principles without constantly flip-flopping, like Congressman Ron Paul and his supporters, who he smeared as potential terrorists.

    URL to article: http://www.infowars.com/becks-failure-to-retract-global-warming-advocacy-provokes-online-firestorm/

     
  • ancavge 6:56 pm on February 24, 2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , , global warming,   

    Energy Update

    Posted using ShareThis

     
c
compose new post
j
next post/next comment
k
previous post/previous comment
r
reply
e
edit
o
show/hide comments
t
go to top
l
go to login
h
show/hide help
shift + esc
cancel
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.