Alarmists Still Heated Even As World Cools
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Tuesday, November 04, 2008 4:20 PM PT
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=310695037962525
Climate Change: It's been a bad year for global warming alarmists. Record cold periods and snowfalls are occurring around the globe. The hell that the radicals have promised is freezing over.
As the British House of Commons debated a climate-change bill that pledged the United Kingdom to reduce its carbon dioxide emissions by 80% by 2050, London was hit by its first October snow since 1922.
Apparently Mother Nature wasn't paying attention. The British people, however, are paying attention — to reality. A poll found that 60% of them doubt the claims that global warming is both man-made and urgent.
Elsewhere, the Swiss lowlands last month received the most snow for any October since records began. Zurich got 20 centimeters, breaking the record of 14 centimeters set in 1939. Ocala, Fla., experienced its second-lowest October temperature since 1850.
October temperatures fell to record lows in Oregon as well. On Oct. 10, Boise, Idaho, got the earliest snow in its history — 1.7 inches. That beat the old record by seven-tenths of an inch and one day on the calendar.
In the Southern Hemisphere, where winter was winding down, Durban, South Africa, had its coldest September night in history in the middle of the month. Some regions of the country had unusual late-winter snows. A month earlier, New Zealand officials reported that Mount Ruapehu had its largest snow base ever.
At the top of the world, the International Arctic Research Center reported last month, there was 29% more Arctic sea ice this year than last.
None of this matters, of course, to the warming zealots. It doesn't matter if it's too dry or too wet, too hot or too cold. All of it, they say, is caused by global warming.
We believe, however, as do many reputable scientists, that the warming and cooling of the Earth is a natural phenomenon dictated by forces beyond our control, from ocean currents to solar activity.
The latest warming trend, which appears to have ended in 1998, is the result of the end of the Little Ice Age, which extended from roughly the 16th century to the 19th. During that period, Muir Glacier in Alaska filled Glacier Bay. In fact, when the first Russian explorers arrived in Alaska in the 1740s, there was no Glacier Bay — just a wall of ice where the entrance would be.
As the Earth warmed, long before SUVs roamed the globe, Alaska's glaciers also warmed and began to recede, starting in the 1800s. All that may be changing. During the winter and summer of 2007-2008, unusually large amounts of winter snow were followed by unusually cold temperatures in June, July and August.
"In June, I was surprised to see snow still at sea level in Prince William Sound," says U.S. Geological Survey glaciologist Bruce Molnia. "On the Juneau Icefield, there was still 20 feet of new snow on the surface of the Taku Glacier in late July."
It was the worst summer he'd seen in two decades.
As the Anchorage Daily News reports, "Never before in the history of a research project dating back to 1946 had the Juneau Icefield witnessed the kind if snow buildup that came this year. It was similar on a lot of other glaciers too."
It's been "a long time on most glaciers," Molnia says, "where they've actually had positive mass balance." In other words, more snow is falling in the winter than melts in the summer, making the glaciers thicker in the middle.
Glaciers can appear to be shrinking even as they are growing. Photos taken from ships can record receding edges even as mass is building inland. When they get thick enough, the weight forces the glacier to advance.
The U.S. may owe its ascension to a global power on the global warming that began with the end of the Little Ice Age, which almost doomed the American Revolution. George Washington's famous winter at Valley Forge was part of that natural phenomenon.
As the climate warmed from 1800 to 1900, the U.S. tripled in size, spreading westward to straddle a continent. The population of the windy and very cold trading post known as Chicago grew from 4,000 in 1800 to 1.5 million by 1900, sitting on a great lake carved by glaciers long since receded.
Due to a decline in solar activity and other factors, the Earth is cooling and has been since 1998. And a peer-reviewed study published in April by Nature predicts the world will continue cooling at least through 2015.
Now, if only we could get the warming alarmists to face facts and cool it as well.
It seems that the theory that the climate will self-correct is beginning to hold more water.
My guess is that as long as the earth's water remain on earth within the hydrological cycle, the earth will self-cool as temperatures increase. In order for the earth to become permanently warmer, water from earth would have to be lost totally. Eg, get sucked away to outer-space or something.
The other way for the earth to really get heated up I think would be an increase of heat the earth takes in from the sun. Eg. the Sun's intensity increase or maybe we get closer to the sun.
In other words, man-made global warming is a fraud. Anthropogenic factors (specifically industrial ones) have never caused significant change to the climate (unless you include weather-modification technology). Notice how no one is calling it "global warming" nowadays? Its now "climate change". Its as if a threshold has been breached now that the public has lapped up the fraudulent threat of global warming. Now that people are scared, its time to provide the solution elites have been waiting for; a carbon tax (on life), cap-and-trade and all the other Malthusian scams.
While the only plausible reason for any warming, a decade ago, was due to solar activity (warming stopped in 1998- http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/04/09/do0907.xml), today's world is cooling, just like in the post-WWII period up to the 1970s. If so, why is the lie of Global Warming still being perpetrated in society (even accepted as truth)? Does the social consciousness take such a long time to process new information?
By Christopher Booker
Last Updated: 12:01am GMT 16/11/2008
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/11/16/do1610.xml
A surreal scientific blunder last week raised a huge question mark about the temperature records that underpin the worldwide alarm over global warming. On Monday, Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), which is run by Al Gore's chief scientific ally, Dr James Hansen, and is one of four bodies responsible for monitoring global temperatures, announced that last month was the hottest October on record.
This was startling. Across the world there were reports of unseasonal snow and plummeting temperatures last month, from the American Great Plains to China, and from the Alps to New Zealand. China's official news agency reported that Tibet had suffered its "worst snowstorm ever". In the US, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration registered 63 local snowfall records and 115 lowest-ever temperatures for the month, and ranked it as only the 70th-warmest October in 114 years.
So what explained the anomaly? GISS's computerised temperature maps seemed to show readings across a large part of Russia had been up to 10 degrees higher than normal. But when expert readers of the two leading warming-sceptic blogs, Watts Up With That and Climate Audit, began detailed analysis of the GISS data they made an astonishing discovery. The reason for the freak figures was that scores of temperature records from Russia and elsewhere were not based on October readings at all. Figures from the previous month had simply been carried over and repeated two months running.
The error was so glaring that when it was reported on the two blogs - run by the US meteorologist Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre, the Canadian computer analyst who won fame for his expert debunking of the notorious "hockey stick" graph - GISS began hastily revising its figures. This only made the confusion worse because, to compensate for the lowered temperatures in Russia, GISS claimed to have discovered a new "hotspot" in the Arctic - in a month when satellite images were showing Arctic sea-ice recovering so fast from its summer melt that three weeks ago it was 30 per cent more extensive than at the same time last year.
A GISS spokesman lamely explained that the reason for the error in the Russian figures was that they were obtained from another body, and that GISS did not have resources to exercise proper quality control over the data it was supplied with. This is an astonishing admission: the figures published by Dr Hansen's institute are not only one of the four data sets that the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) relies on to promote its case for global warming, but they are the most widely quoted, since they consistently show higher temperatures than the others.
If there is one scientist more responsible than any other for the alarm over global warming it is Dr Hansen, who set the whole scare in train back in 1988 with his testimony to a US Senate committee chaired by Al Gore. Again and again, Dr Hansen has been to the fore in making extreme claims over the dangers of climate change. (He was recently in the news here for supporting the Greenpeace activists acquitted of criminally damaging a coal-fired power station in Kent, on the grounds that the harm done to the planet by a new power station would far outweigh any damage they had done themselves.)
Yet last week's latest episode is far from the first time Dr Hansen's methodology has been called in question. In 2007 he was forced by Mr Watts and Mr McIntyre to revise his published figures for US surface temperatures, to show that the hottest decade of the 20th century was not the 1990s, as he had claimed, but the 1930s.
Another of his close allies is Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC, who recently startled a university audience in Australia by claiming that global temperatures have recently been rising "very much faster" than ever, in front of a graph showing them rising sharply in the past decade. In fact, as many of his audience were aware, they have not been rising in recent years and since 2007 have dropped.
Dr Pachauri, a former railway engineer with no qualifications in climate science, may believe what Dr Hansen tells him. But whether, on the basis of such evidence, it is wise for the world's governments to embark on some of the most costly economic measures ever proposed, to remedy a problem which may actually not exist, is a question which should give us all pause for thought.
Good excuse to dump solar energy stocks?
Is money the only thing that is capable of holding the attention of Singaporeans?
But it sure is a good reason to flip someone off when he rambles into "save the earth" garbage (of course not before explaining the lie to him first). The people that we need to save the earth from is the criminals that are exploiting non-existent global warming and profitting from collective ignorance.
Is money the only thing that is capable of holding the attention of Singaporeans?
If you are in Singapore and you care too much about social and political affairs, you may get into trouble with the state.
So, the only area where people can expand their energy into is through material gain.
This is due to the policy of the PAP regime.
So you fighting against this huge abomination called the PAP etc and to deal with it, we become the same thing we're fighting? Great strategy.
and to deal with it, we become the same thing we're fighting?
What do you mean?
The PAP just wants power, nothing new. And to obtain as much as it, they place the acquisition of power above human concerns, such as the growing income inequality, suffering etc.
But to act like them and place lust for profits, in the process contributing to human suffering, above human concerns? Isn't the typical Singaporean just like the PAP? If we act like them, what gives us the right to criticise them?
"We have to become the change we want to see in the world." -Gandhi
The PAP just wants power, nothing new. And to obtain as much as it, they place the acquisition of power above human concerns, such as the growing income inequality, suffering etc.
But to act like them and place lust for profits, in the process contributing to human suffering, above human concerns? Isn't the typical Singaporean just like the PAP? If we act like them, what gives us the right to criticise them?
I don't know.
Not all are like PAP.
I'm just saying if you put money or power above human concerns, then you're no better than the scums that run this country and the world.
Nothing to say about the fraud of global warming? (Thats just like you, to miss the primary subject to focus on such minute details.)
I try not to be idealistic by thinking that this world is not ruled by money.
I'm just saying if you put money or power above human concerns, then you're no better than the scums that run this country and the world.
Going back on-topic, so does anyone still think global warming is not a bold-faced lie?
Originally posted by freedomclub:Going back on-topic, so does anyone still think global warming is not a bold-faced lie?
It's not necessarily a lie. A very unsubstantiated theory.
It could be that temperatures did raise(or is capable of rising). But I don't recall much research going into whether it was an effect that could be self-correcting.
Also, there has been substantial efforts placed into reduction of greenhouse gases.
Then there was this other theory that global warming was just a natural phenomenon cos the earth was closer to the sun lately. The sun is also noted to have been hotter as well, as similar warning trends were detected in the other planets in our solar system.
It may not be a bold faced lie, or perhaps may not have been intentional.
Wrong time of the year to use this, but "one swallow does not make a summer" applies aptly here. Let's see what happens over the coming years to see if this is winter is an anomaly. It doesn't account for the storms that have been taking place either.
Anyway, it'd be very short-sighted to indulge in energy consumption, because we still have a problem with natural resources, fossil fuels, waste and so on. Products and processes that have fewer greenhouse emissions also use fewer resources. It all ties in and we should still be mindful of our impact on the environment.
Even if global warming is a lie, cutting back on greenhouse gasses also have the effect of reducing our consumption of fossil fuels. I don't really see a harm in that.
What is the harm of preventing developing African nations from using their oil and natural gas reserves? What is the harm of imposing a carbon tax on the already in-recession world? (Perhaps to pay Al Gore's electricity bill?) What is the harm of limiting industrial output if it has no effect on global temperatures, which are presenting falling?
Let me quote from Orwell's Nineteen Nighty-Four:
"In the long run, a hierarchical society was only possible on a basis of poverty and ignorance."
Given that the present so-called climate change is global cooling, not global warming, then why is the prevalent propaganda still focusing on warming? Cutting down on waste is good, but it seems that its only for the serfs of the world. For the establishment elites, its still business as usual.
If the environment was really the concern, if the world really wants to be energy independent, then why isn't anyone saying anything about geothermal energy. In 2006, MIT revealed in a report that the world could extract 4,000 years of geothermal energy. Considering that the earth regenerates is heat, we're talking about unlimited energy. Now, do the establishment really want to tap this energy source and allow our standard of living to rise?
Again, from Orwell:
"For if leisure and security were enjoyed by all alike, the great mass of human beings who are normally stupified by poverty would become literate and would learn to think for themselves; and when once they had done this, they would sooner or later realise that the privileged minority had no function, and they would sweep it away."
Sorry for the late response, had to do a little research.
Well, the African nations are still selling their oil and gas reserves currently, but their country as a whole is still riddled with poverty and violence isn't it? Like the Saudis, the oil and gas reserves are what is helping their government from not listening to their people.
Granted, i don't see the point of a carbon tax. As in the end it still favors the richest because they can afford to be naughty.
Irregardless of whether they cause greenhouse gasses or not , the industrial outputs are still dependant on finite resources. Even if the reserves are misreported, they are still going to run out because Earth can't replenish them at the rate of consumption.
Rather than increase output and let us get used to a lifestyle of more i'd rather we start living as we've less. It's simply prudence.
- If the environment was really the concern, if the world really wants to be energy independent, then why isn't anyone saying anything about geothermal energy. In 2006, MIT revealed in a report that the world could extract 4,000 years of geothermal energy. Considering that the earth regenerates is heat, we're talking about unlimited energy. Now, do the establishment really want to tap this energy source and allow our standard of living to rise?
The problem with this is that you're neglecting EROEI ( Energy returned upon Energy Invested) and how is that power going to distributed.
Iceland has geothermal energy production, but how are you going to transfer excess energy to the rest of Europe? Considering the geological distance? And considering the fact that it has to be next to active volcanic activity how do you ensure your facilities are going to stay intact during an earth quake?
What about regions that do not have easy access to geothermal energy? Say..SEA? How are we to gain access to it?
"For if leisure and security were enjoyed by all alike, the great mass of human beings who are normally stupified by poverty would become literate and would learn to think for themselves; and when once they had done this, they would sooner or later realise that the privileged minority had no function, and they would sweep it away."
America has a pretty impressive concentration of well educated people. I like reading the articles from the sharp minds there.
And yet, their privileged minorities have the greatest power there.
Well, I dont know about EROEI. Do you know whether it would pose a problem? Would you want to go through what MIT reported?
http://geothermal.inel.gov/publications/future_of_geothermal_energy.pdf
Even so, since there is such energy potential in geothermal sources, why are we talking about biofuels when it worsens the food crisis. UN calls it a "crime against humanity". In any mainsteam views on the energy crisis, I never read about geothermal sources. Either my scope is too narrow, or its being covered up.
Either way, I admit cutting down on wastage and increasing energy efficiency is good, I dont like to waste too, but is a lifestyle of prudence going to be for everyone? Or will it only apply if you dont have several houses and can give away 200+ cars at one go (Yeah, I'm pointing at Oprah)?
If a small minority can have so much power, then maybe you should re-think your idea of "educated people".
I know this is getting banal but...
"All the beliefs, habits, tastes, emotions, mental attitudes that characterise our time are really designed to maintain the mystique of the Party and prevent the true nature of present-day society from being perceived." -George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four
Ugh sorry man, don't think i can go through 300 pages worth of stuff during work time. I'd go through it once my home computer gets fixed.
Biofuel from corn is being promoted because of the ethanol lobby in the US. As far as they're concerned, their corn is being sold they don't really care if it's efficient.
But the maths on the EROEI (What i've got from www.theoildrum.com) shows that for every 1 unit of energy put in,only around 1.1-1.2 unit is returned sometimes even negative. Fossil fuels give us around 30+
http://www.abelard.org/briefings/energy-economics.asp#en5
That is the main problem with alternate fuels at the moment. The EROEI is simply too terrible for it to even come close to replacing fossil fuels.
I believe they have a very good reason not to mention it, that it is too difficult to build an entire infrastructure to support geothermal energy on a global scale. The vast majority of countries would not be able to have access to it.
The people in the forum likes to complain that LKY is going senile. But yet he's the only leader that i know that openly acknowledge that biofuels are too inefficient.
Well now, that in lies the dilemma isn't it? Educated is a matter of perspective. And yet the people in this forum continue to believe that the democracy promoted by the Americans as the holy grail for Mankind. When the end result of such a system is obvious to all.
It is not the matter that Democracy itself is flawed, but rather that the humans under the system is flawed. And thus it cannot fulfill its true potential.
I'm not well educated, i hardly passed polytechnic. But from what i can understand from your George Orwell quotes is that he has too optimistic a belief in the goodness of humans.
I lean more towards Han Feizi's Legalism. Because i feel belief in the nobility of the human spirit is more destructive than it is helpful.
Right and they certainly dont care if millions of people in the Third World starve to death due to higher food and fuel prices.
Whatever the case for energy dependence on fossil fuels in the 21st Century, I don't believe that its due to technological inability. There are so many alternatives that would free people from the electric bill such as solar (100% efficient, in time), wind, tidal, wave and of course, geothermal. When Exxon made $14.8 billion, followed by BP's $10 billion, in profits for the 3Q of 2008, you know those people dont want energy independence to be achieved. Any alternatives have to continue making profits for them. Thats where our society has gone wrong, putting money/power above human concerns. And thats why I advocate a humane-oriented society based on the abolishing of the monetary system.
So I assume that for majority of people, they would want to make others suffer if they can profit. Rather than achieve a common good, they would choose to enslave everyone, whether physically, economically or intellectually? Is that your idea of human? Orwell merely helps one to escape from the layers of bullshit semantic deception that pervades society. He believes in language in order to communicate effectively, not to lie. Our leaders dont rule for our own good. Orwell wrote "The object of power is power." Which national leader has the balls to admit that?
I don't usually write like that but... fuck educational qualification. You arent not well-educated just because you "hardly passed polytechnic". Regardless of everything one is, that statement must be the most paralysing of social perceptions ever.
And thats why I advocate a humane-oriented society based on the abolishing of the monetary system.
Your thesis is that money is the root of all evil.
Is that correct?
You are follower of Zeitgeist Movement.
No, money is merely a representation of value and that enabled people to trade when there is scarcity. But today, it is used to enslave and control through debt, through the fractional reserve banking system. Is that not right?
I'm not saying that money is evil, it is the love of money (that perpetrates suffering) that is evil. Since its so socially degenerative, why not think about abolishing it since we have the technological capability to create a society of abundance.
Isnt that self-evident?
I don't agree with this point of view.
It's quite simplistic and sweeping to say that all the problems can be solved by abolishing money.
Here are some criticism of the Zeitgeist Movement:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v