The Great Global Warming Swindle

[dutchdivco]

Political correctness

There is, and probably always has been a kind of 'political correctness' in academia, and probably always will be.Saw a video, awhile back, by the guy who played the principle in "Ferris Buelers day off". He's actually got a degree in economics, and is very intelligent, just makes his living as an actor.
Anyway, can't recall his name, or the name of the video.In he he shows how cellular biologists, behind closed doors, all agree that what they are seeing, when they look at how cells are designed and operate, leads them to 1 unescapable conclusion. That they are constructed/designed like a very well designed and efficient factory.And that this could not have happened as a result of evolution; that there had to be an 'intelligent designer'.
However, if any of these scientists says this outside of behind closed doors, or references it in a paper, they get ostracised. Their papers aren't published, they don't achieve tenure, etc.
We see similar tactics of discrediting used against anyone who dares to question Global Warming. It would be nice to assume academic research would be free of bias, unfortunately it just ain't so, and probably never will be.
After all, if I made my name in the acedemic community, bu putting forth a theory that established me in my career, etc. Now I am tenured, and a 'giant' in my profession. And a lowly student or newly degreed professor puts out a paper refuting my 30+ years of work, I'm supposed to embrace it?
Also saw an interview with a guy who wrote a book about the recent financial crises.Again, sorry, can't remember his name, or the book title.
His focus was on the role of the acedemics in economics.How while in a teaching (professorship) at major Universities like Harvard, they were writing and publishing papers at the behest of special interests, for a LOT of $, and that were clearly wrong.He gives an example of an economics professor at Harvard Business school, that wrote an article (for over $100,000) that said Icelands economy had turned the corner.It was 'commissioned' by the iceland Chamber of Commerce, and widely distributed.About 3 mos. later, Icelands economy went in the toilet.
Anyway, this author was making a big deal of this, trying to 'sound the alarm', that academia is being 'bought' by special interests, and that we must do something about it.
My thinking was this is nothing new, been going on for a long time.To think that academia is unbiased, and free from outside influence or coruption, is naive.Just as there is no 'unbiased' news reporting, there is no 'unbiased' acedemic research.We all see the world thru our own 'world view', and that can't help but 'bias' our conclusions.It is human nature. Not saying we shouldn't strive for unbiased, just saying we are never going to get there.Jim

[Farmhand]

Back to climate propaganda,

Sea levels could rise a metre by 2100

There is much opposition to the carbon tax here. It appears the Gov. has employed someone to ramp up the perceived threat.

Fear mongering. For money. If things don't appear to be going thier way they ramp up the propaganda and fear.

Cheers

[john_g]

Skeptics meet Warmists at Cambridge

There was a meeting/presentation at Cambridge about AGW, this I think is a great quote:

The Met's principle research scientist John Mitchell told us:

"People underestimate the power of models. Observational evidence is not very useful," adding, "Our approach is not entirely empirical."



More at:

Would putting all the climate scientists in a room solve global warming... • The Register

[Peter Lindemann]

Poppycock Regurgitated

Hi Folks,

Well, Professor Jones and the clique at the CRU are at it again, pushing statistics over the data. he is now claiming "statistically significant warming" during the period 1995 - 2010, a period of known and established cooling.

BBC News - Global warming since 1995 'now significant'

Read it and weep!

Peter

[sucahyo]

http://www-pm.larc.nasa.gov/sass/pub...s_JAMC2006.pdf

The observation of the transformation of aircraft contrails to cirrus clouds has been reported repeatedly

At about 1100 LT (1500 UTC) on 7 September 2003 the lead author noticed a series of contrails apparently emanating from some point to the southwest of his residence in Silver Spring, Maryland. Some of these had already been converted to cirrus uncinus with fallstreaks and others were being transformed as he watched.

Various authors find that contrail-generated cirrus such as reported here contribute to net regional warming.

Although most investigators favor the finding that contrail cirrus produce atmospheric warming on regional scales in the United States and Europe, the impact on global warming is still in the noise. Should aircraft activity increase as projected, the global effects would become significant by 2050.

I think some of you already notice that some plane are making trail that eventually cover all the sky with cloud.

If you believe in chemtrail, then consider chemtrail also as part of global warming realization.

If you don't believe in chemtrail, I hope you still hate seeing the sky being covered with man made cloud. Even if contrail is something happen naturally by jet engine, I would still want the sky to be clear from man made cloud. Especially if it make our life uncomfortable.

Sun is essential for us. Important for your solar cell or solar heater or just to dry your laundry. Lack of sun can reduce health of plants or crop too.

[elias]

BBC is a great propaganda machine.

[blackchisel97]

Carbon credits may be awarded for camel cull..

independent.co.uk | Jun 10, 2011
By Kathy Marks in Sydney

Australia has come up with a way of killing two birds with one stone. Or rather, killing one camel and tackling climate change. The government is considering a scheme that would see “carbon credits” awarded for culling the methane-belching ruminants that roam the outback.

Imported in the 19th century to help Europeans explore the vast, arid continent, and turned loose in the 1920s, the feral camels are considered a major pest. Now it turns out that they not only compete with native animals for food and water, trample vegetation and damage fences – they also make a hefty contribution to Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions.

Each camel discharges 45kg of methane – equivalent to one tonne of carbon dioxide – every year. With more than million of them in the wild, and their numbers predicted to double every nine years, that represents a lot of climate-changing gas.

Under a plan being mulled by the government, the killing of camels would be officially registered as a means of cutting national emissions. People who helped to reduce the camel population would earn carbon credits, which they could then sell to industrial polluters seeking to offset their own emissions.

The idea was conceived by an Adelaide-based company, Northwest Carbon, which proposes to shoot camels from helicopters, or round them up and send them to abattoirs to be converted into meat for humans or pets.

Who's next

V

[sucahyo]

This may already posted before.
Global Warming Supercharged by Water Vapor

Water vapor has much bigger influence than CO2, newer jet engine designed to burn at lower temperature and produce more water vapour, the "con"trails created by the jet has become more easily created on any atmospheric condition, the trails then create low grade man made cirrus cloud that proven by scientific data to increase temperature.

I think we should ask government to tax plane with high trails history. We should ask government to regulate trails of jet plane. Government must be able to limit the number of persistent contrails occurence to the minimum to not aid global warming, if they really care.

[NickZ]

Sucahyo and All:
The other concern is what is the real purpose of these Chemtrails.
Their purpose is to be used as a reflector for scalar waves emitted both by satellite as well as earth station emitters, like Haarp, or the huge Russian Tesla coils facilities. Their effects are used for Mind Control of the population etz... that is even worse than the warming of the atmosphere. These things are already been used by the military to control the "enemy", Us.

[thepatrickblack]

I don't totally understand the perspective that the Earth is warming on its own. Because those people also acknowledge that Carbon Dioxide is a green house gass, just that it's not the single or even the largest contributor. Even if that was true, would it not still be prudent to lessen our impact on our demise, even by a little bit? People needs to start talking about comprehensive energy plans. System wide thinking. Better Energy Plan

[Peter Lindemann]

More Climate Spin from the BBC

Hi Folks,

Here is the latest climate spin from Richard Black, the BBC "Environment Correspondent". He now says that the earth has cooled recently because China is burning so much coal! This is some of the most "creative writing" I have ever seen. And to think that this guy gets paid to write this drivel!

BBC News - Global warming lull down to China's coal growth

Peter

[ashtweth]

Guys this is a proven fuel additive(EPA certified) thats already used in smoke stacks and coal places to reduce pollution.
http://nextlevel.goxft.com/files/library/XFT_TESTS.pdf

Why is there a carbon tax and not a subsidy TO USE THIS to reduce emissions IN REAL TIME?

Whole thing is bogus even for a solution based on bunk science. We might do some graphs and a video on this.

Ash

[Farmhand]

independent.co.uk | Jun 10, 2011
By Kathy Marks in Sydney

Australia has come up with a way of killing two birds with one stone. Or rather, killing one camel and tackling climate change. The government is considering a scheme that would see “carbon credits” awarded for culling the methane-belching ruminants that roam the outback.

Imported in the 19th century to help Europeans explore the vast, arid continent, and turned loose in the 1920s, the feral camels are considered a major pest. Now it turns out that they not only compete with native animals for food and water, trample vegetation and damage fences – they also make a hefty contribution to Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions.

Each camel discharges 45kg of methane – equivalent to one tonne of carbon dioxide – every year. With more than million of them in the wild, and their numbers predicted to double every nine years, that represents a lot of climate-changing gas.

Under a plan being mulled by the government, the killing of camels would be officially registered as a means of cutting national emissions. People who helped to reduce the camel population would earn carbon credits, which they could then sell to industrial polluters seeking to offset their own emissions.

The idea was conceived by an Adelaide-based company, Northwest Carbon, which proposes to shoot camels from helicopters, or round them up and send them to abattoirs to be converted into meat for humans or pets.

Who's next

V

Yes thats deplorable, but they are a problem for the outback the climate change link is just the opportunistic nature of people. I don't agree with the shooting from helicopters, that is done with feral pigs and horses or was. Not nice to watch, they count the tally by the rounds used and record misses. It's very wastefull.

The camels weather we like it or not are there, they should be used to feed the hungry at the very least, and the hungry should participate to help with the work if possible.

To waste them from choppers defy's logic. But that is the mentality when money is the driving factor, it is sad. Very sad.

[ashtweth]

The following short Carbon Tax video is probably one of the best evidence based summaries to prove that the carbon tax is to transfer wealth to the obscenely rich

Carbon Tax

This one is good guys, please spread

Ash

[ashtweth]

T.L. Cardwell is a qualified individual who has spent 25 years in the Electricity Commission of NSW Australia working, commissioning and operating the various power units. The last was the 4 X 350 MW Munmorah Power Stations near Newcastle in Australia. Mr Cardwell is one of he many qualified observers who can provide facts to support the reality that "junk" science is being used to impose this transfer of wealth.

There have been many untruths about carbon dioxide emissions, thermal coal fired power stations and renewable energy and the ridiculous Emissions Trading Scheme. The following explanation is a brilliant short and simple way to understand the redundancy of the emissions Trading Scheme.There is much frustration in Australia at the lies told (particularly during the election) about global pollution. Using Power Station cooling towers for an example. The condensation coming from those cooling towers is as pure as that comes out of any kettle.Frustration about the so-called incorrectly named man-made 'carbon emissions' which of course is Carbon Dioxide emissions and what it is supposedly doing to our planet.Frustration about the lies told about renewable energy and the deliberate distortion of renewable energy and its ability to replace fossil fuel energy generation. And frustration at the ridiculous carbon credit programme which is beyond comprehension.And further frustration at some members of the public who have not got a clue about thermal Power Stations or Renewable Energy. Quoting ridiculous figures about something they clearly have little or no knowledge of.

First coal fired power stations do NOT send 60 to 70% of the energy up the chimney. The boilers of modern power station are 96% efficient and the exhaust heat is captured by the economisers and reheaters that heat the air and water before entering the boilers.The very slight amount exiting the stack is moist as in condensation and CO2. There is virtually no fly ash because this is removed by the precipitators or bagging plant that are 99.98% efficient. The 4% lost is heat through boiler wall convection.Coal-fired Power Stations are highly efficient with very little heat loss and can generate a massive amount of energy for our needs. They can generate power at efficiency of less than 10,000 b.t.u. per kilowatt and cost-wise that is very low.The percentage cost of mining and freight is very low. The total cost of fuel is 8% of total generation cost and does NOT constitute a major production cost.

As for being laughed out of the country, China is building multitudes of coal-fired power stations because they are the most efficient for bulk power generation.We have, like, the USA , coal-fired power stations because we HAVE the raw materials and are VERY fortunate to have them. Believe me no one is laughing at Australia - exactly the reverse, they are very envious of our raw materials and independence.The major percentage of power in Europe and U..K. is nuclear because they don't have the coal supply for the future.Yes it would be very nice to have clean, quiet, cheap energy in bulk supply. Everyone agrees that it would be ideal. You don't have to be a genius to work that out. But there is only one problem---It doesn't exist.Yes - there are wind and solar generators being built all over the world but they only add a small amount to the overall power demand.The maximum size wind generator is 3 Megawatts, which can rarely be attained on a continuous basis because it requires substantial forces of wind. And for the same reason only generate when there is sufficient wind to drive them. This of course depends where they are located but usually they only run for 45% -65% of the time, mostly well below maximum capacity.

They cannot be relied on for a 'base load' because they are too variable. And they certainly could not be used for load control.The peak load demand for electricity in Australia is approximately 50,000 Megawatts and only small part of this comes from the Snowy Hydro Electric System (the ultimate power Generation) because it is only available when water is there from snow melt or rain. And yes, they can pump it back but it costs to do that. (Long Story).

Tasmania is very fortunate in that they have mostly hydro-electric generation because of their high amounts of snow and rainfall. They also have wind generators (located in the roaring forties) but that is only a small amount of total power generated.Based on an average generating output of 1.5 megawatts (of unreliable power) you would require over 33,300 wind generators.As for solar power generation much research has been done over the decades and there are two types.Solar thermal generation and Solar Electric generation but in each case they cannot generate large amounts of electricity.Any clean, cheap energy is obviously welcomed but they would NEVER have the capability of replacing Thermal Power Generation. So get your heads out of the clouds, do some basic mathematics and look at the facts, - not going off with the fairies (or some would say the extreme greenies.)We are all greenies in one form or another and care very much about our planet. The difference is most of us are realistic. Not in some idyllic utopia where everything can be made perfect by standing around holding a banner and being a general pain in the backside.

Here are some facts that will show how ridiculous this financial madness is that the government is following. Do the simple maths and see for yourselves.According to the 'believers' the CO2 in air has risen from .034% to ..038% in air over the last 50 years.To put the percentage of Carbon Dioxide in air in a clearer perspective;If you had a room 12 ft x 12 ft x 7 ft or 3.7 mtrs x 3..7 mtrs x 2.1 mtrs, the area carbon dioxide would occupy in that room would be .25m x ..25m x ...17m or the size of a large packet of cereal.

Australia emits 1% of the world's total carbon Dioxide and the government wants to reduce this by 20% or reduce emissions by 0.2 % of the world's total CO2 emissions.What effect will this have on existing CO2 levels? By their own figures they state the CO2 in air has risen from .034% to ..038% in 50 years.Assuming this is correct, the world CO2 has increased in 50 years by ....004%.Per year that is .004 divided by 50 = ...00008%. (Getting confusing -but stay with me).Of that because we only contribute 1% our emissions would cause CO2 to rise ..00008 divided by 100 = ..0000008%. Of that 1%, we supposedly emit, the governments wants to reduce it by 20% which is 1/5th of .0000008 = ..00000016% effect per year they would have on the world CO2 emissions based on their own figures.That would equate to an area in the same room, as the size of a small pin.For that they have gone crazy with the ridiculous trading schemes, Solar and Roofing Installations, Clean Coal Technology, Renewable Energy, etc, etc.How ridiculous it that? The cost to the general public and industry will be enormous. Cripple and even closing some smaller businesses.T.L. Cardwell
Global Warming Proparganda