The Great Global Warming Swindle

[Tecstatic]

I just found that "The Cloud Mystery" and "Henrik Svensmark on Global Warming" seems to be two uploads of the same movie, with the start of the movie omitted from the "Henrik Svensmark on Global Warming"

At least two persons found this movie worth an upload

Maybe its the same tactic as on scribd, where there is many uploads of the same documents. Then it is more dififcult to suppress if the document keeps popping up with slightly modified titles, and maybe even different checksums to make automated rejection difficult also.

Eric

[dave_cahoon]

Cooler

Here, This summer has been the COOLEST, in living memory. Period.
Upper Midwest USA.

Dave

[dave_cahoon]

August FROST

Hi there group,

Its late August in lower Michigan and we have frost.

IF climate change is a coming? AND,
IF GW is a LIE than what is really coming?

Debunkers?

June was a freak month, with freak tree response.
and then it was followed by,
July as a freak month.
And then we got a freak,
August!
Next month all will be normal?
Right...
Its just freaks of nature one on top of the other
Nothing to see here people just move along ??????

Dave

[Kingman]

Frost in August

Hi Dave, I too live in lower Michigan and want to also confirm that I had frost here as well. I would have never thought we would see frost in August. Michigan's growing season just keeps getting shorter. Forget about planting a garden in April any more and now you have to be concerned about planting in the month of May!
GW= No Way Mini Ice Age= Way

Kingman

[jibbguy]

Hmm, after an abnormally cold winter (which we heard about above several times), apparently the Pacific Northwest has had an abnormally HOT summer (so it's only fair we hear about that here, too ).....

Heat Wave Engulfs Pacific Northwest - ABC News

Record Heat, Surprise Tornadoes: Wild Weather From Coast To Coast - ABC News

Climate change is not about local climate, it is about global changes in weather patterns on a planet-wide scale. What causes it is a fair enough debate. But can we get past the local issues? Because i guarantee you for every locally abnormally cold area, i can trot out an abnormally hot one somewhere else

There is no large body of scientific data yet to suggest a mini ice age; and there is the empirical data of glaciers and permafrost melt (which would be the greatest in at least 10,000 years if not 10 times that) to PROVE BEYOND DOUBT there is a current warming trend.

This is kinda interesting: Recently i downloaded and installed "Microsoft Worldwide Telescope" because i wanted to see their landscapes of Mars, which someone claimed showed artifacts on the Mars surface (i could find no such evidence, but it is a vast surface to scour at high res).

I looked at their "Earth" scape too (..basicly this is a competitor to Google Earth and Google Sky), and it showed NO north pole icecap at all, lol. I am sure this not true (YET), but it is an interesting thought problem. What will happen to the Planet if/when there is no permanent ice cap at the North Pole?

Considerations:

> Albedo

> Ocean currents cooled and powered by polar temps

> Ocean salinity

Since the North polar ice is already floating it is not a water rising issue specifically (...although the Greenland glaciers obviously would be, up to 10 meters of rise in 100 years is the one of the more conservative estimates).

[Shamus]

That's all well and good, but where's the science?

It seems that the Greenies are all into hardsell, facts be damned (emphasis is mine) :

Leipold’s admission that Greenpeace issued misleading information is a major embarrassment to the organization, which often has been accused of alarmism but has always insisted that it applies full scientific rigor in its global-warming pronouncements.

Although he admitted Greenpeace had released inaccurate but alarming information, Leipold defended the organization’s practice of “emotionalizing issues” in order to bring the public around to its way of thinking and alter public opinion.

Leipold said later in the BBC interview that there is an urgent need for the suppression of economic growth in the United States and around the world. He said annual growth rates of 3 percent to 8 percent cannot continue without serious consequences for the climate.

I suppose the ends justify the means, but is it science or is it Science?

Ice Capades: Greenpeace recants polar ice claim, but “emotionalizing” is OK « Watts Up With That?

[Peter Lindemann]

Yes, Let's Be Fair

Jibbguy,

Your points are well taken. I live in Spokane, in the Pacific Northwest, and yes, this summer has been warmer than average, and yes, Seattle did have a few days of record heat near the end of July. But all in all, this summer has not been oppressively hot. Two summers back (2007) we had a record string of six weeks in a row of day-time temperatures in the upper 90's and low 100's. This had never happened before in Spokane. Last summer was simply gorgeous, with temperatures hovering in the mid-80's most of the time. This summer has had more hotter days, but mostly in the upper 80's and low 90's. This is completely within the "normal swing" of temperatures on record.

What has been a bit odd is that there has been more rain than usual, and these storms have usually been followed by a 20 degree drop in temperatures for a day or two, and then bouncing back up to the mid to upper 80's. One of these little cold fronts passed through here a few days ago, and the folks reporting on the weather at the local TV stations have been commenting on it as unusual.

So, while the general temperatures this summer have been about 7 degrees above the year-on-year average, the extra rain and the large swings in temperature have made this summer quite different than most I have seen here.

I agree with Jibbguy that the conditions reported in any single year do not create a trend. But still, these local conditions are worth reporting.

When the climate in northwestern Europe transitioned from the "Medieval Warm Period" to the beginning of what became the "Little Ice Age", the first thing that happened is that the weather became erratic, with more rain and less predictable growing seasons. It took decades before the general downward trend of temperatures was noticeable. Even then, it took over 300 years for the temperature trend to bottom out.

The climate in many areas of the planet is changing. This is an observable fact. This is also true of local weather conditions. No one here is debating these things. The questions are: WHY are these changes occurring, and how fast are these changes compounding?

To date, the computer modeling is not sufficiently developed to tell us. All we really have is our collective ability to observe and report what we see and our willingness to communicate and cooperate with each other as the changes happen.

Peter

[jibbguy]

Shamus, i would agree with you about the overstatements; because imo they really do exist on both sides of this issue.

I am not in agreement with most of the more "rabid" global warming existence supporters (lol you gotta add the "existence" part, because who is really "for" GW lol?).. In that i have seen that they are not really interested in talking about urban sprawl temperatures as being additive and a significant factor for the higher temps... And to me, they obviously are... And should serve as an excellent argument against those who claim Man "cannot" change the climate.

In fact, as we saw above in one of those movies, BOTH SIDES appear to be mainly ignoring the urban sprawl heat issue.. Interesting, no?

I have theories on this: Like it is not helpful to the cause of CO2 emission caps to admit it does exist. And that the whole concept of CO2 legislation is a deliberate attempt to KILL actually doing anything of worth about it, creating so much polarization that:

> It could never pass Congress in the first place in any form that would be actually effective... The anti-tax peeps will have a field day on it, and the trans-national corporations would spend so much money fighting it that in the end it would look like hitler suggested it personally... Lol, likely it will be turned into just another way for the big corporations to have unfair competitive advantages over their smaller and start-up competitors.

> Once the debate reached peak spilkus and distaste for everyone involved, and whether it passed or not in any form, nothing else of meaning against pollution would happen for the rest of the Obama administration (if not longer).

As soon as the Healthcare issue is over in the U.S. , this issue of CO2 Caps will "heat-up" next, so to speak

So imo, it is a deliberate attempt to APPEAR to do something, while insuring NOTHING of any importance actually gets done (one of Washington's favorite tricks).

Now the vast majority of those supporting it do not realize this is all a ploy. Nor do the majority of those on the other side: That is absolutely key to using Polarization as a means of control in an "open" society... Those being controlled cannot realize they are being manipulated... They must go on believing they have real "choice" and an actual say in policy... Otherwise, like half a dozen political parties in our distant past, these two facade Parties are soon "History" too...

And the one thing "they" are SURE of, is they would not like what replaces them

[ashtweth]

The U.S. Geological Survey has released the results of a long-term study of key glaciers in western North America, reporting this month that glacial shrinkage is rapid and accelerating and a result of climate change.

Shrinking Bylot Island glaciers tell story of climate change (9/5/2009)

[sucahyo]

Sorry if this video already been posted before:
Climate Catastrophe Cancelled: What You're Not Being Told

[blackchisel97]

Is this appriopriate for this thread?

If not, I'll remove it. Just found it and wanted to share...

Copied from WorldNetDaily | Oct 6, 2009

By Jerome R. Corsi

What is clear from the record going back over nearly four decades is that White House science czar John Holdren is a climate alarmist, even if he can’t make up his mind whether the crisis is the Earth warming up or cooling down.

But long before Holdren was the global warming Cassandra he is today, he was a global cooling alarmist predicting a new ice age.

The only consistency seems to be that Holdren has always utilized climate hysteria to argue that government must mandate public policy measures to prevent imminent and otherwise unavoidable climate catastrophes.

In the 1970s, Holdren’s theme was that government-mandated population control was essential to prevent “eco-disasters” such as the foreseen coming new ice age; today Holdren urges immediate passage of the Obama administration’s proposed cap-and-trade legislation to control carbon emissions before it is too late to save the planet from global warming.

The new ice age Holdren predicted in the 1970s failed to materialize, just as WND has reported an increasing number of scientists are discounting claims mankind has significant influence on global climate.

Still, Holdren remains a climate alarmist, now with an important government policy position as science czar in the Obama White House.

WND has obtained a copy of a college textbook Holdren co-edited with Malthusian population alarmist Paul R. Ehrlich in 1971, entitled “Global Ecology,” now a rare out-of-print book that cost WND over $100 to buy on Amazon.

Warning the world was headed for a new ice age unless the government mandated urgent measures to control population, including the possibility of involuntary birth control measures such as forced sterilizations, Holdren predicted “ecocide” or the “destruction of all life on this planet” were a possible consequence of inaction.

In an essay contained in the textbook entitled “Overpopulation and the Potential for Ecocide,” Holden and Ehrlich predicted on pages 76-77 a “world cooling trend” they estimated at measuring “about 2 degrees Celsius in the world mean surface temperature over the past century.”

Holdren and Ehrlich attributed the cause of global cooling to “a reduced transparency of the atmosphere to incoming light as a result of urban air pollutions (smoke, aerosols), agriculture air pollution (dust), and volcanic oil.” (Parenthesis in original text.)

The authors worried “a mere 1 percent increase in low cloud cover would decrease the surface temperature by .8?C” and that “a decrease of 4?C would probably be sufficient to cause another ice age.”

Holdren and Ehrlich warned, “The effects of a new ice age on agriculture and the supportability of large populations scarcely need elaboration here.”

They continued: “Even more dramatic results are possible, however; for instance, a sudden outward slumping in the Antarctic ice cap, induced by added weight, could generate a tidal wave of proportions unprecedented in recorded history.”

The authors then predicted global cooling could “give way to global warming,” writing: “If man survives the comparatively short-term threat of making the planet too cold, there is every indication he is quite capable of making it too warm not long thereafter.”

Why? Because overpopulation would lead to increased energy consumption and energy consumption would produce more heat, the authors argued.

Holdren and Ehrlich explained, “The present rate of increase in energy use, if continued, will bring us in about a century to the point where our heat input could have drastic global consequences. Again, the exact form such consequences might take is unknown; the melting of the icecaps with a concomitant 150 foot increase in sea level might be one of them.”

Interestingly, Holdren predicted the “short-term” nature of a coming new ice age was not caused by increased population putting increased carbon dioxide greenhouse gas into the atmosphere, but simply because of the heat output of energy use itself.

As Zomblog commented, when first reporting on Holdren’s ice age prediction: “In other words, it’s not the greenhouse effect that will get us in the long run, but merely energy generation itself as a concept; even nuclear energy, which produces no greenhouse gases, is bad because it produces energy which inevitably becomes heat.”

Holdren and Ehrlich conclude their essay predictably, by calling for population control: “Simple arithmetic makes it plain that indefinite population growth in the finite space allotted to us is impossible.”

As the title of the essay suggests, among the possible costs of not controlling climate disaster caused by overpopulation is “ecocide,” or “the destruction of all life on this planet.”

In the first essay in the reader, entitled “Population and Panaceas,” Holdren and Ehrlich wrote on page 21 of the textbook: “But it cannot be emphasized enough that if the population control measures are not initiated immediately and effectively, all the technology man can bring to bear will not fend off the misery to come.”

And, again, on the same page: “We should ask, for example, how many vasectomies could be performed by a program funded with the $1.8 billion required to build a single agro-industrial complex, and what the relative impact on the problem would be in both the short and long terms.”

Later, on page 210 in the reader, reacting to a paper published in the textbook that considered involuntary fertility control including the use of a “fertility control agent” placed in the water supply by the government to limit births and compulsory sterilization of men with three or more living children, Holdren and Ehrlich say the political acceptability of such techniques is a relative moral judgment that might be justified if the alternatives involved “famine, war, epidemic, or the loss of habitability of this planet.”

But in recent years, Holdren has dropped his concern about a new ice age in deference to his alarmism over global warming.

Holdren, testifying to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Technology July 30, warned of the following: “The air and the oceans are warming, mountain glaciers are disappearing, sea ice is shrinking, permafrost is thawing, the great land ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica are showing signs of instability, and sea level is rising.”

His testimony continued to enumerate dire human consequences he foresaw if new public policy measures such as cap-and-trade were not enacted immediately.

“And the consequences for human well-being are already being felt: more heat waves, floods, droughts, and wildfires; tropical diseases reaching into the temperate zones; vast areas of forest destroyed by pest outbreaks linked to warming; alterations in patterns of rainfall on which agriculture depends; and coastal property increasingly at risk from the surging seas.”

Holdren believes human-produced carbon dioxide is the No. 1 culprit: “We know the primary cause of these perils beyond any reasonable doubt. It is the emission of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping pollutants from our factories, our vehicles, and our power plants, and from use of our land in ways that move carbon from soils and vegetation into the atmosphere in the form of CO2.”

He warned of the failure to act now.

“Devastating increases in the power of the strongest hurricanes, sharp drops in the productivity of farms and ocean fisheries, a dramatic acceleration of species extinctions, and inundation of low-lying areas by rising sea level are among the possible outcomes.”

Holdren’s current concerns about global warming led him to contribute data for charts used in Vice President Al Gore’s 2006 Oscar-winning documentary “An Inconvenient Truth.”

Gore’s movie does not entertain the possibility that instead of global warming, the Earth might instead experience a new ice age.


Vtech

[TRON]

Sunspot Activity

Jibbguy,

Your points are well taken. I live in Spokane, in the Pacific Northwest, and yes, this summer has been warmer than average, and yes, Seattle did have a few days of record heat near the end of July. But all in all, this summer has not been oppressively hot. Two summers back (2007) we had a record string of six weeks in a row of day-time temperatures in the upper 90's and low 100's. This had never happened before in Spokane. Last summer was simply gorgeous, with temperatures hovering in the mid-80's most of the time. This summer has had more hotter days, but mostly in the upper 80's and low 90's. This is completely within the "normal swing" of temperatures on record.

What has been a bit odd is that there has been more rain than usual, and these storms have usually been followed by a 20 degree drop in temperatures for a day or two, and then bouncing back up to the mid to upper 80's. One of these little cold fronts passed through here a few days ago, and the folks reporting on the weather at the local TV stations have been commenting on it as unusual.

So, while the general temperatures this summer have been about 7 degrees above the year-on-year average, the extra rain and the large swings in temperature have made this summer quite different than most I have seen here.

I agree with Jibbguy that the conditions reported in any single year do not create a trend. But still, these local conditions are worth reporting.

When the climate in northwestern Europe transitioned from the "Medieval Warm Period" to the beginning of what became the "Little Ice Age", the first thing that happened is that the weather became erratic, with more rain and less predictable growing seasons. It took decades before the general downward trend of temperatures was noticeable. Even then, it took over 300 years for the temperature trend to bottom out.

The climate in many areas of the planet is changing. This is an observable fact. This is also true of local weather conditions. No one here is debating these things. The questions are: WHY are these changes occurring, and how fast are these changes compounding?

To date, the computer modeling is not sufficiently developed to tell us. All we really have is our collective ability to observe and report what we see and our willingness to communicate and cooperate with each other as the changes happen.

Peter

@jibguy
Climate is affected MORE by sunspots than by CO2
@all
Please view The Gorilla Has Spoken go to "top blogs" and see my article on the FALSE HOOD of HIGW (human induced global warming) we are in a cycle and we CANNOT and MUST not develop freedom restricting and wealth stealing legislation on JUNK SCIENCE.
I call it that because NO PROGRAMMER anywhere can model a robust self healing reactive climate with all the variables such as humidity, wind strength, wind direction, cloud cover, tree respiration, ocean evaporation , lake evaporation, altitude, solar flares, cooling effect of rain, fog, ocean currents... and the list goes on.

THESE GLOBAL INDUCED ENVIRONMENTALIST WACKOS assume a lot:
they assume that there is a consensus among real scientists
they assume there is a way to average global temperatures
they assume that a computer model with limited data input can forecast an event
they assume the sun has no effect
they assume that CO2 is harmful to the earth
they assume that climate can be defined by the faulty concept of global average temperature... with no additional parameters
and they assume that THERE IS NO CREATOR IN CONTROL OF UNIVERSAL EVENTS (THE GOD IS DEAD CROWD)
they believe that man is powerful enough to destroy a fragile earth that has no regulatory positive feedback systems built in.
We who support good environmental stewardship, and who believe that the earth was created by a designer with our future events in mind, do not think the world will end, one of the reasons is that scripture speaks of events at the end of time involving people, if the global warming supporters are left to their runaway imaginations, then there would be no people left on the earth... we very well cant have a judgement day of people who are living... if there are no people living!

thats only one judeo-christian spiritual angle... what about the belief in hinduisms reincarnation? where would all the souls go if there were no animals or people's bodies for these wandering souls to inhabit?
no, my friends... the simple fact that is apparent here is that a group of bankers decided to come up with a plan to levy more taxes, so they paid a bunch of unethical scientists to write a report that had an outcome they were willing to pay for, then a researcher made a mistake and said incorrectly that there was 100% consensus, then the idiot news media took off with it, because bad news sells! and on we go with the "march of the morons"

Good science is based on observation, not consensus

NASA has confirmed that cloud cover and CO2 gases are actually doing the reverse of what the GW freaks say its doing... during high sun spot activity, the clouds act to cool the earth and VS VSA.

additionally, the absorption rate of infrared heat by CO2 is logarithmic... it is initially high but tends to taper off to a flat line where no more heat can be added.

The old levels of 270 Parts PEr Million of CO2 have changed recently to around 370 PPM. thats not a lot, and not really that much... we wont get much more than that , and even of it doubles to 800 PPM the result will be an increase in plant growth on the planet 0f 35%... thats good for the food chain..
I could go on, but i think im done for now

check my site for more info.

CREATION SCIENCE RULES!

[john_g]

I Love CO2

Hi

I came across the site below, which may be of interest. He has written to G Brown in the UK saying the science is flawed and why. If you look through his pages he has some very clear explanations about the science and the corruption of science.

He has presented evidence at a few hearing related to climate change and CO2, and he has said that he will do some talks in the UK - I will keep you posted.

ABOUT

[Peter Lindemann]

"What Happened to Global Warming?" from the BBC

Hi Folks,

Here's an article that just appeared at the BBC. Enjoy.

BBC NEWS | Science & Environment | What happened to global warming?

I think this article sums up the situation pretty well.

Peter

[Bit's-n-Bytes]

Global Warming -- Not here!

Hi Folks,


I think this article sums up the situation pretty well.

Peter

Woke up this morning to this. I don't think global warming is in my neck of the woods.