The pattern here, is all too familiar. First we had Al Gore preaching to elementary kids his “An Inconvenient Truth,” based, he claimed, on solid, accepted, scientific evidence. The “truth,” as he put it forth had to do with the relationship of CO2 and global warming, among other things. It didn’t take long for “truth” to be revealed as a fairy tale, having little if any scientific basis. But his book and film are still quoted by environmentalists, and accepted by many as scientific truth.
Then we had the “hacker revelations” from the U.K.'s East Anglia University, which revealed that data was doctored, altered and made to appear more dire, presumably to influence political decisions relating to environmental policy.
Now, we have yet another revelation regarding the IPCC and bogus data. Rajendra Pachauri of the IPCC, “faces fresh controversy for wrongly linking global warming to an increase in the number and severity of natural disasters, including hurricanes and floods, and for a separate section of the report that warned that the world had "suffered rapidly rising costs due to extreme weather-related events since the 1970s." And now yet another, an oft-cited "fact" in his panel's 2008 climate change report -- that the Himalayas were on track to melt by 2035 -- was sloppily copied from a magazine interview with a single glaciologist in 1999.” Not only is the data wrong, it’s rather old as well.
“The IPCC based its claims on an unpublished report that had not been subjected to routine scientific scrutiny -- and ignored warnings from scientific advisers that the evidence supporting the link was weak, The Sunday Times of London reported. The newspaper has since found that the scientific paper on which the IPCC based that claim had neither been peer reviewed nor published at the time the U.N. panel issued its report.” (FoxNews.com) The long standing practice of having research reviewed by your peers was beginning to be ignored in the 1970s, then became significantly ignored by environmentalists who did not want their research to be reviewed because, well, it would be exposed. Now, today, the practice of having scientific research reviewed by peers is virtually ignored–especially by so called environmental scientists.
In 2008, when the report was eventually published, it had a new caveat. It said: "We find insufficient evidence to claim a statistical relationship between global temperature increase and catastrophe losses." But despite this change, the IPCC did not issue a clarification ahead of the Copenhagen climate summit last month. One would have to be blind not to see the intent here of influencing climate policy at the Copenhagen conference.
Patrick J. Michaels, a senior fellow in environmental policy at the libertarian Cato Institute, said in an interview. "The absurdity was obvious to anyone who had studied the scientific literature. This was not an honest mistake. IPCC had been warned about it for a year by many scientists." It may have been absurd, but not to the environmentally religious faithful, who eat this stuff up and proclaim in loudly, truthful or not.
It’s becoming increasingly clear that none of the wild, extremist environmental and climate change claims are true. They are so far out there, you’d have to be really dumb, or really brainwashed to even tolerate such nonsense. The pattern here, of pumping out extreme “scientific” conclusions, avoiding peer review, and of slipping in little “mistakes” to draw attention to the environmental position of global warming/climate change, draws into question the entire body of environmental and climate change conclusions.
Just as President Obama wants all his policies and legislation approved in a big hurry, before people have time to fully consider the legislation, Al Gore also campaigned for urgent action, immediate action, screaming “the debate is over,” so action could be taken before people figured out how bogus this whole global warming thing is. The science is not there, the facts are not there, and the implications here are very disturbing. We have been duped, and the brain washing continues. And, no, Mr. Gore, the debate is not over, but only begun.
Monday, January 25, 2010
Monday, January 11, 2010
What In The World of Global Warming is Going On?
Reality is puzzling me, in fact it’s driving me crazy. I’m confused and befuddled. What in the world of global warming is going on? Here are a few snippets from the past few days, from various articles in the national press, on weather and climate.
The South is reeling all the way to South Florida, where the average high temperature this time of year is 76 degrees. Overnight temperatures are expected to be in the 30s there this weekend.
The weather, with temperatures forecast for the low 20s this weekend....
The deep cold was hurting wildlife. Almost 100 endangered sea turtles, which became lethargic in frigid water that shocked their tropically inclined systems, were found floating in the Mosquito Lagoon in eastern Florida
"I'll be 63 next month, and I don't remember a time when it's been this cold for this long," said Jerry Gentry, assistant manager of an Ace Hardware store in Nashville.
Sixty percent of the U.S. population will experience temperatures 15 to 30 degrees below normal at some point by Sunday night, said Weather Channel meteorologist Jim Wilson. The cold will be a "threat to pipes, property and crops," especially in the South, where record lows are possible each morning through Monday, he said.
By the end of this weekend, 180 million Americans will have shivered through a record-setting bout of arctic cold sweeping from the Great Plains and the Midwest to the Deep South.
“Britons shivered through the country's longest cold snap in three decades as icy weather maintained its grip on Europe.” USA Today, January 9, 2009
The weather has been brutal by Britain's temperate standards, and local authorities across the country are running out of salt and sand. A clutch of sporting events has been canceled — including five of the seven scheduled Premier League soccer games scheduled for Saturday.
“The main story in the South will be the bitterly cold, potentially record-breaking low temperatures that are forecast from the southern Plains to Florida.” USA Today Jan 9, 2009
“On Saturday night, a temperature of 35 degrees set a Miami, Florida record that had stood since 1970, said Joel Rothfuss with the National Weather Service.” FoxNews, 1/11/10
Snow fell in Orlando on January 10, 2010. No one can remember that happening.
According to NASA, the ten warmest years on record are, 1934 1998 1921 1906 1931 1999 1953 1990 1938 1939. Odd that no 2000 dates are on the list. Could it be because the earth is actually cooling again? In spite of all that CO2 the world is pumping into the atmosphere?
What I don’t get is, if the planet is warming, if the past decade has been the warmest on record, if CO2 in the atmosphere is rising, if the ice caps are melting...why are we only seeing record low temperatures all around the globe, year after year, instead of record highs? Logic would tell us that some record high temperatures should be showing up, and that winters should be moderating, with record warm temperatures being reported, at least somewhere on the planet. But no, this is not the case. Record low after record low is being reported from the United States, to Great Britain, to South America, and Australia. Something is wrong with this picture.
The South is reeling all the way to South Florida, where the average high temperature this time of year is 76 degrees. Overnight temperatures are expected to be in the 30s there this weekend.
The weather, with temperatures forecast for the low 20s this weekend....
The deep cold was hurting wildlife. Almost 100 endangered sea turtles, which became lethargic in frigid water that shocked their tropically inclined systems, were found floating in the Mosquito Lagoon in eastern Florida
"I'll be 63 next month, and I don't remember a time when it's been this cold for this long," said Jerry Gentry, assistant manager of an Ace Hardware store in Nashville.
Sixty percent of the U.S. population will experience temperatures 15 to 30 degrees below normal at some point by Sunday night, said Weather Channel meteorologist Jim Wilson. The cold will be a "threat to pipes, property and crops," especially in the South, where record lows are possible each morning through Monday, he said.
By the end of this weekend, 180 million Americans will have shivered through a record-setting bout of arctic cold sweeping from the Great Plains and the Midwest to the Deep South.
“Britons shivered through the country's longest cold snap in three decades as icy weather maintained its grip on Europe.” USA Today, January 9, 2009
The weather has been brutal by Britain's temperate standards, and local authorities across the country are running out of salt and sand. A clutch of sporting events has been canceled — including five of the seven scheduled Premier League soccer games scheduled for Saturday.
“The main story in the South will be the bitterly cold, potentially record-breaking low temperatures that are forecast from the southern Plains to Florida.” USA Today Jan 9, 2009
“On Saturday night, a temperature of 35 degrees set a Miami, Florida record that had stood since 1970, said Joel Rothfuss with the National Weather Service.” FoxNews, 1/11/10
Snow fell in Orlando on January 10, 2010. No one can remember that happening.
According to NASA, the ten warmest years on record are, 1934 1998 1921 1906 1931 1999 1953 1990 1938 1939. Odd that no 2000 dates are on the list. Could it be because the earth is actually cooling again? In spite of all that CO2 the world is pumping into the atmosphere?
What I don’t get is, if the planet is warming, if the past decade has been the warmest on record, if CO2 in the atmosphere is rising, if the ice caps are melting...why are we only seeing record low temperatures all around the globe, year after year, instead of record highs? Logic would tell us that some record high temperatures should be showing up, and that winters should be moderating, with record warm temperatures being reported, at least somewhere on the planet. But no, this is not the case. Record low after record low is being reported from the United States, to Great Britain, to South America, and Australia. Something is wrong with this picture.
Monday, January 4, 2010
More Cold Weather Just Keeps Happening
The recent football bowl season offers an interesting, even significant, view of the nation’s weather, and of the falseness of global warming, if you will. Bowl games historically are played in warmer climes, and the thinking is that for those teams who have successful seasons, even in typically cold climes, they can be rewarded by playing in a bowl game, in a warmer climate. But this year, the weather in the host cities has not cooperated.
Bowl games are scattered all across the American landscape, from San Francisco to D.C., and from Houston to Detroit. But the majority of the bowls are scattered across the southern, more comfortable climes.
So how was the bowl weather this year? The Florida bowls, St Petersburg, Champs (Orlando), Capitol One (Orlando), and Outback (Tampa) bowls all experienced way below normal temperatures. And the Orange Bowl in Miami? it's the coldest Orange Bowl ever. The Las Vegas bowl was awful, freezing and windy. The Emerald Bowl in SF was the coldest in years. The Eagle Bank Bowl in D.C. was terribly cold, and near a record low temperature. New Orleans was below normal, as was Charlotte, NC, Nashville, Shreveport and Memphis. Fort Worth was way below normal, as was Atlanta, Georgia. Even New Orleans and San Antonio were “chilly,” and atypically below normal.
San Diego was nice, and normal, as was Los Angeles, but just about every other bowl hosting city was below normal, and many were at near record low temperatures. Games were spread out over a three week period, so it’s not like it was a one day cold event. And it wasn’t just bowl cities that suffered this cold.
Salt Lake City experienced the coldest December in nineteen years. Most of the west experienced a below normal December. One would think, in an era of global warming, that we would be seeing record warm temperatures, or relative heat waves at the bowl games, at least in cities that are typically warm during this time of year. But record lows should not be occurring, this contradicts the very foundation of the AGW crowd, namely that the planet is warming; in fact, it is cooling, throwing into question the entire CO2 premise.
On January 3, 2010, International Falls, Minnesota recorded its coldest temperature since 1979. Sioux Falls, S.D. also saw record cold temperatures on January 2nd, when temperatures hit 30 below zero, the coldest temperature since 1974.
Burlington, VT received 32 inches of snow the weekend following New Year’s Day, the heaviest snowfall ever recorded there, in 120 years of records. And freeze warnings have been issued for the entire state of Florida. Freeze warnings for Florida are rare but not unheard of. But freezing temperatures as far south as Miami is unheard of. Forecasts for the entire east coast call for even colder temperatures later this week (January 4, 2010).
So not only did Copenhagen, Denmark experience its coldest temperatures in decades during the U.N. climate change conference, the entire college football bowl season is bathed in the coldest weather in years. Where is all the warming? Where is it? Yes, global warming is real, it just keeps getting colder and colder. 2007 saw record lows recorded all over South America, and this year, record lows are being recorded across North America. At some point the global warming religious faithful are going to have to admit their scam and deception is a fraud, and give it up.
At some point, the environmentalists and politically correct weather scientists, politically correct politicians, and politically correct media, will have to admit to the fraud that global warming is, and give up the deceit.
Bowl games are scattered all across the American landscape, from San Francisco to D.C., and from Houston to Detroit. But the majority of the bowls are scattered across the southern, more comfortable climes.
So how was the bowl weather this year? The Florida bowls, St Petersburg, Champs (Orlando), Capitol One (Orlando), and Outback (Tampa) bowls all experienced way below normal temperatures. And the Orange Bowl in Miami? it's the coldest Orange Bowl ever. The Las Vegas bowl was awful, freezing and windy. The Emerald Bowl in SF was the coldest in years. The Eagle Bank Bowl in D.C. was terribly cold, and near a record low temperature. New Orleans was below normal, as was Charlotte, NC, Nashville, Shreveport and Memphis. Fort Worth was way below normal, as was Atlanta, Georgia. Even New Orleans and San Antonio were “chilly,” and atypically below normal.
San Diego was nice, and normal, as was Los Angeles, but just about every other bowl hosting city was below normal, and many were at near record low temperatures. Games were spread out over a three week period, so it’s not like it was a one day cold event. And it wasn’t just bowl cities that suffered this cold.
Salt Lake City experienced the coldest December in nineteen years. Most of the west experienced a below normal December. One would think, in an era of global warming, that we would be seeing record warm temperatures, or relative heat waves at the bowl games, at least in cities that are typically warm during this time of year. But record lows should not be occurring, this contradicts the very foundation of the AGW crowd, namely that the planet is warming; in fact, it is cooling, throwing into question the entire CO2 premise.
On January 3, 2010, International Falls, Minnesota recorded its coldest temperature since 1979. Sioux Falls, S.D. also saw record cold temperatures on January 2nd, when temperatures hit 30 below zero, the coldest temperature since 1974.
Burlington, VT received 32 inches of snow the weekend following New Year’s Day, the heaviest snowfall ever recorded there, in 120 years of records. And freeze warnings have been issued for the entire state of Florida. Freeze warnings for Florida are rare but not unheard of. But freezing temperatures as far south as Miami is unheard of. Forecasts for the entire east coast call for even colder temperatures later this week (January 4, 2010).
So not only did Copenhagen, Denmark experience its coldest temperatures in decades during the U.N. climate change conference, the entire college football bowl season is bathed in the coldest weather in years. Where is all the warming? Where is it? Yes, global warming is real, it just keeps getting colder and colder. 2007 saw record lows recorded all over South America, and this year, record lows are being recorded across North America. At some point the global warming religious faithful are going to have to admit their scam and deception is a fraud, and give it up.
At some point, the environmentalists and politically correct weather scientists, politically correct politicians, and politically correct media, will have to admit to the fraud that global warming is, and give up the deceit.
Monday, December 28, 2009
Gore's Gaffes and Frauds Exposed
In 1992 Al Gore was quoted as saying “I invented the internet.” Of course, Al Gore did no such thing, and he either has an exaggerated sense of his accomplishments, is delusional, or is dishonest. Gore has been the butt of jokes regarding this declaration ever since. And astoundingly, he made the statement with a completely straight face, the guy actually believed what he was saying.
In 2000 Al Gore, while running for president of the U.S. actually tried to manipulate the recount in Broward County, Florida. What he first tried to do is to tell the local election officials what votes to count, and what votes not to count, in order to throw the election for president his way. When that didn’t work, he went to court and convinced the Florida supreme court to count the votes his way, so he could win. Ultimately, George W. Bush had to go to the U.S. Supreme court to force a real recount, and count all the votes. Incredibly, Gore supporters have ever since accused Bush of stealing the election from Gore, when in fact it was Gore who attempted, but failed, to steal the election from Bush.
More recently, Gore took to the road visiting mostly elementary schools (those lacking sufficient education or knowledge to challenge his thesis) promoting his “An Inconvenient Truth” and displaying a power point presentation to lay out his theory about how the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere leads to global warming, and thus, a long list of dire consequences result, such as melting ice caps, polar bear demise, rising ocean levels, drought, increased hurricane activity, etc. The only problem is, most of his presentation is false, as has been pointed out by numerous experts in the field. Primarily, that CO2 has little if any bearing on weather or global temperatures. His list of dire consequences are also bogus.
At the Copenhagen Climate Conference in December 2009, the former vice president said new research showed that the Arctic could be completely ice-free in five years, and he quoted the scientist who did the research. However, the scientist who did the research contradicted Gore by saying, "It's unclear to me how this figure was arrived at," Dr. Maslowski said. "I did not estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this."
Gore obviously has difficulty telling the truth, yet government leaders and world figures continue to give him audience. Gore is guilty of exaggerating the truth, of fabricating the truth, of making up data, of falsely interpreting data, of putting words in the mouths of research scientists, of claiming credit for inventions he had nothing to do with, and the list goes on.
Regardless of the personality, the day that person’s dishonesty is revealed, who can then trust anything he says? We’re not talking about just being mistaken, or of having a differing opinion. Rather, Gore has a history of dishonesty, in a wide variety of venues. Why would he do this? He does it because he has an agenda, and he has a thirst for power. He believes the end justifies the means; say anything necessary to convince the public of his premises, and to elevate himself in the public view. His AGW campaign is only the latest of his charades to be exposed as a fraud. Amazingly the man is undeterred by his numerous failures, frauds and intellectual scams.
In 2000 Al Gore, while running for president of the U.S. actually tried to manipulate the recount in Broward County, Florida. What he first tried to do is to tell the local election officials what votes to count, and what votes not to count, in order to throw the election for president his way. When that didn’t work, he went to court and convinced the Florida supreme court to count the votes his way, so he could win. Ultimately, George W. Bush had to go to the U.S. Supreme court to force a real recount, and count all the votes. Incredibly, Gore supporters have ever since accused Bush of stealing the election from Gore, when in fact it was Gore who attempted, but failed, to steal the election from Bush.
More recently, Gore took to the road visiting mostly elementary schools (those lacking sufficient education or knowledge to challenge his thesis) promoting his “An Inconvenient Truth” and displaying a power point presentation to lay out his theory about how the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere leads to global warming, and thus, a long list of dire consequences result, such as melting ice caps, polar bear demise, rising ocean levels, drought, increased hurricane activity, etc. The only problem is, most of his presentation is false, as has been pointed out by numerous experts in the field. Primarily, that CO2 has little if any bearing on weather or global temperatures. His list of dire consequences are also bogus.
At the Copenhagen Climate Conference in December 2009, the former vice president said new research showed that the Arctic could be completely ice-free in five years, and he quoted the scientist who did the research. However, the scientist who did the research contradicted Gore by saying, "It's unclear to me how this figure was arrived at," Dr. Maslowski said. "I did not estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this."
Gore obviously has difficulty telling the truth, yet government leaders and world figures continue to give him audience. Gore is guilty of exaggerating the truth, of fabricating the truth, of making up data, of falsely interpreting data, of putting words in the mouths of research scientists, of claiming credit for inventions he had nothing to do with, and the list goes on.
Regardless of the personality, the day that person’s dishonesty is revealed, who can then trust anything he says? We’re not talking about just being mistaken, or of having a differing opinion. Rather, Gore has a history of dishonesty, in a wide variety of venues. Why would he do this? He does it because he has an agenda, and he has a thirst for power. He believes the end justifies the means; say anything necessary to convince the public of his premises, and to elevate himself in the public view. His AGW campaign is only the latest of his charades to be exposed as a fraud. Amazingly the man is undeterred by his numerous failures, frauds and intellectual scams.
Friday, December 18, 2009
"Global Warming is a Religion"
The president of the Czech Republic made some surprising statements today, refreshing, but surprising. He began by saying, “Global warming is a "new religion," not a science, he said.”
"I'm convinced that after years of studying the phenomenon, global warming is not the real issue of temperature," said Klaus, an economist by training. "That is the issue of a new ideology or a new religion. A religion of climate change or a religion of global warming. This is a religion which tells us that the people are responsible for the current, very small increase in temperatures. And they should be punished."
Klaus says that many interested parties get "a lot of money and influence" by backing the idea of global warming and organizing the Copenhagen conference, as well as its predecessor the Kyoto conference. "Some of them are really just rent seekers who hope to get some money either for their businesses or for their countries," says Klaus. "Some of them are really true believers."
The president reckons that environmentalism, executed on the scale suggested by global warming adherents, is a "real way to stop progress, industrial progress…and this is something unfair."
"We'll be the victims of irrational ideology. They will try to dictate to us how to live, what to do, how to behave," Klaus said. "What to eat, travel, and what my children should have. This is something that we who lived in the communist era for most of our lives — we still feel very strongly about. We are very sensitive in this respect. And we feel various similarities in their way of arguing or not arguing. In the way of pushing ahead ideas regardless of rational counter-arguments." The man has a brain, can think, and has the courage to speak the truth. He has hit the nail on the head here.
"I lived in a communist world where politicians told us what to do," Klaus said. "I don't think politicians or presidents should suggest to firms what to do. That has always been a mistake."
Czech President Vaclav Klaus
Indeed. But there is some justice in this world. The Copenhagen conference, sponsored by the U.N., has the capacity to seat 15,000 people. There were 30,000 NGO (non governmental organizations) environmentalists, alone, credentialed for the conference. Fortunately only 300 got in during the key two day sessions where an “agreement” was to be voted on.
Does it really take 30,000 environmentalists to engage in a healthy discussion? Or, this mob needs to go get real jobs, and stop wasting taxpayer money. Still, further justice, not to mention irony, occurred at Copenhagen. The conference took place in mid-December, and while tens of thousands of delegates were waiting outside trying to obtain admission, the coldest weather in years descended on the city. How ironic, a global warming conference, but the weather refuses to cooperate, it’s just too dang cold, and many delegates gave up and went home...to warmer climes it is supposed. Like the science of global warming will not cooperate with this new relgion, neither will the weather–it just keeps getting colder.
"I'm convinced that after years of studying the phenomenon, global warming is not the real issue of temperature," said Klaus, an economist by training. "That is the issue of a new ideology or a new religion. A religion of climate change or a religion of global warming. This is a religion which tells us that the people are responsible for the current, very small increase in temperatures. And they should be punished."
Klaus says that many interested parties get "a lot of money and influence" by backing the idea of global warming and organizing the Copenhagen conference, as well as its predecessor the Kyoto conference. "Some of them are really just rent seekers who hope to get some money either for their businesses or for their countries," says Klaus. "Some of them are really true believers."
The president reckons that environmentalism, executed on the scale suggested by global warming adherents, is a "real way to stop progress, industrial progress…and this is something unfair."
"We'll be the victims of irrational ideology. They will try to dictate to us how to live, what to do, how to behave," Klaus said. "What to eat, travel, and what my children should have. This is something that we who lived in the communist era for most of our lives — we still feel very strongly about. We are very sensitive in this respect. And we feel various similarities in their way of arguing or not arguing. In the way of pushing ahead ideas regardless of rational counter-arguments." The man has a brain, can think, and has the courage to speak the truth. He has hit the nail on the head here.
"I lived in a communist world where politicians told us what to do," Klaus said. "I don't think politicians or presidents should suggest to firms what to do. That has always been a mistake."
Czech President Vaclav Klaus
Indeed. But there is some justice in this world. The Copenhagen conference, sponsored by the U.N., has the capacity to seat 15,000 people. There were 30,000 NGO (non governmental organizations) environmentalists, alone, credentialed for the conference. Fortunately only 300 got in during the key two day sessions where an “agreement” was to be voted on.
Does it really take 30,000 environmentalists to engage in a healthy discussion? Or, this mob needs to go get real jobs, and stop wasting taxpayer money. Still, further justice, not to mention irony, occurred at Copenhagen. The conference took place in mid-December, and while tens of thousands of delegates were waiting outside trying to obtain admission, the coldest weather in years descended on the city. How ironic, a global warming conference, but the weather refuses to cooperate, it’s just too dang cold, and many delegates gave up and went home...to warmer climes it is supposed. Like the science of global warming will not cooperate with this new relgion, neither will the weather–it just keeps getting colder.
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
How Wrong Can They Be?
Rising Sea Levels?
Al Gore and the global warming alarmists tout the “fact” that sea levels are rising, will rise much higher and flood many low lying major cities. “Professor Nils-Axel Morner, a geologist from Stockholm University, said sea-level rise has also been exaggerated by the "climate alarmists" using computer models. He said observational data from lake sediments, coast lines and trees show sea levels have remained stable.”
Rising Global Temperatures
“Professor Henrik Svensmark, a physicist at the Danish National Space Center in Copenhagen, who said the recent warming period was caused by solar activity.” Many other scientists agree with Svensmark. Charlie Perry is a research hydrologist with the U.S. Geological Survey, and he agrees, as do many, more other scientists.
Record cold temperatures, record early cold temperatures, first snows in decades, largest snowfalls in decades have all been reported from South America, North America, Europe and Australia–and all during a period of global warming? One would expect to read of reports of record high temperatures, lack of snow, late arriving winters, and low snow packs. But no.
In New Zealand, “the site with the longest running warming trend just happens to be sitting in the middle of an Urban Heat Island. The car park asphalt at 6 meters away puts the station rating at CRN4, based on NOAA's site quality rating system used for their Climate Reference Network. I've found that the vast majority of historical stations in the USA have been affected this way:”
Polar Bears
“Polar bears are well-managed and their population has dramatically increased over 30 years as a result of conservation,” according to Alaska state officials.
According to the May 16, 2008 World Climate Report, polar bears do not drown, they are powerful swimmers and can swim for hours, and often do. Further, they never venture too far from the ice. The notion that retreating ice shelves leaves polar bears stranded hundreds of miles from the ice is ludicrous and false. Al Gore’s graphic depiction of a polar bear “stranded” on a small piece of floating ice, was a complete fabrication. And oft published reports about four drowned polar bears seen floating two miles from shore, because of global warming and the loss of ice, was another fabrication, and an act of sabotage. The four polar bears had been tranquilized by “conservationists” in an attempt to garner public sympathy, and to galvanize the nation to take action against the adverse effects of global warming.
CO2
“Unravelled records of atmosphere, temperature and ice-cap formation 33.6 million years ago, when the Earth cooled from a greenhouse without ice caps, into something quite similar to our present day…Pearson's work contains a couple of remarkable results. First the greenhouse atmosphere pre-cooling contained a CO2 concentration of 900 parts per million by volume, or more than three times that of the Earth in pre-industrial days… Second, while the cooling of the Earth took place over a time-span of around 200,000 years, the atmospheric CO2 rose to around 1100ppmv and remained high for 200,000 years while the Earth cooled further and remained in its new ice ages cycle. If the Earth started a cycle of ice ages 33.6 million years ago while having its very carbon-rich atmosphere, and if the Earth showed cycles of ice-age activity when atmospheric CO2 was four times the level that it was in humankind's pre-industrial times, what new information must we incorporate into our present climate models?” Paul Pearson, Cardiff University
CO2 has nothing to do with global warming, some of the highest rates of CO2 occurred during some of the earth’s coldest periods. Most of this century’s small temperature increase occurred before 1950. And water vapor is a far, far more significant greenhouse gas than is CO2.
All Scientists Agree
“There are about 450 academic peer-reviewed journal articles questioning the importance of man-made global warming. The sheer number of scientists rallying against a major intervention to stop carbon dioxide is remarkable. In a petition, more than 30,000 American scientists are urging the U.S. government to reject the Kyoto treaty.” Al Gore’s deceitful lie “the debate is over,” is patently false, and he knows it.
Global Warming is Bad
“Many academics argue that higher temperatures are actually good. Higher temperatures increase the amount of land to grow food, increase biological diversity, and improve people's health. Increased carbon dioxide also promotes plant growth.” Dr. Sylvan Wittier, agronomist, and many other agricultural scientists agree with the “warmer is better” premise. The worst times in man’s history have come during “little ice ages” when disease, starvation, and death rates were at all time highs. Prosperity occurs when temperatures are higher. And you'd think liberals would want to do something about world food shortages; a warmer planet is how you do that.
Data Integrity
In light of recent revelations about “doctored data,” and the refusal by the climate change crowd to release the source of their research, or allow anyone outside their club to attempt to reproduce the data, it’s not surprising that much of that “research” is being challenged. “NASA also refuses to give out its data. NASA further refuses to explain mysterious changes in whether the warmest years were in the 1930s or this past decade. The British Met office, too, has been unable to release its data and just announced its plans to begin a three-year investigation of its data since all of its land temperatures data were obtained from the University of East Anglia”
Flawed Logic, Flawed Science
1. The earth is warming
2. Warming is bad
3. CO2 is causing the warming
4. Warming is harming the environment
5. Warming is causing species extinctions
6. Warming is causing ice to melt, and polar bears to die
7. Melting ice causes sea levels to rise
8. Rising sea levels will cause coastal cities to flood
9. Warming causes increased hurricane activity
10. Warming causes floods and droughts
11. Warming (AGW) is caused by man
12. Man must do something about the problem
13. Governments must legislate to stop CO2 pollution
14. Fossil fuel use must be curbed
15. Coal power plants must be eliminated
16. Automobile use must be curtailed and reduced
17. Americans must be heavily taxed to pay for the damage they’ve done to the planet
Each of the above positions is false, and can be proven. The earth is not warming, warming is not bad, CO2 does not cause global warming, sea levels are not rising, etc. It’s obvious that environmentalists have orchestrated an elaborate scheme to deceive the public, the voters, the politicians, the courts, and just about everyone else, in order to achieve their objectives, and those objectives have nothing to do with science. The recent revelations about doctored data is only the tip of the iceberg.
Research Secrecy
“Neither the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia nor the British Met are able to provide their raw data to other research scientists because of the confidentiality agreements that Professor Phil Jones at CRU entered into. Unfortunately, Jones did not keep records of those agreements and, according to the British Met, can neither identify the countries with the confidentiality agreements nor provide the agreements. Earlier this year the British Met wrote the following to Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit:
"Some of the information was provided to Professor Jones on the strict understanding by the data providers that this station data must not be publicly released and it cannot be determined which countries or stations data were given in confidence as records were not kept."
“However, professional meterologists are unimpressed by the claimed reasons for confidentiality. Research data used as the basis for scientific research needs to be disclosed if other scientists are to be able to verify the work of others," Mike Steinberg, Senior Vice President, AccuWeather.”
“It is not just the University of East Anglia that has been accused of massaging the data (what they called creating "value added" data). Recently, New Zealand has also had its temperature series from the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) challenged. Still the NIWA continues to insist that the "Warming over New Zealand through the past is unequivocal." Indeed, the institute claims that the New Zealand warming trend was 50 percent higher than the global average. But the difference in graphs between what NIWA produced after massaging the data and what the original raw data showed was truly remarkable and can be seen here. As the Climate Science Coalition of New Zealand charged: "The shocking truth is that the oldest readings have been cranked way down and later readings artificially lifted to give a false impression of warming."
Similar concerns have also been raised about Australian temperature data.” John R. Lott, Jr.is an economist and author of "Freedomnomics." “The temperatures are remarkably constant way back to the 1850s. Of course, the temperature still varies from year to year, but the trend stays level—statistically insignificant at 0.06̊C per century since 1850. We have discovered that the warming in New Zealand over the past 156 years was indeed man-made, but it had nothing to do with emissions of CO2—it was created by man-made adjustments of the temperature. It’s a disgrace.”
“Manipulation of raw data is at the heart of recent claims of corrupt scientific practice in climate science, with CRU’s Phil Jones recently claiming old temperature records collected by his organization were “destroyed” or “lost”, meaning researchers can now only access manipulated data.”
East Anglia University Emails
“I haven't read all the e-mails, but the most recent one is more than 10 years old.” Al Gore. “The most recent email, for the record, was Nov 12 this year [2009], and there were lots more of similar vintage.” Gore has been unable to tell the truth for at least the last ten years, and maybe his whole life. His “Inconvenient Truth” should more accurately be titled, “A Convenient Lie.” Can you imagine any other scientific discipline operating in this fashion, in secrecy, with obvious cover and with designed deceit?
Conclusions
Nobel prize winning physicist Richard Feynman observed: "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. Real science is never decided by a vote. In science, theories are put up and torn down, red in tooth and claw. If a theory is ultimately true, it survives. It doesn't matter if 9,999 climatologists vote in favour of global warming being man made and only one doesn't. If the 'outlier' happens to be correct - regardless of whether his colleagues listen to him or laugh at him - he is correct.”
Gerald Dickens, study co-author and professor of Earth Science at Rice University in Houston says, "There appears to be something fundamentally wrong with the way temperature and carbon are linked in climate models." Indeed.
Al Gore and the global warming alarmists tout the “fact” that sea levels are rising, will rise much higher and flood many low lying major cities. “Professor Nils-Axel Morner, a geologist from Stockholm University, said sea-level rise has also been exaggerated by the "climate alarmists" using computer models. He said observational data from lake sediments, coast lines and trees show sea levels have remained stable.”
Rising Global Temperatures
“Professor Henrik Svensmark, a physicist at the Danish National Space Center in Copenhagen, who said the recent warming period was caused by solar activity.” Many other scientists agree with Svensmark. Charlie Perry is a research hydrologist with the U.S. Geological Survey, and he agrees, as do many, more other scientists.
Record cold temperatures, record early cold temperatures, first snows in decades, largest snowfalls in decades have all been reported from South America, North America, Europe and Australia–and all during a period of global warming? One would expect to read of reports of record high temperatures, lack of snow, late arriving winters, and low snow packs. But no.
In New Zealand, “the site with the longest running warming trend just happens to be sitting in the middle of an Urban Heat Island. The car park asphalt at 6 meters away puts the station rating at CRN4, based on NOAA's site quality rating system used for their Climate Reference Network. I've found that the vast majority of historical stations in the USA have been affected this way:”
Polar Bears
“Polar bears are well-managed and their population has dramatically increased over 30 years as a result of conservation,” according to Alaska state officials.
According to the May 16, 2008 World Climate Report, polar bears do not drown, they are powerful swimmers and can swim for hours, and often do. Further, they never venture too far from the ice. The notion that retreating ice shelves leaves polar bears stranded hundreds of miles from the ice is ludicrous and false. Al Gore’s graphic depiction of a polar bear “stranded” on a small piece of floating ice, was a complete fabrication. And oft published reports about four drowned polar bears seen floating two miles from shore, because of global warming and the loss of ice, was another fabrication, and an act of sabotage. The four polar bears had been tranquilized by “conservationists” in an attempt to garner public sympathy, and to galvanize the nation to take action against the adverse effects of global warming.
CO2
“Unravelled records of atmosphere, temperature and ice-cap formation 33.6 million years ago, when the Earth cooled from a greenhouse without ice caps, into something quite similar to our present day…Pearson's work contains a couple of remarkable results. First the greenhouse atmosphere pre-cooling contained a CO2 concentration of 900 parts per million by volume, or more than three times that of the Earth in pre-industrial days… Second, while the cooling of the Earth took place over a time-span of around 200,000 years, the atmospheric CO2 rose to around 1100ppmv and remained high for 200,000 years while the Earth cooled further and remained in its new ice ages cycle. If the Earth started a cycle of ice ages 33.6 million years ago while having its very carbon-rich atmosphere, and if the Earth showed cycles of ice-age activity when atmospheric CO2 was four times the level that it was in humankind's pre-industrial times, what new information must we incorporate into our present climate models?” Paul Pearson, Cardiff University
CO2 has nothing to do with global warming, some of the highest rates of CO2 occurred during some of the earth’s coldest periods. Most of this century’s small temperature increase occurred before 1950. And water vapor is a far, far more significant greenhouse gas than is CO2.
All Scientists Agree
“There are about 450 academic peer-reviewed journal articles questioning the importance of man-made global warming. The sheer number of scientists rallying against a major intervention to stop carbon dioxide is remarkable. In a petition, more than 30,000 American scientists are urging the U.S. government to reject the Kyoto treaty.” Al Gore’s deceitful lie “the debate is over,” is patently false, and he knows it.
Global Warming is Bad
“Many academics argue that higher temperatures are actually good. Higher temperatures increase the amount of land to grow food, increase biological diversity, and improve people's health. Increased carbon dioxide also promotes plant growth.” Dr. Sylvan Wittier, agronomist, and many other agricultural scientists agree with the “warmer is better” premise. The worst times in man’s history have come during “little ice ages” when disease, starvation, and death rates were at all time highs. Prosperity occurs when temperatures are higher. And you'd think liberals would want to do something about world food shortages; a warmer planet is how you do that.
Data Integrity
In light of recent revelations about “doctored data,” and the refusal by the climate change crowd to release the source of their research, or allow anyone outside their club to attempt to reproduce the data, it’s not surprising that much of that “research” is being challenged. “NASA also refuses to give out its data. NASA further refuses to explain mysterious changes in whether the warmest years were in the 1930s or this past decade. The British Met office, too, has been unable to release its data and just announced its plans to begin a three-year investigation of its data since all of its land temperatures data were obtained from the University of East Anglia”
Flawed Logic, Flawed Science
1. The earth is warming
2. Warming is bad
3. CO2 is causing the warming
4. Warming is harming the environment
5. Warming is causing species extinctions
6. Warming is causing ice to melt, and polar bears to die
7. Melting ice causes sea levels to rise
8. Rising sea levels will cause coastal cities to flood
9. Warming causes increased hurricane activity
10. Warming causes floods and droughts
11. Warming (AGW) is caused by man
12. Man must do something about the problem
13. Governments must legislate to stop CO2 pollution
14. Fossil fuel use must be curbed
15. Coal power plants must be eliminated
16. Automobile use must be curtailed and reduced
17. Americans must be heavily taxed to pay for the damage they’ve done to the planet
Each of the above positions is false, and can be proven. The earth is not warming, warming is not bad, CO2 does not cause global warming, sea levels are not rising, etc. It’s obvious that environmentalists have orchestrated an elaborate scheme to deceive the public, the voters, the politicians, the courts, and just about everyone else, in order to achieve their objectives, and those objectives have nothing to do with science. The recent revelations about doctored data is only the tip of the iceberg.
Research Secrecy
“Neither the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia nor the British Met are able to provide their raw data to other research scientists because of the confidentiality agreements that Professor Phil Jones at CRU entered into. Unfortunately, Jones did not keep records of those agreements and, according to the British Met, can neither identify the countries with the confidentiality agreements nor provide the agreements. Earlier this year the British Met wrote the following to Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit:
"Some of the information was provided to Professor Jones on the strict understanding by the data providers that this station data must not be publicly released and it cannot be determined which countries or stations data were given in confidence as records were not kept."
“However, professional meterologists are unimpressed by the claimed reasons for confidentiality. Research data used as the basis for scientific research needs to be disclosed if other scientists are to be able to verify the work of others," Mike Steinberg, Senior Vice President, AccuWeather.”
“It is not just the University of East Anglia that has been accused of massaging the data (what they called creating "value added" data). Recently, New Zealand has also had its temperature series from the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) challenged. Still the NIWA continues to insist that the "Warming over New Zealand through the past is unequivocal." Indeed, the institute claims that the New Zealand warming trend was 50 percent higher than the global average. But the difference in graphs between what NIWA produced after massaging the data and what the original raw data showed was truly remarkable and can be seen here. As the Climate Science Coalition of New Zealand charged: "The shocking truth is that the oldest readings have been cranked way down and later readings artificially lifted to give a false impression of warming."
Similar concerns have also been raised about Australian temperature data.” John R. Lott, Jr.is an economist and author of "Freedomnomics." “The temperatures are remarkably constant way back to the 1850s. Of course, the temperature still varies from year to year, but the trend stays level—statistically insignificant at 0.06̊C per century since 1850. We have discovered that the warming in New Zealand over the past 156 years was indeed man-made, but it had nothing to do with emissions of CO2—it was created by man-made adjustments of the temperature. It’s a disgrace.”
“Manipulation of raw data is at the heart of recent claims of corrupt scientific practice in climate science, with CRU’s Phil Jones recently claiming old temperature records collected by his organization were “destroyed” or “lost”, meaning researchers can now only access manipulated data.”
East Anglia University Emails
“I haven't read all the e-mails, but the most recent one is more than 10 years old.” Al Gore. “The most recent email, for the record, was Nov 12 this year [2009], and there were lots more of similar vintage.” Gore has been unable to tell the truth for at least the last ten years, and maybe his whole life. His “Inconvenient Truth” should more accurately be titled, “A Convenient Lie.” Can you imagine any other scientific discipline operating in this fashion, in secrecy, with obvious cover and with designed deceit?
Conclusions
Nobel prize winning physicist Richard Feynman observed: "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. Real science is never decided by a vote. In science, theories are put up and torn down, red in tooth and claw. If a theory is ultimately true, it survives. It doesn't matter if 9,999 climatologists vote in favour of global warming being man made and only one doesn't. If the 'outlier' happens to be correct - regardless of whether his colleagues listen to him or laugh at him - he is correct.”
Gerald Dickens, study co-author and professor of Earth Science at Rice University in Houston says, "There appears to be something fundamentally wrong with the way temperature and carbon are linked in climate models." Indeed.
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
How Weather Works
In all the hype about global warming and climate change hysteria, lost is information about how weather actually works. Environmental alarmists would have us believe that temperatures and weather are almost solely affected by CO2 and carbon fuel use. But such is simply not the case. So how does weather work, and how does the planet warm and cool? If we understand this, even a novice can make sense of the current climate change debate.
The atmosphere is a marvel of a self-regulating phenomenon. Almost all familiar weather phenomena occur in the troposphere (the lower part of the atmosphere). If the earth gets too cool, there are fewer clouds, and more radiation from the sun reaches the earth, and the surface of the earth warms. If the earth gets too warm, more clouds occur, and less radiation from the sun reaches the earth, and the surface of the earth cools. Additionally, if an area of the earth warms, the warm air rises, creating an atmospheric vacuum, and it pulls cool air from the arctic (or antarctic) into that vacuum and cools the surface of the earth, and the atmosphere. Even beyond the troposphere, stratospheric winds, and radiation, all affect the weather and subsequent surface temperatures of the earth.
The jet stream operates at between 20,000 and 40,000 feet altitude, and is about two miles thick. The strong temperature contrast between polar and tropical air gives rise to the jet stream. The jet stream is two to four thousand miles in length, and affects weather in a variety of ways. There are actually several jet streams that function similarly around the globe. For example, if it moves south, it allows colder arctic air to move south also, if it moves north, it creates a high pressure area to its south and keeps colder air from moving south. Like the Gulf Stream, it is a huge mass of moving air that affects weather globally, and to date, no one has been able to predict the actions of the jet stream beyond a day or two.
Radiation from the sun is the biggest factor that effects weather. In it’s 100,000 year cycle through the Milky Way, the sun moves from a closer position to the sun, to a more distant position. At the earth’s more distant location, the earth experiences an ice age, and yes, those occur about every 100,000 years. Guess which end of the cycle the earth is at currently? That’s right, at it’s closest point, so temperatures are a bit higher. Over thousands to hundreds of thousands of years, changes in Earth's orbital parameters affect the amount and distribution of solar energy received by the Earth and influence long-term climate. And sunspots, which are also cyclical, dramatically affect earth’s weather, and temperatures. As sunspots increase, temperatures on the earth increase, when they decrease, earth’s temperatures also drop. Radiation from the sun is the single greatest, and by far most significant contributor to the earth’s weather, and global temperatures.
Volcanoes affect weather when they erupt by spewing millions of tons of ash and dust into the atmosphere. Winds aloft, including the jet stream, circulate these volcanic particles around the globe in a matter of days. These particles reflect and/or block the suns rays, causing the earth to cool. Large eruptions can affect global weather for several years, most last two to three years before the particles succumb to the pull of gravity, the effects of rain and barometric pressure changes, and fall back to earth. Temperatures then return to normal.
The oceans also affect the weather in a multitude of ways. If the water heats up sufficiently, it can cause such things as the El Nino effect. El Nino affects weather, not only in the eastern Pacific and the western U.S., but to a lesser degree, world wide. Warm, moist air moving over cooled land in coastal areas will cause fog to form, which reflects the suns radiation and cools the earth further. Clouds that form over the oceans and move over land will cause night time temperatures to be warmer than if the skies are clear. To a large degree, the oceans create the majority of the earth’s weather.
The Gulf Stream is a large mass of warm water originating in the Gulf of Mexico, that moves up the Atlantic coast of North America, across the North Atlantic, and past Iceland, England and Europe. The Gulf Stream influences the climate of the east coast of North America from Florida to Newfoundland, and the west coast of Europe. The climate of Western Europe and Northern Europe is warmer than it would otherwise be; and that this is due to the North Atlantic drift, one of the branches from the tail of the Gulf Stream. It’s likely that portions of Northern Europe would be uninhabitable were it not for the Gulf Stream, it simply tempers the natural coldness of Northern Europe. Iceland, England, Scandinavia, possibly Germany, Denmark and other areas of Europe would be unattractive to live in, and unproductive agriculturally without the effect of the Gulf Stream.
Inspite of what some global alarmists claim, CO2 does not affect weather, or even local or regional temperatures to any appreciable degree, and its affect cannot be separated from all the other gases in the atmosphere, including water vapor. All the atmospheric gases (including water vapor) act in concert, all have similar properties, but water vapor is by far the largest contributor to atmospheric temperature fluctuations, dwarfing the effect of all the other gases, including CO2. The only reason CO2 is “picked on” is because it is a by product of burning carbon fuels. And carbon fuels are the bad boy of environmentalists, and the primary target of environmental policy. But at .003 percent of the atmosphere it’s almost comical to see environmentalists attempt to make intellectually sustainable arguments concerning CO2 and its affect on global temperatures.
It is theoretically impossible to make useful day-to-day weather predictions more than about two weeks ahead, imposing an upper limit to potential for improved prediction skill. And if you follow weather forecasts closely, it is rare for a two week forecast to go unchanged. “Updated” forecasts will usually occur more than once during that two week forecast period. Often, the two week forecast is completely wrong, inspite of all we know about the weather, satellites, monitoring stations, and highly educated weather scientists working to predict the weather. Thus pretending to predict weather years, decades, or centuries into the future is intellectually dishonest, it simply cannot be done. And anyone who claims to know what the weather will be in the future, beyond a couple of weeks, is being deceitful.
The atmosphere is a marvel of a self-regulating phenomenon. Almost all familiar weather phenomena occur in the troposphere (the lower part of the atmosphere). If the earth gets too cool, there are fewer clouds, and more radiation from the sun reaches the earth, and the surface of the earth warms. If the earth gets too warm, more clouds occur, and less radiation from the sun reaches the earth, and the surface of the earth cools. Additionally, if an area of the earth warms, the warm air rises, creating an atmospheric vacuum, and it pulls cool air from the arctic (or antarctic) into that vacuum and cools the surface of the earth, and the atmosphere. Even beyond the troposphere, stratospheric winds, and radiation, all affect the weather and subsequent surface temperatures of the earth.
The jet stream operates at between 20,000 and 40,000 feet altitude, and is about two miles thick. The strong temperature contrast between polar and tropical air gives rise to the jet stream. The jet stream is two to four thousand miles in length, and affects weather in a variety of ways. There are actually several jet streams that function similarly around the globe. For example, if it moves south, it allows colder arctic air to move south also, if it moves north, it creates a high pressure area to its south and keeps colder air from moving south. Like the Gulf Stream, it is a huge mass of moving air that affects weather globally, and to date, no one has been able to predict the actions of the jet stream beyond a day or two.
Radiation from the sun is the biggest factor that effects weather. In it’s 100,000 year cycle through the Milky Way, the sun moves from a closer position to the sun, to a more distant position. At the earth’s more distant location, the earth experiences an ice age, and yes, those occur about every 100,000 years. Guess which end of the cycle the earth is at currently? That’s right, at it’s closest point, so temperatures are a bit higher. Over thousands to hundreds of thousands of years, changes in Earth's orbital parameters affect the amount and distribution of solar energy received by the Earth and influence long-term climate. And sunspots, which are also cyclical, dramatically affect earth’s weather, and temperatures. As sunspots increase, temperatures on the earth increase, when they decrease, earth’s temperatures also drop. Radiation from the sun is the single greatest, and by far most significant contributor to the earth’s weather, and global temperatures.
Volcanoes affect weather when they erupt by spewing millions of tons of ash and dust into the atmosphere. Winds aloft, including the jet stream, circulate these volcanic particles around the globe in a matter of days. These particles reflect and/or block the suns rays, causing the earth to cool. Large eruptions can affect global weather for several years, most last two to three years before the particles succumb to the pull of gravity, the effects of rain and barometric pressure changes, and fall back to earth. Temperatures then return to normal.
The oceans also affect the weather in a multitude of ways. If the water heats up sufficiently, it can cause such things as the El Nino effect. El Nino affects weather, not only in the eastern Pacific and the western U.S., but to a lesser degree, world wide. Warm, moist air moving over cooled land in coastal areas will cause fog to form, which reflects the suns radiation and cools the earth further. Clouds that form over the oceans and move over land will cause night time temperatures to be warmer than if the skies are clear. To a large degree, the oceans create the majority of the earth’s weather.
The Gulf Stream is a large mass of warm water originating in the Gulf of Mexico, that moves up the Atlantic coast of North America, across the North Atlantic, and past Iceland, England and Europe. The Gulf Stream influences the climate of the east coast of North America from Florida to Newfoundland, and the west coast of Europe. The climate of Western Europe and Northern Europe is warmer than it would otherwise be; and that this is due to the North Atlantic drift, one of the branches from the tail of the Gulf Stream. It’s likely that portions of Northern Europe would be uninhabitable were it not for the Gulf Stream, it simply tempers the natural coldness of Northern Europe. Iceland, England, Scandinavia, possibly Germany, Denmark and other areas of Europe would be unattractive to live in, and unproductive agriculturally without the effect of the Gulf Stream.
Inspite of what some global alarmists claim, CO2 does not affect weather, or even local or regional temperatures to any appreciable degree, and its affect cannot be separated from all the other gases in the atmosphere, including water vapor. All the atmospheric gases (including water vapor) act in concert, all have similar properties, but water vapor is by far the largest contributor to atmospheric temperature fluctuations, dwarfing the effect of all the other gases, including CO2. The only reason CO2 is “picked on” is because it is a by product of burning carbon fuels. And carbon fuels are the bad boy of environmentalists, and the primary target of environmental policy. But at .003 percent of the atmosphere it’s almost comical to see environmentalists attempt to make intellectually sustainable arguments concerning CO2 and its affect on global temperatures.
It is theoretically impossible to make useful day-to-day weather predictions more than about two weeks ahead, imposing an upper limit to potential for improved prediction skill. And if you follow weather forecasts closely, it is rare for a two week forecast to go unchanged. “Updated” forecasts will usually occur more than once during that two week forecast period. Often, the two week forecast is completely wrong, inspite of all we know about the weather, satellites, monitoring stations, and highly educated weather scientists working to predict the weather. Thus pretending to predict weather years, decades, or centuries into the future is intellectually dishonest, it simply cannot be done. And anyone who claims to know what the weather will be in the future, beyond a couple of weeks, is being deceitful.
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Climate Tribalism at Heart of AGW Deception
"The scientists who developed the data on which EPA is basing its work have all but admitted that their data was corrupted and they have admitted to corrupting the very scientific process needed to ensure the integrity of the computer models on which climate predictions are based,” said Jim Sims, President and CEO of the Western Business Roundtable.
This revelation exposes only the tip of the iceberg of the great environmental coverup regarding global warming, from which governments, including this one, make policy, draft bills, and extract taxes from a deceived public.
Penn State’s Michael Mann told Reuters that “colleagues often speak in a language they understand and is often foreign to the outside world," And according to this privileged group, only those whose work has been published in select scientific journals, can be relied on to critique the science. And sure enough, any challenges from critics outside this clique are dismissed and disparaged.
Judy Curry is a weather scientist who broke from the politically correct, and politically controlled AGW (anthropomorphic global warming) stranglehold, to expose other nefarious practices of the environmental crowd. She writes: Tribalism is defined here as a strong identity that separates one’s group from members of another group, characterized by strong in-group loyalty. In the context of scientific research, tribes differ from groups of colleagues that collaborate and otherwise associate with each other professionally. As a result of the politicization of climate science, climate tribes circle the wagons and point the guns outward in an attempt to discredit all critics.
The motivation of scientists in the pro AGW tribes appears to be motivated by politics and their professional ego. After becoming more knowledgeable about the politics of climate change, I became concerned about some of the tribes pointing their guns inward at other climate researchers who question their research or don’t pass various loyalty tests.
Particularly on a topic of such great public relevance, scientists need to consider carefully skeptical arguments and either rebut them or learn from them. Trying to suppress them or discredit the skeptical researcher is not an ethical strategy. All relevant and available data and metadata [should be] made publicly accessible.” Indeed.
So if climate change data has been manipulated and falsified to support a particular political agenda, how much other scientific data needs to be brought into question? How much other “research” has been closely guarded, doctored, and let out only to those who support their theories? A few scientific “tribal” research topics I have challenged for years come quickly to mind: 1) the theory of evolution, 2) the big bang theory, 3) dinosaurs, 4) carbon dating, 5) the age of the earth itself, 6) the entire body of environmental science, to mention just a few.
There is much about this expose that reminds me of Marxism, fascism, and other extreme controlling forms of government who attempt to hide the truth, manipulate reality and force a pre-determined outcome.
Geologists and archeologists push the age of all things so far into the past that no one is able to dispute their data, except of course, those of that “tribe.” The theory of evolution has effectively silenced all critics, not to mention attempts to have other theories taught or even discussed in public schools and universities. How’s that for an educational posture? The big bang theory has so many unanswered questions, failures of logic, and other issues, one has to wonder what “tribal” group manipulated this data.
Carbon dating has long been questioned by almost everyone, except of course, those “tribal” leaders who control and manipulate that data. Although carbon dating is accurate back in time
for only about 200 years, still, carbon dating is given credibility for dating bones, rocks, and other items back in time hundreds of millions of years. Yeah, right!
And there’s the entire body of so-called environmental research, everything from “carbon pollution,” global warming, water quality, forests, oceans, and mining issues environmentalists have fooled the public on for decades. I could probably think of several stronger terms than “tribalism,” to call what environmentalists are doing to the public, but Judy Curry coined that phase, and it certainly applies. Tribalism is alive and well in environmental research.
This revelation exposes only the tip of the iceberg of the great environmental coverup regarding global warming, from which governments, including this one, make policy, draft bills, and extract taxes from a deceived public.
Penn State’s Michael Mann told Reuters that “colleagues often speak in a language they understand and is often foreign to the outside world," And according to this privileged group, only those whose work has been published in select scientific journals, can be relied on to critique the science. And sure enough, any challenges from critics outside this clique are dismissed and disparaged.
Judy Curry is a weather scientist who broke from the politically correct, and politically controlled AGW (anthropomorphic global warming) stranglehold, to expose other nefarious practices of the environmental crowd. She writes: Tribalism is defined here as a strong identity that separates one’s group from members of another group, characterized by strong in-group loyalty. In the context of scientific research, tribes differ from groups of colleagues that collaborate and otherwise associate with each other professionally. As a result of the politicization of climate science, climate tribes circle the wagons and point the guns outward in an attempt to discredit all critics.
The motivation of scientists in the pro AGW tribes appears to be motivated by politics and their professional ego. After becoming more knowledgeable about the politics of climate change, I became concerned about some of the tribes pointing their guns inward at other climate researchers who question their research or don’t pass various loyalty tests.
Particularly on a topic of such great public relevance, scientists need to consider carefully skeptical arguments and either rebut them or learn from them. Trying to suppress them or discredit the skeptical researcher is not an ethical strategy. All relevant and available data and metadata [should be] made publicly accessible.” Indeed.
So if climate change data has been manipulated and falsified to support a particular political agenda, how much other scientific data needs to be brought into question? How much other “research” has been closely guarded, doctored, and let out only to those who support their theories? A few scientific “tribal” research topics I have challenged for years come quickly to mind: 1) the theory of evolution, 2) the big bang theory, 3) dinosaurs, 4) carbon dating, 5) the age of the earth itself, 6) the entire body of environmental science, to mention just a few.
There is much about this expose that reminds me of Marxism, fascism, and other extreme controlling forms of government who attempt to hide the truth, manipulate reality and force a pre-determined outcome.
Geologists and archeologists push the age of all things so far into the past that no one is able to dispute their data, except of course, those of that “tribe.” The theory of evolution has effectively silenced all critics, not to mention attempts to have other theories taught or even discussed in public schools and universities. How’s that for an educational posture? The big bang theory has so many unanswered questions, failures of logic, and other issues, one has to wonder what “tribal” group manipulated this data.
Carbon dating has long been questioned by almost everyone, except of course, those “tribal” leaders who control and manipulate that data. Although carbon dating is accurate back in time
for only about 200 years, still, carbon dating is given credibility for dating bones, rocks, and other items back in time hundreds of millions of years. Yeah, right!
And there’s the entire body of so-called environmental research, everything from “carbon pollution,” global warming, water quality, forests, oceans, and mining issues environmentalists have fooled the public on for decades. I could probably think of several stronger terms than “tribalism,” to call what environmentalists are doing to the public, but Judy Curry coined that phase, and it certainly applies. Tribalism is alive and well in environmental research.
Monday, November 23, 2009
Environmental Deception Beginning to Surface
After years of environmental deception and brainwashing, the truth regarding their methods and data are finally surfacing. I have insisted for years that environmentalists are not our friends, that they are deceptive, and have engaged in one of the most elaborate brainwashing schemes in the history of this country. At last, Al Gore’s “global warming” sham is being exposed for what it is, mostly lies and misinformation.
Hackers broke into an environmental computer and found an abundance of revealing emails, then posted them on a website for all the world to see. Emails spoke of efforts to "hide the decline" in global temperatures (amidst shrill cries by environmentalists that the earth is about to boil over).
The revealed data is being called a "smoking gun, and evidence of collusion among climatologists and manipulation of data to support the widely held view that climate change is caused by the actions of mankind.”
One email spoke of the problem of documenting global warming through tree-ring samples, but the warming trend stopped in 1960, and could not be established in tree-rings after than date, so emails spoke of the need to “hide the decline.”
The emails point to manipulation of evidence and private doubts about the reality of global warming, but environmentalist were not interested in the truth, or the science, on this issue, but of perpetuating the myth of global warming. Yet scientists like Kevin Trenberth, continued to tout the “integrity of these scientists."
Yet another email from the hacked files describes how to squeeze dissenting scientists from the peer review process: "I think we have to stop considering Climate Research as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal (peer review has virtually disappeared from the research community, so anyone can publish anything without any review, and claim it’s truthfulness). Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board?" In plain english they’re saying, we can’t really defend our position, so we need to stop peer review, squeeze out dissenting scientists, and be careful what we allow the editorial board to see. How’s that for great science?
In 2007, a British High Court judge ruled that Al Gore's global warming film contained nine significant errors and should no longer be screened in schools unless accompanied by guidance notes to balance Gore's "one-sided" and deceitful views.
Buoyed by the ruling, two Irish journalists -- Phelim McAleer and Ann McElhinney -- released a documentary in which they gather evidence outlining the damage of global warming hysteria. In "Not Evil Just Wrong," they challenge the claims made in Gore's film and conclude that the film is not worth screening in schools because it is put for as an article of faith, not science..
In Gore's film, directed by Davis Guggenheim and released in 2006, the former vice president argues that humans are causing climate change, If humans don't act to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases, Gore contends, the deaths caused by climate change will double in 25 years to 300,000 people a year, and more than a million species worldwide could be driven to extinction in half a century. Now here’s some great science, he provides no supporting evidence or research showing either that 150,000 people a year die from global warming, or how a million species are going to go extinct as a result of man’s negligence. It stated, again, as an article of faith, not science.
The film's "apocalyptic vision" was not an impartial analysis of climate change, High Court Judge Michael Burton said, but the errors were made in "the context of alarmism and exaggeration."
Just last month, McAleer publicly confronted Gore in a contentious exchange at an environmental journalist conference, where Gore was the keynote speaker and took questions from the audience.
When asked by McAleer whether he would do anything to correct the errors found by the British court, Gore said he wouldn't go through each of the errors. Gore mentioned that polar bears really are threatened. Phelim countered that the number of polar bears has increased and is increasing.
"You don't think they're endangered?" Gore asked.
"The number has increased," McAleer repeated, prompting the same question from Gore. "If the number of polar bears has increased, surely they're not in danger." Before McAleer could say anything else, he was interrupted by environmental journalists who said it wasn't a debate and shut off his microphone.
McElhinney, McAleer's filmmaking partner, said Gore, while doing research for his newly released book, "Our Choice," asked a scientist to dial back the science to fit his narrative. "So much for the inconvenient truth," McElhinney said. "He just doesn't like the truth." McElhinney said it's a flawed argument by environmentalists that there's a consensus that everyone agrees about the causes and consequences of global warming.
"That's not how science works," she said. "It doesn't matter if 99,000 people all agree about something and one person is right. Politics works like that -- a certain number of people vote for something and then it becomes true. But with science, it's the one person who tells the truth."
Gore and the environmental lobby has been dishonest from the beginning. Silent Spring by Rachel Carson was not based on science, and has been completely discredited; yet, environmentalists still worship Carson and her book, and cite its faulty conclusions daily. The world is not dying, the earth is not being warmed by man produced CO2. CO2 is not a poison or a pollutant, but an essential minor molecule in the atmosphere. Polar Bears are not threatened or dying off, they are actually increasing in number. The Arctic ice shelf is receding, somewhat; but the Antarctic ice shelf is growing–and so what? Life is thriving and is not threatened. New species come into existence, and go extinct, all the time–so what? 95% of all species that ever lived on the earth are now extinct, virtually all of them became extinct before man even appeared on the scene.
Environmentalism is a scheming, deceptive religion that is not based on science, but on faith. It is an eastern religion based religion with it’s roots in Gaia and mother earth–not science. Its aim is not to protect the environment, but to eliminate most of the people who now populate the planet, and replace them with a handful of faithful, card carrying environmentalists who can spend their days looking out from their cave, over the earth, undisturbed by man.
This sham is long overdue for exposure, fortunately, the truth is coming out, as it always does.
Hackers broke into an environmental computer and found an abundance of revealing emails, then posted them on a website for all the world to see. Emails spoke of efforts to "hide the decline" in global temperatures (amidst shrill cries by environmentalists that the earth is about to boil over).
The revealed data is being called a "smoking gun, and evidence of collusion among climatologists and manipulation of data to support the widely held view that climate change is caused by the actions of mankind.”
One email spoke of the problem of documenting global warming through tree-ring samples, but the warming trend stopped in 1960, and could not be established in tree-rings after than date, so emails spoke of the need to “hide the decline.”
The emails point to manipulation of evidence and private doubts about the reality of global warming, but environmentalist were not interested in the truth, or the science, on this issue, but of perpetuating the myth of global warming. Yet scientists like Kevin Trenberth, continued to tout the “integrity of these scientists."
Yet another email from the hacked files describes how to squeeze dissenting scientists from the peer review process: "I think we have to stop considering Climate Research as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal (peer review has virtually disappeared from the research community, so anyone can publish anything without any review, and claim it’s truthfulness). Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board?" In plain english they’re saying, we can’t really defend our position, so we need to stop peer review, squeeze out dissenting scientists, and be careful what we allow the editorial board to see. How’s that for great science?
In 2007, a British High Court judge ruled that Al Gore's global warming film contained nine significant errors and should no longer be screened in schools unless accompanied by guidance notes to balance Gore's "one-sided" and deceitful views.
Buoyed by the ruling, two Irish journalists -- Phelim McAleer and Ann McElhinney -- released a documentary in which they gather evidence outlining the damage of global warming hysteria. In "Not Evil Just Wrong," they challenge the claims made in Gore's film and conclude that the film is not worth screening in schools because it is put for as an article of faith, not science..
In Gore's film, directed by Davis Guggenheim and released in 2006, the former vice president argues that humans are causing climate change, If humans don't act to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases, Gore contends, the deaths caused by climate change will double in 25 years to 300,000 people a year, and more than a million species worldwide could be driven to extinction in half a century. Now here’s some great science, he provides no supporting evidence or research showing either that 150,000 people a year die from global warming, or how a million species are going to go extinct as a result of man’s negligence. It stated, again, as an article of faith, not science.
The film's "apocalyptic vision" was not an impartial analysis of climate change, High Court Judge Michael Burton said, but the errors were made in "the context of alarmism and exaggeration."
Just last month, McAleer publicly confronted Gore in a contentious exchange at an environmental journalist conference, where Gore was the keynote speaker and took questions from the audience.
When asked by McAleer whether he would do anything to correct the errors found by the British court, Gore said he wouldn't go through each of the errors. Gore mentioned that polar bears really are threatened. Phelim countered that the number of polar bears has increased and is increasing.
"You don't think they're endangered?" Gore asked.
"The number has increased," McAleer repeated, prompting the same question from Gore. "If the number of polar bears has increased, surely they're not in danger." Before McAleer could say anything else, he was interrupted by environmental journalists who said it wasn't a debate and shut off his microphone.
McElhinney, McAleer's filmmaking partner, said Gore, while doing research for his newly released book, "Our Choice," asked a scientist to dial back the science to fit his narrative. "So much for the inconvenient truth," McElhinney said. "He just doesn't like the truth." McElhinney said it's a flawed argument by environmentalists that there's a consensus that everyone agrees about the causes and consequences of global warming.
"That's not how science works," she said. "It doesn't matter if 99,000 people all agree about something and one person is right. Politics works like that -- a certain number of people vote for something and then it becomes true. But with science, it's the one person who tells the truth."
Gore and the environmental lobby has been dishonest from the beginning. Silent Spring by Rachel Carson was not based on science, and has been completely discredited; yet, environmentalists still worship Carson and her book, and cite its faulty conclusions daily. The world is not dying, the earth is not being warmed by man produced CO2. CO2 is not a poison or a pollutant, but an essential minor molecule in the atmosphere. Polar Bears are not threatened or dying off, they are actually increasing in number. The Arctic ice shelf is receding, somewhat; but the Antarctic ice shelf is growing–and so what? Life is thriving and is not threatened. New species come into existence, and go extinct, all the time–so what? 95% of all species that ever lived on the earth are now extinct, virtually all of them became extinct before man even appeared on the scene.
Environmentalism is a scheming, deceptive religion that is not based on science, but on faith. It is an eastern religion based religion with it’s roots in Gaia and mother earth–not science. Its aim is not to protect the environment, but to eliminate most of the people who now populate the planet, and replace them with a handful of faithful, card carrying environmentalists who can spend their days looking out from their cave, over the earth, undisturbed by man.
This sham is long overdue for exposure, fortunately, the truth is coming out, as it always does.
Monday, November 2, 2009
Blasphemous Quotes
"In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the prediction of a specific future climate state is not possible." -- Final chapter, Draft TAR 2000 (Third Assessment Report), IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change).
"Because there is considerable uncertainty in current understanding of how the climate system varies naturally and reacts to emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols, current estimates of the magnitude of future warming should be regarded as tentative and subject to future adjustments (either upward or downward)." -- Climate Change Science - An Analysis Of Some Key Questions, p1 (Committee on the Science of Climate Change, National Research Council)
"The forcings that drive long-term climate change are not known with an accuracy sufficient to define future climate change." -- James Hansen, "Climate forcings in the Industrial era",
"Reducing the wide range of uncertainty inherent in current model predictions of global climate change will require major advances in understanding and modeling of both (1) the factors that determine atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases and aerosols, and (2) the so-called “feedbacks” that determine the sensitivity of the climate system to a prescribed increase in greenhouse gases." -- Climate Change Science - An Analysis Of Some Key Questions, p1 (Committee on the Science of Climate Change, National Research Council)
"Because climate is uncontrollable . . . the models are the only available experimental laboratory for climate. . . . However, climate models are imperfect. Their simulation skill is limited by uncertainties in their formulation, the limited size of their calculations, and the difficulty of interpreting their answers that exhibit almost as much complexity as in nature." -- Climate Change Science - An Analysis Of Some Key Questions, p15 (Committee on the Science of Climate Change, National Research Council)
"At this point in the debate, it is intellectually dishonest and borders on fraudulent to continue to maintain that there is any reasonable basis to fear a coming climate apocalypse. Yet the scientific establishment continues to grind out tortured "studies" to prove black is white. Those involved in this charade are doing lasting damage to science and the reputations of scientists. Hell, you are no different than the worst lawyers - you will say whatever people want you to say so long as you are paid." -- Fred Palmer, president of the Greening Earth Society.
And why is all this bad science and deceptive writing and publishing going on? What is driving all this utter nonsense? Read on.
"Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?" -- Maurice Strong, head of the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro and Executive Officer for Reform in the Office of the Secretary General of the United Nations.
“A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-development means bringing our economic system (especially patterns of consumption) into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation.” -- Paul Ehrlich and Anne H. Ehrlich, “Population, Resources, Environment” (W.H. Freeman, San Francisco, 1970, 323)
The enhanced greenhouse hypothesis, while perhaps frightening, is poorly supported (we can't even agree on the planet's current temperature) and the issue, if issue it be, has been hijacked by natur über alles misanthropists seeking to ration energy as a means of suppressing humanity and by a curiously accommodating, apparently sensation-seeking media. So much noise has been made, so strident are the calls of impending doom that scientifically gullible politicians have thrown vast quantities of public money at study and abatement of a problem which is likely illusory and most certainly not as claimed by the eco-Jeremiads. The inevitable result of this misdirection of public funds has been the spawning of an entire industry dependent on continued hysteria to keep the grant torrent flowing and donation coffers full. Consequently we have a well-financed and supremely motivated industry, a three-M coalition composed of the Misanthropists, the Mistaken and the outright Miscreants (some would say Media), shrieking their tale of looming disaster from human development. Welcome to Big Warming. [From Junk Science]
Not everything is at it seams. The eco-fanatics are leading us around by the nose. Their agenda is a very perverse one, driven by eastern religion, with the commitment to undo hundreds of years of progress, technology, and advancement from the dark, dirty, and painful years of the past. An agenda determined to rid the world of several billion people, eliminate most of the world’s food supply, remove all electrical generating plants, stop all building, and drive the world back to the dark ages. And we are actually supporting this agenda with our hearts, our money, and our votes?
"Because there is considerable uncertainty in current understanding of how the climate system varies naturally and reacts to emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols, current estimates of the magnitude of future warming should be regarded as tentative and subject to future adjustments (either upward or downward)." -- Climate Change Science - An Analysis Of Some Key Questions, p1 (Committee on the Science of Climate Change, National Research Council)
"The forcings that drive long-term climate change are not known with an accuracy sufficient to define future climate change." -- James Hansen, "Climate forcings in the Industrial era",
"Reducing the wide range of uncertainty inherent in current model predictions of global climate change will require major advances in understanding and modeling of both (1) the factors that determine atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases and aerosols, and (2) the so-called “feedbacks” that determine the sensitivity of the climate system to a prescribed increase in greenhouse gases." -- Climate Change Science - An Analysis Of Some Key Questions, p1 (Committee on the Science of Climate Change, National Research Council)
"Because climate is uncontrollable . . . the models are the only available experimental laboratory for climate. . . . However, climate models are imperfect. Their simulation skill is limited by uncertainties in their formulation, the limited size of their calculations, and the difficulty of interpreting their answers that exhibit almost as much complexity as in nature." -- Climate Change Science - An Analysis Of Some Key Questions, p15 (Committee on the Science of Climate Change, National Research Council)
"At this point in the debate, it is intellectually dishonest and borders on fraudulent to continue to maintain that there is any reasonable basis to fear a coming climate apocalypse. Yet the scientific establishment continues to grind out tortured "studies" to prove black is white. Those involved in this charade are doing lasting damage to science and the reputations of scientists. Hell, you are no different than the worst lawyers - you will say whatever people want you to say so long as you are paid." -- Fred Palmer, president of the Greening Earth Society.
And why is all this bad science and deceptive writing and publishing going on? What is driving all this utter nonsense? Read on.
"Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?" -- Maurice Strong, head of the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro and Executive Officer for Reform in the Office of the Secretary General of the United Nations.
“A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-development means bringing our economic system (especially patterns of consumption) into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation.” -- Paul Ehrlich and Anne H. Ehrlich, “Population, Resources, Environment” (W.H. Freeman, San Francisco, 1970, 323)
The enhanced greenhouse hypothesis, while perhaps frightening, is poorly supported (we can't even agree on the planet's current temperature) and the issue, if issue it be, has been hijacked by natur über alles misanthropists seeking to ration energy as a means of suppressing humanity and by a curiously accommodating, apparently sensation-seeking media. So much noise has been made, so strident are the calls of impending doom that scientifically gullible politicians have thrown vast quantities of public money at study and abatement of a problem which is likely illusory and most certainly not as claimed by the eco-Jeremiads. The inevitable result of this misdirection of public funds has been the spawning of an entire industry dependent on continued hysteria to keep the grant torrent flowing and donation coffers full. Consequently we have a well-financed and supremely motivated industry, a three-M coalition composed of the Misanthropists, the Mistaken and the outright Miscreants (some would say Media), shrieking their tale of looming disaster from human development. Welcome to Big Warming. [From Junk Science]
Not everything is at it seams. The eco-fanatics are leading us around by the nose. Their agenda is a very perverse one, driven by eastern religion, with the commitment to undo hundreds of years of progress, technology, and advancement from the dark, dirty, and painful years of the past. An agenda determined to rid the world of several billion people, eliminate most of the world’s food supply, remove all electrical generating plants, stop all building, and drive the world back to the dark ages. And we are actually supporting this agenda with our hearts, our money, and our votes?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)