Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic
#34
Here's a searchable page of the suspect emails from the Climate Research Unit......
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/index.php
Lots to read...dating from 3/07/96->11/12/09......
Reply
#35
Quote:Climategate: Dr. Tim Ball on the hacked CRU emails

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ydo2Mwnw ... r_embedded


This was a good video,
and one of the main points that Dr Tim Ball made was:
that the peer reviewed journals were corrupted by the control of this group of scientists
currently in question.
They even went so far as to completely change historic climate records to fit their current lie.
Science is now what is politically correct by any corruptable means necessary
for those who can facilitate the funding or profits in their directions.

We see this in the swine flu vaccine lies repetitively told through the TV media,
by the CDC and the pharma-cartels with their peer reviewed publication jive.

We see this as well in the NASA Mars science which Don preaches from peer reviewed journals,
and politically correct pseudo science news articles
that proliferate this Nazi-info-matic repetitive lie system,
backed by and controlled by those same NASA scientific contingents
which are promoting their own agendas.
Reply
#36
Quote:[quote author="Wook"][Image: global20warming201.gif]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/enviro ... ation.html

Quote:Lord Lawson calls for public inquiry into UEA global warming data 'manipulation'

Lord Lawson, the former chancellor, has called for an independent inquiry into claims that leading climate change scientists manipulated data to strengthen the case for man-made global warming.


I certainly hope that Lord Lawson gets his inquiry, and ferrets out the truth.

The explanation offered by the lead scientist in the English global warming scandal
was pretty shaky:

Quote:One of the emails under scrutiny, written by Phil Jones,
the centre's director, in 1999, reads:
"I've just completed Mike's Nature [the science journal]
trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years,
and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

Prof Jones has insisted that he used the word "trick" to mean a "clever thing to do", rather than to indicate deception. He has denied manipulating data.

Kevin Trenberth
of the US National Center for Atmospheric Research
accused climate change sceptics of cherry-picking the documents
and taking them out of context.

So I noticed the Trenberth name there that is the American counterpart
of the English global warming climate group.
His work is responsible for a lot of this global warming frenzy.
I found his essay.
he used El Nino climate cycles...from the 90s...talks of a distinct shift ....76-77.... <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/hmm2.gif" alt="Hmm2" title="hmm2" />
http://esi-topics.com/gwarm/interviews/ ... berth.html

This is his pdf on the Debate on Global Warming...Trenberth vs Gray
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/X ... sFeb08.pdf

I did not bother to open and read, i don't have time,
but the link has several of his pdf.s

This guy is the one to investigate on the American global warming front,
especially when the media is quoting him on this issue.



The part about the global CO2 levels rising then would be a lie or manipulation as well,
if the global warming is not true.
I would then deduce it to be a manipulation in that
if the global levels of CO2 are rising so fast to record levels,
and it is not affecting the immediacy of global warming as suggested,
then the Earth can absorb the excess CO2 much better than they admit to.

Very interesting developments.

Science engaged in fraudulent manipulation of data.
Science manipulated by big money politics and global energy futures.

Imagine if we could get our hands on all the NASA emails what we would find.[/quote]

I thought it had been 'determined' that temperature fluctuations due to increased or decreased CO2 levels were offset by some 80 years - ie the warming or cooling takes 80 years to manifest itself AFTER the CO2 levels had changed.
Reply
#37
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKoUwttE0BA

Seems that new research shows that Cosmic Waves from outside Solar System and the Sun
not CO2
has the main effect on weather
another win for the woo woos
here at HM.
<img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/cheers.gif" alt="Cheers" title="cheers" />
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Reply
#38
Quote:Here's a searchable page of the suspect emails from the Climate Research Unit......
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/index.php
Lots to read...dating from 3/07/96->11/12/09......
<img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/damned.gif" alt="Damned" title="damned" />
OMG. I browsed a few of those files at random. It looks as though 90% of their time was occupied with data cooking and emailing each other to get their stories straight and to plan strategies for attacking anyone who disagreed or had questions. They need to be on trial for fraud.
Reply
#39
[Image: 6a00e008c6b4e58834012875e75520970c.jpg]
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Reply
#40
they just had Round Table on ABC News.

Paul Krugman of Time Magazine was there scoffing at the emails being anything important.
He just shrugged them off like nothing ever happened.
He garbled some mumbo jumbo that made absolutely no sense on the issue of the emails
"...eliminating of the middle ages hot period from historic record..."
Then
George Will kicked his butt and pointed out that the global warming industry is now one of
the largest growing financial growth markets internationally,
and that huge amounts of money in funding and grants were fueling these prevarications
and outright lies seen in the emails,
and that human nature was at play amongst these scientists
with plain old greed both in financial interests,
and in realized scientific position internationally
derived from these organized peer reviewed journals and repetitive publications, assimilated with lies.

Krugman is a pawn of the Gore-bage-ites.
However, if there is no global warming then there should be no more glacial melting
that we have seen so dramatically,
and this would have to be relegated to a small cycle of warming currently as of the late 1990's,
that they are using as evidence overall.
So at some point the glacial melting would have to be visibly seen to begin to reverse itself.

It does appear indeed that we just don't have enough data, and that huge global financial
interests are promoting this global warming based upon limited and fragmented cycle observations.

The only good thing about reducing carbon emissions is that air pollution may be decreased coming out of India and China,
China of which affects us directly here on the west coast with their pollution.

It would be cheaper in the long run to take the Chinese government out militarily now,
and pocket our debt to them.
Then go in and rebuild the entire country industrial base on greener production methods.
The inevitable future without a take down of Chinese industrial ecologic insanity,
is a global Chinese industrial infrastructure supplying everything to everybody,
as they out compete all nations production capacities,
with their toxic industrial base and billions of Chinese hive bees labor force.
So perhaps part of this overall global warming industrial emissions push,
is a feeble attempt
to curtail the exponential progress the Chinese are making industrially
which inevitably
translates into Chinese military production on the fast track
to include endless nuclear powered submarines with ICBM's in the near future.
Reply
#41
Cosmic Rays Linked To Global Warming
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 080631.htm

Quote:ScienceDaily (July 31, 2002) — WASHINGTON - Researchers studying global warming have often been confounded by the differences between observed increases in surface-level temperatures and unchanging low-atmosphere temperatures. Because of this discrepancy, some have argued that global warming is unproven, suggesting instead that true warming should show uniformly elevated temperatures from the surface through the atmosphere. Researchers have proposed a theory that changes in cloud cover could help explain the puzzling phenomenon, but none-until now-have come up with an argument that could account for the varying heat profiles.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKoUwttE0BA#normal
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Reply
#42
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/e ... 936328.ece

From The Sunday Times
November 29, 2009
Climate change data dumped
Jonathan Leake, Environment Editor

Quote:SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.

The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.

The admission follows the leaking of a thousand private emails sent and received by Professor Phil Jones, the CRU’s director. In them he discusses thwarting climate sceptics seeking access to such data.

In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.”

The CRU is the world’s leading centre for reconstructing past climate and temperatures. Climate change sceptics have long been keen to examine exactly how its data were compiled. That is now impossible.

Roger Pielke, professor of environmental studies at Colorado University, discovered data had been lost when he asked for original records. “The CRU is basically saying, ‘Trust us’. So much for settling questions and resolving debates with science,” he said.

Jones was not in charge of the CRU when the data were thrown away in the 1980s, a time when climate change was seen as a less pressing issue. The lost material was used to build the databases that have been his life’s work, showing how the world has warmed by 0.8C over the past 157 years.

He and his colleagues say this temperature rise is “unequivocally” linked to greenhouse gas emissions generated by humans. Their findings are one of the main pieces of evidence used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which says global warming is a threat to humanity.
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Reply
#43
whatever happened to the large and growing hole in the ozone that was talked about around the time of the '84 Olympics?
&quot;Confusion... first sign of a bad relationship-whether personal, societal or governmental&quot;
Reply
#44
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig10/sircus1.1.1.html

The Day Global Warming Stood Still

by Mark Sircus

From the mainstream press we read, “As scientists confirm the earth has not warmed at all in the past decade, others wonder how this could be and what it means for Copenhagen. It will be a very cold winter of discontent for the warm-mongers. The climate show-and-tell in Copenhagen next month will be nothing more than a meaningless carbon-emitting jaunt, unable to decide just whom to blame or how to divvy up the profitable spoils of climate change hysteria.

Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe, the leading Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committee said, “Until this year, any scientist, reporter or politician who dared raise even the slightest suspicion about the science behind global warming was dismissed and repeatedly mocked. Today I have been vindicated.”

And then we find out that hackers broke into the computer network run by the Hadley Climate Research Unit, removing 61 megabytes of e-mails and data, which they promptly spilled onto the Web and reveal something startling: The scientists at Hadley, one of the world’s leading climate change study centers, aren’t scientifically objective at all. If true, this is massive scientific fraud.

It was almost two years ago that I first reported on Global Cooling and I had waited a full year before I did so because I wanted to be sure before I risked being such a contrarian on this hugely important subject. Now even the BBC is weighing in on global cooling as are many others.

October 2009 will go down as the 3rd coolest October on record for the United States, according to the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). Records go back to 1880.

The mainstream press is finally coming to the conclusion that the entire climate debate about global warming is about to collapse so they had better get out of that game and come clean with what is happening with the sun and what that means for planet earth and all the people on it. The global warming gig has played itself out and has only gone on as long as it has because climate change was a weapon for more mass taxation.

Global warming is hard to maintain as heaters across the country are being turned on much earlier than usual. Stunning records for cold were set across the nation increasing the demand for heating fuels over the weekend. The Chicago Marathon, according to the Chicago Tribune, had its coldest start since a 33 degree low in 2002 which they say was a far cry from 2007 when temperatures soared into the upper 80s and officials canceled the marathon after 3 1/2 hours into the event.

In Denver it was reported that an arctic cold front moved in and broke a cold temperature record that stood for 104 years. In fact on the 9th of October Denver saw temperatures plunge 23 degrees in five hours setting the stage to make that record low. There were record lows in many parts of the country like Wyoming, Utah, Illinois and Iowa and if records were not broken in many areas it was extremely close.

So it might be a long hard winter in the northern hemisphere and that is bad news for the many who can hardly afford increased heating bills. It was not that long ago that we read the headlines of thousands dying from the heat; soon it will be from the cold and already we are hearing of the mounting deaths from the flu, which gets its fuel from the cold weather.

Throughout history we have had men and women leaders from the earliest times leading humanity toward destruction and ruin and it is not hard to understand their motives of corruption, power and greed. In December leaders from all over the world are gathering in Copenhagen and the good news about this meeting is that God himself did an end run around them mocking the meeting and exposing these men and women who work for the world’s elite; who just cannot seem to get it straight what it means to be a human being. The Copenhagen Treaty was meant to create a world government for the purpose of policing all nations for their carbon emissions but they are being foiled by Nature who just does not want to cooperate. The best laid plans of both mice and men get broken asunder and that’s just the way life is.

As politicians they were making their plans to sign an international treaty about global warming and carbon taxes – setting up structures for increased power of the now partially in place world government – record-breaking cold temperatures were being set in both Europe and America. We still see news about global warming when it is clear that the world is in a period of cooling as the sun cycles down and sun spots vanish and the oceans cool.

As a startling example of how a central world leader can weigh in on the wrong side; a few weeks ago U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said he’s hopeful the U.S. Senate will pass a significant bill to limit carbon emissions because of global warming. Such is the arrogance of the world’s elite and the political people who follow them that even with the deep chill surrounding window panes everywhere even before real winter sets in they had every intention of signing this treaty until President Obama threw in the towel.

Prof. Don J. Easterbrook comes to the conclusion, “Global warming (i.e., the warming since 1977) is over. The minute increase of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere (0.008%) was not the cause of the warming – it was a continuation of natural cycles that occurred over the past 500 years. The PDO cool mode has replaced the warm mode in the Pacific Ocean, virtually assuring us of about 30 years of global cooling, perhaps much deeper than the global cooling from about 1945 to 1977. Just how much cooler the global climate will be during this cool cycle is uncertain. Recent solar changes suggest that it could be fairly severe, perhaps more like the 1880 to 1915 cool cycle than the more moderate 1945–1977 cool cycles. A more drastic cooling, similar to that during the Dalton and Maunder minimums, could plunge the Earth into another Little Ice Age, but only time will tell if that is likely.”

Meanwhile despite the international financial crisis pollution is still increasing as we continue to blanket the planet with mercury from coal fired electrical plants around the world. Mercury and thousands of other chemicals continue to be released in staggering tonnages and this is the real threat that we and our children face. Again they had most people worrying about the wrong thing – our old friend CO2.

Should we count the huge tonnage of Coke and Pepsi into our calculations of poisons released on earth directly into peoples’ guts?

Things are quite a bit different today than in 1918 when the last pandemic (first large experimental vaccine program) happened. Today people and our children are walking chemical time bombs. Diseases are accidents only waiting to happen and the triggers that will set us off get more fine-haired every year. The global catastrophe with chronic diseases like cancer, diabetes, heart and neurological diseases has more too do with chemical poisoning running head on into nutritional deficiencies; and the fact that too many have lost their souls and don’t know truth from untruth anymore than anything else.

We could easily conclude that vaccines and influenza viruses both are hair triggers but for some unfortunately they are hard hammers.

This article originally appeared on GlobalResearch.ca.

November 30, 2009

Peace
Government is nothing more than the rationalization and exercise of violence. Everything done by government contains at least the implicit threat of lethal coercion. <br /><br />- William N. Grigg
Reply
#45
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvcuylMrkXk
Global Warming Hoax, Planned in 1961
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Reply
#46
Hey Unibonger
check it out,
in your post

Quote:http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig10/sircus1.1.1.html
The Day Global Warming Stood Still
by Mark Sircus

Prof. Don J. Easterbrook
comes to the conclusion,
“Global warming (i.e., the warming since 1977) is over.
The minute increase of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere (0.008%)
was not the cause of the warming – it was a continuation of natural cycles
that occurred over the past 500 years.
The PDO cool mode has replaced the warm mode in the Pacific Ocean,
virtually assuring us of about 30 years of global cooling,
perhaps much deeper than the global cooling from about 1945 to 1977.
Just how much cooler the global climate will be during this cool cycle is uncertain.
Recent solar changes suggest that it could be fairly severe,
perhaps more like the 1880 to 1915 cool cycle
than the more moderate 1945–1977 cool cycles.
A more drastic cooling, similar to that during the Dalton and Maunder minimums,
could plunge the Earth into another Little Ice Age, but only time will tell if that is likely.”


Ha!
He was one of my geology professors up here at Western University in Bellingham,
I think he wrote the text book Geomorphology that we used.... here is the 2nd release
http://www.amazon.com/Surface-Processes ... 0138609586

he also has one on deserts

impressive resume .... the book he used for my class dates to 1971 in his book review there
http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~dbunny/resume.htm

here is his global cooling site,
and those graphs would be good to look at, especially the one in the upper right.
http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~dbunny/research/global/index.htm


This all goes back to that Russian scientist as well we posted about,
he said the exact same things.

If you look closely at Easterbrooks little graph image there at his link,
it clearly shows a massive longer warming trend
right after this 30 year cooling trend he mentions.

This is getting very interesting.
His data in the rise in CO2 emissions needs to be reviewed in better context I assume...

I tell you what....
if it is going to get colder, I need to go to Hawaii.

Aloha baby.
Reply
#47
Quote:E-mail row 'to affect Copenhagen'
By Richard Black
Environment correspondent, BBC News website
E-mails hacked from a climate research institute suggest climate change does not have a human cause, according to Saudi Arabia's lead climate negotiator.

Mohammad Al-Sabban told BBC News that the issue will have a "huge impact" on next week's UN climate summit, with countries unwilling to cut emissions.

Other scientists say the e-mails from the University of East Anglia do not alter the picture of man-made warming.

Meanwhile, India has set a target for curbing the rise in its CO2 emissions.

Environment minister Jairam Ramesh pledged to cut India's emissions intensity - the amount of greenhouse gases produced for every unit of GDP - by 20-25% by 2020, "if we get support from the international community".

Human impact denied

The e-mails issue arose two weeks ago when hundreds of messages between scientists at the university's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and their peers around the world were posted on the world wide web, along with other documents.

“ It's a transparent attempt to discredit the scientific evidence base and sow confusion ahead of the talks in Copenhagen ”
Malini Mehra Centre for Social Markets
It appears that the material was hacked or leaked; a police investigation has yet to reveal which.

CRU maintains one of the world's most important datasets on how global temperatures have changed.

Climate "sceptics" have claimed that the e-mails undermine the scientific case for climate change being caused by humanity's greenhouse gas emissions, dubbing the issue "ClimateGate".

But it has not until now materialised as an issue likely to influence the Copenhagen negotiations, which are supposed to agree a new global deal on combating climate change to supplant the Kyoto Protocol.

Saudi Arabia is an influential member of the G77/China bloc which leads the "developing world" side in many elements of the UN negotiations.

Mr Al-Sabban made clear that he expects it to derail the single biggest objective of the summit - to agree limitations on greenhouse gas emissions.

"It appears from the details of the scandal that there is no relationship whatsoever between human activities and climate change," he told BBC News.

"Climate is changing for thousands of years, but for natural and not human-induced reasons.

"So, whatever the international community does to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will have no effect on the climate's natural variability."

Some other countries shared this view, he said; and as a result, governments would not be prepared to countenance agreeing anything that would affect economic growth for many years, until "new evidence" settled the scientific picture.

However, governments might be willing to commit to "no-cost" measures to constrain emissions, he said, while Western nations should be prepared to assist poor vulnerable countries financially as they prepared for impacts of "the already happening natural climate change".

Mr Al-Sabban said the UN summit should encourage a "full investigation" of the CRU e-mails affair.

'Out of step'

As the world's leading oil producer, Saudi Arabia has previously fought attempts to agree curbs on emissions, and has also argued that it should receive financial compensation for "lost" revenue, given that constraints on emissions might restrict oil sales.

To some long-time observers of the UN negotiations, Mr Al-Sabban's comments indicate a continuation of this strategy.

"It's a transparent attempt to discredit the scientific evidence base and sow confusion ahead of the talks in Copenhagen; most of us have seen this all before," said Malini Mehra, founder and CEO of the Centre for Social Markets in India.

"[The Saudis] appear to have regressed to the days when they were out-and-out climate deniers - not surprising for a fossil fuel dependent economy, but not far-sighted and certainly out of step with the rest of the developing world."

A spokeswoman for the European Commission said that with or without the CRU hack, evidence for man-made climate change was "irrefutable".

"The world's leading scientists overwhelmingly agree that what we're experiencing is not down to natural variation in the climate over time, but due to human activities," she said.

"If we do not act, climate change will continue apace and lead to major damaging impacts to the natural world and society."

The UK government has not yet responded to a request for a response.

Aim to fail

Earlier in the week, CRU's director, Phil Jones, stood aside from his post pending the results of a review.

The university has just announced that the review will be chaired by Sir Muir Russell, a former civil servant.

Other academics prominent in developing the mainstream view of climate science maintain that the contents of the stolen documents make no difference to the picture outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its landmark 2007 assessment.

IPCC PROJECTIONS FOR 2100

•Probable temperature rise between 1.8C and 4C
•Possible temperature rise between 1.1C and 6.4C
•Sea level likely to rise 28-43cm
•Arctic summer sea ice disappears in second half of century
•Increase in heatwaves very likely
•Increase in intensity of tropical storms likely

"There is a consensus among the world's scientists that climate change is real and there's a need to confront it," said Michael Mann from Pennsylvania State University in the US, a leading palaeoclimatologist.

"Those who are advocating inaction, that don't want to see progress in Copenhagen, don't have science on their side.

"Instead they've manufactured this false controversy to distract the public and to distract policymakers, to try to thwart progress in Copenhagen."

Meanwhile another leading US climate scientist, Nasa's James Hansen, has said it would be better if the Copenhagen summit failed.

In an interview with The Guardian, Dr Hansen said that any agreement likely to emerge from the meeting would be so flawed that it would be better to start again.

"I would rather it not happen if people accept that as being the right track, because it's a disaster track," he told the newspaper.

The last few days have seen intense discussions in Copenhagen between representatives of a few countries considered to be particularly important in the issue.

EU delegates have been asking China to increase its offer of reducing carbon intensity by 40-45% by 2020, while China and other major developing countries have rejected elements of a draft deal proposed by the Danish hosts that would see global emissions peaking in 2020 en route to a 50% cut by 2050.

The Indian pledge of cutting emissions intensity by 20-25% is less than the Chinese figure, and Mr Ramesh's words make clear that the cuts will be on this scale only if western countries provide financial assistance.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/s ... 392611.stm

Published: 2009/12/03 15:25:09 GMT

© BBC MMIX
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Reply
#48
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/200 ... mate-data/

Quote:The fight over global warming science is about to cross the Atlantic with a U.S. researcher poised to sue NASA, demanding release of the same kind of climate data that has landed a leading British center in hot water over charges it skewed its data.

Chris Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said NASA has refused for two years to provide information under the Freedom of Information Act that would show how the agency has shaped its climate data and would explain why the agency has repeatedly had to correct its data going as far back as the 1930s.
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Reply
#49
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009 ... 765792.htm

Quote:Leaked agreement rocks Copenhagen
By Europe correspondent Emma Alberici for AM

Posted 8 hours 17 minutes ago
Updated 7 hours 30 minutes ago
Developing nations sidelined: Representatives from Antigua and Barbuda at the Copenhagen talks (AFP: Attila Kisbenedek)

The Copenhagen climate talks have been rocked by the leak of a draft final agreement which weakens the role of the United Nations in climate change negotiations and abandons the Kyoto Protocol

<img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/hmm2.gif" alt="Hmm2" title="hmm2" />
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Reply
#50
Quote:Obama Mocks The Senate & Our Constitution Again
I Don't Need No Congress!
I Don't Need No Constitution!
I Don't Need No Climategate Facts!
By Nick Ivanovich
ConstitutionPartyMO.org
12-18-9

"America has made our choice. That's why I come here today, not to talk, but to act!"
--Would-Be Dictator Barack Obama, at Copenhagen Dec 18, 2009
Click to Watch
cnn - obama@copenhagen - complete climate change...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9SSb-1XOLU
Pelosi's Orders to the Senate: Cap 'n Trade, "Will Get Through the United States Senate . . . will be Signed by the President"

"We've talked enough, it's time to act" . . . . Regarding the Cap 'n Trade bill stalled in the Senate Pelosi said (video at 0.58) "It will get through. I just met with the ministers of the European Union and I want to remove all doubt. This Bill will get through the United States Senate and it will pass the Congress, will be signed by the President in this Congress which means in the year 2010. --Zionist Commissar Nancy Pelosi
Click to Watch
cnn - copenhagen - pelosi: climate bill will pass
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdJMlYQT ... re=channel
December 18, 2009

Transcript: Obama's Speech In Copenhagen

Remarks Of President Barack Obama - As Prepared For Telepromter Delivery

December 18, 2009

Good morning. It's an honor to for me to join this distinguished group of leaders from nations around the world. We come together here in Copenhagen because climate change poses a grave and growing danger to our people. You would not be here unless you ­ like me ­ were convinced that this danger is real. This is not fiction, this is science. Unchecked, climate change will pose unacceptable risks to our security, our economies, and our planet. That much we know.

So the question before us is no longer the nature of the challenge ­ the question is our capacity to meet it. For while the reality of climate change is not in doubt, our ability to take collective action hangs in the balance.

I believe that we can act boldly, and decisively, in the face of this common threat. And that is why I have come here today.(Note here Obama added, "That's why I come here today, not to talk, but to act".)

As the world's largest economy and the world's second largest emitter, America bears our share of responsibility in addressing climate change, and we intend to meet that responsibility. That is why we have renewed our leadership within international climate negotiations, and worked with other nations to phase out fossil fuel subsidies. And that is why we have taken bold action at home ­ by making historic investments in renewable energy; by putting our people to work increasing efficiency in our homes and buildings; and by pursuing comprehensive legislation to transform to a clean energy economy.

These actions are ambitious, and we are taking them not simply to meet our global responsibilities. We are convinced that changing the way that we produce and use energy is essential to America's economic future ­ that it will create millions of new jobs, power new industry, keep us competitive, and spark new innovation. And we are convinced that changing the way we use energy is essential to America's national security, because it will reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and help us deal with some of the dangers posed by climate change.

So America is going to continue on this course of action no matter what happens in Copenhagen. But we will all be stronger and safer and more secure if we act together. That is why it is in our mutual interest to achieve a global accord in which we agree to take certain steps, and to hold each other accountable for our commitments.

After months of talk, and two weeks of negotiations, I believe that the pieces of that accord are now clear.

First, all major economies must put forward decisive national actions that will reduce their emissions, and begin to turn the corner on climate change. I'm pleased that many of us have already done so, and I'm confident that America will fulfill the commitments that we have made: cutting our emissions in the range of 17 percent by 2020, and by more than 80 percent by 2050 in line with final legislation.

Second, we must have a mechanism to review whether we are keeping our commitments, and to exchange this information in a transparent manner. These measures need not be intrusive, or infringe upon sovereignty. They must, however, ensure that an accord is credible, and that we are living up to our obligations. For without such accountability, any agreement would be empty words on a page.

Third, we must have financing that helps developing countries adapt, particularly the least-developed and most vulnerable to climate change.America will be a part of fast-start funding that will ramp up to $10 billion in 2012. And, yesterday, Secretary Clinton made it clear that we will engage in a global effort to mobilize $100 billion in financing by 2020, if ­ and only if ­ it is part of the broader accord that I have just described.

Mitigation. Transparency. And financing. It is a clear formula ­ one that embraces the principle of common but differentiated responses and respective capabilities. And it adds up to a significant accord ­ one that takes us farther than we have ever gone before as an international community.

The question is whether we will move forward together, or split apart. This is not a perfect agreement, and no country would get everything that it wants. There are those developing countries that want aid with no strings attached, and who think that the most advanced nations should pay a higher price. And there are those advanced nations who think that developing countries cannot absorb this assistance, or that the world's fastest-growing emitters should bear a greater share of the burden.

We know the fault lines because we've been imprisoned by them for years. But here is the bottom line: we can embrace this accord, take a substantial step forward, and continue to refine it and build upon its foundation. We can do that, and everyone who is in this room will be a part of an historic endeavor ­ one that makes life better for our children and grandchildren.

Or we can again choose delay, falling back into the same divisions that have stood in the way of action for years. And we will be back having the same stale arguments month after month, year after year ­ all while the danger of climate change grows until it is irreversible.

There is no time to waste. America has made our choice. We have charted our course, we have made our commitments, and we will do what we say. Now, I believe that it's time for the nations and people of the world to come together behind a common purpose.

We must choose action over inaction; the future over the past ­ with courage and faith, let us meet our responsibility to our people, and to the future of our planet. Thank you.
From http://businessinfocus.blogspot.com/2009/12/
transcript-obamas-speech-in-copenhagen.html

CNN http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/12 ... ranscript/

Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Reply
#51
This whole thing sucks rocks like a hoover

I see all the lying blurbs in the paper media
and just cringe, they really are having to work
overtime to save their lying asses...

Al Gore, the smarmy one with a carbon footprint
larger than a small nation created an entire virtual commodity
right from thin air (no pun intended)
and now their going to divy up the spoils
in the name of Saving the Planet
it's positively evil

I actually saw one newspiece today that said,
"Global Warming is Hard for People to Believe"
No shit.

At least people in Europe still get out and scream about it

[video:rxtm3kqf]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yN0C8hkwSAo&feature=player_embedded[/video:rxtm3kqf]

Way I see it, this bill passes
It's the final nail

You guys see the Jessie Ventura program
the other night on what a scam this is?
Not that we don't know it, but his recent
programs on Haarp and on global warming
were imo really taking them on...

Lots of our past research is on cable these days
&quot;The impure can become pure through the process of elimination, <br />but error can never be transformed into truth.&quot; <br /> Schwaller De Lubicz
Reply
#52
I suggest you read this one at the link as there are a few pics of the news headlies.

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16507

Conflicting Views on Climate Change: Fire and Ice
Journalists have warned of climate change for 100 years, but can’t decide whether we face an ice age or warming

by R. Warren Anderson and Dan Gainor


Global Research, December 12, 2009
Business & Media Institute - 2006-05-17


Global Research Editor's Note

This article first published in May 2006 provides an interesting review of the debate on Climate Change.


It was five years before the turn of the century and major media were warning of disastrous climate change. Page six of The New York Times was headlined with the serious concerns of “geologists.” Only the president at the time wasn’t Bill Clinton; it was Grover Cleveland. And the Times wasn’t warning about global warming – it was telling readers the looming dangers of a new ice age.

The year was 1895, and it was just one of four different time periods in the last 100 years when major print media predicted an impending climate crisis. Each prediction carried its own elements of doom, saying Canada could be “wiped out” or lower crop yields would mean “billions will die.”

Just as the weather has changed over time, so has the reporting – blowing hot or cold with short-term changes in temperature.

Following the ice age threats from the late 1800s, fears of an imminent and icy catastrophe were compounded in the 1920s by Arctic explorer Donald MacMillan and an obsession with the news of his polar expedition. As the Times put it on Feb. 24, 1895, “Geologists Think the World May Be Frozen Up Again.”

Those concerns lasted well into the late 1920s. But when the earth’s surface warmed less than half a degree, newspapers and magazines responded with stories about the new threat. Once again the Times was out in front, cautioning “the earth is steadily growing warmer.”

After a while, that second phase of climate cautions began to fade. By 1954, Fortune magazine was warming to another cooling trend and ran an article titled “Climate – the Heat May Be Off.” As the United States and the old Soviet Union faced off, the media joined them with reports of a more dangerous Cold War of Man vs. Nature.

The New York Times ran warming stories into the late 1950s, but it too came around to the new fears. Just three decades ago, in 1975, the paper reported: “A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable.”

That trend, too, cooled off and was replaced by the current era of reporting on the dangers of global warming. Just six years later, on Aug. 22, 1981, the Times quoted seven government atmospheric scientists who predicted global warming of an “almost unprecedented magnitude.”



In all, the print news media have warned of four separate climate changes in slightly more than 100 years – global cooling, warming, cooling again, and, perhaps not so finally, warming. Some current warming stories combine the concepts and claim the next ice age will be triggered by rising temperatures – the theme of the 2004 movie “The Day After Tomorrow.”

Recent global warming reports have continued that trend, morphing into a hybrid of both theories. News media that once touted the threat of “global warming” have moved on to the more flexible term “climate change.” As the Times described it, climate change can mean any major shift, making the earth cooler or warmer. In a March 30, 2006, piece on ExxonMobil’s approach to the environment, a reporter argued the firm’s chairman “has gone out of his way to soften Exxon’s public stance on climate change.”

The effect of the idea of “climate change” means that any major climate event can be blamed on global warming, supposedly driven by mankind.

Spring 2006 has been swamped with climate change hype in every type of media – books, newspapers, magazines, online, TV and even movies.

One-time presidential candidate Al Gore, a patron saint of the environmental movement, is releasing “An Inconvenient Truth” in book and movie form, warning, “Our ability to live is what is at stake.”

Despite all the historical shifting from one position to another, many in the media no longer welcome opposing views on the climate. CBS reporter Scott Pelley went so far as to compare climate change skeptics with Holocaust deniers.

“If I do an interview with [Holocaust survivor] Elie Wiesel,” Pelley asked, “am I required as a journalist to find a Holocaust denier?” he said in an interview on March 23 with CBS News’s PublicEye blog.

He added that the whole idea of impartial journalism just didn’t work for climate stories. “There becomes a point in journalism where striving for balance becomes irresponsible,” he said.



Pelley’s comments ignored an essential point: that 30 years ago, the media were certain about the prospect of a new ice age. And that is only the most recent example of how much journalists have changed their minds on this essential debate.

Some in the media would probably argue that they merely report what scientists tell them, but that would be only half true.

Journalists decide not only what they cover; they also decide whether to include opposing viewpoints. That’s a balance lacking in the current “debate.”

This isn’t a question of science. It’s a question of whether Americans can trust what the media tell them about science.




Global Cooling: 1954-1976

The ice age is coming, the sun’s zooming in
Engines stop running, the wheat is growing thin
A nuclear era, but I have no fear
’Cause London is drowning, and I live by the river

-- The Clash “London Calling,” released in 1979

The first Earth Day was celebrated on April 22, 1970, amidst hysteria about the dangers of a new ice age. The media had been spreading warnings of a cooling period since the 1950s, but those alarms grew louder in the 1970s.

Three months before, on January 11, The Washington Post told readers to “get a good grip on your long johns, cold weather haters – the worst may be yet to come,” in an article titled “Colder Winters Held Dawn of New Ice Age.” The article quoted climatologist Reid Bryson, who said “there’s no relief in sight” about the cooling trend.

Journalists took the threat of another ice age seriously. Fortune magazine actually won a “Science Writing Award” from the American Institute of Physics for its own analysis of the danger. “As for the present cooling trend a number of leading climatologists have concluded that it is very bad news indeed,” Fortune announced in February 1974.

“It is the root cause of a lot of that unpleasant weather around the world and they warn that it carries the potential for human disasters of unprecedented magnitude,” the article continued.

That article also emphasized Bryson’s extreme doomsday predictions. “There is very important climatic change going on right now, and it’s not merely something of academic interest.”

Bryson warned, “It is something that, if it continues, will affect the whole human occupation of the earth – like a billion people starving. The effects are already showing up in a rather drastic way.” However, the world population increased by 2.5 billion since that warning.

Fortune had been emphasizing the cooling trend for 20 years. In 1954, it picked up on the idea of a frozen earth and ran an article titled “Climate – the Heat May Be Off.”

The story debunked the notion that “despite all you may have read, heard, or imagined, it’s been growing cooler – not warmer – since the Thirties.”

The claims of global catastrophe were remarkably similar to what the media deliver now about global warming.

“The cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people in poor nations,” wrote Lowell Ponte in his 1976 book “The Cooling.”

If the proper measures weren’t taken, he cautioned, then the cooling would lead to “world famine, world chaos, and probably world war, and this could all come by the year 2000.”

There were more warnings. The Nov. 15, 1969, “Science News” quoted meteorologist Dr. J. Murray Mitchell Jr. about global cooling worries. “How long the current cooling trend continues is one of the most important problems of our civilization,” he said.

If the cooling continued for 200 to 300 years, the earth could be plunged into an ice age, Mitchell continued.

Six years later, the periodical reported “the cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed.”

A city in a snow globe illustrated that March 1, 1975, article, while the cover showed an ice age obliterating an unfortunate city.

In 1975, cooling went from “one of the most important problems” to a first-place tie for “death and misery.” “The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind,” said Nigel Calder, a former editor of “New Scientist.”

He claimed it was not his disposition to be a “doomsday man.” His analysis came from “the facts [that] have emerged” about past ice ages, according to the July/August International Wildlife Magazine.

The idea of a worldwide deep freeze snowballed.

Naturally, science fiction authors embraced the topic. Writer John Christopher delivered a book on the coming ice age in 1962 called “The World in Winter.”

In Christopher’s novel, England and other “rich countries of the north” broke down under the icy onslaught.

“The machines stopped, the land was dead and the people went south,” he explained.

James Follett took a slightly different tack. His book “Ice” was about “a rogue Antarctic iceberg” that “becomes a major world menace.” Follett in his book conceived “the teeth chattering possibility of how Nature can punish those who foolishly believe they have mastered her.”




Global Warming: 1929-1969

Today’s global warming advocates probably don’t even realize their claims aren’t original. Before the cooling worries of the ’70s, America went through global warming fever for several decades around World War II.

The nation entered the “longest warm spell since 1776,” according to a March 27, 1933, New York Times headline. Shifting climate gears from ice to heat, the Associated Press article began “That next ice age, if one is coming … is still a long way off.”

One year earlier, the paper reported that “the earth is steadily growing warmer” in its May 15 edition. The Washington Post felt the heat as well and titled an article simply “Hot weather” on August 2, 1930.

That article, reminiscent of a stand-up comedy routine, told readers that the heat was so bad, people were going to be saying, “Ah, do you remember that torrid summer of 1930. It was so hot that * * *.”

The Los Angeles Times beat both papers to the heat with the headline: “Is another ice age coming?” on March 11, 1929. Its answer to that question: “Most geologists think the world is growing warmer, and that it will continue to get warmer.”

Meteorologist J. B. Kincer of the federal weather bureau published a scholarly article on the warming world in the September 1933 “Monthly Weather Review.”

The article began discussing the “wide-spread and persistent tendency toward warmer weather” and asked “Is our climate changing?” Kincer proceeded to document the warming trend. Out of 21 winters examined from 1912-33 in Washington, D.C., 18 were warmer than normal and all of the past 13 were mild.

New Haven, Conn., experienced warmer temperatures, with evidence from records that went “back to near the close of the Revolutionary War,” claimed the analysis. Using records from various other cities, Kincer showed that the world was warming.

British amateur meteorologist G. S. Callendar made a bold claim five years later that many would recognize now. He argued that man was responsible for heating up the planet with carbon dioxide emissions – in 1938.

It wasn’t a common notion at the time, but he published an article in the Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society on the subject. “In the following paper I hope to show that such influence is not only possible, but is actually occurring at the present time,” Callendar wrote. He went on the lecture circuit describing carbon-dioxide-induced global warming.

But Callendar didn’t conclude his article with an apocalyptic forecast, as happens in today’s global warming stories. Instead he said the change “is likely to prove beneficial to mankind in several ways, besides the provision of heat and power.” Furthermore, it would allow for greater agriculture production and hold off the return of glaciers “indefinitely.”

On November 6 the following year, The Chicago Daily Tribune ran an article titled “Experts puzzle over 20 year mercury rise.” It began, “Chicago is in the front rank of thousands of cities thuout [sic] the world which have been affected by a mysterious trend toward warmer climate in the last two decades.”

The rising mercury trend continued into the ’50s. The New York Times reported that “we have learned that the world has been getting warmer in the last half century” on Aug. 10, 1952. According to the Times, the evidence was the introduction of cod in the Eskimo’s diet – a fish they had not encountered before 1920 or so. The following year, the paper reported that studies confirmed summers and winters were getting warmer.

This warming gave the Eskimos more to handle than cod. “Arctic Findings in Particular Support Theory of Rising Global Temperatures,” announced the Times during the middle of winter, on Feb. 15, 1959. Glaciers were melting in Alaska and the “ice in the Arctic ocean is about half as thick as it was in the late nineteenth century.”

A decade later, the Times reaffirmed its position that “the Arctic pack ice is thinning and that the ocean at the North Pole may become an open sea within a decade or two,” according to polar explorer Col. Bernt Bachen in the Feb. 20, 1969, piece.

One of the most surprising aspects of the global warming claims of the 20th Century is that they followed close behind similar theories of another major climate change – that one an ice age.

Global Cooling: 1895-1932

The world knew all about cold weather in the 1800s. America and Europe had escaped a 500-year period of cooling, called the Little Ice Age, around 1850. So when the Times warned of new cooling in 1895, it was a serious prediction.

On Feb. 24, 1895, the Times announced “Geologists Think the World May Be Frozen Up Again.” The article debated “whether recent and long-continued observations do not point to the advent of a second glacial period.” Those concerns were brought on by increases in northern glaciers and in the severity of Scandinavia’s climate.

Fear spread through the print media over the next three decades. A few months after the sinking of the Titanic, on Oct. 7, 1912, page one of the Times reported, “Prof. Schmidt Warns Us of an Encroaching Ice Age.”

Scientists knew of four ice ages in the past, leading Professor Nathaniel Schmidt of Cornell University to conclude that one day we will need scientific knowledge “to combat the perils” of the next one.

The same day the Los Angeles Times ran an article about Schmidt as well, entitled “Fifth ice age is on the way.” It was subtitled “Human race will have to fight for its existence against cold.”

That end-of-the-world tone wasn’t unusual. “Scientist says Arctic ice will wipe out Canada,” declared a front-page Chicago Tribune headline on Aug. 9, 1923. “Professor Gregory” of Yale University stated that “another world ice-epoch is due.” He was the American representative to the Pan-Pacific Science Congress and warned that North America would disappear as far south as the Great Lakes, and huge parts of Asia and Europe would be “wiped out.”

Gregory’s predictions went on and on. Switzerland would be “entirely obliterated,” and parts of South America would be “overrun.” The good news – “Australia has nothing to fear.” The Washington Post picked up on the story the following day, announcing “Ice Age Coming Here.”

Talk of the ice age threat even reached France. In a New York Times article from Sept. 20, 1922, a penguin found in France was viewed as an “ice-age harbinger.”

Even though the penguin probably escaped from the Antarctic explorer Sir Ernest Shackleton’s ship, it “caused considerable consternation in the country.”

Some of the sound of the Roaring ’20s was the noise of a coming ice age – prominently covered by The New York Times. Capt. Donald MacMillan began his Arctic expeditions in 1908 with Robert Peary. He was going to Greenland to test the “Menace of a new ice age,” as the Times reported on June 10, 1923.

The menace was coming from “indications in Arctic that have caused some apprehension.” Two weeks later the Times reported that MacMillan would get data to help determine “whether there is any foundation for the theory which has been advanced in some quarters that another ice age is impending.”

On July 4, 1923, the paper announced that the “Explorer Hopes to Determine Whether new ‘Ice Age’ is Coming.”

The Atlanta Constitution also had commented on the impending ice age on July 21, 1923. MacMillan found the “biggest glacier” and reported on the great increase of glaciers in the Arctic as compared to earlier measures.

Even allowing for “the provisional nature of the earlier surveys,” glacial activity had greatly augmented, “according to the men of science.” Not only was “the world of science” following MacMillan, so too were the “radio fans.”

The Christian Science Monitor reported on the potential ice age as well, on July 3, 1923. “Captain MacMillan left Wicasset, Me., two weeks ago for Sydney, the jumping-off point for the north seas, announcing that one of the purposes of his cruise was to determine whether there is beginning another ‘ice age,’ as the advance of glaciers in the last 70 years would seem to indicate.”

Then on Sept. 18, 1924, The New York Times declared the threat was real, saying “MacMillan Reports Signs of New Ice Age.”



Concerns about global cooling continued. Swedish scientist Rutger Sernander also forecasted a new ice age. He headed a Swedish committee of scientists studying “climatic development” in the Scandinavian country.

According to the LA Times on April 6, 1924, he claimed there was “scientific ground for believing” that the conditions “when all winds will bring snow, the sun cannot prevail against the clouds, and three winters will come in one, with no summer between,” had already begun.

That ice age talk cooled in the early 1930s. But The Atlantic in 1932 puffed the last blast of Arctic air in the article “This Cold, Cold World.” Author W. J. Humphries compared the state of the earth to the state of the world before other ice ages. He wrote “If these things be true, it is evident, therefore that we must be just teetering on an ice age.”

Concluding the article he noted the uncertainty of such things, but closed with “we do know that the climatic gait of this our world is insecure and unsteady, teetering, indeed, on an ice age, however near or distant the inevitable fall.”

Cooling and Warming Both Threats to Food

Just like today, the news media were certain about the threat that an ice age posed.

In the 1970s, as the world cooled down, the fear was that mankind couldn’t grow enough food with a longer winter. “Climate Changes Endanger World’s Food Output,” declared a New York Times headline on Aug. 8, 1974, right in the heat of summer.

“Bad weather this summer and the threat of more of it to come hang ominously over every estimate of the world food situation,” the article began.

It continued saying the dire consequences of the cooling climate created a deadly risk of suffering and mass starvation.

Various climatologists issued a statement that “the facts of the present climate change are such that the most optimistic experts would assign near certainty to major crop failure in a decade,” reported the Dec. 29, 1974, New York Times. If policy makers did not account for this oncoming doom, “mass deaths by starvation and probably in anarchy and violence” would result.

Time magazine delivered its own gloomy outlook on the “World Food Crisis” on June 24 of that same year and followed with the article “Weather Change: Poorer Harvests” on November 11.

According to the November story, the mean global surface temperature had fallen just 1 degree Fahrenheit since the 1940s. Yet this small drop “trimmed a week to ten days from the growing season” in the earth’s breadbasket regions.

The prior advances of the Green Revolution that bolstered world agriculture would be vulnerable to the lower temperatures and lead to “agricultural disasters.”

Newsweek was equally downbeat in its article “The Cooling World.” “There are ominous signs that the earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically,” which would lead to drastically decreased food production, it said.

“The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only ten years from now,” the magazine told readers on April 28 the following year.

This, Newsweek said, was based on the “central fact” that “the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down.” Despite some disagreement on the cause and extent of cooling, meteorologists were “almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century.”



Despite Newsweek’s claim, agricultural productivity didn’t drop for the rest of the century. It actually increased at an “annual rate of 1.76% over the period 1948 to 2002,” according to the Department of Agriculture.

That didn’t deter the magazine from warning about declining agriculture once again 30 years later – this time because the earth was getting warmer. “Livestock are dying. Crops are withering,” it said in the Aug. 8, 2005, edition. It added that “extremely dry weather of recent months has spawned swarms of locusts” and they were destroying crops in France. Was global warming to blame? “Evidence is mounting to support just such fears,” determined the piece.

U.S. News & World Report was agriculturally pessimistic as well. “Global climate change may alter temperature and rainfall patterns, many scientists fear, with uncertain consequences for agriculture.” That was just 13 years ago, in 1993.

That wasn’t the first time warming was blamed for influencing agriculture. In 1953 William J. Baxter wrote the book “Today’s Revolution in Weather!” on the warming climate. His studies showed “that the heat zone is moving northward and the winters are getting milder with less snowfall.”

Baxter titled a chapter in his book “Make Room For Trees, Grains, Vegetables and Bugs on the North Express!” The warming world led him to estimate that within 10 years Canada would produce more wheat than the United States, though he said America’s corn dominance would remain.
It was more than just crops that were in trouble. Baxter also noted that fishermen in Maine could catch tropical and semi-tropical fish, which were just beginning to appear. The green crab, which also migrated north, was “slowly killing” the profitable industry of steamer clams.

Ice, Ice Baby

Another subject was prominent whether journalists were warning about global warming or an ice age: glaciers. For 110 years, scientists eyed the mammoth mountains of ice to determine the nature of the temperature shift. Reporters treated the glaciers like they were the ultimate predictors of climate.

In 1895, geologists thought the world was freezing up again due to the “great masses of ice” that were frequently seen farther south than before.

The New York Times reported that icebergs were so bad, and they decreased the temperature of Iceland so much, that inhabitants fearing a famine were “emigrating to North America.”

In 1902, when Teddy Roosevelt became the first president to ride in a car, the Los Angeles Times delivered a story that should be familiar to modern readers. The paper’s story on “Disappearing Glaciers” in the Alps said the glaciers were not “running away,” but rather “deteriorating slowly, with a persistency that means their final annihilation.”

The melting led to alpine hotel owners having trouble keeping patrons. It was established that it was a “scientific fact” that the glaciers were “surely disappearing.” That didn’t happen. Instead they grew once more.

More than 100 years after their “final annihilation” was declared, the LA Times was once again writing the same story. An Associated Press story in the Aug. 21, 2005, paper showed how glacier stories never really change. According to the article: “A sign on a sheer cliff wall nearby points to a mountain hut. It should have been at eye level but is more than 60 feet above visitors’ heads. That’s how much the glacier has shrunk since the sign went up 35 years ago.”

But glacier stories didn’t always show them melting away like ice cubes in a warm drink. The Boston Daily Globe in 1923 reported one purpose of MacMillan’s Arctic expedition was to determine the beginning of the next ice age, “as the advance of glaciers in the last 70 years would indicate.”

When that era of ice-age reports melted away, retreating glaciers were again highlighted. In 1953’s “Today’s Revolution in Weather!” William Baxter wrote that “the recession of glaciers over the whole earth affords the best proof that climate is warming,” despite the fact that the world had been in its cooling phase for more than a decade when he wrote it. He gave examples of glaciers melting in Lapland, the Alps, Mr. Rainer and Antarctica.

Time magazine in 1951 noted permafrost in Russia was receding northward up to 100 yards per year. In 1952, The New York Times kept with the warming trend. It reported the global warming studies of climatologist Dr. Hans W. Ahlmann, whose “trump card” “has been the melting glaciers.” The next year the Times said “nearly all the great ice sheets are in retreat.”

U.S. News and World Report agreed, noted that “winters are getting milder, summers drier. Glaciers are receding, deserts growing” on Jan. 8, 1954.

In the ’70s, glaciers did an about face. Ponte in “The Cooling” warned that “The rapid advance of some glaciers has threatened human settlements in Alaska, Iceland, Canada, China, and the Soviet Union.”

Time contradicted its 1951 report and stated that the cooling trend was here to stay. The June 24, 1974, article was based on those omnipresent “telltale signs” such as the “unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland.”

Even The Christian Science Monitor in the same year noted “glaciers which had been retreating until 1940 have begun to advance.” The article continued, “the North Atlantic is cooling down about as fast as an ocean can cool.”

The New York Times noted that in 1972 the “mantle of polar ice increased by 12 percent” and had not returned to “normal” size.

North Atlantic sea temperatures declined, and shipping routes were “cluttered with abnormal amounts of ice.”

Furthermore, the permafrost in Russia and Canada was advancing southward, according to the December 29 article that closed out 1974.

Decades later, the Times seemed confused by melting ice. On Dec. 8, 2002, the paper ran an article titled “Arctic Ice Is Melting at Record Level, Scientists Say.” The first sentence read “The melting of Greenland glaciers and Arctic Ocean sea ice this past summer reached levels not seen in decades.”

Was the ice melting at record levels, as the headline stated, or at a level seen decades ago, as the first line mentioned?

On Sept. 14, 2005, the Times reported the recession of glaciers “seen from Peru to Tibet to Greenland” could accelerate and become abrupt.

This, in turn, could increase the rise of the sea level and block the Gulf Stream. Hence “a modern counterpart of the 18,000-year-old global-warming event could trigger a new ice age.”

Government Comes to the Rescue

Mankind managed to survive three phases of fear about global warming and cooling without massive bureaucracy and government intervention, but aggressive lobbying by environmental groups finally changed that reality.

The Kyoto treaty, new emissions standards and foreign regulations are but a few examples.

Getting the government involved to control the weather isn’t a new concept. When the earth was cooling, The New York Times reported on a panel that recommended a multimillion-dollar research program to combat the threat.

That program was to start with $18 million a year in funding and increase to about $67 million by 1980, according to the Jan. 19, 1975, Times. That would be more than $200 million in today’s dollars.

Weather warnings in the ’70s from “reputable researchers” worried policy-makers so much that scientists at a National Academy of Sciences meeting “proposed the evacuation of some six million people” from parts of Africa, reported the Times on Dec. 29, 1974.

That article went on to tell of the costly and unnecessary plans of the old Soviet Union. It diverted time from Cold War activities to scheme about diverting the coming cold front.

It had plans to reroute “large Siberian rivers, melting Arctic ice and damming the Bering Strait” to help warm the “frigid fringes of the Soviet Union.”

Newsweek’s 1975 article “The Cooling World” noted climatologists’ admission that “solutions” to global cooling “such as melting the arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers,” could result in more problems than they would solve.

More recently, 27 European climatologists have become worried that the warming trend “may be irreversible, at least over most of the coming century,” according to Time magazine on Nov. 13, 2000. The obvious solution? Bigger government.

They “should start planning immediately to adapt to the new extremes of weather that their citizens will face – with bans on building in potential flood plains in the north, for example, and water conservation measures in the south.”

Almost 50 policy and research recommendations came with the report.

The news media have given space to numerous alleged solutions to our climate problems.

Stephen Salter of the University of Edinburgh had some unusual ideas to repel an effect of global warming. In 2002 he had the notion of creating a rainmaker, “which looks like a giant egg whisk,” according to the Evening News of Edinburgh on Dec. 2, 2002.

The Atlantic edition of Newsweek on June 30, 2003, reported on the whisk. The British government gave him 105,000 pounds to research it.

Besides promoting greater prosperity and peace, it could “lift enough seawater to lower sea levels by a meter, stemming the rise of the oceans – one of the most troublesome consequences of global warming.” The rain created would be redirected toward land using the wind’s direction.

Instead of just fixing a symptom of global warming, Salter now wants to head it off. He wants to spray water droplets into low altitude clouds to increase their whiteness and block out more sunlight.

The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) has considered other ways to lower temperatures and the media were there to give them credence.

Newsweek on May 20, 1991, reported on five ways to fight warming from the National Research Council, the operating arm of the NAS.

The first idea was to release “billions of aluminized, hydrogen-filled balloons” to reflect sunlight. To reflect more sunlight, “fire one-ton shells filled with dust into the upper atmosphere.” Airplane engines could pollute more in order to release a “layer of soot” to block the sun. Should any sunlight remain, 50,000 orbiting mirrors, 39 square miles each, could block it out.

With any heat left, “infrared lasers on mountains” could be used “to zap rising CFCs,” rendering them harmless.

Global Warming: 1981-Present and Beyond

The media have bombarded Americans almost daily with the most recent version of the climate apocalypse.

Global warming has replaced the media’s ice age claims, but the results somehow have stayed the same – the deaths of millions or even billions of people, widespread devastation and starvation.

The recent slight increase in temperature could “quite literally, alter the fundamentals of life on the planet” argued the Jan. 18, 2006, Washington Post.

In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, Nicholas D. Kristof of The New York Times wrote a column that lamented the lack of federal spending on global warming.

“We spend about $500 billion a year on a military budget, yet we don’t want to spend peanuts to protect against climate change,” he said in a Sept. 27, 2005, piece.

Kristof’s words were noteworthy, not for his argument about spending, but for his obvious use of the term “climate change.” While his column was filled with references to “global warming,” it also reflected the latest trend as the coverage has morphed once again.

The two terms are often used interchangeably, but can mean something entirely different.

The latest threat has little to do with global warming and has everything to do with … everything.

The latest predictions claim that warming might well trigger another ice age.

The warm currents of the Gulf Stream, according to a 2005 study by the National Oceanography Centre in Southampton, U.K., have decreased 30 percent.

This has raised “fears that it might fail entirely and plunge the continent into a mini ice age,” as the Gulf Stream regulates temperatures in Europe and the eastern United States. This has “long been predicted” as a potential ramification of global warming.

Hollywood picked up on this notion before the study and produced “The Day After Tomorrow.” In the movie global warming triggered an immediate ice age. People had to dodge oncoming ice. Americans were fleeing to Mexico. Wolves were on the prowl. Meanwhile our hero, a government paleoclimatologist, had to go to New York City to save his son from the catastrophe.

But it’s not just a potential ice age. Every major weather event becomes somehow linked to “climate change.”

Numerous news reports connected Hurricane Katrina with changing global temperatures. Droughts, floods and more have received similar media treatment.

Even The New York Times doesn’t go that far – yet.

In an April 23, 2006, piece, reporter Andrew C. Revkin gave no credence to that coverage. “At the same time, few scientists agree with the idea that the recent spate of potent hurricanes, European heat waves, African drought and other weather extremes are, in essence, our fault. There is more than enough natural variability in nature to mask a direct connection, they say.”

Unfortunately, that brief brush with caution hasn’t touched the rest of the media.
Time magazine’s recent cover story included this terrifying headline:

“Polar Ice Caps Are Melting Faster Than Ever... More And More; Land Is Being Devastated By Drought... Rising Waters Are Drowning Low-Lying Communities... By Any Measure, Earth Is At ... The Tipping Point The climate is crashing, and global warming is to blame. Why the crisis hit so soon —and what we can do about it”

That attitude reflects far more of the current media climate. As the magazine claimed, many of today’s weather problems can be blamed on the changing climate.

“Disasters have always been with us and surely always will be. But when they hit this hard and come this fast — when the emergency becomes commonplace —something has gone grievously wrong. That something is global warming,” Time said.

Methodology

The Business & Media Institute (BMI) examined how the major media have covered the issue of climate change over a long period of time. Because television only gained importance in the post-World War II period, BMI looked at major print outlets.

There were limitations with that approach because some major publications lack the lengthy history that others enjoy. However, the search covered more than 30 publications from the 1850s to 2006 — including newspapers, magazines, journals and books.

Recent newspaper and magazine articles were obtained from Lexis-Nexis. All other magazine articles were acquired from the Library of Congress either in print or microfilm.

Older newspapers were obtained from ProQuest. The extensive bibliography includes every publication cited in this report. BMI looked through thousands of headlines and chose hundreds of stories to analyze.

Dates on the time periods for cooling and warming reporting phases are approximate, and are derived from the stories that BMI analyzed.

Conclusion

What can one conclude from 110 years of conflicting climate coverage except that the weather changes and the media are just as capricious?

Certainly, their record speaks for itself. Four separate and distinct climate theories targeted at a public taught to believe the news. Only all four versions of the truth can’t possibly be accurate.

For ordinary Americans to judge the media’s version of current events about global warming, it is necessary to admit that journalists have misrepresented the story three other times.

Yet no one in the media is owning up to that fact. Newspapers that pride themselves on correction policies for the smallest errors now find themselves facing a historical record that is enormous and unforgiving.

It is time for the news media to admit a consistent failure to report this issue fairly or accurately, with due skepticism of scientific claims.

Recommendations

It would be difficult for the media to do a worse job with climate change coverage. Perhaps the most important suggestion would be to remember the basic rules about journalism and set aside biases — a simple suggestion, but far from easy given the overwhelming extent of the problem.

Three of the guidelines from the Society of Professional Journalists are especially appropriate:

“Support the open exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.”

“Give voice to the voiceless; official and unofficial sources of information can be equally valid.”

“Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context.”

That last bullet point could apply to almost any major news outlet in the United States. They could all learn something and take into account the historical context of media coverage of climate change.

Some other important points include:

Don’t Stifle Debate: Most scientists do agree that the earth has warmed a little more than a degree in the last 100 years. That doesn’t mean that scientists concur mankind is to blame. Even if that were the case, the impact of warming is unclear.

People in northern climes might enjoy improved weather and longer growing seasons.

Don’t Ignore the Cost: Global warming solutions pushed by environmental groups are notoriously expensive. Just signing on to the Kyoto treaty would have cost the United States several hundred billion dollars each year, according to estimates from the U.S. government generated during President Bill Clinton’s term.

Every story that talks about new regulations or forced cutbacks on emissions should discuss the cost of those proposals.

Report Accurately on Statistics: Accurate temperature records have been kept only since the end of the 19th Century, shortly after the world left the Little Ice Age. So while recorded temperatures are increasing, they are not the warmest ever. A 2003 study by Harvard and the Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, “20th Century Climate Not So Hot,” “determined that the 20th century is neither the warmest century nor the century with the most extreme weather of the past 1,000 years.

Bibliography

For sources click here

Peace
Government is nothing more than the rationalization and exercise of violence. Everything done by government contains at least the implicit threat of lethal coercion. <br /><br />- William N. Grigg
Reply
#53
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOYwur6T6tc
Conspiracy Theory Global Warming Part 1 of 6 with Jesse Ventura Episode 3 S01E03
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Reply
#54
Quote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKoUwttE0BA

Seems that new research shows that Cosmic Waves from outside Solar System and the Sun
not CO2
has the main effect on weather
another win for the woo woos
here at HM.
<img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/cheers.gif" alt="Cheers" title="cheers" />

http://www.earthfiles.com/



December 26, 2009 - NASA Reports Earth Close to
Unexpected Interstellar Cloud, a “Local Fluff.”
“The Voyagers (spacecraft launched in 1975) are not actually
inside the Local Fluff. But they are getting close and can sense what
the cloud is like as they approach it. ...There could be interesting
times ahead!” - Merav Opher, Ph.D., NASA Heliophysicist

[Image: VoyagerDetectsCloud122609.jpg]
Voyager 1 entered the surprising heliosheath in Dec. 2004;
Voyager 2 followed almost three years later in Aug. 2007. These crossings
were key to discovering the unexpected interstellar cloud, or galactic “Fluff.”
Illustration by NASA.

NASA reports “the Fluff is held at bay just beyond the edge of the solar system by the sun's magnetic field, which is inflated by solar wind into a magnetic bubble more than 10 billion kilometers wide. Called the heliosphere, this bubble acts as a shield that helps protect the inner solar system from galactic cosmic rays and interstellar clouds. The two Voyagers are located in the outermost layer of the heliosphere, or heliosheath, where the solar wind is slowed by the pressure of interstellar gas. The fact that the Fluff is strongly magnetized means that other clouds in the galactic neighborhood could be, too. Eventually, the solar system will run into some of the Fluff, and its strong magnetic fields could compress the heliosphere even more than it is compressed now. Additional compression could allow more cosmic rays to reach the inner solar system, possibly affecting terrestrial climate and the ability of astronauts to travel safely through space.”
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Reply
#55
http://www.physorg.com/news181052057.html
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Reply
#56
http://www.naturalnews.com/027803_pollution_ships.html

Just 16 Ships Expel as Much Pollution as All the Cars in the World
Saturday, December 26, 2009 by: E. Huff, staff writer

<img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/hi.gif" alt="Hi" title="hi" />
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Reply
#57
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLqHYxQL ... r_embedded
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Reply
#58
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/weath ... itain.html

Quote:Snow continues to cause chaos across Britain
The freezing weather brought widespread chaos as heavy snow created treacherous driving conditions and caused a number of sporting events to be cancelled.

Published: 5:25PM GMT 02 Jan 2010

<img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/mellow.gif" alt="Mellow" title="mellow" />
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Reply
#59
http://www.danwei.org/front_page_of_the ... ecades.php

Front Page of the Day
Heaviest snowfall in 6 decades in Beijing
Posted by Jeremy Goldkorn, January 4, 2010 3:58 PM
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Reply
#60
Quote:http://www.naturalnews.com/027803_pollution_ships.html

Just 16 Ships Expel as Much Pollution as All the Cars in the World
Saturday, December 26, 2009 by: E. Huff, staff writer

<img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/hi.gif" alt="Hi" title="hi" />


that is just outrageous.
fucking A.
I remember when they used to have some goddam tanker parked out in Bellingham Bay,
and it smoked all day.
Everybody got sick of that, it came right into town.

wow.

In any case they are about to lose the Florida citrus crop,
and this weekend cold snap will tell the story down there.
Reply
#61
Some parts of Britain have had snow and ice for 3 weeks now, which is exceptional. I went back to Cornwall for Christmas :it's the most southerly part of Britain and snow is rare - this winter it's covered in it.
It's been freezing or below for a week here in Leeds. We haven't had a snow-free winter for more than 5 years and summers are disappointing. It's getting colder dammit ! <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/hmm2.gif" alt="Hmm2" title="hmm2" />
Reply
#62
Had to bring the stray we adopted as an "outside cat" in tonight as we are waiting for our second hard freeze this year. Haven't had one in 5 or 6 years here. I bought an outdoor heated pad for the kitty but couldn't let him stay outside below freezing. Waited until my other 3 cats were closed up in their usual big room for the night before I brought him in so they wouldn't freak out. This cat is so sweet and laid back <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/wub.gif" alt="Wub" title="wub" /> He snuggled on his blankie I keep on his outside pad and went to sleep.
~~~~~ ** ~~~~~&nbsp; <br />[Image: bee.gif]<br />We make decisions or we make excuses ~~ it's always our choice.
Reply
#63
12/21/12
when Earth freezes over.
Smoke
when it stays cold like it as here
I feel if every broke part/once in my body
<img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/stars.gif" alt="Stars" title="stars" />
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Reply
#64
http://www.populartechnology.net/2010/0 ... -2009.html

2009 was another year of global cooling, which saw numerous low temperature and high snowfall records smashed. The Dutch canals froze over for the first time in 12 years, record cold came to Al Gore's home town and ironically a blizzard dumped snow on the Copenhagen convention where world leaders met to try and stop global warming. It was so cold that even the BBC was forced to ask, what happened to global warming? As Climategate would reveal, IPCC scientists had been hard at work hiding evidence of global cooling. Yet the observational evidence cannot be ignored.

[Image: Plow_(D).jpg]
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Reply
#65
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/t ... 443687.stm

John Hirst, head of the Met Office, defends the record of the weathermen after they predicted a mild winter.

Andrew Neil asked him to justify his salary which is higher than the prime minister's.


<img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/applause.gif" alt="Applause" title="applause" />
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Reply
#66
Good find Wook !
That 'barbecue summer' the Met Office promised rarely rose above 70 F. Now it's -9C outside and NE Scotland and SE England have been down to -21C at night. Local councils are running out of road grit and rail services disrupted by drifting snow. Next week will be the same, although we've only got the Met Office's word for it.
Global warming? Bring it on!
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)