Ignore the hype, seek facts and use logic when dealing with self-annointed "environmentalists." "Liberal" was once a respected term for someone favoring strictly limited government, individual liberty and a laissez-faire society. Knowing the negative conatation of "socialism," socialists so thoroughly co-opted the term, that liberals must now call themselves "classical liberals" or "libertarians." "Progressive" once implied forward-looking. Socialists have perverted it to represent feudal regressive. Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace resigned when he realized the environmental movement had similarly been co-opted. Perhaps real environmentalists will have to adopt a new moniker like "classical environmentalist."
Environmental veterans like Paul Ehrlich of Stanford University, and Lester Brown of the Worldwatch Institute, have developed a "litany" of four big environmental fears:Natural resources are running out.
The population is ever growing, leaving less and less to eat.
Species are becoming extinct in vast numbers: forests are disappearing and fish stocks are collapsing.
The planet's air and water are becoming ever more polluted.
Human activity is thus defiling the earth, and humanity may end up killing itself in the process.
None are cooberated by evidence. Read the full article.
Many accepted the United Nations Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) data, but questioned its conclusions as in CBC - Global Warming Doomsday Called Off. It's unfortunate physicists did not get involoved in Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) debate earlier, and write Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects (source) to show it to be junk science before the AGW theory was politicized.
- there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects,
- there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet,
- the frequently mentioned difference of 33 degree C is a meaningless number calculated wrongly,
- the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately,
- the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical,
- thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.
Australia and France are backing away from the politically motivated global warming hysteria. Hyperbole seems to be the only way to get the attention of media in the U.S., which thrives on crisis, and could care less about truth when lies sell. San Diego weather man, John Coleman has his say.
Perversion of ScienceDing dong, the stick is dead - The famous hockey stick depicting rapid and severe warming was shown to be a the result of scientific fraud 9/09, followed by hacked email messages and falsefied weather station readings. Much of the fraud was funded by Enron. Aliens Caused Global Warming - An historical approach detailing how over the last thirty years scientists have begun to intermingle scientific and political claims. More fraud revealed thanks to old magazines.
Climategate: A Scandal That Won't Go Away
Greenpeace Leader Admits Arctic Ice Exaggeration
Exploring the Science of Climate Change
"Global Warming" becomes "Climate Change" (in case there is global cooling)
The climate cooled for much of the 20th century, between 1940 and 1975, even while carbon dioxide was increasing rapidly.
Well, what about some 20 greenhouse climate models, all predicting warming from 11.5 C to 1.4 C for a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide? No one can tell us which of these models is correct, if any. None of these models can explain why the climate cooled between 1940 and 1975 without special assumptions. In any case, model results are never evidence. Only actual observations count.
Crucially, greenhouse models cannot explain the observed patterns of warming: temperature trends at different latitudes and altitudes. These data, published in a U.S. government scientific report in May 2006, lead us to conclude that the human contribution is not significant. Most of current warming must therefore stem from natural causes. It may well be part of an unstoppable solar-driven 1,500-year cycle of warming and cooling that's been documented in ice cores, ocean sediments, stalagmites, and so forth going back a million years.
Bad news sells advertising and begets government grants, but you should know the truth. The following five pages is the most concise rendition I've seen.
A Brief History of Global Warming
The claims do not correlate with the data of the global warming advocates. Fabricated data is found in addition to cherry-picked data. Erroneous NASA data is twice corrected, making 1934 the hottest in recent history. Stephen Schneider, Al Gore and Jim Hansen admit to fraud.Is Global Warming Real?
Global Warming: A closer look at the numbers
If you don't like to read, see Climate Change Videos:
The reality is that we are in a cooling trend that will likely make the winter of 2009 look like those of the 1900s - long and deep. While many will demand we burn all our coal to delay or mitigate the cooling trend, it will happen regardless of the amount of carbon dioxide humans inject into the atmosphere.Past & future Climate part 1
Past & future Climate part 2
Past & future Climate part 3
Past & future Climate part 4
Climate computer models do not include the Isis effect among other things.Climate change is CO2 the cause? part 1
Climate change is CO2 the cause? part 2
Climate change is CO2 the cause? part 3
Climate change is CO2 the cause? part 4
Climate Change DVDs
Carbon Dioxide is Good - Colorado State University conducted tests with carnations and other flowers in controlled CO2 atmospheres ranging from 200 to 550 ppm. The higher CO2 concentrations significantly increased the rate of formation of dry plant matter, total flower yield and market value.
Climate chaos? Don't believe it.
Comments on Global Warming
Some Global Warming Information Sources
not global and not relavant
ends at 2000
ends at 2000
ends at 2000
ends at 2000
ends at 2000
ends at 2000
I can barely read that one (if you care to try, go ahead)
Corn Ethanol is the one subsidized by the U.S. government. Considering all the petroleum used to grow and refine corn ethanol, one gallon of petroleum (gasoline, diesel, etc.) yields 1.7 gallons of corn ethanol, but ethanol yields one-third the energy of gasoline, so one gallon of petroleum yields 0.57 gallons of equivalent energy ethanol, i.e. you can only go one-third of your normal distance on a tank of ethanol. Ethanol production requires 70 to 400 times the amount of water required by petroleum production. When the carbon released by third-world peoples slashing and burning to compensate for the corn lost to fuel production is included in the equation, corn ethanol is a very bad deal. CONgressmen should not sell themselves so cheaply to Archer Daniel Midland.
Geomagnetic Field Decline
Home | Other | Environment |