The Global Warming Debate Al Gore Doesn't Want You to See

Thursday May 15, 2008, 3:27 pm
Judy -it does not matter if the co2 in the atmosphere causes Frying or deep freezing-one thing is clear from your data in the article- High rises in co2 are hand in hand with Large temp.changes - and all parties in the video agrree on that fact. the disagreement is in the frying or the freezing.If those facts are correct in the video about the co2 levels -then by that data and how high those co2 levels are- then the world is in grave danger of becoming an iceburg. If this happens then we will have the same problem that we do now in reverse. No ice age ever came without altering all life within the ice sheets path- causing mass shifts of life on the planet.So the fact remains whether we fry or freeze we need to do something about the man made co2 levels on this planet so the earth can go through the changes naturally with no helpfrom us- in case you haven't noticed those changes are normally violent in nature. so why would we want to even have the question of "did we escalate a natural process into a severe imbalance" By your data alone on this video it is clear we need towork hard to remove as much co2 as we can. Planting those trees is a good start along with whatever else man can do to help return to balance our Mother Earth.

Thursday May 15, 2008, 4:00 pm
Al Gores global warming scam... the scene has been laid out... carbon tax coming up folks!

Thursday May 15, 2008, 5:16 pm
Watch it again Faith. We haven't had "large temperature changes". It has warmed 0.7 C in 100 years....that's all. what "violent" changes are you talking about? Ask yourself where the heat came from that melted the ice that used to cover most of the Northern Hemisphere....a hint...it wasn't SUVs.

Thursday May 15, 2008, 5:30 pm
Check out the graphs in your story.

Thursday May 15, 2008, 5:34 pm
So? the lines in the graphs go up and down over the centuries without help from us....and it wouldn't matter whether we burned every bit of coal and every last drop of oil, we still wouldn't be able to do anything that would change the climate....
You are assuming we could. We can't compete with the Sun.

Thursday May 15, 2008, 5:54 pm
Exactly Judy! I couldn't agree more...

Friday May 16, 2008, 9:52 am
Yes the lines on the graph as you put it go up and down but they cover a very long time span which includes the ice ages as you know. These cycles in the graph cover natural warming periods when co2 was high and the following cooling periods when the co2 became low. In this long time frame of data there is one element missing- Humans-which had nothing to do with the co2 emmisions going up or down through those cycles because during those periods human were working in harmony with those cycles and we did not have chemicals in abundance being added to our planets biosystems in the abundance that they are now so the earth was in balance- Now over the last 100 years humanity for the first time in Earth history has begun to actively change the natural balance of our Air,water and Earth. and now we on Earth find ourselves at a very interesting place- the Earth is going through a natural cycle that it has gone through many times- of warming and cooling but we now have an added element- mankinds addition of more than what mother nature put there- therefore the earth now has to balance all this extra stuff out her own. Her natural balancing processes indeed the natural cycles of the sun and life on earth have no factor for manmade stuff or xtra additions of natural and or unnatural elements in the quanty that is currently so. While all processes have some flexability in regards to how far something can go one way or another before the tipping point is reached/ and or the point of no return is reached -we don't know where that is. so why would weassume that we cannot effect it? On those graphs -when those ice ages came they were on the heels of high co2 levels How do you think Mother Earth is going to balance out all this extra stuff in our atmosphere? what effect do you think the natural sun cycles will be on the extra added stuff we put there that insulates and cloudies our air so that what is a natural occurance no longer can function in a natural way? How can you say that we cannot do anything to affect our climate- we do stuff all the time that affects the water and land- the air -why would we not be able to effect our climate -we already have. acid rain has effected our climate. pollution has effected our climate- our climate is much more than weather and temps.- so by those graphs data and charts this natural cycle our planet is going through will be enhanced by mankinds extra stuff in our atmosphere. the extra addition of co2 in our atmosphere before the ice ages and other cooling periods was caused by Volcanic eruptions and other natural processes- this is the first time in Earths history that we- mankind have added extra to those proccesses.No one not I nor the scientist not AL Gore nor you, can say what or in what direction those natural balancing processes will be- but if they follow the same pattern as befor and there is no reason to presume they will not- the rebalancing could be very extreme because we are in a position of extreme. the higher any scale goes the sharper the dip to balance. You are presuming that we in no way effect the climate by burning fossil fuels in which case you are wrong on any scientist count already proven -but not due to co2 levels -You are only speaking about co2 levels high and low and in that respect neither you nor I nor anyone else has prior stated can accuretly predict exactly how Mother Nature will respond to the the extra addition of huge co2 levels in our planets atmosphere- why because it has never happened before to this extreme- So how can it hurt to clean our air, water ect. and get rid of the xtra co2? It will do no harm and when they get rid of all the extra co2 they will also get rid of the other emmisions with it that we know are harmful for humans to breathe and exsist in .When we plant more trees all we are doing is helping to restore what was there in the first place -what is wrong with that? I have never stated that the sun did not effect our climate all I have ever said was that our pollution makes whatever is happening worse.

Friday May 16, 2008, 12:15 pm
"the extra addition of huge co2 levels in our planets atmosphere- why because it has never happened before to this extreme- So how can it hurt to clean our air, water ect. and get rid of the xtra co2? "

Oh, aptly named Faith, Your worries are groundless my dear.

1.Humans only contritute 3% of the total in the atmosphere.

2.The level of CO2 now stands at 0.0385% or 385 parts per million

3. Historical levels have bee higher in the recent past: http://icecap.us/images/uploads/EE_18-2_Beck.pdf
Dipl. Biol. Ernst Georg Beck, 31 Rue du Giessen, F 68600 Biesheim, France
ABSTRACT
More than 90,000 accurate chemical analyses of CO2 in air since 1812 are
summarised. The historic chemical data reveal that changes in CO2 track changes in
temperature, and therefore climate in contrast to the simple, monotonically increasing
CO2 trend depicted in the post 1990 literature on climate change. Since 1812, the CO2
concentration in northern hemispheric air has fluctuated exhibiting three high level
maxima around 1825, 1857 and 1942 the latter showing more than 400 ppm.
Between 1857 and 1958, the Pettenkofer process was the standard analytical
method for determining atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, and usually achieved an
accuracy better than 3%. These determinations were made by several scientists of
Nobel Prize level distinction. Following Callendar (1938), modern climatologists
have generally ignored the historic determinations of CO2, despite the techniques
being standard text book procedures in several different disciplines. Chemical
methods were discredited as unreliable choosing only few which fit the
assumption of a climate CO2 connection.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/EE_18-2_Beck.pdf

There are many other reasons like, the time lag between warming and rising CO2 is 800-1600 years. First it warms and then CO2 goes up.
Cause=warming
Effect= higher level of CO2

Plants use it, coral uses it,algae use it, the oceans absorb it, we are a carbon based life form and things are better when CO2 levels are higher and its warmer. When it is cold there are food shortages, more disease and more war.

Warmer is better.

Unfortunatly, it looks like we may be cooling off from the warming cycle we just went through. It has been cooling for the last 7 years even though it shouldn't be according to Saint Albert....because CO2 levels continued to go up by 6%.

Any one of the facts above is enough to blow the story wide apart...if it were not for lots of money involved in pushing it on us.

Have a nice weekend. You should feel much better now...and certainly far less worried.

Friday May 16, 2008, 6:20 pm
So all of the independant (ie none Exxon,Shell etc),scientists are wrong Judy ?..along with the various ,overwhelming numbers of climatoligists and geologists ?You better phone them quick.Oooh it's just a tax raising scam..Spare me,these redundant and unfactual arguments please.

Friday May 16, 2008, 6:24 pm
Nice job faith and Rob!

Monday May 19, 2008, 12:01 am
Tell that too the Polar Bears, & Penguins!!!

Monday May 19, 2008, 8:55 am
My answer to the last three comments is "seek and ye shall find". The trouble is none of you seem to be interested in truths like

1)there are 2x more polar bears than there were 40 years ago.
2) that the IPCC was set up to demonize CO2 and prove it changes climate...which they have failed to do, simply because it can't.
3) a false consensus was established which is being demolished as we speak.

Try some skeptical sites for some real science. May I recommend:
http://www.icecap.us/ http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/
http://www.junkscience.com/
Read this:
http://blogs.reuters.com/environment/2008/05/16/so-what-happened-to-global-warming/
So what happened to global warming?
Posted by: Gerard Wynn

It’s not just that it’s disappeared from media headlines this year - shoved off by the credit crunch and natural disasters, for example. It can’t be ignored that 2007 came and went as another very warm year - the 7th hottest on record since 1850 according to the World Meteorological Organization.

But it wasn’t a record. In fact that was 1998, a full 10 years ago — the year of an exceptional El Nino, a Pacific weather pattern which heats the whole globe. So is global warming not living up to the hype?

Two weeks ago Leibniz Institute’s Noel Keenlyside stirred an academic hornet’s
nest by saying that we may have to wait longer - a decade or more - for another
peak year, because a natural weakening in ocean currents may be cooling sea
temperatures.

Many scientists flatly rejected the idea, saying Keenlyside had over-estimated the effect. But some pointed out that a recent switch in a weather pattern called the North Atlantic Oscillation could indeed cool temperatures globally.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said last year recent warming was
“unequivocal” and most of it ”very likely” manmade. And almost all scientists in the latest debate, including Keenlyside, agree that any temporary cooling doesn’t alter that - blips due to natural effects are to be expected.

But how long is a blip? No-one knows.

It could be many years before there’s an El Nino as bad as 1998, scientists say. And in the meantime the doubts will grow, just as policymakers try to negotiate one of the most complex global treaties ever. A new Kyoto Protocol will affect issues of equity and poverty: in the case of poor countries the right to grow, for island states perhaps the right to exist, and for rich countries the right to compete on a level economic playing field.

Meanwhile one or two doubters are already saying the present lull in warming
casts doubt on just how far manmade greenhouse gases are influencing the climate. MIT’s Richard Lindzen reckoned that if it was as bad as all that temperatures would be rising faster.

So, my dears, You may try freezing in the dark if you like until the weather changes again.

Monday May 19, 2008, 10:31 am
Cool it Lomborg is right....

Monday May 19, 2008, 12:53 pm
IPCC Models Fail to Accurately Predict Climate Change

David Eisenberg
JBS
Friday, June 29, 2007

In a recent article posted on "Climate Feedback," a blog hosted by Nature Reports: Climate Change, Dr. Kevin E. Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section of the US National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) — and one of the advisory scientists of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) — has some interesting things to say about General Climate Models (GCM).

According to Dr. Trenberth, IPCC climate projections (also called General Climate Models [GCM]):

Do not consider many things like the recovery of the ozone layer, for instance, or observed trends in forcing agents…. None of the models used by IPCC is initialized to the observed state and none of the climate states in the models corresponds even remotely to the current observed climate.


The state of the oceans, sea ice, and soil moisture has no relationship to the observed state at any recent time in any of the IPCC models. There is neither an El Niño sequence nor any Pacific Decadal Oscillation that replicates the recent past; yet these are critical modes of variability that affect Pacific rim countries and beyond. The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, that may depend on the thermohaline circulation and thus ocean currents in the Atlantic, is not set up to match today's state, but it is a critical component of the Atlantic hurricanes and it undoubtedly affects forecasts for the next decade from Brazil to Europe. Moreover, the starting climate state in several of the models may depart significantly from the real climate owing to model errors. I postulate that regional climate change is impossible to deal with properly unless the models are initialized.

GCMs "assume linearity," says Trenberth, which "works for global forced variations, but cannot work for many aspects of climate, especially those related to water cycle ... the science is not done because we do not have reliable or regional predictions of climate."

Trenberth also claims that the IPCC does not make predictions, only proposes scenarios. This point is lost on the American popular press, which has not reported the above discussion, as the unproved fear of "global warming" among Americans becomes ever stronger.

Congress has a lot on its plate right now, including the war on terrorism, immigration, Social Security reform, health care, and the AMT tax — to name just a few issues. Why, then, is Congress wasting time on what should be an non-issue: carbon dioxide emissions and auto fuel efficiency?

Global warming is the focus of at least seven bills in Congress, none of which have much of a chance in passing, according to Reuters. So far, the U.S. has spent about $50 billion since 1990 on climate research. But none of that research has demonstrated a human-cause climate trend, let alone a dangerous one. Yet Congress seems determined to fix what isn't broken.

For example, by mandating increased use of ethanol, Congress is condemning us to use a less efficient fuel. Consumer Reports found that E85 ethanol fuel delivered 27 percent lower mileage compared to gasoline — and at a greater cost. The Congressional Budget Office found that raising Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards would cost drivers $2.4 billion a year. And they have yet to figure the increase in the cost of food from corn products diverted to make E85.

As always, government bureaucracy is no match for the free market in efficiently determining human needs and in sensibly balancing economic and social costs.

Monday May 19, 2008, 12:58 pm
i love all the disinfo agents on here.

Over 100 Prominent Scientists Challenge UN Move For Global Carbon Tax
Experts dismiss agenda as "futile," bureaucratic scheme that will increase human suffering
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Friday, December 14, 2007



The UN has officially announced what the fearmongering about man-made global warming has been designed to justify all along - a global carbon tax which will do nothing to reduce carbon emissions but everything to feed the trough of world government. Over one hundred prominent scientists signed a letter dismissing the move as a futile bureaucratic scheme which will diminish prosperity and increase human suffering.

Following a discussion entitled “A Global CO2 Tax," a UN panel yesterday urged the adoption of “a global burden sharing system, fair, with solidarity, and legally binding to all nations,” to impose a tax on plant food (CO2).

Othmar Schwank, one of the participants, said that the U.S. and other wealthy nations need to “contribute significantly more to this global fund." He also added, “It is very essential to tax coal.”

The bounty from this $40 billion dollars a year windfall will go straight into the coffers of a UN controlled "Multilateral Adaptation Fund".

(Article continues below)


What we see unfolding in Bali is one of the major final stepping stones on the road to a complete globalist stranglehold on reducing the living standards of everyone in the industrialized world, and a scheme to prevent the third world from ever lifting itself out of poverty.
Seven years ago former French President Jacques Chirac said the UN’s Kyoto Protocol represented "the first component of an authentic global governance." The imminent agreement arising out of the Bali summit will be one of the final nails in the coffin aimed at decimating the middle class and the right of free people to strive for prosperity and happiness without laboring under suffocating serfdom imposed by unelected elitists.

As MIT climate scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen warned earlier this year, "Controlling carbon is a bureaucrat's dream. If you control carbon, you control life."

Lindzen is one of over 100 prominent scientists who have signed a letter slamming the UN move as a futile bureaucratic scheme, pointing out the results of a recent study in the International Journal of Climatology which concludes that climate change over the past thirty years is largely a result of solar activity and that attempts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions are irrelevant.

In comparison, half that number - just 52 scientists - participated in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers meeting in April 2007.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRISON PLANET.TV CHRISTMAS SPECIAL - IT'S BACK!
Subscribe today for just $39.95 and get the equivalent of 5 months free!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the letter addressed to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon, the scientists state, “Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity's real and pressing problems.”

"It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages. Geological, archaeological, oral and written histories all attest to the dramatic challenges posed to past societies from unanticipated changes in temperature, precipitation, winds and other climatic variables. We therefore need to equip nations to become resilient to the full range of these natural phenomena by promoting economic growth and wealth generation."

"The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued increasingly alarming conclusions about the climatic influences of human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2), a non-polluting gas that is essential to plant photosynthesis. While we understand the evidence that has led them to view CO2 emissions as harmful, the IPCC's conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity. In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions. On top of which, because attempts to cut emissions will slow development, the current UN approach of CO2 reduction is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather than to decrease it."

The letter goes into detail about several conclusions of the IPCC report that are completely contradicted by recent major scientific studies.

Read the full letter here.

Listed below are the names and credentials of the 100 scientists who signed the letter, again dispelling the myth that the man-made explanation behind global warming is an overwhelming"consensus" view.

Ian D. Clark, PhD, Professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa


Richard S. Courtney, PhD, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K.


Willem de Lange, PhD, Dept. of Earth and Ocean Sciences, School of Science and Engineering, Waikato University, New Zealand


David Deming, PhD (Geophysics), Associate Professor, College of Arts and Sciences, University of Oklahoma


Freeman J. Dyson, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, N.J.


Don J. Easterbrook, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Geology, Western Washington University


Lance Endersbee, Emeritus Professor, former dean of Engineering and Pro-Vice Chancellor of Monasy University, Australia


Hans Erren, Doctorandus, geophysicist and climate specialist, Sittard, The Netherlands


Robert H. Essenhigh, PhD, E.G. Bailey Professor of Energy Conversion, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University


Christopher Essex, PhD, Professor of Applied Mathematics and Associate Director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario


David Evans, PhD, mathematician, carbon accountant, computer and electrical engineer and head of 'Science Speak,' Australia


William Evans, PhD, editor, American Midland Naturalist; Dept. of Biological Sciences, University of Notre Dame


Stewart Franks, PhD, Professor, Hydroclimatologist, University of Newcastle, Australia


R. W. Gauldie, PhD, Research Professor, Hawai'i Institute of Geophysics and Planetology, School of Ocean Earth Sciences and Technology, University of Hawai'i at Manoa


Lee C. Gerhard, PhD, Senior Scientist Emeritus, University of Kansas; former director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey


Gerhard Gerlich, Professor for Mathematical and Theoretical Physics, Institut für Mathematische Physik der TU Braunschweig, Germany


Albrecht Glatzle, PhD, sc.agr., Agro-Biologist and Gerente ejecutivo, INTTAS, Paraguay


Fred Goldberg, PhD, Adjunct Professor, Royal Institute of Technology, Mechanical Engineering, Stockholm, Sweden


Vincent Gray, PhD, expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of 'Climate Change 2001, Wellington, New Zealand


William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University and Head of the Tropical Meteorology Project


Howard Hayden, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Connecticut


Louis Hissink MSc, M.A.I.G., editor, AIG News, and consulting geologist, Perth, Western Australia


Craig D. Idso, PhD, Chairman, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Arizona


Sherwood B. Idso, PhD, President, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, AZ, USA


Andrei Illarionov, PhD, Senior Fellow, Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity; founder and director of the Institute of Economic Analysis


Zbigniew Jaworowski, PhD, physicist, Chairman - Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland


Jon Jenkins, PhD, MD, computer modelling - virology, NSW, Australia


Wibjorn Karlen, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden


Olavi Kärner, Ph.D., Research Associate, Dept. of Atmospheric Physics, Institute of Astrophysics and Atmospheric Physics, Toravere, Estonia


Joel M. Kauffman, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemistry, University of the Sciences in Philadelphia


David Kear, PhD, FRSNZ, CMG, geologist, former Director-General of NZ Dept. of Scientific & Industrial Research, New Zealand


Madhav Khandekar, PhD, former research scientist, Environment Canada; editor, Climate Research (2003-05); editorial board member, Natural Hazards; IPCC expert reviewer 2007


William Kininmonth M.Sc., M.Admin., former head of Australia's National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological organization's Commission for Climatology


Jan J.H. Kop, MSc Ceng FICE (Civil Engineer Fellow of the Institution of Civil Engineers), Emeritus Prof. of Public Health Engineering, Technical University Delft, The Netherlands


Prof. R.W.J. Kouffeld, Emeritus Professor, Energy Conversion, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands


Salomon Kroonenberg, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Geotechnology, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands


Hans H.J. Labohm, PhD, economist, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International Relations), The Netherlands


The Rt. Hon. Lord Lawson of Blaby, economist; Chairman of the Central Europe Trust; former Chancellor of the Exchequer, U.K.


Douglas Leahey, PhD, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary


David R. Legates, PhD, Director, Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware


Marcel Leroux, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Climatology, University of Lyon, France; former director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS


Bryan Leyland, International Climate Science Coalition, consultant and power engineer, Auckland, New Zealand


William Lindqvist, PhD, independent consulting geologist, Calif.


Richard S. Lindzen, PhD, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology


A.J. Tom van Loon, PhD, Professor of Geology (Quaternary Geology), Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan, Poland; former President of the European Association of Science Editors


Anthony R. Lupo, PhD, Associate Professor of Atmospheric Science, Dept. of Soil, Environmental, and Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri-Columbia


Richard Mackey, PhD, Statistician, Australia


Horst Malberg, PhD, Professor for Meteorology and Climatology, Institut für Meteorologie, Berlin, Germany


John Maunder, PhD, Climatologist, former President of the Commission for Climatology of the World Meteorological Organization (89-97), New Zealand


Alister McFarquhar, PhD, international economy, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K.


Ross McKitrick, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Economics, University of Guelph


John McLean, PhD, climate data analyst, computer scientist, Australia


Owen McShane, PhD, economist, head of the International Climate Science Coalition; Director, Centre for Resource Management Studies, New Zealand


Fred Michel, PhD, Director, Institute of Environmental Sciences and Associate Professor of Earth Sciences, Carleton University


Frank Milne, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Economics, Queen's University


Asmunn Moene, PhD, former head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway


Alan Moran, PhD, Energy Economist, Director of the IPA's Deregulation Unit, Australia


Nils-Axel Morner, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics, Stockholm University, Sweden


Lubos Motl, PhD, Physicist, former Harvard string theorist, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic


John Nicol, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Physics, James Cook University, Australia


David Nowell, M.Sc., Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, former chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa


James J. O'Brien, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Meteorology and Oceanography, Florida State University


Cliff Ollier, PhD, Professor Emeritus (Geology), Research Fellow, University of Western Australia


Garth W. Paltridge, PhD, atmospheric physicist, Emeritus Professor and former Director of the Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies, University of Tasmania, Australia


R. Timothy Patterson, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University


Al Pekarek, PhD, Associate Professor of Geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Dept., St. Cloud State University, Minnesota


Ian Plimer, PhD, Professor of Geology, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide and Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia


Brian Pratt, PhD, Professor of Geology, Sedimentology, University of Saskatchewan


Harry N.A. Priem, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Planetary Geology and Isotope Geophysics, Utrecht University; former director of the Netherlands Institute for Isotope Geosciences


Alex Robson, PhD, Economics, Australian National University Colonel F.P.M. Rombouts, Branch Chief - Safety, Quality and Environment, Royal Netherland Air Force


R.G. Roper, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology


Arthur Rorsch, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Molecular Genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands


Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, principal consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, B.C.


Tom V. Segalstad, PhD, (Geology/Geochemistry), Head of the Geological Museum and Associate Professor of Resource and Environmental Geology, University of Oslo, Norway


Gary D. Sharp, PhD, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, CA


S. Fred Singer, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia and former director Weather Satellite Service


L. Graham Smith, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Geography, University of Western Ontario


Roy W. Spencer, PhD, climatologist, Principal Research Scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville


Peter Stilbs, TeknD, Professor of Physical Chemistry, Research Leader, School of Chemical Science and Engineering, KTH (Royal Institute of Technology), Stockholm, Sweden


Hendrik Tennekes, PhD, former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute


Dick Thoenes, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands


Brian G Valentine, PhD, PE (Chem.), Technology Manager - Industrial Energy Efficiency, Adjunct Associate Professor of Engineering Science, University of Maryland at College Park; Dept of Energy, Washington, DC


Gerrit J. van der Lingen, PhD, geologist and paleoclimatologist, climate change consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, New Zealand


Len Walker, PhD, Power Engineering, Australia


Edward J. Wegman, PhD, Department of Computational and Data Sciences, George Mason University, Virginia


Stephan Wilksch, PhD, Professor for Innovation and Technology Management, Production Management and Logistics, University of Technolgy and Economics Berlin, Germany


Boris Winterhalter, PhD, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Finland


David E. Wojick, PhD, P.Eng., energy consultant, Virginia


Raphael Wust, PhD, Lecturer, Marine Geology/Sedimentology, James Cook University, Australia


A. Zichichi, PhD, President of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva, Switzerland; Emeritus Professor of Advanced Physics, University of Bologna, Italy

Monday May 19, 2008, 12:58 pm
Polar bears 'thriving as the Arctic warms up'

Fred Langan and Tom Leonard
London Telegraph
Friday, March 9, 2007

Pictures of a polar bear floating precariously on a tiny iceberg have become the defining image of global warming but may be misleading, according to a new study.

A survey of the animals' numbers in Canada's eastern Arctic has revealed that they are thriving, not declining, because of mankind's interference in the environment.

In the Davis Strait area, a 140,000-square kilometre region, the polar bear population has grown from 850 in the mid-1980s to 2,100 today.

"There aren't just a few more bears. There are a hell of a lot more bears," said Mitch Taylor, a polar bear biologist who has spent 20 years studying the animals.

His findings back the claims of Inuit hunters who have long claimed that they were seeing more bears.


"Scientific knowledge has demonstrated that Inuit knowledge was right," said Mr Taylor.
While fellow scientists have accepted Mr Taylor's findings, critics point out that his study was commissioned by the Inuit-dominated government of Nunavit.

Critics claim the government has an agenda to encourage polar bear hunting and keep the animals off the endangered species list.

In small Inuit communities, hunters kill bears that wander too close to human settlements and, in this particular region, they are licensed to kill six polar bears a year.

Polar bear experts said that numbers had increased not because of climate change but due to the efforts of conservationists.

The battle to ban the hunting of Harp seal pups has meant the seal population has soared - boosting the bears' food supply.

At the same time, fewer seal hunters are around to hunt bears.

"I don't think there is any question polar bears are in danger from global warming," said Andrew Derocher of the World Conservation Union, and a professor of biological sciences at the University of Alberta in Edmonton. "People who deny that have a clear interest in hunting bears."

Bear numbers on the west coast of Hudson's Bay had shrunk by 22 per cent over the past decade, he said.

"They are declining due to global warming and changes in when the ice freezes and melts in Hudson's Bay," he added. He and other scientists in his group are concerned that the retreating ice in the Arctic may pose a danger to future generations of polar bears because of 'habitat loss'. "The critical problem is the sea ice is changing. "We're looking ahead three generations, 30 to 50 years.

"To say that bear populations are growing in one area now is irrelevant."

However, Prof Derocher conceded that some polar bear-related evidence of the damaging effect of global warming was misplaced.

Contrary to concern over a celebrated photograph of a bear and its cub floating on a tiny iceberg, the animals often travel in that way, he said.

"Bears will often hang out on glacier ice or large pieces of multi-year ice," he said.

The state of Alaska yesterday questioned the scientific justification for proposals to add polar bears to the US endangered species list.

Tina Cunnings, a biologist attached to the Alaskan government, questioned whether they needed sea ice to survive, saying they could adapt to hunt on land and find alternative food sources to seals.

Prof Derocher said the theory was "absolutely fanciful".

Monday May 19, 2008, 1:06 pm
'The Deniers' details flaws in the theories on global warming

Mark Milke
Vancouver Sun
Friday, May 9, 2008

An anti-nuclear, Toronto-based, urban-loving, 1970s peace activist who opposes subsidies to the oil industry might be the last person expected to detail cracks in the science of global warming.

But Lawrence Solomon has done just that in a short book with a long subtitle: The Deniers: The world-renowned scientists who stood up against global warming hysteria, political persecution, and fraud (and those who are too fearful to do so).

The spark for the book came after an American TV reporter compared those who question the Kyoto Protocol to Holocaust deniers. But Solomon wondered about that so he sought out the experts in specific fields to garner their views.

(Article continues below)


Consider Dr. Edward Wegman, asked by the U.S. Congress to assess the famous "hockey stick" graph from Michael Mann, published by the UN's International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which purported to show temperatures as mostly constant over the past 1,000 years -- except for a spike in the last century.

The IPCC claimed the hockey stick "proved" unique 20th-century global warming. But it didn't. Wegman, who drew on the initial skepticism of two Canadians who questioned Mann's statistical handling, found that his "hockey stick" was the result of a statistical error -- the statistical model had mined data to produce the hockey stick and excluded contrary data.

That mistake occurred not because Mann was deceptive or a poor scientist; he's an expert in the paleoclimate community as were those who reviewed his paper. But that was the problem: The paleoclimate scientists were trapped in their own disciplinary ghetto and not up to speed on the latest, most appropriate statistical methods.

Is Wegman the scientific equivalent of medical quack? No. His CV includes eight books, more than 160 published papers, editorships of prestigious journals, and past presidency of the International Association of Statistical Computing, among other distinctions.

Opinions in The Deniers vary dramatically and Solomon, a non-scientist, does not try to settle the disputes. He instead attempts to give readers insight into how non-settled and fragmentary the science is on climate change.

For example, think the polar icecaps are melting? That's true at the North Pole but it's not certain at the South Pole, according to Dr. Duncan Wingham. A portion of Antarctica's northern peninsula is melting. But that's a tiny slice of the 14-million-square-kilometre continent. And confounding evidence exists. Since the inception of the South Pole research station in 1957, recorded temperatures have actually fallen.

Wingham is cautious. He doesn't deny global warming might exist. But his data show the Antarctic ice sheet is growing, not shrinking, and the chapter on why ice measurements are tricky is another fine, informative part of The Deniers.

Is Wingham a flake, a denier in league with flat-earthers? Only if you think the chair of the department of space and climate physics and head of earth sciences at University College London, and a member of the Earth Observation Experts Group, among other qualifications, qualifies for such a label.

Monday May 19, 2008, 1:19 pm
Eco Group Calls For "Voluntary Human Extinction"
Says masses should be indoctrinated to stop having children in order that the human race can die out and save the planet


Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Monday, May 12, 2008







An environmental group says it's sole purpose is to recruit volunteers and educate enough people to eventually realize that the human race needs to completely die out in order that the planet can survive.

The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement (VHEMT) says humans need to stop breeding and voluntarily progress our own slow demise in order that plants, animals and fragile ecosystems can survive.

The group's motto is "May we live long and die out". Their website explains their commitment to a long term goal of convincing the population of Earth that it has no future:

It has been suggested that there are only two chances of everyone volunteering to stop breeding: slim and none. The odds may be against preserving life on Earth, but the decision to stop reproducing is still the morally correct one. Indeed, the likelihood of our failure to avoid the massive die off which humanity is engineering is a very good reason to not sentence another of us to life. The future isn't what it used to be.

Even if our chances of succeeding were only one in a hundred, we would have to try. Giving up and allowing humanity to take its course is unconscionable. There is far too much at stake.

The Movement may be considered a success each time one more of us volunteers to breed no more.

The movement is at pains to explain that it does not advocate suicide, abortion, mass murder, or any form of FORCED population control, yet it does advocate a total reduction in human population down to zero:

VHEMT Supporters favor this goal, while Volunteers see extinction as the only sure way to avoid breeding ourselves back to today's density.

The group rejects being labeled Malthusian or Eugenicist because in their words, they "care about life on planet Earth":

VHEMT (pronounced vehement) is a movement not an organization. It's a movement advanced by people who care about life on planet Earth. We're not just a bunch of misanthropes and anti-social, Malthusian misfits, taking morbid delight whenever disaster strikes humans. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Voluntary human extinction is the humanitarian alternative to human disasters.

The group maintains that human do not have a place in nature and have become parasitic:

The fossil record shows that each time Homo sapiens entered a continent, a spasm of extinctions followed. Exotic invaders typically disrupt ecosystems, and we are no exception.

On some philosophical level there is no doubt some truth feeding the myth. However, by examining our daily lives, and asking ourselves, "What part of my normal day is a part of Nature?" the sad truth is revealed.

(Article continues below)


A further read around the VHEMT site leaves a very sour taste for anyone who happens not to agree that the human race should be systematically wiped out. This movement is very calculated in its unwavering explanation and rationalization of an eventuality totally at odds with the history of evolution. It even appeals to different philosophies and religions and attempts to use their dogma to bolster it's own views.

In an interview with World Net Daily, a spokesperson for the group, going under the pseudonym Les U. Knight, highlights the pure doublethink that one must engage in in order to come to the conclusions this group do:

"It's an idea, and it's not transferred genetically," he said. "We aren't born knowing we should go extinct; we have to learn it. We don't need to create new humans in order to indoctrinate them from birth. All of us come from breeding couples, and yet we've decided not to breed."

Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of this group is that it equates itself with a general freedom movement. describing it's ideal as "reproductive freedom" rather than "population control". However a thorough read through their material makes it clear that the group is intent on imposing its views on people in order to change their mindset, whether they like it or not.

In their opening message the group states:

We don't carry on about how the human race has shown itself to be a greedy, amoral parasite on the once-healthy face of this planet.

Yet in the very next section they state:

Great progress will be made toward improving the quality of life on Earth by countering greed with responsibility, ignorance with education, and oppression with freedom.

And in following sections:

We were once like the otter, part of the ecosystem. Then we developed agriculture, and have become parasitic, depending on exploitation of Nature for our survival, but giving nothing back.

We have previously warned how "green" groups have attempted to associate climate change and environmental problems with over population and suggest that the solution is to implement depopulation policies and punishments for those who flout them.

People are indeed being indoctrinated to think that reproducing is bad for the planet.

This outlook is being seized upon by a globalist elite whose raison d’etre is to control and restrict our growth and progress for their own benefit. As Alex Jones documents in his seminal documentary End Game, this mindset is endemic amongst the elite.

This hijacking of eco groups and activists alike and is intended to push a green fraud to mask the agenda to mold a worldwide neo feudalist society where a global body regulates and micro manages every aspect of our lives down to when we can and cannot move around and when we can and cannot reproduce.

PLEASE DO YOUR PART ALL OF YOU WHO BELEIVE IN GLOBAL WARMING CAUSED BY HUMANS HASTE MAKES WASTE, SO THE LONGER YOU ARE ON THE PLANET THE MORE YOU INCREASE THE PROBLEM.