EXPLODING SCHOOL CHILDREN : Global Warming Propaganda Campaign Backfires

page: 18
<< 15  16  17    19  20 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 3 2010 @ 06:16 PM
reply to post by ChemBreather

Yeah, I saw that video earlier today.
Craziness. If you combine it's message with the 10:10 video's - too creepy. It's as if they really do want dissenters dead.

The Corbett Report did a nice little piece on the "exploding people" video today:

posted on Oct, 3 2010 @ 06:18 PM
reply to post by ChemBreather

Just as I have been saying, they are drawing lines. Either you are with them or against them.

That is nothing more than a threat. Threats will not be taken lightly.


posted on Oct, 3 2010 @ 09:15 PM
I find this to be a prime example of the radical GW crowd, in their arrogance, simply letting down their guard. When they do so, they create idiotic speech that clearly shows their true inner intentions and impulses. Why burn books when you can actually vaporize those with competing ideas? Being a first ammendmant absolutist, I will defend the right to create speech even as repugnant as this. However, the creators of this speech have no immunity from its ramifications, nor should they. The solution to such idiocy is simple....drown their distorted views of reality with massive doses of rationalty and realistic speech.

posted on Oct, 3 2010 @ 09:48 PM
I showed this video to my 15 year old brother after briefly explaining to him how GW/CC is said to be a scam & he thinks the video is funny, nothing more, nothing less.

edit on 3-10-2010 by la vie because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 3 2010 @ 10:07 PM

Originally posted by Romantic_Rebel
The teacher in the beginning of the video is beautiful and well educated. People Global Warming is not a hoax; it is very real and we need to stop it now!

I thiught they said we were going into a ice age because of the big oil leak in the gulf, and the gulf stream has stopped, the Alantic conveyor is stalling out.
So what is it hot or cold, I know we will get Taxed either way.
And if they threat to blow up some kids maybe they should be blown up, that is not a joke now adays, think?
Yea beautiful and stupid will do anything for a buck.

posted on Oct, 4 2010 @ 01:01 AM

Originally posted by ATS4dummies

Originally posted by thegoodcause
Hahahaha that's just silly. I watch movies and television, it would be hypocritical to get uptight over violence with a message.

No, serious money went into this. That means someone with wealth and power thought this was a good idea and signed off on it.

Give that the serious consideration it is worthy of.

So what? Serious money is also going to the tea party, and the GOP, and the DEMS, what's your point? Give that some serious consideration.

posted on Oct, 4 2010 @ 04:39 AM

Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman
I'm sorry but I'm having a really hard time believing that this "movie"/video was made with the intent of getting people on the side of 1010global.org . To me, it really does look like this is an anti-environmentalist disinformation piece. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a man-made global warming advocate in any way, as I don't believe that it's happening. I just don't believe for one second that anyone would make a movie like this to advocate their cause. It is MUCH more logical to me that this would have been made as a disinformation project.

EVERY "green" organization, including Greenpeace have used violence and threats of violence to FORCE their agendas on people.

These sick sob have been brainwashing children, and even adults to believe this sort of crap, and as you can see by the videos provided by many other members this is the propaganda of the environlunatics.

I call them environlunatics because not one of them is a real environmentalist, if they were THEY WOULD BE HAPPY that atmospheric CO2 levels have been increasing because as it has been demonstrated time and again ALL plant life, and trees, and all green biomass of Earth benefits and GROWS with HIGHER LEVELS OF ATMOSPHERIC CO2, but instead the facts have been twisted, and the "green agenda" is being used as a POLITICAL TOOL to brainwash new, and old generations into compliance to the "green agenda" which will not make the world green at all...

What these people want, among many other things, is to sequester atmospheric CO2 levels which will cause plants, trees, and in general all green biomass on Earth to slow, and even will stunt the growth and the yields of harvests from trees and all green biomass. This will mean more starvation worldwide.

The "green agenda" is an agenda for mass starvation, and they try to brainwash you by claiming "it is for the good of humans and the planet", but it will not benefit either humans , or the environment.

posted on Oct, 4 2010 @ 05:00 AM
reply to post by ElectricUniverse

To me, it really does look like this is an anti-environmentalist disinformation piece.


Someone with half a brain who recognizes the truth when they are sucker punched in the sensibilities with it.

Thanks Iamonlyhuman.

posted on Oct, 4 2010 @ 06:10 AM
i find it enormously funny in showing that global warming is crap.

posted on Oct, 4 2010 @ 06:41 AM
reply to post by ElectricUniverse

I call them environlunatics because not one of them is a real environmentalist, if they were THEY WOULD BE HAPPY that atmospheric CO2 levels have been increasing because as it has been demonstrated time and again ALL plant life, and trees, and all green biomass of Earth benefits and GROWS with HIGHER LEVELS OF ATMOSPHERIC CO2, but instead the facts have been twisted, and the "green agenda" is being used as a POLITICAL TOOL to brainwash new, and old generations into compliance to the "green agenda" which will not make the world green at all...

What these people want, among many other things, is to sequester atmospheric CO2 levels which will cause plants, trees, and in general all green biomass on Earth to slow, and even will stunt the growth and the yields of harvests from trees and all green biomass. This will mean more starvation worldwide.

Sorry, already debunked


The negative impacts of global warming on agriculture, health, economy and environment far outweigh any positives.

-Improved agriculture in some high latitude regions (Mendelsohn 2006)
-Increased growing season in Greenland (Nyegaard 2007)
-Increased productivity of sour orange trees (Kimball 2007)

-Decreasing human water supplies, increased fire frequency, ecosystem change and expanded deserts (Solomon 2009)
-Decline in rice yields due to warmer nighttime minimum temperatures (Peng 2004, Tao 2008)
-Increase of Western United States wildfire activity, associated with higher temperatures and earlier spring snowmelt (Westerling 2006)
-Encroachment of shrubs into grasslands, rendering rangeland unsuitable for domestic livestock grazing (Morgan 2007)
-Decreased water supply in the Colorado River Basin (McCabe 2007)
-Decreasing water supply to the Murray-Darling Basin (Cai 2008)


Although it has some very important and beneficial effects, CO2 meets the legal and encyclopedic definitions of a "pollutant", and human CO2 emissions pose a threat to public health and welfare.

While CO2 is essential for plant growth, all agriculture depends also on steady water supplies, and climate change is likely to disrupt those supplies through floods and droughts. It has been suggested that higher latitudes – Siberia, for example – may become productive due to global warming, but the soil in Arctic and bordering territories is very poor, and the amount of sunlight reaching the ground in summer will not change because it is governed by the tilt of the earth. Agriculture can also be disrupted by wildfires and changes in seasonal periodicity, which is already taking place, and changes to grasslands and water supplies could impact grazing and welfare of domestic livestock. Increased warming may also have a greater effect on countries whose climate is already near or at a temperature limit over which yields reduce or crops fail – in the tropics or sub-Sahara, for example.


A large number of ancient mass extinction events have been strongly linked to global climate change. Because current climate change is so rapid, the way species typically adapt (eg - migration) is, in most cases, simply not be possible. Global change is simply too pervasive and occurring too rapidly.

More CO2 would be beneficial only if it increased slowly and naturally (in the scope of 10 000s of years..) and life and humanity would have time to adapt to changing climate. But if it increases more rapidly, cons far more outweight the pros.

Since CO2 level increased by 38% in the last 100 years, having a shortage of CO2 is the last thing we should worry about. But cons of rapidly increased CO2 far more outweight the pros.

posted on Oct, 4 2010 @ 06:45 AM
I can't speak for everyone but when I saw this video I didn't see any satire, nor common sense in dealing with the global warming issue, all I saw was "Cut down your emissions or DIE".
There was NO middle ground, no grey area, no choice, just do it or else.
I think that many people who see this may think they have no say in the matter of trying to reduce their own emissions, they have to get to the 10 percent target or they will be executed. ok maybe not as drastic but you get some person with a less than commom sensical intellect and they may actually see those not recycling and then take the matter into their own hands to ensure they don't pollute anymore.
Ok maybe thats a bit extreme but I certainly wouldn't put it past Humanity.

Yes we do need to reduce our impact on the planet after all if She dies so do we, but to say it like this is just wrong, those who thought this is a good idea should be arrested or at least charged for moral crimes and threatening behaviour, and if the government is behind this those that signed it off should lose their jobs for thinking that threatening citizens who do not recycle with exploding death is a good way to get the message across.

posted on Oct, 4 2010 @ 07:43 AM

Originally posted by Maslo

So, since we seem to have many armchair climatologists here who seem to think they are infinitely wiser than real professional scientists, I feel a little debunky..

All you have shown is to be ignorant of the facts. Every one of those claims you excerpted has been debunked by REAL scientists.

From the claim that "95% of scientists endorse the consensus" which is a lie.

I have proven in past threads that many scientific groups are just touting the AGW bandwagon just to get more funds.

The position written in the websites of scientific groups which claim are a consensus on AGW does not speak for the majority of the scientists which are part of such groups....it only speaks about the opinions from the small groups of boards of directors which are more interested in getting more grants than in true science when it comes to Climate Change.

For example, Rudy Baum, the editor in chief of the world's largest science group, the American Chemical Society (ACS) made an editorial in which he claimed, like EVERY other scientific group looking to get more funds, that all, or most of their scientists agree with the consensus, instead most of the responses he received from member/scientists was the opposite from what he expected to get.

Here is a link to the "op/ed" Rudy Baum made in June 2009. Link

Here is an excerpt from one of the member/scientists from the ACS, as well as a link to what most of the responses actually say which is the opposite to the claims made by the ACS editor in chief that "the science is settled" and "all, or most scientists agree", both which are nothing more than lies.

Update: Scientist Accuses American Chemical Society Editor of 'censoring of articles and letters' that reject man-made global warming claims!

'Many of the members have not only expressed their disgust, they are contemplating leaving the group'

By Marc Morano – Climate Depot

Climate Depot Exclusive

[Climate Depot Editor's Note: Longtime American Chemical Society (ACS) member and Environmental Chemist Steven J. Welcenbach, the President of the Wisconsin based Alchemical Ventures, Inc., has released a portion of his private email exchange with American Chemical Society's editor in chief Rudy Baum. Baum, now under pressure to be removed from his post, created a scientific firestorm with his June 22, 2009 editorial in Chemical and Engineering News (C&E News) claiming that the global warming debate was settled. (See Climate Depot's Exclusive Report: Climate Revolt: World's Largest Science Group 'Startled' By Outpouring of Scientists Rejecting Man-Made Climate Fears! Clamor for Editor to Be Removed! - July 29, 2009 )]

Text of longtime ACS member and Environmental Chemist Steven J. Welcenbach's note to Climate Depot and an Email exchange with ACS editor Rudy Baum. Welcenbach has been an ACS member since 1986.

Hello Marc [Morano], (Executive Editor of Climate Depot)

Thank you for getting the word out with what is going on in American Chemical Society (ACS). A vast number of members are very upset with the lack of complete and balanced coverage of the AGW issue and the continued censoring of articles and letters by Rudy Baum that do not support the theory of catastrophic global warming caused by CO2 emissions from man's use of petroleum and coal. Many of the members I have spoken with have not only expressed their disgust but either have left ACS or are contemplating leaving the group. Lots of us, however, have decided that we should take action to return the group back to the scientific method and the initial purpose for which this group was formed and why we joined.

www.climatedepot.com... global-warming-claims

There are other examples which I have posted in the past and show how the people in charge of "scientific groups" have even resorted to not asking their member scientist opinions on issues, but still they claim "all, or most scientists agree with us" when this is nothing more than a lie.

There have been scientists who have resigned from the IPCC, and others have been telling us that the IPCC, and the AGW/Global Warming claims are nothing more than political tools to implement global policies and even a global government.

Here are excerpts from a letter that Chris Landsea wrote in 2005 as the reason for him to withdraw from the IPCC. Chris Landsea was a research meteorologist with Hurricane Research Division of Atlantic Oceanographic & Meteorological Laboratory at NOAA, and now is the Science and Operations Officer at the National Hurricane Center.

He was also one of the few researchers back in the day who had actually done any research on hurricanes.

Dear colleagues,

After some prolonged deliberation, I have decided to withdraw from
participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.

With this open letter to the community, I wish to explain the basis for my
decision and bring awareness to what I view as a problem in the IPCC
process. The IPCC is a group of climate researchers from around the world that every few years summarize how climate is changing and how it may be altered in the future due to manmade global warming. I had served both as an author for the Observations chapter and a Reviewer for the 2nd Assessment Report in 1995 and the 3rd Assessment Report in 2001, primarily on the topic of tropical cyclones (hurricanes and typhoons). My work on hurricanes, and tropical cyclones more generally, has been widely cited by the IPCC. For the upcoming AR4, I was asked several weeks ago by the Observations chapter Lead Author---Dr. Kevin Trenberth---to provide the writeup for Atlantic hurricanes. As I had in the past, I agreed to assist the IPCC in what I thought was to be an important, and politically-neutral determination of what is happening with our climate.


Here is what another IPCC scientist has to say about the Climate Change, or as it was once known Global Warming debate.

The lead author of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Dr. John Christy, will be the keynote speaker at Directions Media's Rocket City Geospatial Conference next week. The IPCC was awarded the Nobel Prize last Friday (Oct. 12), along with former U.S. Vice President, Al Gore, for its work on bringing attention to climate change issues. Christy, a professor at the University of Alabama-Huntsville, is skeptical of some of Gore's work on the issue. "Climate has evolved from a topic dealt with by a few bookish, pocket-protector scientists to a multi-billion dollar industry that has begun to drive legislative policy on Capitol Hill, to embolden high-profile environmental activists... and to create anxiety among the largest industries (and thus people) of the world."


Here is part of the statements made by Prof. Reiter as he testified to a U.K. parliamentary committee in 2005. Prof. Reiter also withdrew from the IPCC for similar reasons that Chris Landsea withdrew.

Here is part of what he had to say about the section to which he was asked to be a contributer for the IPCC report.

As Prof. Reiter testified to a U.K. parliamentary committee in 2005, "The paucity of information was hardly surprising: Not one of the lead authors had ever written a research paper on the subject! Moreover, two of the authors, both physicians, had spent their entire career as environmental activists. One of these activists has published "professional" articles as an "expert" on 32 different subjects, ranging from mercury poisoning to land mines, globalization to allergies and West Nile virus to AIDS.

"Among the contributing authors there was one professional entomologist, and a person who had written an obscure article on dengue and El Nino, but whose principal interest was the effectiveness of motorcycle crash helmets (plus one paper on the health effects of cellphones)."

How do such people become numbered among the IPCC's famed "2,500 top scientists" from around the world? Prof. Reiter, wanting to know, wrote the IPCC with a series of detailed questions about its decision-making process. It replied: "The brief answer to your question below is 'governments.' It is the governments of the world who make up the IPCC, define its remit and direction. The way in which this is done is defined in the IPCC Principles and Procedures, which have been agreed by governments." When Prof. Reiter checked out the "principles and procedures," he found "no mention of research experience, bibliography, citation statistics or any other criteria that would define the quality of 'the world's top scientists.'"


A fact that many people are not aware of is that most of the 1,200 or so, so called "experts in Climate Change" are in fact not experts at all. Only a few of the authors of the IPCC were really scientists which have studied Climate Change. Over 1,250+ of the contributors for the last IPCC report were environmentalists, environmental activists, policymakers, and a myriad of other groups and government representatives who were only trying to to force people to believe that we must act now by giving them billions of dollars if they were going to stop Climate Change.

The fact is Climate Change cannot be stopped, or mitigated, we can only be prepared for the changes that occur during such periods, and most of the money being collected for Climate Change is not doing anything at all to prepare people.

Ocean sea levels have risen, and fell hundreds of times throughout the history of Earth, and they will continue to do so. The poles have been free of ice several times also, and during the past 16,000 years or so, the Arctic ice has receeded more than it has during this time period.

Most of the money being squeezed to fight Global Warming is ending up in the pockets of the rich, and the elite, and with the new taxes which the Obama administration, the UN, and the EU have been passing, and are trying to pass more money is going to be squeezed from people, and at the end they would have done NOTHING to stop, or mitigate Climate Change.

When are people going to realize this is nothing more than the biggest scam in the history of the world?

Isn't it enough that about 13 TRILLION dollars were stolen by the elite from American taxpayers, and even the government, and president Obama dared to state they didn't know what happened with that money and where it went?....

There is a lot more, and thousands upon thousands of REAL scientists disagree with the AGW claim, but for the sake of brevity the above should suffice as evidence that your claims are wrong.

Also MANY times several members and myself have shown that the activity of the Sun was not cooling in the last 30 years like you are claiming.

In fact real research shows the opposite to what you claim.

Sun's Output Increasing in Possible Trend Fueling Global Warming
By Robert Roy Britt
Senior Science Writer
posted: 02:30 pm ET
20 March 2003

In what could be the simplest explanation for one component of global warming, a new study shows the Suns radiation has increased by .05 percent per decade since the late 1970s.

The increase would only be significant to Earth's climate if it has been going on for a century or more, said study leader Richard Willson, a Columbia University researcher also affiliated with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

The Sun's increasing output has only been monitored with precision since satellite technology allowed necessary observations. Willson is not sure if the trend extends further back in time, but other studies suggest it does.

"This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it could cause significant climate change," Willson said.

In a NASA-funded study recently published in Geophysical Research Letters, Willson and his colleagues speculate on the possible history of the trend based on data collected in the pre-satellite era.

"Solar activity has apparently been going upward for a century or more," Willson told SPACE.com today.


That research made by Wilson was only from 1978 -2002, and the research showed that until the end of the research the sun's output HAD BEEN INCREASING, and not decreasing like the AGW fans like to claim.

In fact we know that the way our Sun works, when for example there is an increasing trend in the Sun's magnetic fields it means that all other factors of the Sun such as magnetic storms, CMEs, solar flares, solar wind, ect, ect, all increase or decrease at the same time. They are all connected, and we know for a fact that until 2006 the overall activity of the Sun HAD BEEN INCREASING.

Originally posted by Maslo
Oh, come on.. The whole "Climategate" affair has been greatly exagerrated by the public. There is nothing in those emails that proves any tampering with the data or significant mistakes.

BS, in fact new developments have proven that the whole "Climagate scandal" was not only true, but included the IPCC, and even NASA, among some others.

The first person to post this story was seattletruth in the BAN forum. Here is a link to his story Link

A BRITISH climate scientist at the centre of a controversy over leaked emails is facing fresh claims that he sought to hide problems in temperature data on which his work was based.

An investigation of more than 2000 emails apparently hacked from the University of East Anglia's climatic research unit has found evidence that a series of measurements from Chinese weather stations was seriously flawed.

Climate scientist Phil Jones and a collaborator have been accused of scientific fraud for attempting to suppress data that could cast doubt on a key 1990 study on the effect of cities on warming.

Dr Jones withheld the information requested under British freedom of information laws. Subsequently a senior colleague told him he feared that Dr Jones' collaborator, Wei-chyung Wang of the University at Albany, had ''screwed up''.

The apparent attempts to cover up problems with temperature data from the Chinese weather stations provide the first link between the email scandal and the UN's embattled climate science body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, as a paper based on the measurements was used to bolster IPCC statements about rapid global warming in recent decades.

The IPCC has already been criticised for its use of information that had not been rigorously checked - in particular a false claim that all Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035.

Of 105 freedom of information requests to the University of East Anglia over the climatic research unit, which Dr Jones led until the end of December, only 10 had been released in full.


In at least one of the emails they mention ways that they can use not to release information, and in one of the emails Jones himself jokes saying...:

....If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think Ill delete the file rather than send to anyone."


Yet more evidence is being found that Jones, one of the hoaxers and main proponents of the AGW lie has been using many ways, even illegal ways to hide information, and they have been giving fraudulent information just to keep AGW, which sorry to say the evidence shows has become nothing more than a religion based on lies, flawed assumptions and even fraud.

The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.

Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research.

In an interview with The Mail on Sunday, Dr Lal, the co-ordinating lead author of the report’s chapter on Asia, said: ‘It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.
It had importance for the region, so we thought we should put it in.

Dr Lal’s admission will only add to the mounting furore over the melting glaciers assertion, which the IPCC was last week forced to withdraw because it has no scientific foundation.

According to the IPCC’s statement of principles, its role is ‘to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis, scientific, technical and socio-economic information – IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy’.




BTW, be certain that the AGW believers will try to use any way to silence anyone, and everyone, including using the tactics their masters have used, and keep using to try to silence anyone who dares to post research that refutes AGW....

Marc Morano
Climate Depot
Tuesday, January 26, 2010

Alabama State Climatologist Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, served as a UN IPCC lead author in 2001 for the 3rd assessment report and detailed how he personally witnessed UN scientists attempting to distort the science for political purposes.

I was at the table with three Europeans, and we were having lunch. And they were talking about their role as lead authors. And they were talking about how they were trying to make the report so dramatic that the United States would just have to sign that Kyoto Protocol,” Christy told CNN on May 2, 2007. – (For more on UN scientists turning on the UN years ago, see Climate Depot’s full report here. )

Christy has since proposed major reforms and changes to the way the UN IPCC report is produced. Christy has rejected the UN approach that produces “a document designed for uniformity and consensus.” Christy presented his views at a UN meeting in 2009. The IPCC needs “an alternative view section written by well-credentialed climate scientists is needed,” Christy said. “If not, why not? What is there to fear? In a scientific area as uncertain as climate, the opinions of all are required,” he added.

‘The reception to my comments was especially cold’

[The following is excerpted from Andrew Revkin's January 26, 2009 New York Times blog Dot Earth. For full article go here.]

Excerpt: Last March, more than 100 past [UN IPCC] lead authors of report chapters met in Hawaii to chart next steps for the panel’s inquiries. One presenter there was John R. Christy, a climatologist at the University of Alabama, Huntsville, who has focused on using satellites to chart global temperatures. He was a lead author of a section of the third climate report, in 2001, but is best known these days as a critic of the more heated warnings that climate is already unraveling under the buildup of heat-trapping gases.

www.prisonplanet.com... ve-to-sign-kyoto-protocol.html

WASHINGTON - A United Nations climate change conference in Poland is about to get a surprise from 650 leading scientists who scoff at doomsday reports of man-made global warming - labeling them variously a lie, a hoax and part of a new religion.

Later today, their voices will be heard in a U.S. Senate minority report quoting the scientists, many of whom are current and former members of the U.N.'s own Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

About 250 of the scientists quoted in the report have joined the dissenting scientists in the last year alone.

In fact, the total number of scientists represented in the report is 12 times the number of U.N. scientists who authored the official IPCC 2007 report.

Here are some choice excerpts from the report:

* "I am a skeptic ... . Global warming has become a new religion." -- Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

* "Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly ... . As a scientist I remain skeptical." -- Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called "among the most pre-eminent scientists of the last 100 years."

* Warming fears are the "worst scientific scandal in the history ... . When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists." -- U.N. IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning Ph.D. environmental physical chemist.

* "The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn't listen to others. It doesn't have open minds ... . I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists." -- Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the U.N.-supported International Year of the Planet.

* "The models and forecasts of the U.N. IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity." -- Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico.

* "It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don't buy into anthropogenic global warming." -- U.S. Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

* "Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapor and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will." -- Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, New Zealand.

* "After reading [U.N. IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet." -- Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an associate editor of Monthly Weather Review.

* "For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" -- Geologist Dr. David Gee, the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer-reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.

* "Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp ... . Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact." -- Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch U.N. IPCC committee.

* "Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined." -- Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh, Pa.

* "Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense ... . The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning." -- Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.

* "CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another ... . Every scientist knows this, but it doesn't pay to say so ... . Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver's seat and developing nations walking barefoot." -- Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.

* "The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds." -- Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata.

The report also includes new peer-reviewed scientific studies and analyses refuting man-made warming fears and a climate developments that contradict the theory.


Originally posted by Maslo
Also, its not only about the absolute level of CO2. Its about the RATE of increase. Humans managed to raise the level by 38% in just 100 years, which is absolutely unnatural. If we continue and burn all the fossil fuels depositing in millions of years in just 200 years, thus tripling the amount of atmospheric CO2 in such a short time, do you honestly think the effects on climate would and sudden change of conditions for the biosphere would not be catastophic?

This is the problem with people like you.. You want to claim that mankind caused ALL the increase in atmospheric CO2 levels, but atmospheric CO2 levels have risen naturally many times in the past. Only a small percentage of that increase is anthropogenic, but again you people need to try to "scare" those who are not informed.

For example the Earth's magnetic field, and the Sun's magnetic field have also been shown to affect the climate.

Climate determinism or Geomagnetic determinism?
Gallet, Y.; Genevey, A.; Le Goff, M.; Fluteau, F.; Courtillot, V.
AA(Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris, 4 Place Jussieu, Paris, 75005 France ; gallet@ipgp.jussieu.fr), AB(Centre de Recherche et de Restauration des Musees de France, Palais du Louvre, Porte des Lions 14 quai Francois Mitterrand, Paris, 75001 France ; agnes.genevey@culture.gouv.fr), AC(Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris, 4 Place Jussieu, Paris, 75005 France ; legoff@ipgp.jussieu.fr), AD(Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris, 4 Place Jussieu, Paris, 75005 France ; fluteau@ipgp.jussieu.fr), AE(Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris, 4 Place Jussieu, Paris, 75005 France ; courtil@ipgp.jussieu.fr)
American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting 2006, abstract #GP51A-0940
Publication Date:
AGU Keywords:
1503 Archeomagnetism, 1521 Paleointensity, 1605 Abrupt/rapid climate change (4901, 8408), 1616 Climate variability (1635, 3305, 3309, 4215, 4513)
Abstract Copyright:
(c) 2006: American Geophysical Union
Bibliographic Code:


A number of episodes of sharp geomagnetic field variations (in both intensity and direction), lasting on the order of a century, have been identified in archeomagnetic records from Western Eurasia and have been called "archeomagnetic jerks". These seem to correlate well with multi-decadal cooling episodes detected in the North Atlantic Ocean and Western Europe, suggesting a causal link between both phenomena. A possible mechanism could be a geomagnetic modulation of the cosmic ray flux that would control the nucleation rate of clouds. We wish to underline the remarkable coincidence between archeomagnetic jerks, cooling events in Western Europe and drought periods in tropical and sub-tropical regions of the northern hemisphere. The latter two can be interpreted in terms of global teleconnections among regional climates. It has been suggested that these climatic variations had caused major changes in the history of ancient civilizations, such as in Mesopotamia, which were critically dependent on water supply and particularly vulnerable to lower rainfall amounts. This is one of the foundations of "climate determinism". Our studies, which suggest a geomagnetic origin for at least some of the inferred climatic events, lead us to propose the idea of a geomagnetic determinism in the history of humanity.


Possible impact of the Earths magnetic field on the history
of ancient civilizations

Yves Gallet a,⁎, Agnès Genevey b, Maxime Le Goff a, Frédéric Fluteau a,c,
Safar Ali Eshraghi d

a Equipe de Paléomagnétisme, Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris, 4 place Jussieu, 75252 Paris cedex 05, France

b Centre de Recherche et de Restauration des Musées de France, UMR CNRS 171, Palais du Louvre, Porte des Lions,
14 quai François Mitterrand, 75001 Paris, France

c UFR des Sciences Physiques de la Terre, Université Denis Diderot Paris 7, 2 Place Jussieu, 75251 Paris cedex 05, France

d Geological Survey of Iran, Azadi sq., Meraj blvd., PO Box 13185-1494 Tehran, Iran
Received 30 November 2005; received in revised form 3 April 2006; accepted 3 April 2006
Available online 19 May 2006
Editor: R.D. van der Hilst

We report new archeointensity results from Iranian and Syrian archeological excavations dated from the second millennium BC.
These high-temperature magnetization data were obtained using a laboratory-built triaxial vibrating sample magnetometer.

Together with our previously published archeointensity results from Mesopotamia, we constructed a rather detailed geomagnetic field intensity variation curve for this region from 3000 BC to 0 BC. Four potential geomagnetic events (“archeomagnetic jerks”), marked by strong intensity increases, are observed and appear to be synchronous with cooling episodes in the North Atlantic.

This temporal coincidence strengthens the recent suggestion that the geomagnetic field influences climate change over multi-decadal time scales, possibly through the modulation of cosmic ray flux interacting with the atmosphere. Moreover, the cooling periods in the North Atlantic coincide with episodes of enhanced aridity in the Middle East, when abrupt societal changes occurred in the eastern Mediterranean and Mesopotamia.

Although the coincidences discussed in this paper must be considered with caution, they lead to the possibility that the geomagnetic field impacted the history of ancient civilizations through climatically driven environmental changes, triggering economic, social and political instability.
© 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.


The Mayans: Climate Determinism or Geomagnetic Determinism?

Yves Gallet

Equipe de Paléomagnétisme, Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris, France

Agnès Genevey

Centre de Recherche et de Restauration des Musées de France, Palais du Louvre, France


Climatic variations since the end of the last ice age have been large enough to influence the fate of ancient civilizations, and deciphering the exact role of climate in the history of old societies is an active and challenging domain of research. This potential influence, which serves as the foundation of ‘climate determinism,’ can be viewed as the response of natural-resource-dependent, agriculture-based communities to climatically driven environmental changes. In some cases, these could have provoked major damage in economic and social organization of the societies, thus paving the way for political disintegration.

Published 13 March 2007.

Index Terms: 1503 Geomagnetism and Paleomagnetism: Archeomagnetism; 1616 Global Change: Climate variability (1635, 3305, 3309, 4215, 4513).


In case you didn't know it is a known fact that the Earth's magnetic field has been decreasing since around 1840.

Ships shed light on geomagnetic field

May 11, 2006

Geophysicists in the UK have used a mathematical model based on old ships' logbooks to show that the observed decline in the strength of the Earth's magnetic field may only be a recent phenomenon -- and not a fixed trend as commonly thought. David Gubbins and colleagues at Leeds University say that our planet's magnetic field was stable until the mid-1800s and has been weakening steadily only since then. The decline is caused by magnetic flux reversals in the Southern Hemisphere and could point to a geomagnetic flip of the Earth's poles sometime this millennium (Science 312 900).

Scientists now know that the Earth's magnetic field is currently decreasing at a rate of about 0.5% a decade. If this trend continues, the magnetic field might reverse so that the North Pole becomes the South Pole and vice versa. Such geomagnetic flips are thought to occur once every 300,000 years or so, with the actual reversal taking thousands of years to complete. However, it is not known whether a decline in the Earth's magnetic field strength is inevitable.


We also know by other research that the Sun's overall activity had been increasing also before 1978, which is the year Wilson's research started.

Latest warming

Dr Solanki is presenting a paper on the reconstruction of past solar activity at Cool Stars, Stellar Systems And The Sun, a conference in Hamburg, Germany.

He says that the reconstruction shows the Maunder Minimum and the other minima that are known in the past thousand years.

But the most striking feature, he says, is that looking at the past 1,150 years the Sun has never been as active as it has been during the past 60 years.

Over the past few hundred years, there has been a steady increase in the numbers of sunspots, a trend that has accelerated in the past century, just at the time when the Earth has been getting warmer.

The data suggests that changing solar activity is influencing in some way the global climate causing the world to get warmer.


Solanki has claimed that the past 20 years, from 2004, the Sun's activity has remained constant, which is not true as demonstrated by the research from Wilson which proved the contrary.

There are other things which have been occurring recently and show that not only the Sun, and "water vapor" are the main contributors of the ongoing Climate Change.

Surprise In Earth's Upper Atmosphere: Mode Of Energy Transfer From The Solar Wind


"Its like something else is heating the atmosphere besides the sun. This discovery is like finding it got hotter when the sun went down," said Larry Lyons, UCLA professor of atmospheric and oceanic sciences and a co-author of the research, which is in press in two companion papers in the Journal of Geophysical Research.
(visit the link for the full news article)

I have been saying something similar to this, that when the Sun's activity had been at it's lowest since 2006, the defenses of the entire Solar System, including Earth and the Sun, goes down, and the entire Solar System is more susceptible to forces from outside the Solar system, which affect the planets, but also the Sun.

During such quiet periods of solar activity there are still sunspots, but fewer than during times of high solar activity, but since the Earth's defenses are down such activity by the Sun is much stronger, and affects the Earth more.

"We all have thought for our entire careers — I learned it as a graduate student — that this energy transfer rate is primarily controlled by the direction of the interplanetary magnetic field," Lyons said. "The closer to southward-pointing the magnetic field is, the stronger the energy transfer rate is, and the stronger the magnetic field is in that direction. If it is both southward and big, the energy transfer rate is even bigger."

However, Lyons, Kim and their colleagues analyzed radar data that measure the strength of the interaction by measuring flows in the ionosphere, the part of Earth's upper atmosphere ionized by solar radiation. The results surprised them.

"Any space physicist, including me, would have said a year ago there could not be substorms when the interplanetary magnetic field was staying northward, but that's wrong," Lyons said. "Generally, it's correct, but when you have a fluctuating interplanetary magnetic field, you can have substorms going off once per hour.

"Heejeong used detailed statistical analysis to prove this phenomenon is real. Convection in the magnetosphere and ionosphere can be strongly driven by these fluctuations, independent of the direction of the interplanetary magnetic field."

Science is not settled in stone, and every once in a while the Solar System, and in fact the entire galaxy and Universe surprises us and shows us that what we once thought impossible is possible.


edit on 4-10-2010 by ElectricUniverse because: errors

posted on Oct, 4 2010 @ 08:01 AM

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by ElectricUniverse

I call them environlunatics because not one of them is a real environmentalist, if they were THEY WOULD BE HAPPY that atmospheric CO2 levels have been increasing because as it has been demonstrated time and again ALL plant life, and trees, and all green biomass of Earth benefits and GROWS with HIGHER LEVELS OF ATMOSPHERIC CO2, but instead the facts have been twisted, and the "green agenda" is being used as a POLITICAL TOOL to brainwash new, and old generations into compliance to the "green agenda" which will not make the world green at all...

What these people want, among many other things, is to sequester atmospheric CO2 levels which will cause plants, trees, and in general all green biomass on Earth to slow, and even will stunt the growth and the yields of harvests from trees and all green biomass. This will mean more starvation worldwide.

Sorry, already debunked


The negative impacts of global warming on agriculture, health, economy and environment far outweigh any positives.

-Improved agriculture in some high latitude regions (Mendelsohn 2006)
-Increased growing season in Greenland (Nyegaard 2007)
-Increased productivity of sour orange trees (Kimball 2007)

-Decreasing human water supplies, increased fire frequency, ecosystem change and expanded deserts (Solomon 2009)

Desertification is mainly due to annual-plow agriculture.

Note how Deserts tend to "follow" homo-sapien agriculturalists,
Mesopotamia, used to be a rich and fertile land,
now it's the desert that is Iraq.
Same with the Sahara,
it was the "bread-basket" of Rome.

The solution is permaculture and forest-gardening,
as plants retain water in their bodies through the year.

Also cutting down of mountains leads to deserts,
such as has occurred in Australia.
A solution is to build cloud-catching pyramids.

-Decline in rice yields due to warmer nighttime minimum temperatures (Peng 2004, Tao 2008)

quite possibly you could also grow rice at higher latitudes

-Encroachment of shrubs into grasslands, rendering rangeland unsuitable for domestic livestock grazing (Morgan 2007)

domestic livestock is causing global warming from methane emissions.
And through the destruction of habitat is driving extinction.

Having more shrubs means more Food, shrubs can have berries and other useful produce.


Although it has some very important and beneficial effects, CO2 meets the legal and encyclopedic definitions of a "pollutant", and human CO2 emissions pose a threat to public health and welfare.

That's little more than name calling.


A large number of ancient mass extinction events have been strongly linked to global climate change. Because current climate change is so rapid, the way species typically adapt (eg - migration) is, in most cases, simply not be possible. Global change is simply too pervasive and occurring too rapidly.

Are you saying that with our high-speed transportation networks,
we wont be able to migrate fast enough?

walking 20km/day (5 hours a day) can walk a 1000km in 50 days.

But cons of rapidly increased CO2 far more outweight the pros.

So far you haven't mentioned even 1.

The cons you mentioned were only marginally related to "global warming",
which we already know is mainly driven by methane from factory meat farms.

edit on 4-10-2010 by lowki because: fixed quote blocks

edit on 4-10-2010 by lowki because: sharah: roman wheat fields

edit on 4-10-2010 by lowki because: quote-blocks

posted on Oct, 4 2010 @ 08:06 AM
Back in 1978 scientists already knew we would probably be seeing dramatic Climate Changes "in the near future."

The following is a research paper which was published in 1978.

Is the solar system entering a nearby interstellar cloud
Vidal-Madjar, A.; Laurent, C.; Bruston, P.; Audouze, J.
AA(CNRS, Laboratoire de Physique Stellaire et Planetaire, Verrieres-le-Buisson, Essonne, France), AB(CNRS, Laboratoire de Physique Stellaire et Planetaire, Verrieres-le-Buisson, Essonne, France), AC(CNRS, Laboratoire de Physique Stellaire et Planetaire, Verrieres-le-Buisson, Essonne, France), AD(Meudon Observatoire, Hauts-de-Seine; Paris XI, Universite, Orsay, Essonne, France)
Astrophysical Journal, Part 1, vol. 223, July 15, 1978, p. 589-600. (ApJ Homepage)
Publication Date:
NASA/STI Keywords:
Observational arguments in favor of such a cloud are presented, and implications of the presence of a nearby cloud are discussed, including possible changes in terrestrial climate. It is suggested that the postulated interstellar cloud should encounter the solar system at some unspecified time in the near future and might have a drastic influence on terrestrial climate in the next 10,000 years.


It is known that when the Solar System enters a denser dust cloud it causes ice ages.

NASA Study Suggests Giant Space Clouds Iced Earth Eons ago, giant clouds in space may have led to global extinctions, according to two recent technical papers supported by NASA’s Astrobiology Institute.

One paper outlines a rare scenario in which Earth iced over during snowball glaciations, after the solar system passed through dense space clouds. In a more likely scenario, less dense giant molecular clouds may have enabled charged particles to enter Earths atmosphere, leading to destruction of much of the planets protective ozone layer. This resulted in global extinctions, according to the second paper. Both recently appeared in the Geophysical Research Letters.
“Computer models show dramatic climate change can be caused by interstellar dust accumulating in Earth’s atmosphere during the solar system’s immersion into a dense space cloud,” said Alex Pavlov, principal author of the two papers. He is a scientist at the University of Colorado, Boulder. The resulting dust layer hovering over the Earth would absorb and scatter solar radiation, yet allow heat to escape from the planet into space, causing runaway ice buildup and snowball glaciations.


But it is also known that many regions of space have more plasma, more charged particles, and are even warmer than other regions of space where the Solar System is in, kown as the LIC. These extra charged particles, plasma, and gases alongside the warmer regions change the dynamcs of the Solar System, and in turn change the climate of all planets with an atmosphere.

Around 2002-2003 NASA, and ESA announced that more interstellar dust was entering the Solar System, and they also stated that we would encounter denser, and denser clouds which would exponentially increase each year until 2012, when we would enter the densest part of the cloud.

ESA sees stardust storms heading for Solar System

Date Released: Monday, August 18, 2003
Source: Artemis Society

Until ten years ago, most astronomers did not believe stardust could enter our Solar System. Then ESA's Ulysses spaceprobe discovered minute stardust particles leaking through the Sun's magnetic shield, into the realm of Earth and the other planets. Now, the same spaceprobe has shown that a flood of dusty particles is heading our way.
What is surprising in this new Ulysses discovery is that the amount of stardust has continued to increase even after the solar activity calmed down and the magnetic field resumed its ordered shape in 2001.

Scientists believe that this is due to the way in which the polarity changed during solar maximum. Instead of reversing completely, flipping north to south, the Sun's magnetic poles have only rotated at halfway and are now more or less lying sideways along the Sun's equator. This weaker configuration of the magnetic shield is letting in two to three times more stardust than at the end of the 1990s. Moreover, this influx could increase by as much as ten times until the end of the current solar cycle in 2012.


Because the magnetic field of the Sun is weaker, more interstellar dust has been entering the Solar System, but at the same time the region in which the Solar System is moving into has intestellar dust that gets denser, and denser the more the Solar Systm moves into it.

When I reported this information the first time some years back I also stated that if more interstellar dust was entering the Solar System, then more charged particles, plasma, and gases, which particles are much smaller than that of dust, were also entering the Solar System.

At least there was one member who was skeptical, and said there was no proof that more charged particles were entering the Solar System, but now we know that my assertion was true.

Like a wounded Starship Enterprise, our solar system's natural shields are faltering, letting in a flood of cosmic rays. The sun's recent listlessness is resulting in record-high radiation levels that pose a hazard to both human and robotic space missions.

Galactic cosmic rays are speeding charged particles that include protons and heavier atomic nuclei. They come from outside the solar system, though their exact sources are still being debated.


To make things worse, the Earth's magnetic field has also been weakening since 1840. Some people might call it a coincidence, since this is about the time when the climate of the Earth was gettng warmer, and warmer. But it is not a coincidence, and the fact that the Sun's activity until 3 years ago, and for about 60-100 years was at the highest it had been for more than 1,000 years, is what caused the warming. Apart from the fct that as the Earth goes into warming periods, the water vapor content of the atmosphere increases, and makes it warmer, and the warmer it gets the levels of water vapor continue to increase causing a feedback loop.

This feedback loop has been wrongly attributed to CO2, meanwhile the main and worse greenhouse gas is in fact water vapor, but since 99.9% of it is natural the policymakers, politicians, and environmentalists decided instead to blame it on CO2, and claim it was because of humans, just so they can implement more laws to control us, and in order for them to justify new taxes.

We actually know that in the Troposphere, which is the atmospheric layer that is closest to the surface, and is the one that controls the weather, as well as the climate on the surface of the Earth, water vapor contributes from 95% - 98% of the greenhouse effect, meanwhile CO2, AND the rest of the greenhouse gases contribute from 2% - 5% of the greenhouse effect.

To get back on topic.

Magnetic Field Weakening in Stages, Old Ships' Logs Suggest
John Roach
for National Geographic News

May 11, 2006

Earth's magnetic field is weakening in staggered steps, a new analysis of centuries-old ships logs suggests.

The finding could help scientists better understand the way Earth's magnetic poles reverse.

The planet's magnetic field flips—north becomes south and vice versa—on average every 300,000 years. However, the actual time between reversals varies widely.

The field last flipped about 800,000 years ago, according to the geologic record.

Since 1840, when accurate measures of the intensity were first made, the field strength has declined by about 5 percent per century.


BTW, I have proven in other threads the REAL reason behind the AGW/Global Warming hoax. It has NOTHING to do with "saving the planet."

Lift up a rock and another snake comes slithering out from the ongoing University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit (CRU) scandal, now riding as “Climategate”.

Obama Science Czar John Holdren is directly involved in CRU’s unfolding Climategate scandal. In fact, according to files released by a CEU hacker or whistleblower, Holdren is involved in what Canada Free Press (CFP) columnist Canadian climatologist Dr. Tim Ball terms “a truculent and nasty manner that provides a brief demonstration of his lack of understanding, commitment on faith and willingness to ridicule and bully people”.

“The files contain so much material that it is going to take some time t o put it all in context,” says Ball. “However, enough is already known to underscore their explosive nature. It is already clear the entire claims and positions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are based on falsified manipulated material and is therefore completely compromised.

“The fallout will be extensive as material continues to emerge. Reputations of the scientists involved are already destroyed, however fringe players will continue to be identified and their reputations destroyed or sullied.”

While the mainstream media is bending into pretzels to keep the scandal under the rug, Climategate is already the biggest scientific scandal in history because of the global policy implications.

Apparently there are emails which even show that our new "Science Czar" Holdren is involved in the climategate scandal.

Part of what the emails and the entire climategate scandal is about is the fact that the perpetrators, which include Holdren, have wanted to taint the reputation of scientists like Baliunas and Soon. Because these two scientists were some of the main researchers who have proved that the Medieval warm Period was warmer than the 20th century.

There have been other scientists who have proven this, and research from all over the world shows that the Medieval Warm, and part of the end of the Roman Warm period which Michael Mann's MBH98, MBH99 and subsequent rigged data didn't show up, and this has been the same data used by the IPCC to claim that the 20th century warming was exceptional, when it was not.

Here is what some of the emails state.

Indeed, Holdren’s emails show how sincere scientists would be made into raw “entertainment”.

How the deed was done
“A perfect person and opportunity appeared. On 16th October 2003 Michael Mann, infamous for his lead in the ‘hockey stick’ that dominated the 2001 IPCC Report, sent an email to people involved in the CRU scandal; “

Dear All,

Thought you would be interested in this exchange, which John Holdren of Harvard has been kind enough to pass along…” At the time Holdren was Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy & Director, Program in Science, Technology, & Public Policy, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, John F. Kennedy School of Government. (Editor’s Note: He is now Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, and Co-Chair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology—informally known as the United States Science Czar. )

““In an email on October16, 2003 from John Holdren to Michael Mann and Tom Wigley we are told:

”“I’m forwarding for your entertainment an exchange that followed from my being quoted in the Harvard Crimson to the effect that you and your colleagues are right and my “Harvard” colleagues Soon and Baliunas are wrong about what the evidence shows concerning surface temperatures over the past millennium. The cover note to faculty and postdocs in a regular Wednesday breakfast discussion group on environmental science and public policy in Harvard’s Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences is more or less self-explanatory.”

The Wednesday Breakfast Group
“This is what Holdren sent to the Wednesday Breakfast group.

“I append here an e-mail correspondence I have engaged in over the past few days trying to educate a Soon/Baliunas supporter who originally wrote to me asking how I could think that Soon and Baliunas are wrong and Mann et al. are right (a view attributed to me, correctly, in the Harvard Crimson). This individual apparently runs a web site on which he had been touting the Soon/Baliunas position.”

“The exchange Holdren refers to is a challenge by Nick Schulz editor of Tech Central Station (TCS). On August 9, 2003 Schulz wrote;

“In a recent Crimson story on the work of Soon and Baliunas, who have written for my website [1 techcentralstation.com, you are quoted as saying: My impression is that the critics are right. It s unfortunate that so much attention is paid to a flawed analysis, but that’s what happens when something happens to support the political climate in Washington. Do you feel the same way about the work of Mann et. al.? If not why not?”

“Holdren provides lengthy responses on October 13, 14, and 16 but comments fail to answer Schulz’s questions. After the first response Schulz replies, “I guess my problem concerns what lawyers call the burden of proof. The burden weighs heavily, much more heavily, given the claims on Mann et.al. than it does on Soon/Baliunas. Would you agree?” Of course, Holdren doesn’t agree. He replies, “But, in practice, burden of proof is an evolving thing-it evolves as the amount of evidence relevant to a particular proposition grows.” No it doesn’t evolve; it is either on one side or the other. This argument is in line with what has happened with AGW. He then demonstrates his lack of understanding of science and climate science by opting for Mann and his hockey stick over Soon and Baliunas. His entire defense and position devolves to a political position. His attempt to belittle Soon and Baliunas in front of colleagues is a measure of the man’s blindness and political opportunism that pervades everything he says or does.

All excerpts were taken from.

But the real cause behind the AGW/Climate Change hoax is even deeper than what the above information shows.

In 1991 an evil green environlunatic, i mean a good environmentalist known as professor Ignacy Sachs wrote a paper for the UN in which he describes step by step the phases that need to be taken by the SOCIALIST elites in order for western countries to redistribute their wealth to developing countries, as well as the emergence of a One World Government.

He states in this paper that the governments of the western world will most probably not accept this transfer of wealth, and dissolution of their sovereignty unless their hands are forced "by a popular movement or a catastrophe, such as another Great Depression or ecological disaster.

How about if you cause all tree of them?... Cause a worldwide economic crisis, claim that there is an environmental problem that MUST BE SOLVED RIGHT NOW, and that if you don't do it THE WORLD WILL DIE, and make a "popular movements of the people backing immediate action to stop such an environmental problem, and economic prolem....Wouldn't that be better?.....

He discusses how it will be needed for the dissolution of all middle classes around the world, which will mean EVERYONE will be equally poor which happens in Socialist dictatorships.

He states this plan, and strategies should cover several decades in order to be implemented slowly, unless there can be redistribution of wealth at a faster pace, which would shorten the time needed to implement this plan.

BTW, I am going to be linking to the official UNESCO website where the paper can be found.

Without further due, here is the article and links supporting what I just described above.

Published on 12-10-2009

By Jurriaan Maessen

“The governments of Europe, the United States, and Japan are unlikely to negotiate a social-democratic pattern of globalization – unless their hands are forced by a popular movement or a catastrophe, such as another Great Depression or ecological disaster“

Richard Sandbrook, Closing the Circle: Democratization and Development in Africa, Zed Books limited, London, 2000.

A 1991 policy paper prepared for the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) by self-described ‘ecosocioeconomist’ professor Ignacy Sachs outlines a strategy for the transfer of wealth in name of the environment to be implemented in the course of 35 to 40 years. As it turns out, it is a visionary paper describing phase by phase the road to world dictatorship. As the professor states in the paper:

“To be meaningful, the strategies should cover the time-span of several decades. Thirty-five to forty years seems a good compromise between the need to give enough time to the postulated transformations and the uncertainties brought about by the lengthening of the time-span.“

In his paper “The Next 40 Years: Transition Strategies to the Virtuous Green Path: North/South/East/Global“, Sachs accurately describes not only the intended time-span to bring about a global society, but also what steps should be taken to ensure “population stabilization”:

“In order to stabilize the populations of the South by means other than wars or epidemics, mere campaigning for birth control and distributing of contraceptives has proved fairly inefficient.“

In the first part of the (in retrospect) bizarrely accurate description of the years to come, Sachs points out redistribution of wealth is the only viable path towards population stabilization and- as he calls it- a “virtuous green world”. The professor:

“The way out from the double bind of poverty and environmental disruption calls for a fairly long period of more economic growth to sustain the transition strategies towards the virtuous green path of what has been called in Stockholm ecodevelopement and has since changed its name in Anglo-Saxon countries to sustainable development.”

“(…) a fair degree of agreement seems to exist, therefore, about the ideal development path to be followed so long as we do not manage to stabilize the world population and, at the same time, sharply reduce the inequalities prevailing today.”

“The bolder the steps taken in the near future”, Sachs asserts, “the shorter will be the time span that separates us from a steady state. Radical solutions must address to the roots of the problem and not to its symptoms. Theoretically, the transition could be made shorter by measures of redistribution of assets and income.”

Sachs points to the political difficulties of such proposals being implemented (because free humanity tends to distrust any national government let alone transnational government to redistribute its well-earned wealth). He therefore proposes these measures to be implemented gradually, following a meticulously planned strategy:

“The pragmatic prospect is one of transition extending itself over several decades.”

In the second sub-chapter “The Five Dimensions of Ecodevelopment”, professor Sachs sums up the main dimensions of this carefully outlined move to make Agenda 21 a very real future prospect. The first dimension he touches upon is “Social Sustainability“:

“The aim is to build a civilization of being within greater equity in asset and income distribution, so as to improve substantially the entitlements of the broad masses of population and of reduce the gap in standards of living between the have and the have nots.”

This of course means, reducing the standards of living in “The North” (U.S., Europe) and upgrading those of the developing nations (”The South and The East”). This would have to be realized through what Sachs calls “Economic Sustainability“: “made possible by a more efficient allocation and management of resources and a steady flow of public and private investment.”

The third dimension described by the professor is “Ecological Sustainability” which, among other things, limits “the consumption of fossile fuels and other easily depletable or environmentally harmful products, substituting them by renewable and/or plentiful and environmentally friendly resources, reducing the volume of pollutants by means of energy and resource conservation and recycling and, last but not least, promoting self-constraint in material consumption on part of the rich countries and of the privileged social strata all over the world;”

In order to make this happen Sachs stresses the need of “defining the rules for adequate environmental protection, designing the institutional machinery and choosing the mix of economic, legal and administrative instruments necessary for the implementation of environmental policies.”


posted on Oct, 4 2010 @ 08:12 AM

Originally posted by lowki

Sorry, already debunked

Wait, so you post the same source from the other poster which is outdated and wrong?...

Let me show you some more research that shows the contrary to what you seem to claim.

Fossil boffins say that dense triple-canopy rainforests, home among other things to gigantic one-tonne boa constrictors, flourished millions of years ago in temperatures 3-5°C warmer than those seen today - as hot as some of the more dire global-warming projections.

The new fossil evidence comes from the Cerrejón coal mine in Colombia, previously the location where the remains of the gigantic 40-foot Titanoboa cerrejonensis were discovered. The snake's discoverers attracted flak from global-warming worriers at the time for saying that the cold-blooded creature would only have been able to survive in jungles a good bit hotter than Colombia's now are.

But now, according to further diggings, there is more evidence to support the idea that a proper rainforest similar to those now seen in the tropics existed at the time of the Titanoboa - despite the much hotter temperatures. This could be seen as conflicting with the idea that a rise of more than two or three degrees would kill off today's jungles with devastating consequences for the global ecosystem of which we are all part.


And before the AGWers start claiming this is made up and a lie..

The first neotropical rainforest was home of the Titanoboa
Published: Monday, October 12, 2009 - 15:09 in Paleontology & Archaeology

Smithsonian researchers working in Colombia's Cerrejón coal mine have unearthed the first megafossil evidence of a neotropical rainforest. Titanoboa, the world's biggest snake, lived in this forest 58 million years ago at temperatures 3-5 C warmer than in rainforests today, indicating that rainforests flourished during warm periods. "Modern neotropical rainforests, with their palms and spectacular flowering-plant diversity, seem to have come into existence in the Paleocene epoch, shortly after the extinction of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago," said Carlos Jaramillo, staff scientist at the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute. "Pollen evidence tells us that forests before the mass extinction were quite different from our fossil rainforest at Cerrejón. We find new plant families, large, smooth-margined leaves and a three-tiered structure of forest floor, understory shrubs and high canopy."


Oh noooo..... rainforests, and animals were doing fine with temperatures 3-5C higher than today's?.....

Who would have thought this?......

Well, I guess ANOTHER lie of the AGWers is dead....

BTW, the above DOES NOT PROVE that CO2 is the cause of the warming claimed by the AGW fans, it just shows that giant forests and animals have existed and thrived with warmer temperatures than at present.

edit on 4-10-2010 by ElectricUniverse because: add comment

posted on Oct, 4 2010 @ 08:28 AM
Oh and btw, it is another fact that with INCREASED atmospheric levels of CO2 all green biomass make better use of water, which means there is more water for mammals, and other animals as well as humans.

Today, we will turn out attention to the state of affairs for the tree and the candy canes, and we searched the literature for any updates on how pine trees and sugar cane will fare in a world of elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) levels. Given that the literature contains literally thousands of articles on the positive effects of elevated CO2 on plants, we were optimistic that recent material could be found. Of course, three articles were located within minutes dealing with elevated CO2, pine trees, and sugarcane.

A team of scientists associated with the University of Florida state that “Sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L. cv. CP73-1547) was grown in Gainesville, Florida (29°38’N and 82°22’W) under field-like conditions for sunlight in paired-companion, temperature-gradient greenhouses.” Some of the greenhouses had ambient atmospheric CO2 concentrations near 360 ppm while other greenhouses had atmospheric CO2 maintained at 720 ppm. At final harvest, the leaf area of the ambient CO2 plants was found to be 34.1 square decimeters per plant, but for the double-CO2 plants, leaf area was 44.5 square decimeters per plant. The elevated CO2 increased the leaf area by over 30 percent! Similarly, leaf fresh weight increased from 165.0 grams per plant to 187.0 grams per plant (a 13% increase). The stem fresh weight increased from 437.3 grams per plant to 680.3 grams per plant (a 56% increase). The above ground mass of the plant increased from 602.0 grams per plant to 867.0 grams per plant (a 44% increase). The all important juice from the main stem increased from 95.0 cubic centimeters to 174.3 cubic centimeters (a whopping 83% increase) all due to the doubling of atmospheric CO2.

Can the news for the sugar canes get any better? Yes, for Vu et al. report “Elevated-CO2 plants also had up to 51% lower stomatal conductance and 39% less transpiration, which resulted in 26–52% greater water-use efficiency (WUE) than ambient-CO2 plants, during leaf growth and development.” In the final sentence of the abstract they conclude that beneficial changes in the biochemistry of the plants “together with a reduction in leaf stomatal conductance and transpiration and an improvement in leaf WUE and plant water status, could lead to an enhancement in leaf area, plant biomass accumulation and sucrose production for the CO2-enriched sugarcane plants.” Basically, thanks to elevated CO2, the sugarcane plants were bigger, they increase sucrose production, and they did so while becoming more water use efficient. We asked the candy canes what they thought of this article, and they said “Sweet!”


New Phytologist © 1998 New Phytologist Trust.
Forests exchange large amounts of CO2 with the atmosphere and can influence and be influenced by atmospheric CO2. There has been a recent proliferation of literature on the effects of atmospheric CO2 on forest trees. More than 300 studies of trees on five different continents have been published in the last five years. These include an increasing number of field studies with a long-term focus and involving CO2 x stress or environment interactions. The recent data on long-term effects of elevated atmospheric CO2 on trees indicate a potential for a persistent enhancement of tree growth for several years, although the only relevant long-term datasets currently available are for juvenile trees. The current literature indicates a significantly larger average long-term biomass increment under elevated CO2 for conifers (130%) than for deciduous trees (49%) in studies not involving stress components. However, stimulation of photosynthesis by elevated CO2 in long-term studies was similar for conifers (62 %) and deciduous trees (53 %). Recent studies indicate that elevated CO2 causes a more persistent stimulation of biomass increment and photosynthesis than previously expected. Results of seedling studies, however, might not be applicable to other stages of tree development because of complications of age-dependent and size-dependent shifts in physiology and carbon allocation, which are accelerated by elevated CO2. In addition, there are many possible avenues to down-regulation, making the predicted canopy CO2 exchange and growth of mature trees and forests in a CO2-rich atmosphere uncertain. Although, physiological down-regulation of photosynthetic rates has been documented in field situations, it is rarely large enough to offset entirely photosynthetic gains in elevated CO2. A persistent growth stimulation of individual mature trees has been demonstrated although this effect is more uncertain in trees in natural stands. Resource interactions can both constrain tree responses to elevated CO2 and be altered by them. Although drought can reduce gas-exchange rates and offset the benefits of elevated CO2, even in well watered trees, stomatal conductance is remarkably less responsive to elevated CO2 than in herbaceous species. Stomata of a number of tree species have been demonstrated to be unresponsive to elevated CO2. We conclude that positive effects of CO2 on leaf area can be at least as important in determining canopy transpiration as negative, direct effects of CO2 on stomatal aperture. With respect to nutrition, elevated CO2 has the potential to alter tree-soil interactions that might influence future changes in ecosystem productivity. There is continued evidence that in most cases nutrient limitations diminish growth and photosynthetic responses to elevated CO2 at least to some degree, and that elevated CO2 can accelerate the appearance of nutrient limitations with increasing time of treatment. In many studies, tree biomass responses to CO2 are artefacts in the sense that they are merely responses to CO2-induced changes in internal nutritional status of the tree. There are numerous interactions between CO2 and factors of the biotic and abiotic environment. The importance of increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations for productivity is likely to be overestimated if these are not taken into account. Many interactions, however, are simply additive rather than synergistic or antagonistic. This appears to hold true for many parameters under elevated CO2 in combination with temperature, elevated CO3, and other atmospheric pollutants. However, there is currently little evidence that elevated CO2will counteract CO3 damage. When the foliage content of C, mineral nutrients and secondary metabolites is altered by elevated CO2, tree x insect interactions are modified. In most trees, mycorrhizal interactions might be less important for direct effects of CO2 than for alleviating general nutrient deficiencies. Since many responses to elevated CO2 and their interactions with stress show considerable variability among species/genotypes, one principal research need is for comparative studies of a large variety of woody species and ecosystems under realistic conditions. We still need more long-term experiments on mature trees and stands to address critical scaling issues likely to advance our understanding of responses to elevated CO2 at different stages of forest development and their interactions with climate and environment. The only tools available at present for coping with the consequences of rising CO2 are management of resources and selection ofgenotypes suitable for the future climate and environment.


I could keep on going posting actual research papers that shows that elevated levels of atmospheric CO2 than at present increases the growth of all green biomass and allows for all green biomass to make more efficient use of water, but I think you get the picture.

edit on 4-10-2010 by ElectricUniverse because: errors

posted on Oct, 4 2010 @ 08:55 AM

Originally posted by lowki


Although it has some very important and beneficial effects, CO2 meets the legal and encyclopedic definitions of a "pollutant", and human CO2 emissions pose a threat to public health and welfare.

That's little more than name calling.

First of all note that they say "human CO2 emissions", they are not saying "man-made" but "human CO2 emissions"... Once again trying to blame even the existence of mankind to "being a destructive force for the planet". Typical green nonsense.

BTW, the EPA has also been trying to make WATER VAPOR a pollutant... I guess they must be right heh?... but wait, 99.999% of water vapor production IS NATURAL... So let's blame all trees, forest, and even the oceans... Where is your call to "do something about the evil oceans and every form of green biomass which affects the water cycle?....

EPA Seeks To Have Water Vapor Classified As A Pollutant

This jet condensation trail seen at sunset will gradually evaporate, increasing the water vapor content of the atmosphere. Since a wide variety of human activities produce water vapor, the Earths main greenhouse gas, the Environmental Protection Agency is seeking to have it designated as a pollutant.


There is also the following fact.

Successful indoor growers implement methods to increase CO2 concentrations in their enclosure. The typical outdoor air we breathe contains 0.03 - 0.045% (300 - 450 ppm) CO2. Research demonstrates that optimum growth and production for most plants occur between 1200 - 1500 ppm CO2. These optimum CO2 levels can boost plant metabolism, growth and yield by 25 - 60%.


We are living in a carbon based world, and in fact the Earth is STILL CO2 starved...

It is another fact that the green biomass of the Earth, and even the oceans has been increasing, and this means MORE FOOD for animals, and mankind.

Rebecca Lindsey June 5, 2003

Leaving aside for a moment the deforestation and other land cover changes that continue to accompany an ever-growing human population, the last two decades of the twentieth century were a good time to be a plant on planet Earth. In many parts of the global garden, the climate grew warmer, wetter, and sunnier, and despite a few El Niño-related setbacks, plants flourished for the most part.


Originally posted by lowki


A large number of ancient mass extinction events have been strongly linked to global climate change. Because current climate change is so rapid, the way species typically adapt (eg - migration) is, in most cases, simply not be possible. Global change is simply too pervasive and occurring too rapidly.

Are you saying that with our high-speed transportation networks,
we wont be able to migrate fast enough?

walking 20km/day (5 hours a day) can walk a 1000km in 50 days.

What in the world are you talking about?... First of all that article DOES NOT PROVE CO2 as it exists on Earth right now, or even a double or triple increase in level was the cause for that or any other mass extinctions.

And what are you talking about transportation and not being able to migrate fast enough?...

Originally posted by lowki
So far you haven't mentioned even 1.

I mentioned several, you are just too upset that the AGW religion is being attacked to see the information being shown to you...

Originally posted by lowki
The cons you mentioned were only marginally related to "global warming",
which we already know is mainly driven by methane from factory meat farms.

No, all the cons I mentioned are tremendously beneficial to all green biomass as well as to humans...

BTW, let's get rid of ALL vegetarians as well no?... After all you people have to eat more beans, and other harvests from plants with protein which cause more "methane and CO2 buildup" in your bodies and which is eventually released into the atmosphere...

Where are the "green signs against vegetarianism"?... Oh of course not, you people only want to claim the only reason for AGW/Climate Change are meat eaters, and the reasons YOU want to claim only increase the levels of atmospheric CO2...

edit on 4-10-2010 by ElectricUniverse because: errors

posted on Oct, 4 2010 @ 09:00 AM
reply to post by Maslo

You can't have it both ways. Either you have predominantly positive feed back mechanisms which mean we will all fry or the negative and positive feed backs cancel each other out in which case you have little or no warming.

Furtermore increases in water vapour content also affects the albedo through cloud cover which is a strong negative feedback effect that is currently largely unknown and only sparesly incorporated in the current climate models.

Try thinking it through instead of regurtitating realclimate and scepticalsciense.

posted on Oct, 4 2010 @ 02:15 PM

Originally posted by Pentothal

This Video was posted earlier today and then removed because of the rapid and extremely hostile response the video had.


I lol'd so effing loud! HAHAHAHAHAHA

posted on Oct, 4 2010 @ 05:29 PM
Beck played the first part of the video on his show today.

top topics
<< 15  16  17    19  20 >>

log in