Re-Investigating Climate Change ~ resource paper, page 1

Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 1 times

Topic started on 14-4-2011 @ 05:46 PM by Serafine

Re-Investigating Climate Change
Why it is NOT being caused by increased CO2 emissions from human activity.

By Andrew Johnson ~ 29th Dec 2010

checktheevidence.co.uk

************************

This paper directly relates to this Forum. It's being offered for the forum library and for those who haven't seen it.

It's extensive, so will take to time to comment on.... But, it's worth being on the Library shelves here, along with other material... hope it helps..

reply posted on 14-4-2011 @ 06:04 PM by Ozscot

I read this some days ago - and was surprised by what was included in determining the causes of 'climate change'. However putting that aside let's look at the conclusions...

Aircraft trails are relevant to localised climate change on some occasions.

We've known this for quite some time - made more obvious immediately after 9/11.

Significant Changes are happening on all other planets in the solar system.

And we've been aware of this for some time also.

ENVIRONMENTAL DESTRUCTION and CLIMATE CHANGE have DIFFERENT CAUSES.

Depending on the definition of Environmental destruction and Climate change, this one is a no brainer. Chopping down a tree in my garden isn't going to cause the planet to overheat - chopping down 1 billion trees in the rainforest of my nation will. It's all relative.

Some agency appears to already have the ability to modify the weather – i.e. steer and/or create hurricanes and generate other effects localised to regions of up to a few hundred miles in size.

'Appears to have the ability to modify the weather?' - We've known since the 50's that we can modify the weather and no one is trying to cover that up. In fact the British Govt released files just a few weeks ago admitting they manipulate the weather. What we do however is we don't tell people when and where we are doing it - but hell yeah we freely acknowledge we can do it. So there's nothing new in that conclusion.

Other research mentioned shows that Pollution Free Energy Technologies (or ones with far lower levels of pollution) have been perniciously suppressed.

Again there's nothing new in that - we ALL know it has been suppressed and can even name the companies responsible for binning particular technologies.

Much wider data considerations must be made if honesty, integrity and credibility are to be retained within the scientific community.

Whilst I agree with this last conclusion it has to be said that this can be said of any research, anywhere at anytime. In fact it does get said in most research papers these days as it's a way of urging investment in the research itself.

At the end of the day there's absolutely nothing new in this research and I would fundamentally disagree with the findings as well as the research cited to reach the conclusions.

But hey, it's the stuff of good discourse and so long as we keep telling ourselves that we are not responsible for climate change then we're unlikely to notice it creep up and overwhelm us.

Oz

edit on 14-4-2011 by Ozscot because: Typo

edit on 14-4-2011 by Ozscot because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 14-4-2011 @ 09:27 PM by Serafine

reply to post by Ozscot

Originally posted by Ozscot

Much wider data considerations must be made if honesty, integrity and credibility are to be retained within the scientific community.

Whilst I agree with this last conclusion it has to be said that this can be said of any research, anywhere at anytime. In fact it does get said in most research papers these days as it's a way of urging investment in the research itself.

At the end of the day there's absolutely nothing new in this research and I would fundamentally disagree with the findings as well as the research cited to reach the conclusions.

But hey, it's the stuff of good discourse and so long as we keep telling ourselves that we are not responsible for climate change then we're unlikely to notice it creep up and overwhelm us.

Oz

We.. We've... We're.... It's called We Weing, and not we weing is a basic policy in journalism. You used 12 versions of we weing. First it's NOT we. I understand you were not writing an article for publication, yet any publisher worth their salt edits "we weing" out, even an opinion piece would get spiked.

Andrew Johnson has not only done secondary research, he also has primary research in this paper. Some of the information may seem redundant to you, as it seems the "We've known this for quite some time" statement you made, illustrates that's possibly the case. First it is not a matter of you, not WE, knowing this, because any good work has background and NEVER assumes YOU ( again not we ) knows.

It's interesting that WE.. whomever we are... You should know eh? It's your statements.. cause climate change... which used to be called ah... what was the Newspeak term? ... GLOBAL WARMING.... that's right... that was the propaganda. In one statement you mention WE <--- there it is again! lol.... You mention WE can change weather... and in your closing statement you claim...

"...so long as we keep telling ourselves that we are not responsible for climate change then we're unlikely to notice it creep up and overwhelm us."

This is interesting... are you implying anywhere in your piece, that "WE are using weather changing technologies to change the climate / create global warming? Especially since you stated the technology is being used, let alone "admitted". So the we causing climate change could very well be "we" causing the global warming.... as an agenda.

Interesting theory, but I'm not sure what you meant with some of your points, as they were not clear. As to your suggestion that this paper is "nothing new"... The primary research in it alone is. Any library on this topic without this work, is superficial.

That's why I offered it...

Next time... please don't use the euphemistic WE except for where REQUIRED. It's a terrible habit and one many a journalist and researcher has learned the hard way to never EVER DO. Otherwise

Thanks, till WE meet again. lol

and don't burn any of the books in your library.

reply posted on 14-4-2011 @ 09:51 PM by Ozscot

LOL When all else fails then resort to personal attacks yes? My 'We' referred to the public at large to whom this research was aimed - if it wasn't aimed at them then precisely who was it aimed at? Those who already agree with the conclusions? Hardly an objective piece of research then is it?

Do you want the links to 'WE use weather changing technology?' Or do I have to do his research for him?

Now let's take this slowly so you best understand - I addressed each issue in the conclusions and pointed out how they were either already common knowledge or debatable. You have chosen to attack me personally as well as my writing style and ignore the actual content of my comments - 'Nuff said.

Oz

edit on 14-4-2011 by Ozscot because: Edited to add a line

reply posted on 14-4-2011 @ 11:39 PM by Serafine

reply to post by Ozscot

Please man... do not use the we weing again... it is a very bad habit... Granted it was fun pointing that out lol... Yet it is a NO NO.... Any Aussie worth his salt can take the sh# out of themselves man! YOU know this... lol

Seriously.... Don't use it... YOU may understand what you are saying, but Simon Townsend would rip your writing to shreds man!... I Know!!!!

So... no kidding aside .... The Labor, Liberal/National or Green Party agenda's concerning "Climate Change" has always been a bloody mess. Garnaut, Rudd, Penny Wong or Julia are not WE.

And remember something... I did NOT use Ad Hominem. Look....

Description of Ad Hominem

Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument.

This type of "argument" has the following form:
1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A's claim is false.

I pointed out what is a serious error in writing/publishing... The misuse of WE ( aka We Weing ). You never know who you are talking to. for example: What the Australian Government does is NOT WE, it is "The Australian Government" period..... accuracy and clarity is demanded in serious writing... As I mentioned, I know you weren't posting a paper to publish etc.... and no offense intended, I was pointing out something you might not be aware of.... and that applies to ANYONE reading this... Watch out for how easy it is for us to write something as simple as WE.... when it is NOT WE.

Don't assume what the "public at large knows or doesn't know"... or what the "community of researchers "know" or doesn't know". We is very tricky and needs be used as required and not as a poor excuse for clarity or accuracy in any of our works.

So no offense intended man.... I remember when I learned the we weing number lol... I got nailed for it... severly nailed. Just saving you the trouble of really getting nailed. so cheer up... many have photographed the matchstick layouts of 6 jets in repeated waves doing the Chemtrail song and dance over Aussieland.... I can put up hundreds of photos.... so yea some We's might know.. lol. But some of the We's down the road have no idea....

Keep Your Head To The Sky ~ Earth Wind And Fire

reply posted on 15-4-2011 @ 01:26 AM by Ozscot

We note your points but we would deeply appreciate you actually dealing with the content and not the presentation.

I'm going to make a presumption here which could be woefully wrong - but if you are well versed in the climate debate in Oz then you'll know that certain sections of society are actively seeking to exclude the 'Mad Monk' for his pernicious and quite frankly dangerous views on the matter. The same 'Mad Monk' that is cited in the research presented in the OP.

Oz

edit on 15-4-2011 by Ozscot because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 15-4-2011 @ 02:25 AM by Ozscot

Apologies for the double post but it's been a wee while and I thought you might have responded by now. The citations in relation to the 'anomalies' on Australian weather radar for example. Why are they being wheeled in as an example of strange weather phenomena or technical interference with the weather? They are weather radar glitches which can be seen by their epicenter - each epicenter correlates precisely with the radar station in that location - the radius of the 'weird phenomenon' is precisely the radius of the radar in use. It's not like it's picking up a 'weird circle' in some far flung location - it's describing precisely the radar perimeter, which would indicate a radar fault. The Australian weather bureau is aware of the problem and is actively trying to find ways of rectifying it.

Oz

reply posted on 16-4-2011 @ 06:20 PM by Serafine

reply to post by Ozscot

Sorry for not responding yet... Your mention of Abbot got me thinking. though my thoughts may require a different thread... as Abbot = Rhodes Scholar... and the links of Gillard with Fabians.. got me thinking. There's an interesting work by Don Veitch ( Gangs, Counter-Gangs ~ and other political crimes ) in 2 volumes.

Reminds me of John Kerry and George Bush in 2004, both of which are Yale Skull and Bones, The Russell Trust.
As well of course, William Clinton = Rhodes Scholar.

If you haven't read this, you might be interested...
Cecil Rhodes, "Confession of Faith"

*******

Why should we not form a secret society with but one object the furtherance of the British Empire and the bringing of the whole uncivilised world under British rule for the recovery of the United States for the making the Anglo-Saxon race but one Empire.

...Take one more case of the younger son with high thoughts, high aspirations, endowed by nature with all the faculties to make a great man, and with the sole wish in life to serve his Country but he lacks two things the means and the opportunity, ever troubled by a sort of inward deity urging him on to high and noble deeds, he is compelled to pass his time in some occupation which furnishes him with mere existence, he lives unhappily and dies miserably. Such men as these the Society should search out and use for the furtherance of their object.

(In every Colonial legislature the Society should attempt to have its members prepared at all times to vote or speak and advocate the closer union of England and the colonies, to crush all disloyalty and every movement for the severance of our Empire. The Society should inspire and even own portions of the press for the press rules the mind of the people. The Society should always be searching for members who might by their position in the world by their energies or character forward the object but the ballot and test for admittance should be severe)

Rhodes later came to the conclusion that "The Empire" has "moved" to the United States of America.

*******

The radar "anomalies" are for sussing out ( which you seem to do ). As well, often "official" explanations are merely cover-ups and not the "answer". Australia has Pine Gap ( UK/USA ), which of course has the highest tech, but Australia has little when it comes to "weather".. as in NO SATELLITES and it purchases such data from "other" companies and nations. Media wise, ah... for example, the morning news ( tele ) mentioned the 5.2 earthquake in QLD at 3:31pm, but NOT the 4.0 earthquake at 5:06pm. TWO earthquakes hit in a matter of hours, yet much of the news omits the second one.

I'm not trying to be picky, but it IS standard for media and the masses are "On Their Own"... We suss things out if we learn how to. Various reasoning, such as "managing the population", not "creating fear" etc etc comes to mind. Or as Rhodes declared....

The ( Secret ) Society should inspire and even own portions of the press for the press rules the mind of the people.

Even now NBN is running the Earthquake story.... ZERO mention of the second earthquake. Again!.. lol NOT trying to be picky! But I have the news on and can't miss this point.

Here is a link that will show the 2 quakes.... let alone the Kiwi ( New Zealand ~ for those wondering ) quake of the "same time".

Recent earthquakes

*******

The Library... and the information, sources etc.... I don't "omit" any data, but I do file and shelve them as required. Not that sources contain "all I need"... Many sources are valid, even though they may contain old data or premises that need be sussed, or even conclusions that need to be sussed out.

Some material I know are psi-ops... P R Firm material... Propaganda.. dis-info <--- people like that buzzword! lol and etc... I have whole shelves filled with such material... Must KNOW what the players and people involved in any topic DO.

Maybe I should have made this point when I made this Thread.
A definitive source I didn't mean, but an essential source it is. I don't file it as "Grey Propaganda".... Which is old "language"...

White Propaganda = Truth
Grey Propaganda = mix of Truth and Lies
Black Propaganda = Lies

Psi-ops ( P R Firms, Media etc ) 101 use all, each and a mix of all as required. I must admit it's fun sussing it all out.

edit on 2011/4/16 by Serafine because: correction

reply posted on 17-4-2011 @ 01:10 AM by Ozscot

My turn to apologise for a late follow up - I did type one out but Windows decided to crash on me and I spent longer screaming over it than it took to type the post.

The premise of the article is that global warming/environmental destruction is not solely down to Co2 - even in a narrow sense I can actually agree with that. Co2 is a huge problem but it's not the only one. It plays a horrendous part in the destruction of previously relatively stable systems in the upper atmosphere. This does not preclude HAARP, it does not preclude a natural raising of temperatures, in fact it precludes nothing as a contributory factor - but that's what they are - contributory factors and Co2 is one of the most damaging.

For two weeks now some of the world's leading environmental scientists have been gathered in Vienna - they have issued one dire warning after another - this for example...

Depletion of the Ozone layer over the Arctic has hit record levels according to the WMO (United Nations World Meteorological Organisation). This winter to spring saw 40% of the Ozone layer disappear compared with the previous record of 30%. "Depletion of the ozone layer - the shield that protects life on Earth from harmful levels of ultraviolet rays - has reached an unprecedented level over the Arctic this spring because of the continuing presence of ozone-depleting substances in the atmosphere and a very cold winter in the stratosphere," the WMO said in a statement today.

This particular finding is of grave importance for those who live in the upper Northern Hemisphere as it directly impacts upon their survival chances.

But then add this in to the equation which came from another gathering of environmental scientists in Ediburgh Scotland yesterday...

Air pollution is damaging 60% of Europe's prime wildlife sites in meadows, forests and heaths, according to a new report. A team of EU scientists said nitrogen emissions from cars, factories and farming was threatening biodiversity. It's the second report this week warning of the on-going risks and threats linked to nitrogen pollution. The Nitrogen Deposition and Natura 2000 report was published at a key scientific conference in Edinburgh.

WE - not 'natural cycles' are the cause of much of the Planet's distress - and it is beholden upon us all to act upon it - not to bury our head in the toxic sludge.

It is a subject I get very worked up about and pay particular attention to - Why? Because it's a subject NONE of us can afford to fail to understand - the life of my wife and children depend upon it. There is no greater motive in life for getting it right.

Oz

Pages: ^^TOP^^