Thursday, December 27, 2007

Fire Or Ice?

1) Journalists have warned of climate change for over 100 years, but can’t decide weather we face an ice age or warming It was five years before the turn of the century and major media were warning of disastrous climate change. Page six of The New York Times was headlined with the serious concerns of “geologists.” Only the president at the time wasn’t Bill Clinton; it was Grover Cleveland! And the Times wasn’t warning about global warming – it was telling readers the looming dangers of a new ice age.

2) The year was 1895, and it was just one of four different time periods in the last 100 years when major print media predicted an impending climate crisis. Each prediction carried its own elements of doom, saying Canada could be “wiped out” or lower crop yields would mean “billions will die.” Just as the weather has changed over time, so has the reporting – blowing hot or cold with short-term changes in temperature.

3) Following the ice age threats from the late 1800s, fears of an imminent and icy catastrophe were compounded in the 1920s by Arctic explorer Donald MacMillan and an obsession with the news of his polar expedition. As the Times put it on Feb. 24, 1895, “Geologists Think the World May Be Frozen Up Again.” Those concerns lasted well into the late 1920s. But when the earth’s surface warmed less than half a degree, newspapers and magazines responded with stories about the new threat. Once again the Times was out in front, cautioning “the earth is steadily growing warmer.”

4) After a while, that second phase of climate cautions began to fade. By 1954, Fortune magazine was warming to another cooling trend and ran an article titled “Climate – the Heat May Be Off.” The New York Times ran warming stories into the late 1950s, but it too came around to the new fears. Just three decades ago, in 1975, the paper reported: “A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable.” That trend, too, cooled off and was replaced by the current era of reporting on the dangers of global warming. Just six years later, on Aug. 22, 1981, the Times quoted seven government atmospheric scientists who predicted global warming of an “almost unprecedented magnitude.” In all, the print news media have warned of four separate climate changes in slightly more than 100 years – global cooling, warming, cooling again, and, perhaps not so finally, warming.
5) Some current warming stories combine the concepts and claim the next ice age will be triggered by rising temperatures – the theme of the 2004 movie “The Day After Tomorrow.” Recent global warming reports have continued that trend, morphing into a hybrid of both theories. News media that once touted the threat of “global warming” have moved on to the more flexible term “climate change.” As the Times described it, climate change can mean any major shift, making the earth cooler or warmer.
6) The idea of “climate change” means that any major climate event can be blamed on global warming, supposedly driven by mankind. Spring 2006 has been swamped with climate change hype in every type of media – books, newspapers, magazines, online, TV and even movies. Al Gore, THE patron saint of the environmental movement,“An Inconvenient Truth”.
7) Despite all the historical shifting from one position to another, most in the media no longer welcome opposing views on the climate. CBS reporter Scott Pelley went so far as to compare climate change skeptics with Holocaust deniers. He said in an interview on March 23 with CBS News’s PublicEye blog. He added that the whole idea of impartial journalism just didn’t work for climate stories. “There becomes a point in journalism where striving for balance becomes irresponsible,” he said.

8) From 1954-1976 all we heard was "The ice age is coming", The first Earth Day was celebrated on April 22, 1970, amidst hysteria about the dangers of a new ice age. The media had been spreading warnings of a cooling period since the 1950s, but those alarms grew louder in the 1970s. Three months before, on January 11, The Washington Post told readers to “get a good grip on your long johns, cold weather haters – the worst may be yet to come,” in an article titled “Colder Winters Held Dawn of New Ice Age.” The article quoted climatologist Reid Bryson, who said “there’s no relief in sight” about the cooling trend. Journalists took the threat of another ice age seriously. Fortune magazine actually won a “Science Writing Award” from the American Institute of Physics for its own analysis of the danger. “As for the present cooling trend a number of leading climatologists have concluded that it is very bad news indeed,” Fortune announced in February 1974. ”
9) The claims of global catastrophe were remarkably similar to what the media deliver now about global warming. “The cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people in poor nations,” wrote Lowell Ponte in his 1976 book “The Cooling.” If the proper measures weren’t taken, he cautioned, then the cooling would lead to “world famine, world chaos, and probably world war, and this could all come by the year 2000.” There were more warnings. The Nov. 15, 1969, “Science News” quoted meteorologist Dr. J. Murray Mitchell Jr. . “How long the current cooling trend continues is one of the most important problems of our civilization,” he said. If the cooling continued for 200 to 300 years, the earth could be plunged into an ice age. Six years later, the periodical reported “the cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed.”
10) Today’s global warming advocates probably don’t even realize their claims aren’t original! Before the cooling worries of the ’70s, America went through global warming fever for several decades around World War II. The nation entered the “longest warm spell since 1776,” according to a March 27, 1933, New York Times headline. The Washington Post felt the heat as well and titled an article simply “Hot weather” on August 2, 1930. Meteorologist J. B. Kincer of the federal weather bureau published a scholarly article on the warming world in the September 1933 “Monthly Weather Review.” The article began discussing the “wide-spread and persistent tendency toward warmer weather” and asked “Is our climate changing?” Kincer proceeded to document the warming trend.
11) So what can one conclude from all these conflicting stories? That the main stream press will parrot whatever the prevailing ideology is of the day, and more importantly that today's alarmists dooms day folks have NO credibility. The climate is always changing and to make conclusions based on a short snap shot of time(less than 100 yrs) is totally inane, as are the 'remedies' that are being proposed to stop this 'catastrophe'

Wednesday, December 19, 2007

We should give up futile attempts to combat climate change

1) Above is the link to an article that should have been front page news but was ignored during the recent silly UN Climate summit in Indonesia. In it 100 leading climate scientists write to the head of the UN Ban Ki-Moon the Secretary-General that the recent 'warm up, falls well within the known natural rates of warming and cooling over the last 10,000 years.

2) They go on to say that " It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages". They castigate the UN for their alarmist proclamations. The key sentence though was: it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions

3) That should have been a HUGE story. This was from a large collection of scientists. None of whom are currently employed by Exxon-Mobile, etc. Since this story did not fit the mold of Global Climate Change, it was largely ignored by all main stream press outlets. We guess blasphemy against the religion of Global Warming doesn't get reported, but gets buried, regardless of facts

Wednesday, December 12, 2007

Real Pope makes Global Warming Statement

1) Above is a link to an article from today where Pope Benedict XVI makes a surpirsing(but refreshing) statement that "any solutions to global warming must be based on firm evidence and not on dubious ideology. "

2) He went on to say: 'fears over man-made emissions melting the ice caps and causing a wave of unprecedented disasters were nothing more than scare-mongering. ' was vital that the international community based its policies on science rather than the dogma of the environmentalist movement.'

3) His remarks reveal that while the Pope acknowledges that problems may be associated with unbridled development and climate change, he believes the case against global warming to be over-hyped. Thank you !!!

Thursday, November 8, 2007

Founder of Weather Channel: Global Warming is a Scam!

By John Coleman
It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM. Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create in allusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental whacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the “research” to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus.
Environmental extremists, notable politicians among them, then teamed up with movie, media and other liberal, environmentalist journalists to create this wild “scientific” scenario of the civilization threatening environmental consequences from Global Warming unless we adhere to their radical agenda. Now their ridiculous manipulated science has been accepted as fact and become a cornerstone issue for CNN, CBS, NBC, the Democratic Political Party, the Governor of California, school teachers and, in many cases, well informed but very gullible environmentally conscientious citizens. Only one reporter at ABC has been allowed to counter the Global Warming frenzy with one 15 minutes documentary segment.
I do not oppose environmentalism. I do not oppose the political positions of either party. However, Global Warming, ie Climate Change, is not about environmentalism or politics. It is not a religion. It is not something you “believe in.” It is science; the science of meteorology. This is my field of life-long expertise. And I am telling you Global Warming is a non-event, a manufactured crisis and a total scam. I say this knowing you probably won’t believe a me, a mere TV weatherman, challenging a Nobel Prize, Academy Award and Emmy Award winning former Vice President of United States. So be it.
I have read dozens of scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct. There is no run away climate change. The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril. I am incensed by the incredible media glamour, the politically correct silliness and rude dismissal of counter arguments by the high priest of Global Warming.
In time, a decade or two, the outrageous scam will be obvious. As the temperature rises, polar ice cap melting, coastal flooding and super storm pattern all fail to occur as predicted everyone will come to realize we have been duped. The sky is not falling. And, natural cycles and drifts in climate are as much if not more responsible for any climate changes underway. I strongly believe that the next twenty years are equally as likely to see a cooling trend as they are to see a warming trend.

Thursday, October 4, 2007

Why Global Warming IS a Religion

1) Global Warming is nothing more than a euphemism for redistribution of wealth from the rich, development nations to jealous dictatorships who refuse to allow their citizens the right to gain their own wealth through free markets. It's about political redistribution from strong, independent sovereign nations into the hands of a power-hungry global elite cowering in the United Nations. These are the same cowardly scoundrels who used to try to rule the world through global communism. Today they pretend that the same lies have something to do with protecting the environment.

2) This thing they call Global Warming, or now Global Climate Change(When has the climate not been changing?) is nothing more than the lefts latest attempt to eliminate/reduce the free market. It IS a religion to them, and one only has to look at the way it is portrayed by 'believers', and how heretics who refuse to drink the Kool-ade are treated.

  • They peddle fear to mobilize the uneducated masses into 'action'.

  • They have a 'Bible", in this case: Al Gore's: An Inconvenient Truth. Now being force fed to school kids and paid for by our tax dollars. What happened to separation of church and state?

  • Much like the past mistakes of the Catholic church to give 'indulgences' for sin, the followers of this religion instead call their papal indulgences "carbon offsets."

  • When questioning the "science" behind global warming, scientists are brought up on charges of "scientific misconduct" and shunned. The moment anyone diverges from official church doctrine on global warming, they are threatened with destruction. (funding cut off/denied tenure, etc.)Heretics would be burnt at the stake if they could figure out how to do it in a "carbon neutral" way.

  • Like a religion, environmentalism is suffused with hatred for the material world and again, like religion, it requires devotion rather than intellectual rigour from its adherents.

  • Only a Faux religion needs hate mail, threats, courts of inquisition and Hollywood movies to sustain it.

  • Like a good religion there the route to personal salvation lies in the performance of superstitious rituals, such as changing a light bulb, buying a Hybrid car, or planting a tree.

  • Faith is a belief held without evidence

3) Fact is climate prediction is a relatively new science, which has emerged only in recent decades thanks partly to the emergence of computers. So there are no easy certainties about the past — or the future. At most, we have a 50-year span of accurate measurements. The only genuine global records of temperature come from weather balloons, since the late 50's, and later from microwave sounding units, since the late 70's. Not until the last decade have satellites allowed us to measure ocean temperatures throughout the globe. Here are some unfortunate 'inconvenient facts:

  • We have no data demonstrating that human beings are doing more than moderately contributing to it. Even that is in dispute

  • We have no data demonstrating that we are capable of doing anything meaningful to stop it. The Kyoto accord would do NOTHING except allow politicians to impose higher taxes/hurt economies

  • The warming may be a good thing, not a bad thing. How arrogant to assume The current averages are the best average temperatures for humans/the planet?

  • It seems quite likely to be self-correcting in the long run. Many reputable scientists have stated that there are many factors NOT yet understood(Water Vapour) that may modify any effects 'carbon' is having.

4) We will use this blog to sound off on this bogus religion and offer our own proof and site credible sources to back our ideas, and we will NOT be swayed by scare tactics that blind believers often use to combat those of us who dare 'think'.