- UN's Global Warming Treaty
http://targetfreedom.typepad.com/targetfreedom/2009/07/global-warming-hoax.html
It is no longer a theory that Global Warming is a hoax. It is a proven fact: with the proof coming directly from those that perpetrated the hoax. THOUSANDS of emails, were hacked directly from globalist computers. These prove a criminal conspiracy to defraud the entire world, and to create world tyranny by perpetrating a gigantic hoax.
really blows the lid off it.
We knew that it was a hoax all along. Now we have the proof
In every call for more power for
government there should be a reminder that nothing in the
measure will abrogate the constitutional rights of American citizens.
We must not destroy freedom in the name of defending freedom.
One example is:
"And Not a Shot is Fired" by Jan Kozak,
http://americanistbookstore.com/books/and-not-a-shot-is-fired/
This is the manual for taking power through crisis.
This is ALSO the manual for STOPPING the taking of power through crisis, if the freedom loving people read it.
Halogenated hydrocarbons WOULD BE destroyed by contact with ozone,
BUT Halogenated hydrocarbons ARE HEAVIER THAT AIR,
AND DO NOT GO UP TO THE OZONE LAYER.
Man has never produced enough Halogenated hydrocarbons to have any effect at all on the total amount of ozone.
Ozone fluctuations are results of the cycles of the sun.
These cycles have been occuring since the beginning of Earth.
Every species that is still here, is one that has been able to adapt, and to survive these cycles. We will survive by ADAPTING to the cycles of nature,
not by foolishly trying to CONTROL the cycles of nature.
Government uses these hoaxes to increase its own power by convincing people that they are in danger, and that they can only be saved by letting the government take totalitarian control.
Globalists imagine and invent problems and then they offer us the solution, but the solution is always more government and less sovereignty.
by Harry Mobley
Now oxygen goes into one tube and ozone comes out the other. Leave it on for a couple of days and it will purify the air in your house. Hospitals use these for sterilization and elimination of odors.
Of course, no one in the controlled media will talk to them.
Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide
Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?
Monday, February 5, 2007
Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was the first Canadian Ph.D. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.
What would happen if tomorrow we were told that, after all, the Earth is flat? It would probably be the most important piece of news in the media and would generate a lot of debate. So why is it that when scientists who have studied the Global Warming phenomenon for years say that humans are not the cause nobody listens? Why does no one acknowledge that the Emperor has no clothes on?
Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.
No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we don't pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world come to believe that something is wrong?
Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago, that global cooling was the biggest threat: a matter of faith. "It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species," wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976.
I was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as I am to the threats made about Global Warming. Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on.
Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.
No doubt passive acceptance yields less stress, fewer personal attacks and makes career progress easier. What I have experienced in my personal life during the last years makes me understand why most people choose not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent.
I once received a three page letter that my lawyer defined as libellous, from an academic colleague, saying I had no right to say what I was saying, especially in public lectures. Sadly, my experience is that universities are the most dogmatic and oppressive places in our society. This becomes progressively worse as they receive more and more funding from governments that demand a particular viewpoint.
In another instance, I was accused by Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki of being paid by oil companies. That is a lie. Apparently he thinks if the fossil fuel companies pay you have an agenda. So if Greenpeace, Sierra Club or governments pay there is no agenda and only truth and enlightenment?
Personal attacks are difficult and shouldn't occur in a debate in a civilized society. I can only consider them from what they imply. They usually indicate a person or group is losing the debate. In this case, they also indicate how political the entire Global Warming debate has become. Both underline the lack of or even contradictory nature of the evidence.
I am not alone in this journey against the prevalent myth. Several well-known names have also raised their voices. Michael Crichton, the scientist, writer and filmmaker is one of them. In his latest book, "State of Fear" he takes time to explain, often in surprising detail, the flawed science behind Global Warming and other imagined environmental crises.
Another cry in the wildenerness is Richard Lindzen's. He is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology - especially atmospheric waves. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has held positions at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. Linzen frequently speaks out against the notion that significant Global Warming is caused by humans. Yet nobody seems to listen.
I think it may be because most people don't understand the scientific method which Thomas Kuhn so skilfully and briefly set out in his book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. " A scientist makes certain assumptions and then produces a theory which is only as valid as the assumptions. The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law.
As Lindzen said many years ago: "the consensus was reached before the research had even begun." Now, any scientist who dares to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a sceptic, when in fact they are simply being good scientists. This has reached frightening levels with these scientists now being called climate change denier with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The normal scientific method is effectively being thwarted.
Meanwhile, politicians are being listened to, even though most of them have no knowledge or understanding of science, especially the science of climate and climate change. Hence, they are in no position to question a policy on climate change when it threatens the entire planet. Moreover, using fear and creating hysteria makes it very difficult to make calm rational decisions about issues needing attention.
Until you have challenged the prevailing wisdom you have no idea how nasty people can be. Until you have re-examined any issue in an attempt to find out all the information, you cannot know how much misinformation exists in the supposed age of information.
I was greatly influenced several years ago by Aaron Wildavsky's book "Yes, but is it true?" The author taught political science at a New York University and realized how science was being influenced by and apparently misused by politics. He gave his graduate students an assignment to pursue the science behind a policy generated by a highly publicised environmental concern. To his and their surprise they found there was little scientific evidence, consensus and justification for the policy. You only realize the extent to which Wildavsky's findings occur when you ask the question he posed. Wildavsky's students did it in the safety of academia and with the excuse that it was an assignment. I have learned it is a difficult question to ask in the real world, however I firmly believe it is the most important question to ask if we are to advance in the right direction.
This page printed from: http://www.canadafr eepress.com/ 2007/global- warming020507. htm
Scientists threatened for 'climate denial'
By Tom Harper, Sunday Telegraph (U.K.)
Last Updated: 12:24am GMT 11/03/2007
[...the use of the word 'denial,' which of course echoes 'holocaust denial,' is ominous....it
means the Left is now pulling out all the stops to crush dissent on this issue....scary. ..steve]
Scientists who questioned mankind's impact on climate change have received death threats and claim to have been shunned by the scientific community.
They say the debate on global warming has been "hijacked" by a powerful alliance of politicians, scientists and environmentalists who have stifled all questioning about the true environmental impact of carbon dioxide emissions.
Timothy Ball, a former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg in Canada, has received five deaths threats by email since raising concerns about the degree to which man was affecting climate change.
One of the emails warned that, if he continued to speak out, he would not live to see further global warming.
"Western governments have pumped billions of dollars into careers and institutes and they feel threatened," said the professor.
"I can tolerate being called a sceptic because all scientists should be sceptics, but then they started calling us deniers, with all the connotations of the Holocaust. That is an obscenity. It has got really nasty and personal."
Last week, Professor Ball appeared in The Great Global Warming Swindle, a Channel 4 documentary in which several scientists claimed the theory of man-made global warming had become a "religion", forcing alternative explanations to be ignored.
Richard Lindzen, the professor of Atmospheric Science at Massachusetts Institute of Technology - who also appeared on the documentary - recently claimed: "Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves labelled as industry stooges.
"Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science."
Dr Myles Allen, from Oxford University, agreed. He said: "The Green movement has hijacked the issue of climate change. It is ludicrous to suggest the only way to deal with the problem is to start micro managing everyone, which is what environmentalists seem to want to do."
Nigel Calder, a former editor of New Scientist, said: "Governments are trying to achieve unanimity by stifling any scientist who disagrees. Einstein could not have got funding under the present system."
===================================
(Common sense, politically incorrect newsletter to 10,083 subscribers)
WHAT ABOUT FLOODING FROM MELTING POLAR ICE?
Have you ever seen a full drink glass overflow as the floating ice
cubes melt? No. Water expands as it freezes into ice cubes, and only
melts to equal the liquid volume displaced as it floats. Any completely
submerged ice cubes will melt to a smaller liquid volume.
Therefore, if global warming should cause frozen polar seas to melt,
sea water levels on our beaches are unlikely to rise except by what ice
melts on the much smaller polar land areas and through cyclical tide
variations. Areas reporting rising sea levels are actually caused by
land sinking, such as at Venice, Italy where the land is sinking at the
rate of four inches a century. Venice has sunk six feet since it was
founded in 801 A.D. One theory is that the immense weight of the Alps
mountain range is compressing the earth's substructure layers, causing
most of northern Italy to sink.
DOES CARBON DIOXIDE HARM THE ENVIRONMENT?
We cannot eliminate all carbon dioxide because much carbon dioxide is
needed to feed the chlorophyl in plants and trees, where it is converted
into the oxygen you need to breathe in, which is then converted to carbon
dioxide as you breathe out. What would we do without oxygen? Carbon
monoxide is the bad one and is always poisonous. There should be a
reasonable trade-off between reducing harmful impurities in our
atmosphere and excessive restrictions on producing our needs. Polution
created by volcanos and other natural phenomena is many times greater
than the polution caused by mankind.
IS GLOBAL WARMING REALLY HAPPENING?
In 1988, James Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute of Space
Studies, testified before the Senate that based on computer models and
temperature measurements he was "99 percent sure . . . the [human caused]
greenhouse effect has been detected and it is changing our climate now."
His statement was widely covered by the media and brought the term
"global warming" to the general public's attention for the first time.
Many of his colleagues thought, and still think, that his announcement
was premature at best and rash at worst. But critics received little
attention in the rush to publicize this most apocalyptic of all
environmental threats.
Nineteen years later, I want to know when this global warming is
supposed to happen. Since Hansen's year 1988 global warming warning,
temperatures have fluctuated from warmer to colder in various parts of
the world, but don't show any average world-wide temperature increase.
Fact is, warmest average temperatures were recorded back in the year
1936. In the year 1970, global cooling was the crisis that scaremongers
were touting.
The global warming debate that the public and policymakers usually
see is one-sided, dominated by government scientists and government
organizations agenda-driven to find data that suggest a human impact on
climate and to call for immediate government action, or to fund their own
continued research with government grant money, but often to achieve
political agendas entirely unrelated to the science of climate change.
There is another side, but in recent years it has been denied a platform
from which to speak.
Most of the media articles you will see refer to reports issued by
the IPCC. The IPCC is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change, a
political body appointed by the United Nations (UN). Many of the 3,000
members of this panel are not scientists, but simply political
appointees. The few real scientists on the panel have disputed the
panel's findings but have been silenced by having their comments deleted
from the reports.
More than 19,000 basic and applied American scientists, two-thirds
with advanced degrees, have signed the Oregon Institute of Science and
Medicine's Global Warming Petition, which says in part, "There is no
convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide,
methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable
future, cause catastrophic heating of the earth's atmosphere and
disruption of the earth's climate."
The solutions given for global cooling and global warming appear to
be the same: population control, redistribution of wealth, and more
government control, which also seem to be the goals of secular
progressives and Marxists.
Analysis of global warming and global flooding indicates that they
are based on selective partial evidence, rumors and steam-rollered
propaganda by powerful antagonists with the agenda of changing our way of
living. Case closed.
--REAL NEWS Editor [email protected]
Comments